12. Freedom of Assembly, Association and Movement

 

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

 

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

 

-Article 13, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

(1)   Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

 

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

 

-Article 20, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

12.1 Background

 

Throughout 2004, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) continued to monitor and restrict the movement of the people of Burma. Similarly, their rights to assembly and association continued to be effectively denied. Following the 30 May 2003 attack on the National League for Democracy (NLD), NLD General Secretary Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and supporters near Depayin, Sagaing Division, restrictions on the activities of the political opposition increased. In 2004, there was little change in this situation and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, NLD Vice-Chairman U Tin Oo and NLD members remained in detention throughout the year. In addition, NLD offices remained closed, except for the headquarters in Rangoon.  Any hopes for an improvement in the situation remained minimal as the SPDC proceeded with the National Convention, the first step of the seven-step roadmap to democracy announced in August 2003, without the participation of the NLD or the lifting of restrictions on the political opposition. The NLD’s decision to boycott the convention stemmed, in part, from these continued restrictions, which significantly affected the party’s ability to meet and organize.

 

Hopes for an improvement in the situation were further diminished on 19 October 2004 when Prime Minister Khin Nyunt was removed from his position and placed under house arrest. In his place, Lt Gen Soe Win was appointed as the new Prime Minister. Lt Gen Soe Win has been credited with orchestrating the 30 May 2003 attack on the NLD and is known for his hardline stance opposing dialogue and compromise with the NLD and ethnic resistance groups. Soe Win is famed for stating, “the SPDC not only will not talk to the NLD but also would never hand over power to the NLD” (source: “Introducing Burma’s New Prime Minister Lt Gen Soe Win,” Irrawaddy, 4 October 2004). With Soe Win’s appointment and several other simultaneous changes within the government, concerns were raised over the safety and security of Aung San Suu Kyi and other members of the NLD. Moreover, several observers contended that the consolidation of hardline leaders within the government would result in greater suppression of the pro-democracy and ethnic resistance forces (source: Burma Briefing: Issues and Concerns Volume 2, ALTSEAN, November 2004).

 

Khin Nyunt’s removal also resulted in the disbanding of the Military Intelligence Services, also known as the Military Intelligence (MI), as it was under his control. Personnel from MI had frequently been identified as key figures in suppressing the rights to movement, assembly and association. While the then Home Minister Tin Hlaing reported that MI was “no longer suitable for the welfare of the public,” many MI units were simply transferred to the Ministry of Defense or the Ministry of Home Affairs (source: “Senior Myanmar Minister Says Intelligence Body Won’t Be Restored,” AP, 24 October 2004). In early 2005, the Special Police Information Forces (SPIF) were reportedly training more personal to perform intelligence duties (source: “Burmese Police Retrained to Be Intelligence Forces,” DVB, 13 January 2005).  In addition, members of the former MI were reportedly identified working amongst SPIF personnel in Rangoon, where they continue to monitor the activities of the political opposition (source: “Intelligence Agents Reappointed by Burma Junta,” DVB, 18 January 2005).

 

There has been overall a notable absence of the freedoms of assembly and association throughout the period of military rule in Burma, especially since the 1988 coup and the formation of the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). Under the SPDC, these freedoms have been further restricted and labor unions, student unions and private civic associations have all been banned. Through its extensive intelligence network and administrative procedures, the SPDC systematically monitors the travel of all citizens, especially the movements of politically active people in the country. All residents in Burma are required to carry national identity cards, showing their citizenship status, normal place of residence, date of birth, name of father and so on. Since 1990 these cards have also contained information on the holders’ ethnicity and religion. All residents and citizens of Burma are required to apply for these cards, with the exception of the Muslim Rohingya minority, who are not considered citizens by the government (please see chapter on religion for further information). As possession of these national identity cards is mandatory in order to buy train or bus tickets, to register with a local council outside one’s normal place of residence, to vote in any future election, or to enroll in institutions of higher learning, those without such cards face severe restrictions on their freedom of movement.

 

Citizens with proper identification are able to travel freely within the country, except for limitations in areas of ethnic armed activity. However, there is the requirement that any person who spends the night at a place other than his registered domicile must inform the police in advance; and that any household that hosts a person not domiciled there must submit to the police a guest list. The name of the overnight guests must be reported to and registered with the local authorities. SPDC Order 1/90, issued on 22 May 1990 states: "action will be taken against all those who fail to report people illegally residing in their home."

 

Authorities sometimes enter homes during night hours to check registration documents of occupants, as part of government efforts to monitor people’s movements. Security forces also commonly search private premises and other property without warrants. In addition, curfews have also been enforced in parts of Burma.

 

12.2 International Travel

 

International travel for the majority of Burmese citizens proves to be both rare and extremely difficult.  The military government carefully investigates reasons for foreign travel and retains authority over to whom passports are issued. This produces rampant corruption as many applicants are forced to pay large bribes to obtain passports to which they are otherwise entitled. In 2004, these bribes reportedly ranged from 300,000 to 1,000,000 kyat. Most passport holders tend to be government officials, friends or family of the government, or those who are able to afford the extremely high price of a passport and the supplementary bribes.  The SPDC refuses to issue any passports to ex-political prisoners or to those with opposing political views (source: “SPDC Refuse to Issue Passports and Business Licenses to Ex-Political Prisoners,” DVB, 18 March 2004). All college and higher education graduates who obtain passports (except for certain government employees) are required to pay an education clearance fee to reimburse the government for the cost of their education. The authorities on occasion restrict the issuance of passports to young women applicants seeking work abroad, reportedly to prevent young women from being enticed to travel abroad for jobs in the commercial sex industry. (Source: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2004, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State, 28 February 2005)

 

On 6 August 2004, significant changes in passport procedures were implemented. Under the new system, people wishing to obtain a passport from the Ministry of Home Affairs must follow a two-step process.  Firstly, a Form 17 assessment, issued by the Internal Revenue Department (IRD) of the Ministry of Finance and Revenue, must be collected.  The assessment is needed in order to acquire a Form 19-tax clearance certificate from the IRD, which must be presented in order to obtain the passport.  Finally, passport holders must acquire a Form D, which permits them to leave the country.  Under the new changes, passports no longer need to be extended every six months if they are not being used for overseas travel. In addition, people applying for a four-year passport will initially be issued with a two-year passport, which does not permit overseas travel. Eligibility for a four-year passport is contingent upon presentation of an official letter from an overseas employer. This policy is intended to limit the number of people travelling overseas through the use of fraudulent employer documents.  Moreover, the new policy allows for individuals to retain their passports as opposed to surrendering them to the authorities upon return from their travels. Passports will remain valid for one year for incidental travel, three years for dependents, four years for employment and 18 months for those traveling on business. To leave the country again, holders need only acquire another Form D. The changes implemented have created an increase in the price of a passport from 5,000 to 8,000 kyat. (Sources: “Burma Introduces New Passport Regulations,” The Myanmar Times, 30 August 2004; Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2004, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State, 28 February 2005)

 

Those who are granted permission to travel overseas may be subjected to arbitrary changes in government authorities’ decisions.  During the week of 18 February, the rock band Emperor, scheduled to tour in Australia from 7 to 20 of that month, and the band Iron Cross, due to perform in England, both had their trips cancelled by the authorities without any official explanation. Members of Emperor reported that they were told that they needed to obtain a letter from the Burmese Embassy in Australia in order to be allowed to leave the country. The authorities had expressed their concern that the bands would be performing in front of pro-democracy supporters.  (Source: “Another Rock Band Had Tour Abroad Cancelled,” Mizzima, 18 February 2004)

 

Electronic identity documents

 

On 22 April 2004, the Department of Marine Administration under the Ministry of Transport commenced distributing electronic identity documents to merchant seaman. The documents, which contain a computer chip to hold personal information, are reportedly “part of an international attempt to strengthen maritime security” and coincide with the International Labor Organization’s Seafarers’ Identity Documents Convention. The aim of the chip is to improve security in ships and ports, to help merchants gain entry into the International Labor Organization (ILO) member states and ease the process of obtaining visas in particular countries (source: “Electronic IDs for Merchant Seamen,” The Myanmar Times, 30 April 2004). Similarly, the SPDC announced the intention to distribute 3,000 electronic passports, valid for three years, to businessmen. These passports had not been issued by the end of 2004 (source: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2004, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State, 28 February 2005).

 

12.3 Restrictions on the Movement of Women

 

Throughout 2004, the SPDC continued to restrict the movement of women both domestically and internationally. Many of these restrictions were imposed in response to the increased international attention which Burma received regarding the situation of human trafficking in the 1990s. Due to significant international media attention on the trafficking of women in Shan State, women between the ages of 16 and 25 in Shan State have been restricted from traveling without the company of a guardian. In some other border areas, it is compulsory for women to possess a special permit when traveling between towns. Women under the age of 25 are particularly restricted from traveling abroad unless accompanied by a guardian. Unmarried women also face enormous difficulties obtaining passports. Women are also banned from marrying foreigners, which the SPDC alleges is a measure to stem human trafficking. (Source: Belak, Brenda, Gathering Strength: Women from Burma on Their Rights, Images Asia, January 2002)

 

Since 2001, Burma has been ranked as a Tier 3 country by the U.S. government for failing to comply with the minimum standards of the 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act. In response to both the U.S. government’s ranking and increased international attention, the SPDC has continually publicized various measures to illustrate political determination to combat human trafficking.  At the end of 2002, the SPDC reportedly formed “Human Trafficking Prevention Committees” in various states and divisions to monitor the movements of both men and women between the ages of 16 and 25. The SPDC claimed that these committees would help prevent the movement of women into the sex industries of neighboring countries. In September 2004, the SPDC announced the intention to open new anti-trafficking liaison offices in Tachileik and Myawaddy, both on the border with Thailand, and another office near the Chinese border at Muse. In addition, newly appointed Prime Minister Lt. Gen. Soe Win attended the Coordinated Mekong Ministerial Initiative against Trafficking (COMMIT), which focused on the problem of human trafficking in South East Asia and during which he expressed the resolve of the Burmese government to combat the problem. The COMMIT summit concluded with leaders from Cambodia, China, Lao, Thailand, Vietnam and Burma signing an accord to fight trafficking in the region with initial implementation of the plan anticipated for the first quarter of 2005 (source: “Six Asian Nations Sign Landmark Human Trafficking Pact,” AFP, 29 October 2004). 

