"Civil Society: Supporting Democracy in the 21st Century," at the Community of Democracies

**Hillary Rodham Clinton**
Secretary of State
Slowacki Theater
Krakow, Poland
July 3, 2010

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I am delighted to be here with all of you. And I thank my friend, Foreign Minister Sikorski, for hosting us here in this absolutely magnificent setting, and for an excellent speech that so well summarized what the agenda for all of us who are members of the Community of Democracies should be.
The idea of bringing together free nations to strengthen democratic norms and institutions began as a joint venture between one of Radek's predecessors and one of mine: Minister Geremek and Madeleine Albright. And they were visionaries 10 years ago. And it was initially a joint American-Polish enterprise. And I cannot think of a better place for us to mark this occasion than right here in Krakow. Thank you, Madeleine, and thanks to the memory of Minister Geremek.
(Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think you heard from Foreign Minister Sikorski some of the reasons why Poland is an example of what democracies can accomplish. After four decades of privation, stagnation, and fear under Communism, freedom dawned. And it was not only the personal freedoms that people were once again able to claim for their own, but Poland's per capital GDP today is nine times what it was in 1990. And in the middle of a deep, global recession, the Polish economy has continued to expand.
By any measure, Poland is stronger politically, as well. We all mourned with Poland in April when a plane crash claimed the lives of Poland's president, the first lady, and many other national officials. It was one of the greatest single losses of leadership suffered by any country in modern history. But it is a tribute to Poland's political evolution that, in the aftermath of that accident, the country's institutions never faltered. And tomorrow polls will move forward with selecting a president through free and fair elections.
Now, I would argue that this progress was neither accidental nor inevitable. It came about through a generation of work to improve governance, grow the private sector, and strengthen civil society. These three essential elements of a free nation -- representative government, a well-functioning market, and civil society -- work like three legs of a stool. They lift and support nations as they reach for higher standards of progress and prosperity.
Now, I would be the first to admit that no democracy is perfect. In fact, our founders were smart enough to enshrine in our founding documents the idea that we had to keep moving toward a more perfect union. Because, after all, democracies rely on the wisdom and judgment of flawed human beings. But real democracies recognize the necessity of each side of that three-legged stool. And democracies that strengthen these three segments of society can deliver extraordinary results for their people.
Today I would like to focus on one leg of that stool: civil society. Now, markets and politics usually receive more attention. But civil society is every bit as important. And it undergirds both democratic governance and broad-based prosperity. Poland actually is a case study in how a vibrant civil society can produce progress. The heroes of the solidarity movement, people like Geremek and Lech Walesa and Adam Michnik, and millions of others laid the foundation for the Poland we see today. They knew that the Polish people desired and deserved more from their country. And they transformed that knowledge into one of history's greatest movements for positive change.
Now, not every nation has a civil society movement on the scale of Solidarity. But most countries do have a collection of activists, organizations, congregations, writers, and reporters that work through peaceful means to encourage governments to do better, to do better by their own people. Not all of these organizations or individuals are equally effective, of course. And they do represent a broad range of opinions. And, having been both in an NGO and led NGOs and been in government, I know that it's sometimes tough to deal with NGOs when you are in the government.
But it doesn't matter whether the goal is better laws or lower crime or cleaner air or social justice or consumer protection or entrepreneurship and innovation, societies move forward when the citizens that make up these groups are empowered to transform common interests into common actions that serve the common good.
As we meet here on the eve of our American Fourth of July celebration, the day when we commemorate our independence, I want to say a word about why the issue of civil society is so important to Americans. Our independence was a product of our civil society. Our civil society was pre-political. And it was only through debate, discussion, and civic activism that the United States of America came into being. We were a people before we were a nation. And civil society not only helped create our nation, it helped sustain and power our nation into the future. It was representatives of civil society who were the first to recognize that the American colonies could not continue without democratic governance. And after we won our independence, it was activists who helped establish our democracy. And they quickly recognized that they were a part of a broader struggle for human rights, human dignity, human progress.
Civil society has played an essential role in identifying and eradicating the injustices that have, throughout our history, separated our nation from the principles on which it was founded. It was civil society, after all, that gave us the abolitionists who fought the evils of slavery, the suffragettes who campaigned for women's rights, the freedom marchers who demanded racial equality, the unions that championed the rights of labor, the conservationists who worked to protect our planet and climate.
I did begin my professional life in civil society. The NGO I worked for, the Children's Defense Fund, helped expand educational opportunities for poor children and children with disabilities, and tried to address the challenges faced by young people in prison.
Now, I would be the first to say that our work did not transform our nation or remake our government overnight. But when that kind of activism is multiplied across an entire country through the work of hundreds, even thousands of NGOs, it does produce real and lasting positive change. So a commitment to strengthening civil society has been one of my constants throughout my public career as First Lady, Senator, and now Secretary of State. I was able to work with Slovakian NGOs that stood up to and ultimately helped bring down an authoritarian government. I have seen civil society groups in India bring the benefits of economic empowerment to the most marginalized women in that society. I have watched in wonder as a small group of women activists in South Africa begin with nothing and went on to build a community of 50,000 homes.
President Obama shares this commitment. In his case, it led him to become a community organizer in Chicago. Both of us joined in the work of civil society because we believe that when citizens nudge leaders in the right direction, our country grows stronger. The greatness of the United States depends on our willingness to seek out and set right the areas where we fall short. For us and for every country, civil society is essential to political and economic progress. Even in the most challenging environments, civil society can help improve lives and empower citizens.
In fact, I want to recognize two women activists who are with us today from Afghanistan and Iran. If Faiza Babakan and Afifa Azim would stand up, I would just like to thank you for your courage and your willingness to be here.
(Applause.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Now, it may seem to some of us like a very nice, but perhaps not essential presence to have just one woman from each country be here. But I can speak from personal experience that, just as civil society is essential to democracy, women are essential to civil society. And these women speak for so many who have never had a chance to have their voices heard.
So, along with well-functioning markets and responsible, accountable government, progress in the 21st century depends on the ability of individuals to coalesce around shared goals, and harness the power of their convictions. But when governments crack down on the right of citizens to work together, as they have throughout history, societies fall into stagnation and decay.
North Korea, a country that cannot even feed its own people, has banned all civil society. In Cuba and Belarus, as Radek said, civil society operates under extreme pressure. The Government of Iran has turned its back on a rich tradition of civil society, perpetrating human rights abuses against many activists and ordinary citizens who just wanted the right to be heard.
There is also a broader group of countries where the walls are closing in on civic organizations. Over the last 6 years, 50 governments have issued new restrictions against NGOs, and the list of countries where civil society faces resistance is growing longer. In Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo, physical violence directed against individual activists has been used to intimidate and silence entire sectors of civil society. Last year, Ethiopia imposed a series of strict new rules on NGOs. Very few groups have been able to re-register under this new framework, particularly organizations working on sensitive issues like human rights. The Middle East and North Africa are home to a diverse collection of civil society groups. But too many governments in the region still resort to intimidation, questionable legal practices, restrictions on NGO registration, efforts to silence bloggers.
I hope we will see progress on this issue, and especially in Egypt, where that country's vibrant civil society has often been subjected to government pressure in the form of canceled conferences, harassing phone calls, frequent reminders that the government can close organizations down, even detention and long-term imprisonment and exile.
In Central Asian countries, constitutions actually guarantee the right of association. But governments still place onerous restrictions on NGO activity, often through legislation or stringent registration requirements. Venezuela's leaders have tried to silence independent voices that seek to hold that government accountable. In Russia, while we welcome President Medvedev's statements in support of the rule of law, human rights activities and journalists have been targeted for assassination, and virtually none of these crimes have been solved.
And we continue to engage on civil society issues with China, where writer Liu Xiaobo is serving an 11-year prison sentence because he co-authored a document calling for respect for human rights and democratic reform. Too many governments are seeing civic activists as opponents, rather than partners. And as democracies, we must recognize that this trend is taking place against a broader backdrop.
In the 20th century, crackdowns against civil society frequently occurred under the guise of ideology. Since the demise of Communism, most crackdowns seem to be motivated instead by sheer power politics. But behind these actions, there is an idea, an alternative conception of how societies should be organized. And it is an idea that democracies must challenge. It is a belief that people are subservient to their government, rather than government being subservient to their people.
Now, this idea does not necessarily preclude citizens from forming groups that help their communities or promote their culture, or even support political causes. But it requires these private organizations to seek the state's approval, and to serve the states and the states' leaderships' larger agenda.
Think for a moment about the civil society activists around the world who have recently been harassed, censored, cut off from funding, arrested, prosecuted, even killed. Why did they provoke such persecution?