 

Despite all of these restrictions, hundreds of thousands of young women from Burma travel to neighboring countries because they find it difficult or impossible to make a living in Burma. More often than not, these young women travel with the assistance of a broker or by paying heavy bribes to officials along their journey. In many cases, the heavy restrictions on women’s movement have made little difference except to make travel more expensive. Restrictions on women’s movement also force many women to rely on traffickers, to whom they often have to pay even higher fees. This situation places women in a compromising position, rendering them more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. At the same time, concern has been expressed that various anti-trafficking measures will do more to limit freedom of movement and expression than to deter trafficking.

 

12.4 Restriction on the Movement of Migrant Workers to Thailand

 

Throughout 2004, people from Burma continued to cross the border to Thailand, both legally and illegally, in search of employment. While the money sent back to Burma from these situations of employment has been essential to the survival of many, the SPDC has attempted to stem the flow of migrants to Thailand. On 13 October 2001, the SPDC enacted a law which imposes harsh penalties on those who attempt to leave Burma illegally. Despite these efforts to deter migration, an estimated one million migrant workers from Burma remained in Thailand in 2004.

 

Throughout 2004, relations between the SPDC and the Thai government continued to improve. The product of their relationship has been an increased cooperation on many issues, including regulating Burmese migrant workers in Thailand. In June 2003, Thailand and Burma signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) through which 400 illegal workers would be officially deported each month to the SPDC reception center in Myawaddy, Karen State. Since August 2003, when the MoU was implemented, 400 illegal Burmese migrant workers have been deported each month in this process. The increased participation of the SPDC in the deportation process has raised concerns of augmented persecution of those that are sent back to Burma (source: Out of Sight, Out of Mind, Human Rights Watch, February 2004). Moreover, there are no international organizations conducting regular independent monitoring of the conditions at the reception center. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is the only organization which has been able to visit the reception center on both deportation and non-deportation days in coordination with the Burmese authorities.

 

The reception center in Myawaddy was established following a MoU reached with Thailand in November 2001, through which the SPDC agreed to establish a series of reception centers to facilitate the deportation of migrant workers back to Burma. Currently, the only center to be operational is the one located in Myawaddy, across the border from Mae Sot, Thailand. At this center, deportees go from table to table to be screened by five different state branches. These include the Ministries of Health and the Interior, the police, the immigration authorities and the army and/or DKBA. The deportees are photographed and have their fingerprints taken. These are then checked against existing files. Under SPDC Regulation 367/120–(b) (1), those who have emigrated illegally may be subject to up to seven years imprisonment (source: Out of Sight, Out of Mind, Human Rights Watch, February 2004). Yet, most are reportedly transported back to their hometowns, where they are made to sign a pledge to the local authorities that they will never attempt to illegally migrate again.

 

Members of opposition groups based along the Thai–Burma border fear and report that former pro-democracy activists, who have recently surrendered to the SPDC, identify returned migrants suspected of being involved with opposition groups. The suspected migrants are then reportedly handed over to military intelligence. Deportees are also subjected to a mandatory blood test without any explanation at the reception center. This test is used to check migrants for a number of communicable diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, Malaria, TB and Sexually Transmitted Diseases. A number of human rights organizations have protested this mandatory HIV/AIDS testing, and the reported separation of 20 individuals who tested positive for HIV/AIDS. Such mandatory testing contravenes UN HIV Principles and Guidelines to which both Thailand and Burma are signatory.  (Please see Section 12.14 for an interview with a Burmese migrant worker who was deported through the reception center in Myawaddy and tested for HIV in February 2004.)

 

On 26 December 2004, a tsunami hit the Andaman coastline causing significant damage to southern Thailand and greatly affecting Burmese migrant workers in the area. The SPDC made minimal efforts to assist those who were tsunami affected either within Burma or its citizens working in Thailand. Moreover, government personnel reportedly took measures to restrict or hinder the movement of migrant workers attempting to return to Burma. In January 2005, military authorities reportedly attempted to prevent tsunami survivors from returning to Burma by closing the Kawthaung border crossing in Tenasserim Division. In addition, in late January 2005, military authorities at Three Pagodas Pass fined 40 migrant workers who had survived the tsunami 700 baht each to cross the border. Despite pleas that they had no money, the tsunami survivors were required to pay in order to return to Burma. (Sources: “Burma Migrants Fear Expulsion from Thailand: Following the Disaster, Many Are Hiding in the Hills,” Financial Times, 13 January 2005; “Survivors of the Tsunami Fined in Burma,” Mizzima, 24 January 2005) (Please see chapter on migrants for more information.)

 

12.5 Laws Restricting the Freedoms of Assembly and Association

 

Throughout 2004, the SPDC continued to restrict the right to assembly and association. Only government sanctioned organizations, such as the USDA, were able to enjoy this right. The ten legally registered political parties were required to obtain permission from the authorities prior to conducting any meetings or assemblies.  The NLD, one of the ten, was restricted from opening its offices throughout the year and its members were frequently harassed. Religious organizations and gatherings were also subject to monitoring and limitations.

 

The military regime uses a number of laws to suppress the rights to assembly and association. The most frequently enforced law is the 1908 (1957) Unlawful Associations Act, which allows the detention of up to five years of anyone who is a member of, or assists in any way, an organization considered illegal by the military government. A number of organizations, including political parties, student unions, profession groups, religious associations, as well as armed opposition groups, have been declared illegal under this Act. This Act contravenes international human rights standards; and its incompatibility with international standards is underlined by the arbitrary, indiscriminate and heavy-handed manner in which it is applied, usually to suppress peaceful dissents.

 

Order 2/88 was enacted on 18 September 1988, the day the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) assumed power. The law bars the gathering of more than five persons in one place. However, this law has rarely been enforced.

 

Order 6/88, the Law of Formation of Associations and Organizations, was created on 30 September 1988, following the military crackdown on the nationwide pro-democracy demonstrations. It defines an organization or association as “an organization, union, party, committee, headquarters, syndicate, front... or similar association and organization that may not have a name but is composed of a group of people for a purpose or program.”  All organizations fitting this description must be granted official government permission to function, without which they have no right to operate. If denied permission, members of an organization may be subject to up to three years imprisonment. (Source: Myanmar; Justice on Trial, Amnesty International, 30 July 2003)

 

Since July 1998, the SPDC has used section 5/1(g) of the 1961 Habitual Criminal Offenders Act against NLD MPs in order to restrict the activities of the NLD. This act puts repeat offenders on permanent probation, forcing them to register with local authorities on a daily basis. This 1961 act was intended to monitor and restrict habitual criminals and not to limit, monitor and control political activity. The SPDC has misapplied this act, and has used it to issue restraining orders against NLD MPs. These orders, which force MPs to remain within a prescribed area, violate the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

Order 1/90 was issued on 22 May 1990 to remind people that "action will be taken against all those who fail to report people illegally residing in their homes." Under this law, any person not normally residing in a house who stays for one night or more must be registered at the local township office. This order threatens to charge persons failing to do so under section 124 of the criminal code, "for failing to disclose to the authorities concerned either an act or a conspiracy that amounts to high treason." The order was issued following the arrest of two members of the ABSDF after they had been hiding in Rangoon for some time. Another regulation, SLORC Order 1/91, issued on 30 April 1991, prohibits public servants from engaging in party politics.

 

12.6 Restrictions on Foreigners in Burma

 

Over the past few years, restrictions on foreigners wishing to travel within Burma have eased as the SPDC has attempted to promote tourism.  In 2004, foreigners wishing to travel as tourists in Burma were usually able to obtain one-month visas within 24 hours from Burmese embassies abroad. On 21 January 2004, an e-visa system was put into place, allowing tourists and business persons to obtain visas over the Internet at a government website available in seven languages. The Immigration and National Registration Department reviews e-visa applications, which can be processed in less than 24 hours. Visa approvals are sent to travelers via email and a printed copy must be presented to immigration officials upon arrival to Burma. Burma is reportedly the first country in South East Asia to implement an e-visa system (source: “Online E-Visa System in Progress in Myanmar,” Xinhua, 3 February 2004). In September 2004, the e-visa system was officially launched. In addition, a future arrangement allowing Phuket Air, a Thai airline, to process visa applications was reported (source: “Myanmar to Launch Online Visa Application,” AP, 18 September 2004).

 

Aside from easier visa procurement systems, it was also reported that foreign tourists were allowed access to more areas of the country than before. Yet, despite these efforts to accommodate tourists, foreigners continued to be restricted from entering university campuses or areas of active armed conflict. In addition, the government required most foreigners to obtain permission prior to exiting the country. Diplomats were exempt from this rule (source: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2004, Bureau of Human Rights, Democracy and Labor, U.S. Department of State, 28 February 2005).

 

Select categories of applicants, such as foreign human rights advocates, journalists and political figures, continued to be denied entry visas unless traveling under the agency of a sponsor and with a purpose acceptable to the SPDC. The UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Burma, Professor Paulo Pinheiro, was denied entry to the country throughout the year. The government did not issue any visas to foreign journalists to attend the National Convention which convened from 17 May to 9 July 2004. In addition, a British Broadcasting Company (BBC) Burmese service correspondent was verbally requisitioned to exit the country.

 

International non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are subjected to monitoring and restrictions by the SPDC.  Aside from the ICRC and UN agencies, there were 35 international NGOs in the country in 2004. The SPDC reportedly reduced some restrictions for foreign UN employees as well as foreign diplomats by permitting travel to certain tourist locations in the country without obtaining government authorization prior to departure. For non-tourist purposes, Rangoon based NGOs were required to obtain advanced permission from the government before traveling outside of the city. In some cases, representatives from international NGOs and UN agencies were required to be escorted by a government representative during field missions (source: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2004, Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State, 28 February 2005).

 

Both the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Labor Organization (ILO) were exempted from the travel restrictions within the country which applied to other international organizations. The ICRC was able to access prisons, internally displaced persons (IDP) areas and other locations within the country throughout the year. Similarly, ILO employees were permitted to travel in the country without a government escort during the year. In the event that travel to a restricted area was intended, the government had to be notified. Local government authorities were reportedly notified of impending ILO visits and their interactions with local residents were monitored. Incidents of local residents being subject to detention or interrogation following contact with ILO representatives have been documented.

 

In March 2004, the SPDC granted the UNHCR authorization to access eastern border areas to evaluate the potential for the return of Karen refugees residing in refugee camps in Thailand. The UNHCR also intended to support infrastructure, health and education development projects in locations in Karen State, Mon State and Tenasserim Division. The UNHCR’s desire to evaluate the area stemmed from the KNU-SPDC verbal ceasefire agreement of late 2003 and formal ceasefire discussions in 2004. With the possibility of a formal ceasefire agreement, the UNHCR determined that it was appropriate to commence a contingency planning process for refugee repatriation (source: “UNHCR Gets Permission to Visit Eastern Myanmar,” AP, 11 March 2004). The exploratory missions revealed that extensive development was required before the areas could be suitable to host returning populations of refugees (source: Six-Month Report, TBBC, July-December 2004). (Please see chapter on refugees for more information.)

 

Phone lines tapped in the Indonesian Embassy in Rangoon

 

In the first half of July 2004, Indonesian Ambassador for Burma Wyoso Projowarsito reported that his and Indonesian Defence Attache Col. Yayat Hidayat’s phone lines were bugged. He further indicated that he was unaware of how long the eavesdropping devices had been in place in the embassy in Rangoon. Burmese government authorities refuted any responsibility in the matter. (Source: “Indonesian Ambassador to Myanmar Admits His Office Was Bugged,” Tempo Interactive, 13 July 2004)

 

Foreign teachers sent home

 

On 4 November 2004, seven foreign teachers working with orphans at a school in Phaungdaw-U Monastery in Mandalay were removed and sent to an immigration guesthouse in Rangoon without any prior notice. Their visas were canceled and they were exported from the country. Their expulsion came soon after Prime Minister Khin Nyunt was removed from office and placed under arrest. Khin Nyunt had reportedly had amicable relations with the abbot of the monastery and made donations to the school. Following his removal, both the teachers were removed and donations to the school prohibited. (Source: “Foreign Teachers Expelled From Mandalay,” DVB, 16 November 2004)

 

12.7 Restrictions on Political Parties

 

In 1988, political parties were allowed to form for the first time in decades. Over 200 such parties were formed, yet by 1993, following the 1990 general elections, which were never honored, only seven remained legal.  Notably, among the first parties to be de-registered were those that represented ethnic minorities, and those that had collectively called for a federal constitution in their party manifestos.  However, some of the parties, which were formed by the ethnic minority groups and which had made ceasefire agreements with the SLORC between 1989 and 1993, were removed from the list of "unlawful associations."  In 2004, there were 10 legally registered political parties, whose actions were closely monitored by the SPDC, particularly during the National Convention which reconvened from 17 May to 9 July 2004.

 

12.8 The National Convention: Increased Control over Movement, Assembly and Association

 

Following Khin Nyunt's announcement of the seven-step roadmap to democracy in August 2003, the National Convention (NC) was reconvened on 17 May 2004. The vast majority of the 1,088 delegates selected to participate in the NC were hand picked by the regime and the regime maintained strict control over all aspects of the NC.  Freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression were all severely restricted during the convention proceedings (for more information on restrictions to freedom of expression please see chapter on freedom of expression). In sharp contrast to the 1993 NC, which was held in Rangoon, the reconvened NC was held at a specially constructed camp near the village of Nyaung Hna Pin, 45 km north of Rangoon. The camp was surrounded by military bases and delegates were confined to the compound. The compound was reportedly furnished with every conceivable luxury and health facility in order to prevent any need for delegates to leave the military controlled area.  According to the New Light of Myanmar, “TV, Karaoke, newspapers, movies, stage show, gymnasium, and a golf course is being provided for the health and recreation of the delegates. A hospital complete with specialists, modern medicines and medical equipment is being opened in the camp while restaurants, beauty parlour, barber shop, optical shop and grocery shop are being opened for the delegates [sic](source: "Regulations Are Prescribed in the Interest of the National Races and the Delegates," New Light of Myanmar, 18 May 2004).

 

Delegates were prevented from leaving the convention and were forbidden from discussing the proceedings with non-delegates. It was reported that on the first weekend of proceedings, ceasefire group representatives, who wished to consult with their organizations, were denied leave passes from the convention. Weekend leave was permitted for 700 of the delegates three weeks into the convention, but delegates were first required to sign an agreement that they would not speak to the media.  According to a ceasefire delegate, only 10 delegates were allowed to move freely over the weekend, while the other delegates were forced to visit a pagoda. The strict restrictions on the movement of delegates during the convention were likened by UN Special Rapporteur Paulo Sergio Pinheiro to a "mass house arrest." (Sources: Burma Briefing: Issues and Concerns Volume 1, ALTSEAN, November 2004; "Burma Junta Tightening Control on Convention Delegates," DVB, 21 June 2004; "Burma's Constitutional Assembly Officially No Laughing Matter," The Age, 5 June 2004)

 

Freedom of movement was also restricted for political activists in Burma both before and during the National Convention.  The Burma Army reportedly went into high alert and increased security was placed outside of government offices and buildings (source “Burma Army on Alert as National Convention Begins,” Irrawaddy, 17 May 2004). There was also heightened surveillance of political activists during this time. Kyaw Thwin, elected in 1990 to a parliamentary seat for Kayan Township, Rangoon Division, reported that prior to the restart of the NC a ban on travel without approval was imposed on him by the Office of the Chief of Military Intelligence (OCMI). According to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP), based on the Thai-Burma border, at least 14 activists, most of them former political prisoners, fled Burma during this time due to security concerns and fear of arrest (source: "Burmese Activists Flee Rangoon for the Border," Irrawaddy, 18 May 2004).

 

12.8 Prohibition of Free and Independent Trade Unions

 

Under the 1926 Trade Unions Act workers may form trade unions with the authorization of the government. Despite this law, there were no free trade unions in Burma in 2004. In addition, Burma ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention 1948 (No. 87) in 1955 and is bound, as an ILO member, to apply the principles of freedom of association. However, the SPDC has been criticized for not bringing its laws into compliance with Convention No. 87 by refusing to recognize independent trade unions and harassing workers who attempt to organize. Furthermore, in April 1991, the military regime issued order 1/91 under which civil servants are prohibited from affiliating with any political parties. Most civil servants are forced to join the state sponsored Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA). There are no independent labor unions and the government actively suppresses attempts by workers to organize, and workers who try to form or join such unions are liable to be harassed, arrested and tortured. They are also under constant surveillance by the police and military. (Source: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2004, Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State, 28 February 2005)

 

12.9 The Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA)

 

The Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) was formed on 15 September 1993, approximately two weeks after the SLORC announced the first National Convention to draft a new constitution. The USDA was established under the patronage of the SPDC Chairman Than Shwe and is registered with the Ministry of Home Affairs. Although not officially a political party, some claim that it was created to rival the opposition NLD for popular support. The USDA is a mass mobilization organization whose mandate is to support the activities and policies of the military. The organization is also used by the junta to create the illusion that the regime enjoys popular support from its citizens. In return for deflecting criticism away from the SPDC and perpetuating the notion that the regime enjoys grass roots support, the SPDC bestows power and privileges to USDA members, such as appointment to the prestigious posts of township PDC authorities. It was estimated that in 2004 USDA membership was at 18 million (source: Burma Briefing: Issues and Concerns Vol. 1, ALTSEAN, November 2004).

 

The USDA continued throughout 2004 to increase its membership base through coercion, intimidation, blackmail and bribery.  Despite claims by the organization that membership is voluntary, almost all public servants, students, teachers, skilled trade workers, professional association members and those seeking the favor of the generals are pressured to not only join the USDA but also to attend pro-government meetings (source: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2004, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State, 28 February 2005). This pressure includes the incentive that if one fulfills their "social" requirements, they receive the benefits of better jobs, higher grades in exams or access to honor classes at university (source: 2004 Education Report, ABFSU, February 2005). In August 2004, there were reports that high school students in Mandalay were tricked into joining the USDA. Authorities reportedly demanded that all students above the age of 12 provide passport photographs in order to be issued with national identity cards.  However, when the students received the cards, they had been registered as USDA members instead (source: "Mandalay Pupils Tricked into Joining USDA Members," DVB, 19 August 2004).