Some weren't engaged in political work at all. Some were not trying to change how their countries were governed. Most were simply getting help to people in need, like the Burmese activists imprisoned for organizing relief for victims of Cyclone Nargis. Some of them were exposing problems like corruption that their own governments claim they want to root out. Their offense was not just what they did, but the fact that they did it independently of their government. They were out doing what we would call good deeds, but doing them without permission. That refusal to allow people the chance to organize in support of a cause larger than themselves, but separate from the state, represents an assault on one of our fundamental democratic values.
The idea of pluralism is integral to our understanding of what it means to be a democracy. Democracies recognize that no one entity -- no state, no political party, no leader -- will ever have all the answers to the challenges we face. And, depending on their circumstances and traditions, people need the latitude to work toward and select their own solutions. Our democracies do not and should not look the same. Governments by the people, for the people, and of the people will look like the people they represent. But we all recognize the reality and importance of these differences. Pluralism flows from these differences. And because crackdowns on NGOs are a direct threat to pluralism, they also endanger democracy.
More than 60 years ago, Winston Churchill came to the United States to warn the world's democracies of an iron curtain descending across Europe. Today, thankfully, thanks to some of you in this room, that iron curtain has fallen. But we must be wary of the steel vise in which many governments around the world are slowly crushing civil society and the human spirit.
Today, meeting together as a community of democracies, it is our responsibility to address this crisis. Some of the countries engaging in these behaviors still claim to be democracies because they have elections. But, as I have said before, democracy requires far more than an election. It has to be a 365-day-a-year commitment, by government and citizens alike, to live up to the fundamental values of democracy, and accept the responsibilities of self government.
Democracies don't fear their own people. They recognize that citizens must be free to come together to advocate and agitate, to remind those entrusted with governance that they derive their authority from the governed. Restrictions on these rights only demonstrate the fear of illegitimate rulers, the cowardice of those who deny their citizens the protections they deserve. An attack on civic activism and civil society is an attack on democracy.
Now, sometimes I think that the leaders who are engaging in these actions truly believe they are acting in the best interests of their country. But they begin to inflate their own political interests, the interests of that country, and they begin to believe that they must stay in office by any means necessary, because only they can protect their country from all manner of danger.
Part of what it requires to be a true democracy is to understand that political power must be passed on, and that despite the intensity of elections, once the elections are over, whoever is elected fairly and freely must then try to unify the country, despite the political division.
I ran a very hard race against President Obama. I tried with all my might to beat him. I was not successful. And when he won, much to my surprise, he asked me to join his Administration to serve as Secretary of State. Well, in many countries, I learned as I began traveling, that was a matter of great curiosity. How could I work with someone whom I had tried to deprive of the office that he currently holds? But the answer for both President Obama and I was very simple. We both love our country. Politics is an important part of the lifeblood of a democracy. But governing, changing people's lives for the better, is the purpose one runs for office.
In the Community of Democracies, we have to begin asking the hard questions, whether countries that follow the example of authoritarian states and participate in this assault on civil society can truly call themselves democracies. And to address this challenge, civil society groups and democratic governments must come together around some common goals. The Community of Democracies is already bringing together governments and civil society organizations, some of whom are represented here. And it is well suited to lead these efforts. I know that the Community of Democracies working group on enabling and protecting civil society is already working to turn this vision into a reality. The United States pledges to work with this community to develop initiatives that support civil society and strengthen governments committed to democracy.
With the leadership and support of countries like Lithuania, Poland, Canada, and Mongolia, I believe that the Community's 20th anniversary could be a celebration of the expanding strength of civil society, and the true institutionalization of the habits of the heart that undergird democracy. To make that happen, our joint efforts, I believe, should include at least four elements. First, the Community of Democracies should work to establish, as Radek recommended, an objective, independent mechanism for monitoring repressive measures against NGOs.
Second, the United Nations Human Rights Council needs to do more to protect civil society. Freedom of association is the only freedom defined in the United Nations declaration of human rights that does not enjoy specific attention from the UN human rights machinery. That must change.
Third, we will be working with regional and other organizations, such as the OAS, the EU, the OIC, the African Union, the Arab League, others, to do more to defend the freedom of association. Many of these groups are already committed to upholding democratic principles on paper. But we need to make sure words are matched by actions.
And, fourth, we should coordinate our diplomatic pressure. I know that the Community of Democracies working group is focused on developing a rapid response mechanism to address situations where freedom of association comes under attack. Well, that can't happen soon enough. When NGOs come under threat, we should provide protection where we can, and amplify the voices of activists by meeting with them publicly at home and abroad, and citing their work in what we say and do. We can also provide technical training that will help activists make use of new technologies such as social networks. When possible, we should also work together to provide deserving organizations with financial support for their efforts.
Now, there are some misconceptions around this issue, and I would like to address it. In the United States, as in many other democracies, it is legal and acceptable for private organizations to raise money abroad and receive grants from foreign governments, so long as the activities do not involve specifically banned sources, such as terrorist groups. Civic organizations in our country do not need the approval of the United States Government to receive funds from overseas. And foreign NGOs are active inside the United States. We welcome these groups in the belief that they make our nation stronger and deepen relationships between America and the rest of the world. And it is in that same spirit that the United States provides funding to foreign civil society organizations that are engaged in important work in their own countries. And we will continue this practice, and we would like to do more of it in partnership with other democracies.
As part of that commitment, today I am announcing the creation of a new fund to support the work of embattled NGOs. We hope this fund will be used to provide legal representation, communication technology such as cell phone and Internet access, and other forms of quick support to NGOs that are under siege. The United States will be contributing $2 million to this effort, and we welcome participation and contribution from like-minded countries, as well as private, not-for-profit organizations.
The persecution of civil society activists and organizations, whether they are fighting for justice and law, or clean and open government, or public health, or a safe environment, or honest elections, it's not just an attack against people we admire, it's an attack against our own fundamental beliefs. So when we defend these great people, we are defending an idea that has been and will remain essential to the success of every democracy. So the stakes are high for us, not just them.
For the United States, supporting civil society groups is a critical part of our work to advance democracy. But it's not the only part. Our national security strategy reaffirms that democratic values are a cornerstone of our foreign policy. Over time, as President Obama has said, America's values have been our best national security asset. I emphasized this point in December and January, when I delivered speeches on human rights and Internet freedom. And it is a guiding principle in every meeting I hold and every country I visit.
My current trip is a good example. I have just come from Ukraine, where I had the opportunity not only to meet with the foreign minister and the president, but with a wonderful group of young, bright Ukrainian students, where I discussed the importance of media freedom, the importance of freedom of assembly, and of human rights. Tonight I will leave for Azerbaijan, where I will meet with youth activists to discuss Internet freedom, and to raise the issue of the two imprisoned bloggers, and to discuss civil liberties. From there I will go to Armenia and Georgia, where I will be similarly raising these issues, and sitting down with leaders from women's groups and other NGOs. This is what we all have to do, day in and day out around the world.
So, let me return to that three-legged stool. Civil society is important for its own sake. But it also helps prop up and stabilize the other legs of the stool, governments and markets. Without the work of civic activists and pluralistic political discourse, governments grow brittle and may even topple. And without consumer advocates, unions, and social organizations that look out for the needs of societies' weakest members, markets can run wild and fail to generate broad-based prosperity.
We see all three legs of the stool as vital to progress in the 21st century. So we will continue raising democracy and human rights issues at the highest levels in our contacts with foreign governments, and we will continue promoting economic openness and competition as a means of spreading broad-based prosperity and shoring up representative governments who know they have to deliver results for democracy.
But we also believe that the principles that bring us here together represent humanity's brightest hope for a better future. As Foreign Minister Geremek wrote in his invitation to the inaugural meeting of the Community of Democracies 10 years ago, "Regardless of the problems inseparably associated with democracy, it is a system which best fulfills the aspirations of individuals, societies, and entire peoples, and most fully satisfies their needs of development, empowerment, and creativity."
So, ultimately, our work on these issues is about the type of future we want to leave to our children and grandchildren. And anyone who doubts this should look at Poland. The world we live in is more open, more secure, and more prosperous because of individuals like Lech Walesa, Adam Michnik, others who worked through the solidarity movement to improve conditions in their own country, and who stand for freedom and democracy.
I think often about the role of journalists. Journalists are under tremendous pressure. But a journalist like Jerse Tarovich, a son of Krakow, asked tough questions that challenged Poland to do better. And Pope John Paul II, who, as Stalin would have noted, had no battalions, marshaled moral authority that was as strong as any army. We all have inherited that legacy of courage. It is now up to us.
Every Fourth of July Americans affirm their belief that all human beings are created equal, that we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today, as a community of democracies, let us make it our mission to secure those rights. We owe it to our forebears, and we owe it to future generations to continue the fight for these ideals.
Thank you all very much.
(Applause.)