 

Despite claims that the USDA is not a political party, the USDA is extremely active in Burma's political sphere. Since its formation, the USDA has directly been involved in opposing the NLD, Moreover, ample evidence has been provided to implicate the organization in the 30 May 2003 attack on NLD members and Aung San Suu Kyi, in which an unverified number of people were killed and injured.  More recently, the USDA has been involved in organizing events to call for the abolishment of the NLD. USDA members, along with the police and MIS forces, have been actively involved in pressuring NLD members to resign, and in coercing or often forcing other citizens to sign papers stating their "loss of trust" in the NLD, the CRPP, and/or certain elected MPs. In another disturbing trend, USDA members and leaders have been increasingly involved in the arbitrary arrests of those suspected to be in opposition to the regime, going along with government and MIS agents, or even sometimes alone. The USDA has also achieved the power that enables members and leaders to call upon people to "contribute" their labor for free. USDA involvement in forced labor has been especially notable over the last few years.

 

Since the SPDC's announcement of the seven-point roadmap to democracy on 30 August 2003, the USDA, chaired by Sr. Gen. Than Shwe, has been actively organizing mass rallies in support of the roadmap. Tens of thousands of local residents have been forced to attend the rallies organized by the USDA throughout the country.  Furthermore, in September 2003, the SPDC agreed to allow the Mon State USDA to become a legal national political party and to compete in the national elections as according to the seven-point roadmap (source: “USDA to Become ‘Legal Political Party’," DVB, 9 October 2003). In addition, it was reported that the 633 delegates representing "national races" at the 2004 session of the National Convention were USDA members. Therefore, USDA members constituted 58% of the total delegates in attendance.  The majority of the delegates invited to attend the 2004 session of the National Convention were hand picked by the SPDC (source: Interim Report Card: July 2004 – February 2005, ALTSEAN, March 2005). Furthermore, between 3 and 5 September 2004, Beijing hosted an International Conference of Asian Political Parties. The General Secretary of the USDA, Brigadier General Htay Oo, attended the conference, in which 81 political parties from 35 countries were represented (source: "Is the USDA to be a Political Party?," Irrawaddy, October 2004). The USDA's involvement in national politics has led some observers, such as ALTSEAN Burma, to speculate that the SPDC is grooming the USDA to take over national politics in Burma (source: Interim Report Card: July 2004 – February 2005, ALTSEAN, March 2005).

 

Incidents of Forced Recruitment into the USDA

 

On 12 August 2004, it was reported that members of the USDA in Aunglan, Magwe Division, tricked people into joining the USDA without their consent.  It was reported that USDA members visited local residents at their homes on the pretence of taking census for the upcoming election. However, on checking the census information they had provided, local residence discovered that they had registered their membership and support to the USDA instead. It was also reported that a local religious organization, headed by the famous actor Kyaw Thu, was forced to accept two members of the USDA as central executive members.  This reportedly prompted existing members to boycott the organization by withholding donations. (Source: "USDA Members Trick Burmese People into Joining Them," DVB, 12 August 2004)

 

On 19 August 2004, it was reported that high school students in Mandalay were tricked into joining the USDA.  Local officials reportedly demanded that school teachers provide passport photographs of all students above 12 years of age on the pretext of issuing students with national identity cards. However, when the students received the cards, they found that they had been registered as USDA members instead.  Students who inquired into the matter were told by their teachers that the order had come from the authorities.  It was also reported that local people who updated their family composition list were also forced to fill in a USDA membership form.  (Source: "Mandalay Pupils Tricked into Joining USDA Members," DVB, 19 August 2004)

 

On 19 August 2004, it was reported that NLD members in Keng-Tung Township in eastern Shan State were forced to renounce their NLD membership and join the USDA instead.  It was reported that local USDA members visited NLD members at home and told them that if they did not hand in their NLD membership cards and join the USDA "unpleasant things" would happen in the future.  While some people refused to renounce their NLD membership, others did so out of fear of reprisal.  It was also reported that USDA members had intensified their counter campaign forcing people to sign a petition calling for an end to the NLD peaceful campaign. (Source: "NLD Members Forced to Join USDA in Eastern Burma," DVB, 19 August 2004)

 

12.10 Other Social Organizations in Burma

 

There are few secular non-governmental organizations in Burma.  Independent human rights or pro-democracy groups are not allowed to operate in Burma and therefore those that do must do so from outside the country.  The social organizations that do exist in Burma must be approved by the government, and the government strictly controls the mandates of those which it approves.  People in Burma are only allowed to associate with approved organizations and they are often pressured to join government backed organizations, such as the USDA. Government sponsored organizations include: The Myanmar Medical Association (MMA), Myanmar Red Cross (MRC), Myanmar Anti-Narcotic Association (MANA), Myanmar Maternal and Child Welfare Association (MMCWA), Myanmar Women Entrepreneurs Association (MWEA), Auxiliary Fire Brigade, Parent Teacher Associations, and the Myanmar Nurses Association (MNA).

 

The SPDC maintains a large degree of power over these organizations and government sanctioned individuals often dominate the upper levels of the organization. While the extent to which these organizations are dominated by the SPDC varies, they are generally led by senior officials with military backgrounds, or the wives of senior officials, or military officers. These organizations are located at the township level across the country and are typically chaired at this level by USDA members (for more information please see section on USDA, above). There are also no independent woman's organizations. In December 2003, the Myanmar Women's Affairs Federation was established as the primary non government women's rights organization. At the end of 2004, the head of this organization was the wife of Prime Minister Soe Win (source: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2004, Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State, 28 February 2005). Members of these organizations are expected to participate in pro-military and USDA rallies, or anti-opposition rallies.  There have also been reports that membership to these organizations has been obtained through coercion. For instance, in March 2004, the Chin Human Rights Foundation (CHRO) reported that all women in northern Chin State between the ages of 10 and 60 were compelled to register membership to the National Working Committee for Women's Affairs (NWCWA) (source: "Chin Women Forced to Join Myanmar Women Organization Chaired by Gen. Khin Nyunt's Wife," Rhododendron News, Volume VII. No. II, CHRO, March-April 2004). Given the level of political involvement in these social organizations, the political agenda of the regime often takes precedence in the organization over the actual social issues they purport to address.  

 

A select number of local NGOs, mostly religious and church-backed organizations, are able to operate limited social programs. However, SPDC laws confine them to religious activities. These groups are not allowed to be registered as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Burma and are instead registered under the Ministry of Home and Religious Affairs. This non-NGO status limits these organizations’ access to overseas funding and their ability to conduct in-country training with foreign experts. Local NGO programs are also under constant surveillance from the SPDC and SPDC backed social organizations. For the most part, individuals in SPDC controlled areas of Burma who desire to work for their communities have no alternative but to join government sanctioned organizations.

 

12.11 Restrictions on Villagers in Border Conflict Areas

 

“When we go (to our hill fields), we must get a letter of recommendation.  If we don’t get a letter of recommendation, they will accuse us of being bad people (helping the resistance)…they will force us to follow them a long way (forced to be porters).  They would not release us.  When we are looking for food without a letter of recommendation, they arrest us, beat us and sometimes kill us.”

 

- Saw Thay Myo, villager from Y –village, Tantabin Township, Toungoo District, Karen State. (Source: Enduring Hunger and Repression: Food Scarcity, Internal Displacement, and the Continued Use of Forced Labor in Toungoo District, KHRG, September 2004)

 

The movement of villagers in areas of active armed conflict or ethnic resistance continued to be restricted throughout 2004. Movement was regulated through military imposed restrictions on exiting villages, curfews and extensive military checkpoints. Villagers were frequently required to obtain travel permits or “letters of recommendation” prior to travel outside of their villages, including to their farmland. These permits often required the payment of a fee. Villagers who have been forcibly relocated to government controlled relocation sites are often restricted from returning to their original land with threat of being shot on site if they do not comply. According to the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights on Burma, travel restrictions accounted for 23% of abuses against IDPs (source: Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar, Sixty-first session of the Commission on Human Rights, Item 9 of the provisional agenda, 2 December 2004). Villagers who fail to comply with restrictions on movement are often accused of supporting or having contact with ethnic resistance forces, which can lead to arrest, torture or execution.

 

Restriction of Movement of Villagers in Conflict Areas - Partial List of Incidents for 2004

 

From 2003 to the time of this report, September 2004, southern Ye Township was designated a "black zone" and villagers were restricted in visiting their farms. Villagers were only allowed to work at farms that were within 7 miles of their villages, and only from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm.  Prior to the curfew, villagers would stay at their farms, but since the curfew was issued, they have been unable to stay overnight and have consequently lost a lot of time traveling back and forth between their villages and their farms. If villagers violated these travel restrictions, they would be shot or tortured. Furthermore, it was reported that in eastern Ye Township both Karen and Mon villagers were ordered to use traveling cards with attached photos.  A local Karen village reported that the local military commander had issued the cards so as to be able to identify rebels from ordinary villagers. (Source: "Caught in the Crossfire: Villagers Killed and Arrested," Kao Wao News, 9 September 2004)

 

From December 2003 to the time of this report, April 2004, troops from SPDC Southern Command Headquarters Operation Command 1 and SPDC IB 124, IB 75, IB 48, IB 92 and IB 73 in Toungoo District, Karen State, organized themselves into small groups of army units and were placed in many areas, causing great difficulty for Karen villagers to travel or to go to work.  (Source: CIDKP, 2004)

 

From 1 January until 1 April 2004, SPDC soldiers from LIB 590 demanded that villagers pay to work in their own fields.  Villagers in the plains of Ler Doh Township, Nyaunglebin District, Karen State, were required to pay 3,000 kyat per month to stay in their field huts whilst working and villagers in Mu Township were required to pay 500 kyat. (Source: Papun and Nyaunglebin Districts: Continued Oppression During the Ceasefire, KHRG, 9 September 2004)

 

In February 2004, 40 soldiers from DKBA Battalion 907 led by Officer Soe Moe Oo entered Sho Hta village, Dooplaya District, Karen State, and decreed that all villagers working outside the village must return and stay inside the village.  The DKBA soldiers said they would take action against anyone who remained outside the village, so the villagers were afraid and returned. (Source: Dooplaya District: Fighting And Human Rights Abuse Still Continue After Ceasefire, KHRG, 18 February 2005)

 

In the first week of February 2004, a Chin man, Za Herh Lian, from Tahtlang village, Chin State, was arrested, detained for 1 night and fined 7,500 kyat for failing to report to authorities his presence in Thantlang town.  His host, Pu Lal Hngak, was also fined 5,000 kyat for failing to report a guest to the authorities.  In October 2003, the Thantlang Township SPDC chairman, U Luu Tin, had issued an order requiring all residents to report their guests to the authorities.  Those who failed to obey the order are subject to arrest and a penalty of between 5,000 and 10,000 kyat.  According to CHRO, the order has caused many problems in the town.  In order to enforce the order, police and SPDC soldiers conduct random checks on every house at midnight in search of unreported guests and visitors in Thantlang. Many innocent people have been arrested and fined. (Source: “Report Yourself to the Authority or Go to Lockup," Rhododendron News, Volume VII. No. II, CHRO, March-April 2004) 

 

On 16 March 2004, troops from DKBA 999 prohibited villagers from Pah Klo village in Na Boo Township, Pa-an District, Karen State, from leaving the village.  They set up landmines around the villages. (Source: CIDKP, 2004)

 

During April 2004, Operation Commander Khin Soe of SPDC Southern Command Headquarters banned motor vehicles between Toungoo and Kaw Thay Doe village, Toungoo District, Karen State, for 2 weeks. Consequently, Kaw Thay Doe villagers suffered from food shortages, including shortages in rice, salt and fish paste. (Source: CIDKP, 2004)

 

On 11 April 2004, the Burmese military commander of LIB 422 from Mawchi base issued order number 17/04 to the people living in and around Mawchi, Karenni State, prohibiting them from leaving their village or residing or traveling to another location. The order didn't indicate the length of time it would be in force. Villagers who violated the order would face legal action. (Source: KNAHR, 2004)

 

On the 30 June 2004, Bo Tint Soe of SPDC IB 73 based at Zayat Gyi issued an order requiring villagers in Dah Dank, Tha Ta Gon and Mar Lar Gon, Toungoo District, Karen State, to obtain a pass at the cost of 1,000 kyat per person for staying in their farm huts whilst working on their farms. (Source: CIDKP, 2004)

 

On the 20 August 2004, Major Kyi Thein Win of SPDC LIB 380 ordered villagers in Thaton District, Karen State, to obtain travel passes every 5 days and demanded 100 kyat for every pass.  The following villages were affected:

1.      Kaw Ler village,

2.      Htee Po Ta Tu village,

3.      Ner Paw Hta village,

4.      Waw Pu village,

5.      Maw Lay village and

6.      Noe Toe Day village.

 (Source: CIDKP, 2004)

 

In mid-2004, SPDC units in the plains of western Tantabin Township, Toungoo District, Karen State, ordered the villagers in Pyin Gan and Taw Ma Inn villages to get 2 "letters of recommendation" a week for travel outside the village. Each letter cost 200 kyat. Villages in the Shan See Boh area, also in the plains, were ordered by IB 60 to get 1 travel recommendation letter per week at 100 kyat each. Remaining away from the village after the expiry of the letter of recommendation can lead to serious repercussions; in which case arrests and beatings usually ensue. (Source: Enduring Hunger and Repression: Food Scarcity, Internal Displacement, and the Continued Use of Forced Labor in Toungoo District, KHRG, September 2004)

 

In mid-2004, IB 92 decreed that all the villagers to the north of the Day Loh River in Than Daung Township, Toungoo District, Karen State, were not to cross to the south side of the river. They did not want the villagers to stay in Swa Loh, Bo Daing or Tha Yay Bah villages which have been relocated. The villagers were told that if the soldiers saw any villagers, they would all be shot dead, and if the soldiers saw any boats traveling on the river, they would also shoot the boat drivers dead. (Source: Enduring Hunger and Repression: Food Scarcity, Internal Displacement, and the Continued Use of Forced Labor in Toungoo District, KHRG, September 2004)

 

During September 2004, people in Kyar-in Seik-kyi Township, Karen State, were not allowed to go to their farms and gardens due to fighting between the KNU and the SPDC. (Source: "Burma Army’s Travel Ban", Kao Wao News No. 76, 9-24 October, 2004)

 

On 17 September 2004, troops from SPDC LIB 106 led by Battalion Commander Myint Khaing came to Htee Baw Day village, Pa-an District, Karen State, and threatened the villagers and looted from them.  In addition, villagers were prohibited from leaving their village until the time of this report. (Source: CIDKP, 2004)

 

In October 2004, local people in northern Yebyu Township, Tenasserim Division, were barred from going to their farms and gardens.  The purpose given by the Burma Army for the travel restrictions was that they feared the people would support the Mon guerilla group if they went to their farms and gardens.  The Mon armed group Hongsawatoi Restoration Party (HRP) had previously seized 6 arms with bullets from the SPDC militia in Kyauk Ka Din village.  (Source: "Burma Army’s Travel Ban", Kao Wao News, No. 76, 9-24 October, 2004)

 

In October 2004, villagers between the areas of Ye Township and Yebyu Township were detained in their villages by Burmese troops.  General Khin Nyunt declared that he wanted to develop the area.  If villagers wanted to leave their village or work in their plantations they needed to obtain a letter of permission from troops. If they did not, they were killed or beaten.  In Kyauk-kadin village, villagers were barred from going out at all and as a consequence faced severe food shortages. (Source: "General Khin Nyunt Does Development By Detaining Villagers," Kao Wao News No. 76, 13 October 2004)

 

On 6 October 2004, SPDC authorities in Ta-Khi-Laek Township, Shan State, issued an order requiring all households in the township to register their household members with the authorities every month. Each household was required to draft a chart containing personal profiles of their household members. They were required to put a copy of the chart on the wall in front of the house and to send a copy to the township authorities. They were required to register in this way every month. When there was a difference in the number of household members, for example, if someone left or joined the household, a new chart had to be completed with the personal profiles of the newcomers included and sent to the authorities. If, on inspection by the authorities, the actual household members were not in accordance with the chart, the head of the household would face at least 3 months in jail. On 10 October 2004, another order was issued by the authorities preventing the people in the township from receiving 3 kinds of guests that came from far away or from different townships. Those 3 kinds of guests were:

    1.    Government servants;

    2.    Persons without Identity Cards (Guarantee Papers were not valid); and

    3.    Women under 25 years of age.

Those who defied this order would also face at least 3 months in jail. The above 2 orders took effect on 25.10.2004. (Source: "More Restrictions in Ta-Khi-Laek," SHRF Monthly Report, February 2005)

 

In November 2004, SPDC LIB 588 Commander Myint Zaw ordered that villagers from Beh La Mu, Yay La Mine and Ka Nay Ka Moh village tracts, Dooplaya District, Karen State, were required to have a pass to go to their plantations, hill fields and gardens.  Overnight guests also must be registered. (Source: Dooplaya District: Fighting And Human Rights Abuse Still Continue After Ceasefire, KHRG, 18 February 2005)

 

In November 2004, DKBA soldiers came to villages in Thaton District, Karen State, and prohibited the villagers from going outside their villages to their fields.  They told the villagers that if they were caught outside their villages they would be fined and tortured. When these orders came the villagers did not dare to go out or to their fields anymore. The result was that the villagers faced problems getting enough food because November is harvest time and the villagers were unable to go to their fields and harvest their paddy. (Source: Thaton District: Continued Consolidation of SPDC and DKBA Control through the use of Forced Labour, Extortion and Movement Restrictions, KHRG, 21 February 2005)

 

On 1 November 2004, the Coastal Command ordered the Immigration Center and Public Councils from Kawthaung, Myeik, and Tavoy Districts in Tenasserim Division to register the population.  Specifically, missing people were to be recorded.  They stated that national identification cards were going to be newly registered in Burma.  Missing persons who went unregistered would be removed from the records.  Anybody found without a national identity card would be arrested and punished. (Source: ABSDF, 2004)

 

12.12 Restriction on the Movements of Religious Minorities

 

"It is easier for us [the Rohingya] to visit Bangladesh then Maungdaw."

 

- A 28 year-old Rohingya man from northern Maungdaw Township, Arakan State. (Source: Interview in The Rohingya Minority: Fundamental Rights Denied, Amnesty International, May 2004) 

 

Non-citizens in Burma face strict travel restrictions as they must apply to the local authorities for permission to travel anywhere outside their hometowns. Those affected by travel restrictions include Burma's Indian, Chinese and Rohingya Muslim populations.  The inability to travel freely in Burma has severely impacted on these religious and ethnic groups' livelihood and food security as it restricts their ability to find employment, trade in goods and access adequate healthcare.   