** From….Silver Moon..Email**

Read More...

Summary only...

22May,10// အေျခခံ ဥပေဒအရ ႀက့ံဖြံ႔ပါတီ တရားမဝင္

**(ထက္ေအာင္ Thursday, May 20, 2010 )**

“တရားမွ်တမႈနဲ႔ အာဏာဟာ အတူတကြ တည္ရိွရမယ့္ အရာေတြ ျဖစ္တယ္။ ဒါမွသာ တရား မွ်တတယ္ ဆိုတဲ့ အရာတိုင္းမွာ အာဏာရိွမွာ ျဖစ္ၿပီး အာဏာနဲ႔ ေဆာင္ရြက္တဲ့ အရာတိုင္း ဟာလည္း တရားမွ်တမႈ အတူ ကပ္ပါလာမွာ ျဖစ္တယ္” လုိ႔ ၁၇ ရာစု ျပင္သစ္ အေတြးအေခၚ ပညာရွင္ တဦးျဖစ္သူ ဘေလးဇ္ ပါစကယ္က ေျပာခဲ့ဖူးပါတယ္။

ဒါေပမယ့္ ၂၁ ရာစု ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံကို ျပန္ၾကည့္လိုက္တဲ့ အခါ တရား မွ်တမႈနဲ႔ အာဏာဟာ အတူ ယဥ္တဲြ ရိွမေနဘဲ တဘက္စြန္းစီမွာ သပ္သပ္ တည္ရိွေနၾကတယ္။ အဲ့ဒီလို ျဖစ္ရတဲ့ အဓိက အေၾကာင္းကေတာ့ စစ္အစိုးရရဲ႕ ဥပေဒ ကြ်မ္းက်င္သူေတြက ဥပေဒကို အဓိပၸာယ္ ဖြင့္ဆိုရာမွာ လူထု အက်ဳိးစီးပြားထက္ စစ္ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ႀကီးေတြရဲ႕ အက်ဳိးစီးပြားကိုသာ အဓိက ထားၾကတဲ့အတြက္ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။

ဥပေဒကို တလဲြ အသံုးျပဳခဲ့တဲ့ ထင္ရွားတဲ့ျဖစ္ရပ္တခု မၾကာေသးခင္ကမွ ျဖစ္ပြားခဲ့ပါေသးတယ္။ ေမလ ၉ ရက္ နဲ႔ ၁ဝ ရက္ေန႔က အေမရိကန္ႏိုင္ငံရဲ႕ အေရွ႕ အာရွႏွင့္ ပစိဖိတ္ေရးရာ လက္ေထာက္ ႏိုင္ငံျခားေရး ဝန္ႀကီး ကာ့တ္ကမ္းဘဲလ္ ဦးေဆာင္တဲ့ အဖဲြ႔ ျမန္မာျပည္ကို လာေရာက္ လည္ပတ္စဥ္က ျဖစ္ပြားခဲ့တာပါ။

တာဝန္ ထမ္းေဆာင္ဆဲ အစိုးရ ဝန္ႀကီးေတြ ႏိုင္ငံေရးပါတီ တည္ေထာင္ျခင္းဟာ ဥပေဒနဲ႔ ကိုက္ညီျခင္း ရိွပါသလားလုိ႔ အေမရိကန္ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္ အဖဲြ႔က ေရြးေကာက္ပဲြ ေကာ္မရွင္ ဥကၠ႒ ဦးသိန္းစုိးကို ေမးတ့ဲအခါ ဦးသိန္းစုိးက ေျပာင္ေျပာင္ တင္းတင္း လိမ္ညာ ေျဖၾကားလုိက္ပါတယ္။
ဦးသိန္းစုိးက ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေဟာင္း တဦး ျဖစ္ၿပီး စစ္ဘက္ ဆိုင္ရာ တရားသူႀကီးေဟာင္း တဦးလည္း ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ဒါ့အျပင္ ဗဟိုတရားရံုးမွာလည္း ဒုတိယ တရားသူႀကီးခ်ဳပ္ အျဖစ္ တာဝန္ ထမ္းဖူးပါတယ္။ နအဖ ေခါင္းေဆာင္ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္မွဴးႀကီး သန္းေရႊက ဦးသိန္းစုိးကို ေရြးေကာက္ပဲြ ေကာ္မရွင္ ဥကၠ႒ အျဖစ္ ခန္႔အပ္ခဲ့တာပါ။

အေမရိကန္ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္ အဖဲြ႔ကုိ ဦးသိန္းစုိး ျပန္ေျဖၾကားတာေတြကုိ အစိုးရပိုင္ ျမန္မာ့အလင္း သတင္းစာမွာ ေဖာ္ျပခဲ့ပါတယ္။

ဦးသိန္းစုိးက လက္ရိွ ဝန္ႀကီးမ်ား ႏိုင္ငံေရး ပါတီ ေထာင္ျခင္းဟာ ဥပေဒႏွင့္ ကိုက္ညီတယ္လုိ႔ အေၾကာင္း ျပခ်က္ ၂ ခုနဲ႔ သက္ေသျပ ေျဖဆိုပါတယ္။ ပထမအေၾကာင္းျပခ်က္က “ျပည္ေထာင္စု ၾကံ့ခိုင္ေရး နဲ႔ ဖြံ႔ၿဖဳိးေရး ပါတီ တည္ေထာင္တာဟာ ဥပေဒနဲ႔ အညီ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္” ေျပာရမယ္ဆုိရင္ “လက္ရိွ တာဝန္ ထမ္းေဆာင္ဆဲ ႏိုင္ငံ့ ဝန္ထမ္းေတြကို ႏိုင္ငံေရး ပါတီဝင္ခြင့္ မရိွဘူး ဆိုတဲ့ ျပ႒ာန္းခ်က္ တခု ရိွပါတယ္။ ဒါေပမယ့္ ဝန္ႀကီး ဆိုတာ ႏိုင္ငံေရး ရာထူး ျဖစ္ၿပီး ႏိုင္ငံ့ဝန္ထမ္းေတြ မဟုတ္ပါဘူး” လုိ႔ ေျဖဆိုပါတယ္။

ပထမ အေၾကာင္းျပခ်က္ကို ၾကည့္ၾကရေအာင္ပါ။ အစိုးရ ဝန္ႀကီးေတြဟာ ႏိုင္ငံ့ဝန္ထမ္း မဟုတ္ဘူး ဆိုတဲ့ အခ်က္ကုိ ဦးသိန္းစုိးက ဘယ္ဥပေဒ ကိုးကား ေျဖခဲ့ပါသလဲ။ ကမ့္ဘဲလ္က ဦးသိန္းစုိးကို အဲ့ဒီ ေမးခြန္း ေမးခဲ့သလား ဆိုတာ က်ေနာ္ မသိပါဘူး၊ ေမးျမန္း ေစာေၾကာသင့္တဲ့ အရာပါပဲ။

ဧရာဝတီက ဆက္သြယ္ ေမးျမန္းခဲ့တဲ့ ေရွ႕ေနေတြ အဆိုအရ ျပည္ေထာင္စု ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ ရာဇသတ္ႀကီး ဥပေဒမွာ မည္သူဟာ ႏိုင္ငံ့ ဝန္ထမ္း ျဖစ္ၿပီး မည္သူဟာ ႏိုင္ငံ့ဝန္ထမ္း မဟုတ္ ဆိုတာကို ေဖာ္ျပထားပါတယ္။ ထိုရာဇသတ္ႀကီးဥပေဒကို ၁၈၆၁ ခုႏွစ္ ၿဗိတိသွ် အစိုးရ လက္ထက္မွာ ျပ႒ာန္းခဲ့ၿပီး ျပင္ဆင္ ျဖည့္စြက္မႈမ်ားကို ေနာက္ဆံုး အၾကိမ္ အျဖစ္ ၁၉၆၃ ခုႏွစ္ ဧၿပီလ ၂၇ ရက္ေန႔မွာ ျပဳလုပ္ခဲ့ပါတယ္။