  

Rohingya Muslims in northern Arakan State continued to face severe travel restrictions in 2004, which prevented them from moving from village to village, let alone throughout the country. Most Rohingya Muslims do not qualify to receive a national identity card under the requisites of the 1982 Citizenship Act, possession of which is necessary for free travel in the country. Under the provisions of this act, a citizen must be able to prove that they are one of the 135 “national races” or else that their ancestors settled in Burma prior to British colonization in 1823. Rohingya are not considered one of the 135 "national races" of Burma and most are unable to furnish proof of their ancestral origins in Burma. Those without a national identity card must obtain permission from the authorities prior to any domestic travel.

 

Travel to Sittwe, the capital of Arakan State, or Rangoon is effectively prohibited for the Rohingya. Following communal violence in Sittwe between Muslims and Buddhists in February 2001, travel to the Arakan capital was severely curtailed.  Since that time, it has been virtually impossible for Rohingya to gain permission to travel to Sittwe. Rohingya who have managed to travel from Sittwe to northern Arakan State have also found it extremely difficult to return to Sittwe. (Source: The Rohingya Minority: Fundamental Rights Denied, Amnesty International, May 2004) 

 

Rohingya are required to obtain permission and a pass from the authorities to travel outside their village.  In order to travel to a village in the same township, a Rohingya traveler must apply for and pay for a local travel pass at the Village Peace and Development Council (VPDC). In order to travel further, such as to another township, a Rohingya travel must obtain a travel permit from the Immigration Department at the Nasaka camp, otherwise called a "Form 4." According to a Rohingya man interviewed by Amnesty International, the cost of a travel permit from northern Maungdaw to Maungdaw town can be as much as 3,000 kyat (approximately one month's pay). As some 60% of Rohingya are poor day laborers, most cannot afford to obtain the required travel permits to travel outside their towns or villages (source: The Rohingya Minority: Fundamental Rights Denied, Amnesty International, May 2004).  There were also reports that Rohingya were required to pay brides at various checkpoints and that these checkpoints applied only to the Muslim population (source: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2004, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, Labor, U.S. Department of State, 28 February 2005).

 

Travel permits are only issued for a specific period of time. Those who have overstayed their passes and have difficulty returning to their villages risk being deleted from their family list. In the event that this happens, they are considered guests in their own homes and villages when they do return home (source: Conflict, Discrimination, and Humanitarian Challenges in Northern Arakan State, Forum-Asia, 8 October 2003). Any Rohingya who is found traveling without the proper documentation risks being sentenced to jail with hard labor. 

 

Following the removal of Prime Minister Khin Nyunt on 19 October 2004 and the subsequent disbanding of the Nasaka border security force, there were some reports that travel authorization fees for Rohingya had decreased.  As the Nasaka was responsible for many of the human rights abuses perpetrated against the Rohingya, there were initial reports of a significant decrease in taxes, marriage fees, travel authorization fees, and a reduction in extortion and corruption. However, in January 2005, the junta decided to maintain a border security force in Arakan State and the Nasaka were renamed the Napaka. A dust to dawn curfew for Rohingya in Maungdaw Township was also imposed and it was reported that in January and February 2005 all villages in Maungdaw Township were ordered to construct bamboo fences around the village. While this measure was supposedly implemented to enhance the security of the villages, the lack of insurgent activity in northern Arakan State has led some observers to speculate that the order was imposed to better control and contain Rohingya villagers. (Source: Forum-Asia, May 2005) (For more information, please see the chapter on freedom of religion.)

 

Incidents Involving the Rohingya Minority and Restrictions of Movement

 

In January 2004, Kaladan News reported that the curfew imposed on Rohingya in northern Arakan State following an arson attack on a mosque in Maungdaw town on 4 November 2003 was continuing. The curfew had initially been imposed from 6:00 pm to 6:00 am.  It was later reduced to between 10:00 pm and 5:00 am.  Despite the change in the curfew timeframe, Kaladan News reported that the police continued to observe the initial curfew restrictions. Police arrested Rohingya found outside around 8:00 pm. The police would then detain the Rohingya person in an isolated location until 10:00 pm. They would then be taken to the police station and charged with not complying with the curfew restrictions. The detainees were reportedly released after paying a fine of either money or goods. (Source: “How Long Curfew Would Be Continued!! Continued Curfew Paralyses Movement of Rohingyas in Northern Arakan," Kaladan News, 18 January 2004)

 

In December 2004, Kaladan News reported that the dismantling of the Nasaka in Arakan State had severely affected Rohingya students' ability to obtain travel documents to travel to Sittwe for their university examinations.  According to Kaladan News, shortly after the ousting of Khin Nyunt on 19 October 2004, the authority to issue travel documents in Maungdaw District was passed onto the District Peace and Development Council (DPDC) chairman, Major Ran Myu Aung.  However, a local University student reported that the DPDC chairman was directed not to make a decision regarding travel without the knowledge the Western Command Commander Brigadier General Maung. These changes to travel authorization have reportedly prevented more than 165 Rohingya students (60 correspondence students and over 105 day students) from obtaining travel documents in time to travel to Sittwe for their university supplementary examinations in December 2004. (Source:  "Denied Issuing Travel Documents Made Over 165 of Rohingya Students Deprive In Their Exam," Kaladan News, 9 December 2004)

 

12.13 Restriction on the Movements and Harassment of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD

 

On 30 May 2003, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, NLD members and supporters were attacked in a remote village near Depayin, Sagaing Division, as the NLD was proceeding with an organizing trip to Kachin State. The attack, perpetrated by members of the USDA and other state sanctioned actors, transpired approximately one year following Aung San Suu Kyi’s release from house arrest in May 2002. Eyewitness testimonies and other evidence have led many observers to believe that the attack was premeditated and sponsored by the State. Moreover, it is believed that Sr Gen Than Shwe was also behind the attack, as an event of that magnitude could not occur without his permission. Despite both international and domestic calls for an independent and transparent investigation into the events of 30 May 2003, the SPDC has not complied. Therefore, the perpetrators of the attack have continued to enjoy freedom from punishment or reprimand. Instead, the SPDC has held firm to their claim that 4 people were killed and 50 injured in a violent outbreak instigated by the NLD. Unofficial sources have estimated these numbers to be much higher. The attacks also resulted in the detention of NLD General Secretary Aung San Suu Kyi, NLD Vice Chairman U Tin Oo and numerous NLD members and supporters. Moreover, following the attacks, a crackdown on the pro-democracy movement ensued with members and supporters of the NLD facing increased restrictions on assembly and association as NLD offices across the country were ordered to close. In addition, harassment, arrest and detention of NLD members continued. According to the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB), 124 persons were arrested on the night of the attacks and 132 were arrested following the event (source: "Political Prisoner Summary," NCGUB, 10 October 2004).

 

The effects of the 30 May 2003 attack continued to be felt in 2004 as the military government persisted in monitoring and restricting the activities and movements of NLD members. On 9 February, Foreign Minister Win Aung reported that limitations imposed on the NLD following 30 May 2003 would be removed in conjunction with “confidence-building measures” prior to the National Convention. At the time of his statement, the National Convention was not yet scheduled (source: “Myanmar Junta Lift Crackdown on Opposition, Suu Kyi Could be Freed,” AFP, 9 February 2004). Despite these comments, NLD offices remained closed, except for the headquarters in Rangoon, which was permitted to re-open on 17 April. While the NLD was only allowed to engage in party activities in the headquarter office with the authorization of the authorities, unofficial activities and meetings persisted under the surveillance of military authorities. At the same time, NLD members continued to be harassed, detained and denied their rights. On 23 December, the Ministry of Interior Affairs reportedly sent an order to all police forces in the country to adopt responsibilities previously held by the former Military Intelligence, including watching and thwarting NLD and other pro-democracy groups’ activities (source: “A New Burmese Police Force to Be Formed,” DVB, 25 December 2004). (Please see below for partial list of incidents of harassment of NLD members in 2004.)

 

In addition, both Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and U Tin Oo remained in detention throughout 2004, held under Article 10(a) of the 1975 State Protection Act which allows for detention for up to five years without charge or trial.  While U Tin Oo was initially held in Kale Prison, Sagaing Division, he was transferred to house arrest on 14 February. Under house arrest, only family members were allowed to see him and his contact with the outside world was extremely limited (source: “Myanmar Opposition Figure Tin Oo Moved From Prison to House Arrest,” AP, 15 February 2004). Similarly, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was held under house arrest with limited contact with the outside world. On 29 November, her detention was extended for an additional year. Furthermore, on 16 December, it was reported that authorities reduced the number of visits allowed by her doctor each week from three to one. The permitted number of NLD security personnel was also reduced from 13 to six. When Daw Aung San Suu Kyi voiced her discontent with the arrangement, the authorities responded by removing all of the security personnel (source: “Myanmar Junta Putting Aung San Suu Kyi’s Health, Safety at Risk,” AFP, 16 December 2004). (Please see chapter on arbitrary detention for more information.)