ရာဇသတ္ႀကီးဥပေဒ အခန္း (၂) မွာ ဥပေဒ ေဝါဟာရမ်ားကုိ အဓိပၸာယ္ ဖြင့္ဆို ေဖာ္ျပထားပါတယ္။ အဲ့ဒီအခန္းရဲ႕ ပုဒ္မ ၂၁ မွာ “ျပည္သူ႔ဝန္ထမ္း” ဆိုတာ ေအာက္ပါ လူပုဂၢိဳလ္ေတြကို ဆိုလိုပါတယ္၊ ပုဒ္မခဲြ ၉ ရဲ႕ ေအာက္မွာ “အစိုးရ ဝန္ႀကီးမ်ား” လုိ႔ ေဖာ္ျပထားပါတယ္။

၂ဝဝ၈ ခုႏွစ္က ျပ႒ာန္းခဲ့တ့ဲ အေျခခံဥပေဒသစ္ အရ “ႏိုင္ငံ့ဝန္ထမ္း” ဆိုတ့ဲ စကားလံုးကို အဂၤလိပ္ ဘာသာ တိုက္ရိုက္ ျပန္ဆိုရင္ “state servant” လုိ႔ အဓိပၸာယ္ ရပါတယ္။ “ျပည္သူ႔ဝန္ထမ္း” နဲ႔ စကားလံုး မတူညီေပမယ့္ အဓိပၸာယ္ အတူတူပါပဲ။

အထက္ပါ စကားလံုး ႏွစ္ရပ္စလံုးရဲ႕ အနက္ ဖြင့္ဆိုခ်က္ကို ပညာေရး ဝန္ႀကီးဌာန၊ ျမန္မာအဖဲြ႔ ဦးစီးဌာနက ထုတ္ေ၀ထားတ့ဲ ျမန္မာ - အဂၤလိပ္ အဘိဓာန္မွာ “civil servant” လုိ႔ အဓိပၸာယ္ဖြင့္ ဆိုထားပါတယ္။

အဲ့ဒီ အေထာက္ အထားေတြ အရ ဘယ္လို ရႈေထာင့္က ၾကည့္ၾကည့္ ဝန္ႀကီးခ်ဳပ္ ဦးသိန္းစိန္ အပါအဝင္ ဝန္ႀကီးေတြဟာ ႏိုင္ငံ့ဝန္ထမ္းေတြ ျဖစ္ေနပါတယ္။ ေျပာရရင္ USDP ပါတီ တည္ေထာင္တဲ့ ေနရာမွာ အဲ့ဒီ ဝန္ႀကီးေတြ ပါဝင္ေနတာ ဥပေဒနဲ႔ ဆန္႔က်င္ေနတာ ေတြ႔ရပါတယ္။

ျမန္မာ့အလင္း သတင္းစာ ေဖာ္ျပခ်က္အရ USDP ပါတီကို တည္ေထာင္ခြင့္ ရိွတဲ့ အေၾကာင္း ဦးသိန္းစုိးက အေျခခံ ဥပေဒရဲ႕ “ကူးေျပာင္းေရး ကာလ ျပ႒ာန္းခ်က္” အခန္း၊ ပုဒ္မ ၄၄၄ (က)၊ ပုဒ္မ ၄၄၈ တုိ႔ကို အေထာက္အထား အျဖစ္ ရည္ညႊန္းၿပီး အေမရိကန္ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္အဖဲြ႔ကို ရွင္းလင္းခဲ့ပါတယ္။

ဒါဆိုရင္ အဲ့ဒီ ပုဒ္မေတြကို ေလ့လာၾကည့္ရေအာင္ပါ။

ပုဒ္မ ၄၄၄ (က) မွာ “ဤ အေျခခံ ဥပေဒ အာဏာ တည္သည့္ေန႔၌ တည္ရိွေနေသာ အစိုးရ အဖဲြ႔သည္ ဖဲြ႔စည္းပံု အေျခခံ ဥပေဒအရ တာဝန္ေပးအပ္သည့္ အစိုးရ အဖဲြ႔ မေပၚေပါက္မီ မိမိတုိ႔၏ သက္ဆိုင္ရာ တာဝန္မ်ားကို ဆက္လက္ ေဆာင္ရြက္ရမည္” လုိ႔ ဆိုထားပါတယ္။

ပုဒ္မ ၄၄၈ မွာ “ဤဖဲြ႔စည္းပံုအေျခခံဥပေဒ အာဏာ စတင္ တည္သည့္ ေန႔တြင္ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ ေအးခ်မ္း သာယာေရးႏွင့္ ဖြံ႔ၿဖဳိးေရး ေကာင္စီ လက္ေအာက္၌ ဖဲြ႔စည္း ထားရိွသည့္ တပ္မေတာ္အပါအဝင္ ဌာနဆိုင္ရာ အဖဲြ႔ အစည္းမ်ား၌ အမႈထမ္းဆဲ ျဖစ္ၾကေသာ ႏိုင္ငံ ဝန္ထမ္းမ်ားသည္ ျပည္ေထာင္စု ျမန္မာ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ အစိုးရက အျခား ျပ႒ာန္းျခင္းမျပဳသမွ် ဆက္လက္အမႈထမ္းရမည္” လုိ႔ ဆိုထားပါတယ္။

ဒီ ျပ႒ာန္းခ်က္ေတြကို ႏွစ္ႀကိမ္္ သံုးႀကိမ္ ျပန္လွန္ ေလ့လာခဲ့ပါတယ္။ အဲ့ဒီပုဒ္မေတြဟာ USDP ပါတီ ထူေထာင္တာနဲ႔ ဆက္စပ္လုိ႔ ရတာ တခုမွ မေတြ႔မိပါဘူး။

“အစိုးရ”၊ “ႏိုင္ငံဝန္ထမ္း”၊ “တပ္မေတာ္”၊ “ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ ေအးခ်မ္း သာယာေရးႏွင့္ ဖြံ႔ၿဖဳိးေရး ေကာင္စီ” အစရိွတဲ့ အသံုးအနံႈးေတြကို ယခုပုဒ္ေတြမွာ သံုးထားပါတယ္။ ဒါေပမယ့္ ဝန္ႀကီးခ်ဳပ္ဟာ ဥပေဒအရ ကိုယ္ပိုင္ ႏိုင္ငံေရးပါတီ တည္ေထာင္ခြင့္ ရိွတယ္ ဆိုတဲ့ ေရြးေကာက္ပဲြ ေကာ္မရွင္ ဥကၠ႒ ညြန္းဆိုခဲ့သလို အဆိုပါ ပုဒ္မေတြက အေထာက္အကူ ျပဳထားတာ တခ်က္တေလမွ တိုက္ရိုက္ ပါဝင္ေနတာ မရိွသလို အဲ့ဒီလို အဓိပၸာယ္ သက္ေရာက္ေအာင္လည္း ဖြင့္ဆိုလို႔ မရႏိုင္ပါဘူး။

အေျခခံဥပေဒမွာ ႏိုင္ငံ့ ဝန္ထမ္းႏွင့္ ႏိုင္ငံေရးအၾကား တိုက္ရိုက္ နယ္နိမိတ္ စည္းျခားထားတဲ့ ပုဒ္မ ၂၆ (က)၊ ပုဒ္မ ၁၂၁ (ည) ေတြမွာ မတူညီမႈ ရိွေနျခင္းကို ကဲြကဲြ ျပားျပား တိုက္ရိုက္ ခဲြျခား ျပဆိုထားပါတယ္။

ပုဒ္မ ၂၆ (က) မွာ “ႏိုင္ငံ ဝန္ထမ္းမ်ားသည္ ပါတီ ႏိုင္ငံေရးႏွင့္ ကင္းရွင္းရမည္” လုိ႔ ဆိုထားပါတယ္။