 

In response to the restrictions faced by the party, the NLD commenced a petition campaign on 20 July calling for the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, U Tin Oo and all other political prisoners, as well as for the re-opening of all NLD offices (source: “Burmese Opposition Collecting Signatures for Suu Kyi’s Release,” DVB, 21 July 2004). Shortly after the campaign commenced, it was reported that the military headquarters instructed government troops, utilizing the assistance of actors such as fire fighters and USDA members, to monitor and deter people from signing the NLD petition (source: “Order to Watch the Signing of the NLD Petitions,” DVB, 27 July 2004). This order materialized in the way of intimidation and threats to NLD members and others who either gathered signatures or wished to sign the petition. On 3 August, for example, local authorities ordered local NLD members in Monywa, Sagaing Division, to cease the signature campaign and barred the activity. Monywa Township organizing committee member Daw Khin Than’s phone line was reportedly cut following these instructions from the authorities. In addition, local authorities interrogated NLD leaders in Taungup, Arakan State, regarding the petition (source: “Petition Campaign Banned by Burma Junta,” DVB, 4 August 2004).  Again, on 1 September, local authorities in Thazi Township, Mandalay Division, instructed NLD leader U Than Saung to sign a pledge that he would desist from the signature campaign. In Kale, Sagaing Division, “thugs hired by the junta” were reportedly threatening residents not to sign the petition (source: “SPDC Still Hampering NLD Petition Campaign in Burma,” DVB, 1 September 2004). Despite the authorities’ attempts to thwart support and participation of the petition, the campaign continued throughout the year.

 

The NLD and the 2004 National Convention

 

Restrictions on the freedoms of assembly and association also contributed to the NLD’s decision to boycott the 2004 National Convention. On 7 April 2004, the SPDC invited delegates to attend the convention, including seven of the nine NLD Central Executive Committee (CEC) members. The two excluded members were the detained Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and U Tin Oo. The invited CEC members indicated that they would be unable to determine their ability to participate without conferring with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. On 27 April, all members of the CEC, including U Tin Oo, were permitted to gather in Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s home in Rangoon in the first of several meetings. The CEC concluded that the NLD’s attendance was likely but was contingent upon the SPDC’s agreement to a list of five demands. The 2004 Convention was to be based upon the “104 basic principles” and “six objectives” of the 1993 National Convention from which the NLD walked out in 1996, determining the process to be undemocratic. Therefore, the NLD’s demands addressed both these conditions and the continuing restrictions hampering the activities of the party. The NLD’s demands included:

“1. The "six objectives" should be regarded merely as suggestions to be considered in the drafting of the constitution.

2. The "104 principles" too should be regarded as suggestions to be considered for the drafting of the constitution, not as binding principles.

3. All political parties, including the NLD, should be able to choose their own representatives freely.

4. All NLD offices sealed since 30 May 2003 must be reopened and party signboards restored where they have been forcibly removed.

5. U Tin U, vice-chairman of the NLD, and General Secretary Daw Aung San Suu Kyi must be released from detention.” (Source: Burma Briefing: Issues and Concerns Volume 1, ALTSEAN, November 2004)

 

As the SPDC only agreed to the second demand, the NLD declined the invitation and boycotted the National Convention. When announcing their decision, NLD Chairman U Aung Shwe indicated that the NLD’s participation in the National Convention would not serve the best interests of the country (source: “Aung San Suu Kyi’s NLD Boycotts Myanmar Convention,” AFP, 14 may 2004). As the National Convention commenced on 17 May, military authorities disconnected phone lines in the NLD headquarters in Rangoon leading to expectations of further repressive measures (source: “Myanmar Junta Cuts NLD Phone Lines, Another Crackdown Looms,” AFP, 18 May 2004).

 

Harassment of the NLD in 2004- partial list of incidents

 

During 2004, the NLD women’s groups conducted regular Tuesday visits to the Shwedagon Pagoda without government permission. Military Intelligence personnel reportedly monitored these “illegal” activities and prohibited participants from wearing political pins, badges and jackets. (Source: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2004, Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State, 28 February 2005)

 

On 17 April 2004, 400 members of the NLD staged a protest calling for the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. The NLD members, dressed in the party's signature colors (saffron shirts, green longyi and prominent party badges), together with several monks, marched through Rangoon to a point on Inya Lake facing Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's house. There, they released fish from earthenware bowls in a Buddhist ritual to mark the New Year. Military intelligence officers reportedly observed the procession but did not intervene due to its religious nature. Following the protest, approximately 12 activists approached the house of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.   However, they were stopped by some 15 riot police and dispersed peacefully. Military intelligence were reportedly deployed to NLD headquarters in downtown Rangoon following the protest but remained in their vehicles. (Source: Riot Police Bar Myanmar Democracy Activists From Suu Kyi's House," AFP, 17 April 2004)

 

On 17 May 2004, it was reported that the military government had cut the phone lines to the NLD’s Rangoon headquarters as the proceedings of the National Convention commenced. More punitive measures were expected as the national convention progressed. (Source: “Myanmar Junta Cuts NLD Phone Lines, Another Crackdown Looms,” AFP, 18 May 2004)

 

On 22 June 2004, it was reported that local authorities in Minbu, Magwe Division, banned the NLD from constructing an office building.  Members of Minbu Township NLD had previously applied for a permit to build an office on a plot of land and had been granted permission in July 2001. (Source: “NLD Banned From Building Office in Burma,” DVB, 22 June 2004)

 

On 25 June 2004, it was reported that Than Htay, an NLD MP-elect for Lashio, the capital of northern Shan State, was pressed by local authorities to resign from the party.  According to local sources, on 3 June 2004, Police Colonel Win Naign called Than Htay into his office and told him that the NLD would soon be declared an illegal organization and that he may be arrested at any time for offenses related to his businesses (a grocery store and teashop). It was further reported that on 10 June 2004 Than Htay was again called into Police Colonel Win Naing officer were the Colonel told him that he did not need to resign from the party and offered to become his business partner. (Source:  “Elected MP Pressed to Resign from NLD”, Irrawaddy, 25 June 2004)

 

On 19 July 2004, it was reported that security forces prevented Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's supporters from entering the mausoleum of her father, General Aung San, on his 57th death anniversary, also recognized in Burma as Martyr's Day.  Approximately 100 members of the NLD marched to the mausoleum from the party's headquarters.  However, only 20 members, who were not wearing NLD badges or uniforms, were allowed to enter.  Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was also not allowed to attend the ceremony for the 2nd year in a row.  (Source: “Myanmar Junta Stops Suu Kyi Supporters from Entering Her Father’s Mausoleum on Death Anniversary," AP, 19 July 2004)

 

On 25 August 2004, it was reported that the SPDC have employed former student activists who have surrendered to harass other pro-democracy activists in Burma.  Ko Aye Lwin, a former student activist from Rangoon Institute of Technology, has reportedly formed a group called “21st Century Youth,” whose members have sent threatening letters to pro-democracy activists in Burma. The members of "21st Century Youth" reportedly receive privileges from the military junta.  (Source: “Burma Junta Uses Ex-student Activists to Undermine NLD,” DVB, 25 August 2004)

 

On 9 September 2004, it was reported that the Burmese government hampered and intimidated NLD members who participated in collecting signatures in a campaign calling for the release of all political prisoners in Burma. In Kyaukpandaung Township, Mandalay Division, U Thaung Han was summoned by the local authorities and warned not to continue the campaign. The authorities also confiscated a message he was carrying which certified his participation in the campaign and which was signed by NLD leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. It was further reported that the authorities sent out informers to threaten those who signed the petition.  (Source: “Burma Junta Still Hampering NLD Activities,” DVB, 9 September 2004)

 

On 5 November 2004, 3 NLD members were arrested and sentences to 7 years imprisonment for distributing pamphlets to party members. (Source: "Three Members of Myanmar's Opposition Arrested for Distributing Pamphlets," AFP, 15 November 2004)

 

On 26 November 2004, the SPDC extended Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s house arrest for a further year. (Source: "Aung San Suu Kyi's Security," Irrawaddy, 23 December 2004)

 

On 6 December 2004, 13 local members of the NLD were arrested in Bogalay, Irrawaddy Division, for organizing a ceremony to mark the 84th Anniversary of National Day in their home town.  They are reportedly being held in Phyaon Prison and NLD lawyers have gone to the township to defend the members who are expected to go to court shortly. (Source: “13 Opposition Members Arrested,” Irrawaddy, 8 December 2004)

 

On 16 December 2004, the NLD released a statement announcing their concern regarding Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's security.  It was reported that access to her doctor had been reduced from 3 visits a week to 1 visit a week. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's security, consisting of 13 NLD guards, was also reduced to 6 in December. When Daw Aung San Suu Kyi responded by stating that the reduction in her security was "unacceptable", the junta responded by dismissing all her security detail.  A NLD were reportedly "very worried that she may be in danger." (Source: "Myanmar Junta Putting Aung San Suu Kyi's Health, Safety At Risk, AFP, 16 December 2004)

 

12.14 Interviews

 

Interview with an NLD Member

 

Source:                         Human Rights Documentation Unit

Date of Interview:         11 February 2005

Name:                          U Aye Win (not real name)

Age:                             50

Sex:                              Male

Ethnicity:                       Burman, Mon

Religion:                       Buddhist

Address:                       Mudon Township, Mon State

Occupation:                  NLD member and family business

 

I joined the NLD in 2002 as a Central Executive Committee (CEC) member. Before, I had participated but I had not joined. I participated in ’88 with Aung Myo Min’s demonstration. I wrote songs for the ’88 demonstrations and for the 1990 elections, for the publicity committee for the election. I am still a CEC member now.

 

My eldest son is [omitted] of the NLD-Youth in Mudon Township. My son also worked for the family business outside.

 

We had many difficulties. If we wanted to have a meeting, we always had to wait and see. The MI was always watching us. But, that was usual so it was not really a problem. But, after the Depayin Massacre, we had to close our office and stop everything. We could not have meetings or activities. The MI focused on us, particularly me.

 

Indirectly, the MI harassed us through our business. The MI asked our neighbors and the community to watch our shops. So, people were afraid to come. Because I am NLD, the neighbors and other people were afraid to have anything to do with me.

 

My neighbors told me that the MI had come to talk to them. The MI did not talk to me personally and not to my family. If there was an important meeting in Rangoon, the MI told us that we had to inform them. This was the same after Depayin but it was very difficult to have activities. It was not an official rule to have to tell the MI.

 

Our neighbors were afraid of danger because my family is NLD. They were afraid to associate with us. Before the Depayin Massacre, they were also afraid. Sometimes, our neighbors secretly helped us and secretly donated to the NLD.

 

My family could not continue our mohinga [Burmese noodle soup] shop because the MI had scared our neighbors. We also have a [omitted] business which we named [omitted] for Daw Suu. The MI didn’t like it but we continued to sell it.

 

I left Burma because I couldn’t do political activities anymore and I couldn’t do my business. I thought I might be arrested and I thought that I better go and live in [omitted]. I thought I would be able to do more activities there.

 

I thought I might be arrested because the authorities had been focused on my name. I have friends who worked for the police and the post office and they told me that the MI was focused on me.

 

I heard that in another area, the MI arrested many NLD members. In my township, the USDA was watching us. So, I thought before I am arrested, I should leave Burma. I haven’t done anything significant, so I don’t think I should go to prison yet.

 

Secretly, we held meetings but not in our office. Maybe in members’ houses. Before Depayin, we organized for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s visit and for youth, women, and village committees. After Depayin, nothing. Before Depayin, the MI did not harass our local offices. Indirectly, they told villagers not to support NLD members.

 

When Daw Aung San Suu Kyi made her trip to Mudon, the MI told villagers not to welcome her. If they welcomed her, the MI would record the villagers’ names.

 

When Daw Suu came, she wanted to know who threatened the villagers and it was MI officer San Aung and policeman Ohn Than and VPDC U Win. The Mudon trip was 21 July 2002.

 

After Khin Nyunt was arrested, the situation was the same as before because we thought the MI was taken away for the government’s political purposes.

 

The political situation is the same as before, but people are more free to do things like buying from my shop. As for the NLD, we have to wait and see. The central office did not give us an order to do anything. We can’t organize because the government has given the USDA and the police more power to watch us.

 

Before I left Burma, Min Ko Naing was released and came to Mudon because it is his home town. Many police and USDA watched him.

 

I know they are watching because I have friends among police and they have told me about it.

 

The USDA never came to my house but among the CEC, some are spies for the USDA. We just try to organize the members who are weak in the meeting. If we have a meeting, the USDA knows about it before we go back home. They don’t make any problems though. Before we have a meeting, we try to have a secret meeting with 5 people who we trust. After, we organize the CEC. Before Depayin, we did it like this.

 

The CEC has 17 people.

 

[paragraph omitted]

 

 

Partial Interview with Migrant Worker Deported Officially through Myawaddy

 

Source:                         Human Rights Documentation Unit

Date of Interview:         3 March 2004

Name:                          Ko Aung (not real name)

Age:                             23

Ethnicity:                       Burman/Shan

Religion:                       Buddhist

Martial Status:              Married, no children

Occupation:                  Construction worker

Address in Thailand:     Mae Sot, Thailand

 

I came to Thailand around April 2003 because of economic reasons. I feel more freedom here than in Burma. The only thing is that the police arrest us here because we do not have work permits.  I have been arrested three times in Mae Sot and two times in Bangkok.

 

On 16 February 2004, I was arrested by immigration police on the way to my room from the construction site where I work.  They asked me if I have a pass and I said no pass. They said, "Follow us." The immigration police arrested other people walking on the street. There were two immigration police with a motorbike. They stopped people and had them sit on the street. There were about five people. Then the immigration police contacted a car. At first, they put us in a small white van. Then we went to the market where they arrested seven or eight children.  The children were selling Thai newspapers in the market. I think they were 12 or 13 years old. They also arrested one woman selling dried fish in the market as well as two men working in the market.

 

Then our white van met up with the large car at the corner near Pawo Hospital. The car was very crowded. People could not sit. There was only enough room to stand. I think there were around 50 people in the car, including some mothers with small babies. I heard that the police get 50 baht for each person that they arrest.

 

Then we were taken to the Immigration Detention Center (IDC), this was around 8:00 pm. We were put in the IDC cell. When we arrived, there were already 20 or 30 people in the cell.

 

[Paragraph omitted]

 

[Paragraph omitted]

 

[Paragraph omitted]

 

[Paragraph omitted]

 

[Paragraph omitted]

 

Throughout the day, more people who were arrested were brought to the cell by both police and Tawmaw (immigration police).  I do not remember how many came each time. I had to stay there for 4 days until they had 250 people. I know this because the wife of one detainee went to Myawaddy and asked around. She found out that the Burmese authorities would accept groups of 250 people deported 2 times in one month. That is why I know they were waiting for 250 people.

 

[Paragraph omitted]

 

We slept on concrete and they opened the fans, so it was very cold at night. We burned Styrofoam containers to stay warm. 

 

On 20 February 2004 at around 2:00 pm, there were 250 people. We were put into 2 trucks and then we were driven across the (Thai-Myanmar Friendship) bridge. We were dropped off at the gate on the Burma side.  We had to sit there with the Burmese soldiers and authorities around us. After about 5 minutes, 4 mini-buses arrived. They came two times and transported all of the people to the Myawaddy football stadium. When we arrived at the football stadium, we were divided into groups according to our native town. We were given numbers and we had to put them on our shirts. After we got our numbers, we were called for a blood test.  We were called one by one to take our blood. The official from the Health Department told us that they cannot trust us because we have been working in Thailand and maybe we are infected with HIV.

 

After we gave blood, we went back to our groups. We sat and waited to go to the different desks.

 

At the first desk were representatives from the Fire Brigade. They asked my name and took my photo with my number.

 

Then I had to go to the second desk, which was the immigration desk. They copied my information from the first desk and then asked me many questions. They asked: Why did you go to Thailand? When did you arrive in Thailand? What is your father's name, your mother's name, and your siblings' names? What is your address? Why were you working in Thailand? Why don't you work in Burma? How were you arrested by the Thai authorities? How much salary do you make each month? How much do you get for daily wages?

 

They told me that I should not work in Thailand but that I should find work in Burma.

 

Then the official told me that, "the State warmly welcomes you and spent a lot of money to bring you back."

 

Then I went to another desk, the police desk. They asked me the same questions. They read my answers from the immigration desk while I answered again.

 

The fourth desk was the Trade Cooperation Department. They received a copy of my paper from the desk before and asked the same questions again.  Why was I working in Thailand? What kind of work did I do? How much was my salary?

 

The fifth desk was the Rescue Department. They only asked me where I am from and then gave me the transportation fee for Pa'an to my hometown according to the distance and the government rate. If you are from Arakan, you receive 950 kyat. If you are from Bago, you receive 400 kyat, Rangoon 500 kyat, and Irrawaddy 675 kyat.

 

After I received my money, the officials took us to the sleeping barracks. This was around 9:00 pm. There are three different sleeping barracks. There is one for women and two for men. It looks like one building because the spaces between the buildings are covered with wood. The barracks are on the other side of the football field.

 

We had to wait for a while. Group by group, we went to eat. Groups of 50 people were taken to the dinning barrack to eat. There were five groups. I was in the last group, so I ate at 11:00 pm. 

 

There was a police sentry who followed us to the toilet to make sure we did not run away. 

 

For sleeping, we had one mat and one mosquito net for two people. We had a pillow and a small thin blanket that could not cover you from head to foot.

 

After eating, we were told to go back to the sleeping barrack. Some people tried to escape. The walls are made of woven bamboo and they broke the wall. Three men and five women escaped. Then the guard/sentry came and stayed in our barrack so that no one else would escape.

 

The next day, they woke us up at 5:30 am to wash our faces and brush our teeth. They didn't feed us, but told us that if we had money we could go and eat at the shop nearby. We had to wait for three days for the car to transport us to Pa'an because it goes on alternative days.  The authorities told us that when we arrived to Pa'an, a Colonel would give us a speech and then we could go back to our native towns.

 

We received two meals each day, at 12:00 noon and 5:00 pm. We were not allowed to meet guests who came looking for detainees.

 

On the day that they sent us to Pa'an, they woke us up at 5:00 am and checked all of us. Then they fed us fried rice and eggs. According to my knowledge, the food was provided by different quarters of Myawaddy. Different quarters were responsible on different days. On the first day, quarter five was responsible. On the second day, quarter three was responsible. On the third day, quarter two was responsible. It was the villagers who cooked the food, brought it to the barracks and gave it to the responsible person there. A villager told me that they were ordered to donate food for the detainees. After eating, we went back to the barracks. One of the immigration officials told us not to jump out of the car when being transported to Pa'an. He also said that we should not go back to Thailand and that we should work in Burma. But, another soldier told us that if we want to come back, we must find the way by ourselves. He also said that we should not run away from the car.

 

Then we were told how many people in how many cars. There were three buses and one large car (SUV). They divided us into groups and we started to leave at 9:00 am.  Along the way, we stopped at one place. My friend was following on his motorbike and he gave me money to bribe the officials. I gave them the money and they let me go. We were near the Myawaddy gate at the time.

 

I hired a motorbike and went back to Myawaddy. On the way, my friend and I stopped to eat at the market. The vendor who sold us our food told me that I was lucky because her children had been deported from Thailand in January, were sent to do labor, and had not come back yet. The officials told them that they were going to be sent to Pa'an but they really sent them to work on the Mothama-Moulmein bridge project in Mon State.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5

Go to Top

Table of Contents

Facts on Human Rights Violations