ပုဒ္မ ၁၂၁ မွာ “ေအာက္ပါပုဂၢိဳလ္မ်ားသည္ ျပည္သူ႔ လႊတ္ေတာ္ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္ အျဖစ္ ေရြးေကာက္ တင္ေျမွာက္ခံပိုင္ခြင့္ မရိွေစရ” လုိ႔ ဆိုထားၿပီး အဲဒီ ေခါင္းစဥ္ေအာက္မွာ ရာဇဝတ္အက်ဥ္းသားမ်ား၊ စိတ္ ေပါ့သြပ္သူမ်ား၊ ႏိုင္ငံျခားသားမ်ား အစရိွသည္တုိ႔ ပါဝင္တယ္။

ပုဒ္မခဲြ (ည) မွာ “ႏိုင္ငံ့ဝန္ထမ္း” လုိ႔ ဆက္လက္ပါရိွ ပါတယ္။

ဒါေပမယ့္ ပုဒ္မ ၁၂၁ (ည)မွာ “ႏိုင္ငံ့ဝန္ထမ္း” ဆိုတဲ့ စကားရပ္ကို ျခြင္းခ်က္ ထားထားပါတယ္၊ အဲ့ဒါကေတာ့ “ဖဲြ႔စည္းပံု အေျခခံ ဥပေဒ အရ ဖဲြ႔စည္းေသာ လႊတ္ေတာ္မ်ားႏွင့္ အဖဲြ႔ အစည္းမ်ားတြင္ ေရြးခ်ယ္ ခန္႔အပ္ျခင္း ခံရသည့္ တပ္မေတာ္သားမ်ား အပါအဝင္ ႏိုင္ငံ့ ဝန္ထမ္းမ်ားႏွင့္ မသက္ဆိုင္ေစရ” လုိ႔ ေဖာ္ျပထားပါတယ္။

“ေရြးခ်ယ္ ခန္႔အပ္ထားေသာ” ဆုိတ့ဲ စကားရပ္ကို သတိျပဳဖုိ႔ လိုပါတယ္။ အဲ့ဒီ စကားရပ္ဟာ “ေရြးေကာက္ခံထားရေသာ” လုိ႔ အဓိပၸာယ္ မရပါ။ အဲ့ဒါေၾကာင့္ ဒီျပ႒ာန္းခ်က္ဟာ တပ္မေတာ္ ကာကြယ္ေရး ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္က ေရြးခ်ယ္ ခန္႔အပ္မယ့္ ျပည္သူ႔ လႊတ္ေတာ္ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္ေတြ အတြက္သာ ျဖစ္တယ္ ဆိုတာ ရွင္းရွင္း လင္းလင္း ျမင္ႏိုင္ပါတယ္။

ဒါေၾကာင့္ အဲ့ဒီ ဥပေဒျခြင္းခ်က္ဟာ USDP ပါတီကို ထူေထာင္ခဲ့ၾကတဲ့ လက္ရိွ ဝန္ႀကီးမ်ားနဲ႔ မသက္ ဆိုင္ပါ။

ဦးသိန္းစုိး ေျဖၾကားခ်က္ေတြဟာ အမွန္တရားနဲ႔ ကဲြလဲြေနပါတယ္။ စစ္အစိုးရက ၁၄ ႏွစ္ၾကာ ေရးဆဲြခဲ့ၿပီး ၂ဝဝ၈ ခုႏွစ္မွာ အတည္ျပဳခဲ့တဲ့ အေျခခံ ဥပေဒက လက္ရိွ တာဝန္ ထမ္းေဆာင္ေနတဲ့ ဝန္ႀကီးခ်ဳပ္က ျဖစ္ေစ၊ အျခား အစိုးရ ဝန္ႀကီးေတြက ျဖစ္ေစ ႏိုင္ငံေရး ပါတီ ဖဲြ႔စည္း ထူေထာင္တာကို ခြင့္ျပဳထားတာ မရိွပါဘူး။

အဲ့ဒါေၾကာင့္ ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံရဲ႕ တည္ဆဲဥပေဒေတြအရ USDP ပါတီဟာ တရားဝင္ ႏိုင္ငံေရးပါတီ မဟုတ္ပါဘူး။

ႏိုင္ငံေရးပါတီေတြ မွတ္ပံုတင္တဲ့ အခါ ႏိုင္ငံေရး ပါတီတိုင္းက ကိုယ္စားလွယ္ေတြဟာ အေျခခံ ဥပေဒကို ေစာင့္ထိန္း လိုက္နာပါမယ္လုိ႔ လက္မွတ္ထိုးၾကရပါတယ္။ ႏိုင္ငံေရး ပါတီမ်ား မွတ္ပံုတင္ျခင္း ဥပေဒ ပုဒ္မ ၆ (ဂ)၊ ပုဒ္မ ၁၂ (က/၄) တုိ႔အရ ေရြးေကာက္ပဲြ ေကာ္မရွင္ဟာ ဥပေဒကို ေဖာက္ဖ်က္တဲ့ ဘယ္လို ႏိုင္ငံေရး ပါတီကို မဆို ဖ်က္သိမ္းႏိုင္တဲ့ အခြင့္ အာဏာ ရိွပါတယ္။

ဒါေပမယ့္ ေရြးေကာက္ပဲြ ေကာ္မရွင္ဟာ ဒီဥပေဒကို က်င့္သံုးၿပီး USDP ကို ဖ်က္သိမ္းတာမ်ဳိး မလုပ္ပါဘူး။

ပိုၿပီး ဆိုးရြားတာကေတာ့ ျမန္မာ ျပည္သူေတြအဖုိ႔ ႏိုင္ငံတြင္းမွာ ျဖစ္ေစ၊ ႏိုင္ငံတကာမွာ ျဖစ္ေစ တရားမွ်တမႈကို ရွာေဖြဖုိ႔ အတြက္ ေရြးခ်ယ္စရာ ဥပေဒ လမ္းေၾကာင္း ရိွမေနတဲ့ ျပႆနာပဲ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။

ဧရာဝတီမဂၢဇင္း၏ ေရြးေကာက္ပဲြ စာမ်က္ႏွာ တာဝန္ခံ ထက္ေအာင္ ေရးသားသည့္ “USDP Illegal under Constitution” ကို ဆီေလ်ာ္ေအာင္ ဘာသာျပန္ဆိုထားျခင္း ျဖစ္သည္။


USDP Illegal under Constitution
By HTET AUNG - Friday, May 14, 2010
The Irrawaddy - COMMENTARY:
“Justice and power must be brought together, so that whatever is just may be powerful, and whatever is powerful may be just,” said Blaise Pascal, a 17th-century French philosopher.

But in 21st-century Burma, justice and power are still poles apart. One of the main reasons for this is that the military junta's top legal experts interpret the law with the interests of the generals, not the people, in mind.

The most recent high-profile abuse of the law happened during the May 9-10 official visit of a US delegation led by Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell.

Asked by the delegation on whether the formation of a political party by the incumbent ministers was in accord with the law of the land, Thein Soe, the chairman of the Union Election Commission (EC) cunningly responded with two direct lies. Thein Soe is a former military judge advocate-general and later served as deputy chief justice of the Supreme Court. Junta supremo Snr-Gen Than Shwe recently appointed him head of the EC. His response was published by the state-run New Light of Myanmar on Wednesday.

He replied that indeed the move was legal and he presented the Americans with two reasons. First he said that the “present ministers’ formation of the Union Solidarity and Development Party [USDP] is in conformity with the law,” because “a provision says that state service personnel shall not be organized in political parties, [but] ministers are political posts, not state service personnel.”

Let's address that first point briefly. On what legal basis does Thein Soe interpret government ministers as not being state service personnel? I don’t know whether Kurt Campbell chose to shoot this question back at Thein Soe, but it really is a curious statement.

Lawyers who spoke to The Irrawaddy said that the legal text defining who is and who is not a civil servant in Burma is found in the Penal Code of the Union of Burma, which was issued in 1861 under British administration, and was last amended on April 27, 1963.

Chapter 2 of the Penal Code gives the legal explanations of the terms. Article 21 of this chapter reads: “Pyithu Wonhtan [public servant] means the following persons:” and it lists under sub-article (9) that this includes “government ministers.”

In the 2008 Constitution, the text uses the Burmese term “Naingant Wonhtan,” which can be directly translated as “state servant,” as opposed to “Pyithu Wonhtan.” However, there is no difference between the two.

Both Burmese expressions mean “Civil Servant” in the Myanmar-English Dictionary issued by the Department of the Myanmar Language Commission under the Ministry of Education.

Therefore, Prime Minister Thein Sein and his colleagues must be deemed as “Naingant Wonhtan” or “civil servants,” whichever way you look at it. In short, their participation in forming the USDP contradicts the law.

According to the New Light of Myanmar, Thein Soe then referred the US delegation to Article 444 (A) and 448 of the Constitution’s “Transitory Provisions” as evidence that the Constitution and Burmese law permitted the founding of the USDP by the military government.

So, let's take a look at these articles.

Article 444 (A) reads: “The Government that exists on the day this Constitution comes into operation shall continue to discharge the respective duties until the emergence of the new Government formed and assigned duties in accord with this Constitution.”

Article 448 reads: “All functioning Civil Services personnel of departmental organizations including the Defense Services under the State Peace and Development Council on the day this Constitution comes into operation, shall continue in their functions unless otherwise prescribed by the Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar.”

I reread these provisions as second and then a third time. But I still could not see the relevance of the articles to the foundation of the USDP.

The terms “Government,” “Civil Services personnel,” “Defense Services” and “State Peace and Development Council” are all used in these articles; however, they don’t directly refer to—and certainly cannot be interpreted to allude to—the EC chairman's claim that the prime minister is allowed by law to form his own political party.

Within the Constitution, there are two articles—Article 26 (a) and 121 (j)—that directly draw a line between the civil service and politics.

Article 26 (a) reads: “Civil Services personnel shall be free from party politics.”

Article 121 reads: “The following persons shall not be entitled to be elected as the Pyithu Hluttaw [People's Parliament] representatives: ...” and it goes on to list convicted criminals, persons of unsound mind, foreigners, etc. Sub-article (j) reads “Civil Services personnel.”

However, the Article 121 (j) contains a proviso: “The expression shall not be applied to Civil Services personnel including the Defense Services personnel selected and appointed in the Hluttaws and organizations formed under the Constitution.”

To me, the words “selected and appointed” stand out. It does not say “elected.” Therefore, the proviso clearly applies to military-appointed parliamentary representatives who will be selected and appointed by the Commander-in-Chief.

It cannot be applied, however, to the ministers who formed the USDP.

Thein Soe's comments were clearly unrepresentative of the truth. The 2008 Constitution—which the military junta spent over 14 years drafting into their own words—does not allow for an incumbent prime minister nor other government ministers to found a new political party.

The USDP is, in effect, illegal under Burmese law.

In the application process for political party registration, the representatives of each political party are required to sign a declaration that they will abide by the Constitution.

Article 6 (c) and 12 (a/4) of the Political Parties Registration Law, states that the EC has the right to disband any party that violates their declaration.

The EC has evidently chosen not to apply the law to the USDP.

And to make matters worse, the people of Burma have no legal mechanism, domestically or internationally, to seek justice.


**Htet Aung is the chief reporter on The Irrawaddy**

Read More...

Summary only...

THE NATION (Bangkok) 11th Jan 2010 Pg. 14: Migration Management in Thailand in 2010 - Effective Registration or Effective Deportation?

***Managing migration in 2010: effective registration or effective
deportation?
***By ANDY HALL**
ON JANUARY 20, in just eight working days, the end of the "permission to
stay and work in Thailand for one year, pending deportation" will arrive
for 61,543 Burmese, Cambodian and Laotian migrants who "illegally" entered
the country. As the first migrant work-permit-renewal deadline of the year
it is, however, somewhat different to past deadlines. For, if any of these
workers refuse to go through the Thai government's Nationality Verification
(NV) process, policy announcements suggest they will be deported. Whether
deportation starts then or on February 28 - the "final" deadline to agree
to NV or be deported for the other million or so registered migrants whose
work permits expire on that day - remains unclear.

NV is the Thai government's policy to formalise the status of some of the
approximately two million migrants from Burma, Cambodian and Laos currently
working in Thailand. These workers contribute an estimated 5-6 per cent of
Thailand's GDP and make up around five per cent of the nation's workforce.
For these people who work in Thailand's most dangerous, dirty and demeaning
jobs, NV is apparently required because they left their countries without
permission and entered Thailand "illegally". They are currently
nationality-less labourers. As around 90 per cent of these workers are from
Burma and in the most unenviable position of all, urgent attention must be
given to this group.

**CLEAR CHOICE**
Migrants from Burma have since 2008 been given a clear choice by the Thai
government. Whatever their ethnicity or personal histories, they must send
their biographical details to the Burmese government and see if it agrees
that they are "Burmese". If "no", no one yet knows what would happen to
them as the Thai government has yet to make any policy announcements on
this issue and it is unclear where they could be deported too. But if
"yes", they can request permission from the Interior Ministry to leave
their province of registration and return for NV in Burma. Cambodian and
Laotian workers have the luxury of their officials coming to see them in
Thailand, but Burma has for years refused such a sensible step, giving the
Thai government an understandable headache! If once migrants arrive in
Burma they are not arrested - rumours continue to abound they will be - and
are "approved" as being Burmese, they will get a three-year Bt100 (3,000
kyat) "temporary" passport. These "Burmese" nationals then return to
Thailand "legally" and receive a Bt500 two-year visa. Total costs: Bt600.

However, the NV process is not as easy as it seems. There are 13 steps
involving at least three Thai ministries, the Burmese Embassy in Bangkok
and a few more Burmese ministries. Unless you like adventure, employers and
migrants are well advised to hire a broker for the journey. According to a
Labour Ministry statement on December 22, in response to a Thai PBS
documentary on these brokers, an ever increasing number of broker companies
has been approved by the Burmese Embassy and have nothing to do with the
Labour Ministry. This is despite the fact they are all based in and
registered in Thailand. Costs for NV increase from around Bt600 to Bt6,000
with a broker. And that does not include the yearly fees for a work permit
(Bt1,800), health check-up (Bt600) and health insurance (Bt1,300). For
migrants who often earn as little as Bt4,000-5,000 per month, it's a small
fortune most would prefer to send to their families in Burma. Most still
have not paid off debts for the last work permit renewal. Costs are just
one part of the equation, however. Security risks associated with the
involvement of the Burmese government in NV weigh heavily on migrants'
minds, as does the suspected relationship between NV and the 2010 Burmese
elections.

However, there seems to be more pressing problems. The Labour Ministry has
yet to announce its policy on renewal of migrant work permits that expire
on January 20 or February 28. The government has also yet to officially
announce what it will do given that as a result of high costs, lack of
transparency, perceived insecurity, multi-layered bureaucracy and a lack of
public awareness (by both migrants and employers) associated with NV, in
almost one year only around 6,000 migrants from Burma have completed the
process. In addition, NV relates just to the 1 million-plus migrants
currently registered. There are at least a million more workers
unregistered.

The Alien Workers Management Committee (AWMC) apparently decided on
December 21, 2009 that it would submit the following recommendations to the
Cabinet to deal with this unfortunate mess: (1) An extension of NV from
February 28, 2010 for two years to allow all those concerned to get their
act together and make NV a success; (2) Only migrants who are currently
registered and agree to NV should be allowed to stay in Thailand and renew
their work permits during these two years. For others, mass deportation
presumably starts?

The Thai government seems to be making it clear that February 28 is the
end of the era of year-on-year piecemeal migrant registration in Thailand
and the move to NV. Thailand will no longer allow the country to be overrun
by "illegal" migrants and all import and export of migrants must now be
formalised between governments. MoUs with Cambodia, Laos and Burma must be
made to work effectively. All eyes are now on the Cabinet (perhaps during
the meeting tomorrow) where the AWMC recommendations will either be
approved, modified or rejected. The Human Rights and Development
Foundation's Migrant Justice Programme (MJP) comes into contact daily with
migrants from Burma whose work permits expire on January 20. Fear,
sleepless nights and stress are building in migrant communities. What if
work permits are not renewed, especially for the significant number of
migrants who have been working and living in Thailand for more than 10
years now? Migrants are considering if they shall have to go underground
within days, or even just give up with a free deportation journey home to
Burma to start a new chapter in their confusing lives.

As usual, the policy decision from the Cabinet is keenly awaited by
migrant communities from Burma and makes once again for their precarious
existence. But this year the executive decision is later than usual in
coming. If all this is formalised tomorrow, that leaves just five working
days for over 60,000 migrants (if they have agreed to NV) to renew their
work permits. Migrants, employers and officials feel a last-minute
administrative headache coming on again.

But more worryingly, is January 20 also the first round of mass
deportations of those migrants who refuse to go through NV, with the second
round coming soon after on February 28? At MJP, we also hear daily what
migrants who refuse to go through NV think about returning to life in
Burma. Given many refusing to go through NV are from Burma's ethnic
minorities, we hear about their past lives in Shan, Karen or Mon states. We
also hear what they think about going underground again and the pressures
on them as being for years the breadwinners for their families.

**EAGERLY AWAITING POLICY**

That leaves us also eagerly awaiting the Thai government's policy
regarding the potentially mass deportations of such huge numbers of
migrants, especially after the recent international attention given to
Hmong and Rohingya incidents. We receive some comfort from Thailand's
statement in the UN's Human Rights Council on June 2, 2009, in which it
said, "Thailand attaches importance to the rights of all migrant workers,
and well recognises their valuable contribution to our labour market." But
the recent return home of thousands of Hmong sends a shiver up our spines.
We are concerned at this time not only for our friends and our communities,
but also for employers and the Thai economy, which continues to be heavily
dependent on these workers.

Mass deportation is surely not possible, right? But if mass deportation
did go ahead, would the government ensure it was "real" deportation and not
the usual arrest and costly release processes we have all seen for years?
Would migrants return to Thailand on the same day as they were deported to
Burma and things go on as normal?

The migrant-worker issue in Thailand will take on increased importance
this year. Let's hope that the winners are migrants, their employers and
the economy, and the losers irregular migration, bureaucracy, lack of
transparency and even violence.

***Andy Hall is the director of the Human Rights and Development Foundation's
Migrant Justice Programme.

Read More...

Summary only...

Nationality Verification of Burmese Migrants: A Meaningful Debate

By Andy Hall
Published on October 30, 2009
The Thai Government recently reiterated its policy to formalise the status of around 2 million migrants from Burma working here. Nationality verification (NV) is apparently required because these migrants left Burma without permission and entered Thailand "illegally".
What with an abundance of brokers assisting them, and the fact that wide swathes of the Thai economy remain reliant on them, it's easy to get in at a cost. Once registered to work "legally" in the most dangerous jobs Thailand has to offer, migrants' status remains "illegal, pending deportation". Refused work accident compensation, the right to ride

motorbikes and travel outside a province of registration, migrants live in a grey hole where insecurity and exploitation thrives.
So something apparently needed to be done to solve this unjust situation. NV means that migrants become both "Burmese" and "legal" at the same time. They also receive a "temporary" passport, which entitles them to benefits in Thailand they were previously denied.
Since NV involves working with the junta, difficulties were always going to arise. While Cambodia and Laos sent diplomats to complete NV for their workers in Thailand, Burma insisted its workers return home to complete the process. NV for Burmese workers ground to a halt - only to reawaken last year when Thailand allowed the process to be completed on Burmese soil.
Many observers, including political groups engaged in a sixty-year political struggle against the junta, sensed NV was not a magic solution to Thailand's irregular migration challenges. Instead, it seemed a tad fishy. So is NV a win-win process? If not, the lives of millions of migrants are potentially at stake.
Migrants currently send their biographical information to the Burmese authorities and then travel to Burma to complete NV. Since August, six NV centres have become operational on both sides of three main Burma-Thailand border crossings. Two more centres are planned. Once the process is complete, migrants return with "temporary" passports and two-year visas.
However, for many, NV remains a migrant's worst nightmare and should not be attempted.
Firstly, NV is potentially dangerous, especially for migrants from the plethora of ethnic groups in Burma who are still at war with the Burmese. They are being asked to deal directly with the junta, which for many is a scary prospect that brings fear of persecution and imprisonment for themselves and their families.
Secondly, NV is complex and non-transparent. Thailand has mounted no public awareness campaign. Officials simply tell migrants to complete NV before February 28, 2010 or be deported. A Burmese government leaflet is the only official information released - claiming the process is "risk free, cheap and friendly". The reality is that few migrants believe the junta.
Thirdly, NV is costly. The current price is Bt3,000 to 10,000. Brokers remain unregulated and are fleecing migrants, given that someone needs to guide them through the 13-step process. The costs are inappropriate, given that a previous migrant registration process just ended, and migrant incomes are so low.
With such a secretive process, there has been much talk: Land confiscation for families of migrants attempting NV; migrants from Bangkok arrested on arrival in Myawaddy and sent to Insein Prison; widespread extortion by junta officials; migrants committing suicide to avoid the process. Few can ascertain whether these rumours are true, but Thai and Burmese officials denied them outright when they met the media in Bangkok recently.
Migrants have many serious questions about NV, but receive few answers. How is nationality verified? How long does it take? Why are Muslims excluded? What are the actual benefits? Why does Burma refuse to allow NV to take place in Thailand? Is NV related to the 2010 Burmese election? No official answers. So migrants simply dismiss statements that deny the risks.
The number of migrants completing NV is still low - only around 2,000 of an eligible 1 million have been issued temporary passports. But for advocates of migrant rights, should we accept NV as a beneficial reality and move to discuss how it can be undertaken most effectively and safely? What are the alternatives?
Since the early 1990s, Thailand has implemented a piecemeal migrant registration policy that has neither protected rights nor effectively managed flows. The standard procedure has been yearly Cabinet resolutions to allow registration of migrants for 30 days, or occasionally granting an amnesty to all aliens in the country. Costs are Bt3,800 for a work permit and health insurance. Often no change of employer is allowed. Due to lack of awareness, it's not rare for officials to learn about registration policies after they have been implemented, while employers seem to miss the processes altogether before they end for another year.
So on balance, NV appears a more viable system for managing irregular migration in Thailand than anything. It can at least potentially formalise entry and exit from the country in a way that could reduce exploitation, smuggling and even perhaps trafficking. But if a migrant's home country is Burma, does something change?
Of course, the root cause of Burmese migrants' problems is Burma itself. But until that problem can be solved, Thailand cannot deny its responsibility to regulate Burmese migrants and support their access to rights and welfare in the most effective way it can. Activists too should share this heavy burden.
The Thai government's new NV policy, whatever its ulterior motive may be, should be welcomed. For it has started a meaningful debate. When one of the most vulnerable workforces in the world is faced with systematic exploitation - characterised by one country that refuses to acknowledge its benefits and another that refuses to respond to it - the debate will eventually expose the serious predicament faced by Burmese migrants currently toiling in Thailand.
These migrants are usually passive victims of a situation they were not involved in creating. To be the subjects of intense discussion - which may eventually find a lasting solution to their sad predicament - is surely the least they deserve.

(Andy Hall is director of the Human Rights and Development Foundation's Migrant Justice Programme.)

Read More...

Summary only...

Cheating the System: Burmese Migrants and Nationality Verification

Cheating the System: Burmese Migrants and Nationality Verification - Bangkok Post Feature Sunday 18th Oct 2009

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/investigation/25873/cheating-the-system
News » Investigative Report
Cheating the system
Despite a new nationality verification programme, Thailand's immigrant
workers still face problems trying to stay legal
Published: 18/10/2009 at 12:00 AM
Newspaper section: Spectrum

Earlier this year, a colourful leaflet written in Burmese script, began
circulating in Samut Sakhon, Mae Sot, Rayong and migrant communities all
over Thailand.

SCANT INFORMATION: The leaflet explaining the nationality verification
programme.
The leaflet, prepared by the Burmese government with assistance and funding
from international organisations, provided instructions for Burmese migrant
workers on how to become legalised after verifying their nationality. It
pictured three new centres in Burma where, from July 15, workers could
receive temporary passports that allow them to apply for work permits in
Thailand, and ultimately receive the same benefits and protection as Thai
workers. Expenses, it said, would be only 3,000 kyats (100 baht).

The front flap of the cover was stamped with a Burmese police logo and
promised that the process will involve "No Arresting, No stop/check, No
Tax".

To the many the pamphlet was targeting, the programme sounded too good to
be true. And in many ways, though perhaps not in the ways they were
expecting, they've been right.

The Labour Ministry has set Feb 28, 2010, as the deadline for nationality
verification for all workers (1.2 million are eligible). Those that are
unverified at that point are theoretically subject to arrest and
deportation.

SATISFIED CUSTOMERS: Some of the success stories at the Thai-Myanmar
Development Cooperation Co. LEGALISED: The proud owner of a new Burmese
passport.
Yet more than three months into the process, only 2,000 Burmese migrants
have had their nationality verified. Burmese nationality verification
centres say they are now processing 200 people per day on average (the
capacity for the three centres is said to be 1,000 per day), a rate that
many advocates have pointed out will legalise Thailand's Burmese migrant
population only after a number of years.

But the policy has been panned by international organisations and migrant
advocacy groups for being complicated, costly, time-consuming,
non-transparent, insensitive, under-publicised and not fully explained to
migrant workers.

"It's a train wreck," says Philip Robertson, the technical adviser on
migration and workers' rights for the South East Asian Refugee Community
Home, and a seasoned expert on migration policies in the Asean region.

While most believe the nationality verification effort was borne of good
intentions and is, in theory, a step towards better management of a growing
migrant population, observers charge the programme has become a
seriously-flawed policy, and at worst, a corrupt and insincere "paper
exercise" designed to exploit the country's migrant workers.

ALL IN A DAY’S WORK: Many Burmese migrant workers are involved in
Thailand’s fishing industry.
The process has drawn the watchful eye of the United Nations Inter-agency
Project on Human Trafficking (Uniap) and enough concern that the UN Special
Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants was petitioned by a number of
migrant advocacy groups in September. The Special Rapporteur requested an
investigatory visit, which Thailand has denied.

Though only a tiny fraction of Thailand's migrant workers have been through
the process, there is already abundant evidence to bear out the concerns.

Aung, a 26-year-old worker who has been in Thailand for 10 years, is one of
the 2,000 Burmese migrants who has had his nationality verified.

He received his temporary passport on Aug 18, and spent 6,450 baht in the
process - 100 baht for his passport in Burma, 2,000 baht for a visa for
Thailand and the remainder for services provided by a company called CEO
Enterprise.

Among CEO Enterprise's services were a 250 baht plastic membership card
(much like a gym ID), submission of personal documents to the Department of
Employment (DoE) and a bus ride to and from the nationality verification
centre in Tachilek.

His work permit will cost him an additional 3,800 baht, and he will be a
legal worker after spending a total of 10,250 baht. He also paid 3,800 baht
earlier this year, to extend his visa.

Like many in Samut Sakhon, he earns less than 200 baht a day, and his
employer is deducting the cost of these fees from his wages at a rate of
2,000 baht every 50 days.

Yet, the cost to Aung turns out to have been a relative bargain.

ONE-STOP SHOP: One of several government-approved brokers offering services
to migrant workers.
The price at the Thai-Myanmar Development Cooperation Company, another
nationality verification service provider, is 7,300 baht, while CEO
Enterprise has been known to charge varying rates (it would not disclose
its price when contacted by Spectrum). Aung's sister was asked to pay
12,000 baht. Others, according to the Human Rights Development Foundation
(HRDF) and Rak Thai Foundation, have been charged up to 15,000 baht.

CEO Enterprise, the Thai-Myanmar Development Cooperation Company and NIK
Global were endorsed by the DoE as registered companies with Thailand's
Ministry of Commerce to assist in the nationality verification process. The
DoE issued the endorsement after the Burmese Embassy asked about the
legalities of the service providers.

In some provinces, workers have been told by DoE employees they must use
one of the brokers; in others, that the brokers will expedite the process.

The swift and non-transparent entrance of these three companies into the
process in which there are 1.2 million potential clients has made observers
suspicious. Some of the firms have connections to military and former
labour ministry officials, according to human rights workers and employers
familiar with the process.

The steep fees being charged by the three has exacerbated those concerns,
and earlier this week provoked a demand from Burmese officials - NGOs have
been making similar demands for weeks - for regulation of the companies and
a price cap of 1,000 baht.

In a news release last Tuesday, the DoE said the companies would be
regulated and their prices capped at 4,000 baht.

"Any time third parties are involved, costs go up, and ultimately those
costs are paid by the migrant," says Federico Soda, a regional programme
development officer with the International Organisation for Migration, who
points out that the current costs of nationality verification through a
broker service and a work permit amounts in some cases to four months'
salary of a migrant worker earning the minimum wage (4,000 baht per month,
but many make less). Without a broker, it costs about two months' wages. In
either case, "it's too expensive", he said.

There have been other cost irregularities. The DoE says the price of the
Thai visa will be reduced from 2,000 to 500 baht - what Cambodian and Lao
workers are charged. But it is unclear when this will happen, why Burmese
migrant workers are charged more, or if they will be reimbursed. There is
also the problem of unregistered brokers recently entering the business and
in some cases, disappearing with workers' money.

An employer in the seafood industry in Samut Sakhon who did not wish to be
identified says the system is mired in corruption. Knowing the inflated
prices of the brokers' services, the employer chose to register the
factory's thousands of migrant employees without using a broker.

When the employer took the applications to the Samut Sakhon employment
office, the employer was told that it was not the company's scheduled day
for submissions. The company had never been informed there was a schedule.
Only after paying a fee, were the applications accepted. The employer also
says that influential factories in the area have managed to pay a fee to
have their workers exempted from the process.

An official with Thailand's Department of Labour Protection and Welfare
(DLPW) conceded corruption was a problem in the process and there were
investigations underway.

Mr Robertson says: "Brokers exist because the system doesn't work - it's so
complicated that employers have no choice but to outsource the task to a
third party." He adds that in the region, foreign labour recruitment and
servicing has "always been seen as a business opportunity for
well-connected elites".

Yet there is also evidence that the nationality verification business has
not been the boon many were expecting.

The day I visited, the brand new Samut Sakhon branch of the Thai-Myanmar
Development Cooperation Company was empty, aside from its 12 staff and a
few workmen installing light fixtures.

Employees were busying themselves, creating information boards with
photographs showing the company's success stories.

A Thai staff member explained the company helped Burmese workers get
passports. He explained they charged 7,300 baht for "full service", which
is a vague package that includes "transportation, food and other services".

He admitted that their first two months in the business had been tough.

The office had seen only about 200 applicants, only 29 of whom had been
approved and sent by bus to the border to obtain their temporary passports.

Business had been dampened by widespread rumours, fear and ignorance of the
process, he explained.

This, by all accounts, is true, and is due in large part to the lack of
foresight that was given to implementing and communicating the policy, as
well as a lack of consideration for those most affected by it.

Where nationality verification takes place has been a contentious issue -
this was the point that prevented agreement until last year, when Thailand
conceded and reportedly funded the border centres and provided computers
for the Burmese officials.

The Burmese reportedly feared centres based in Thailand would be targeted
by political groups, even though travel to Burma is costly, inconvenient
and time consuming for migrants and their employers.

The trip for many migrants - notably those from ethnic minorities that in
the past have been terrorised by Burmese authorities through forced labour,
displacement or worse - is also unnerving.

The nationality verification process, which requires submission of personal
and family details to Burmese authorities, has stirred suspicions that such
information is being collected for more sinister purposes. Many also
suspect that the urgent implementation of the process before an election
year is not a coincidence.

Rumours are widespread within migrant communities that Burmese authorities
are physically threatening and/or extorting money from the families of
applicants. There are also stories circulating that busloads of applicants
have been arrested at the border and taken to Insein prison.

While many advocates admit such behaviour would not be out of keeping for
Burma's military junta, they caution, that, despite much effort to do so,
none of the stories have been substantiated. Many suspect political
opposition groups and people traffickers who have made large sums of money
smuggling and extorting illegal Burmese workers over the years are
spreading the stories.

Even so, fear persists. Many migrant workers receive phone calls from their
families in Burma, pressing them not to go through with nationality
verification for fears over their safety. The majority of the migrants
interviewed for this story either refused to complete a nationality
verification application or, if forced to do so by their employer,
submitted false information.

The official with DLPW said half the applications that had been received
had incorrect information. In those cases, the applications are sent back
to employers, who ask workers to correct the forms.

Advocates stress that disinformation has flourished, largely because the
process has not been clearly explained. Aside from the leaflet produced by
international organisations on behalf of the Burmese government, there has
been no formal information to help migrant workers.

The Thai government's public relations effort was limited to alerting
employers of the policy and asking them to inform and distribute
nationality verification forms to workers.

There seems to have been little awareness that minority ethnic groups
persecuted by the regime would not want to be labelled ''Burmese'' or in
fact that some may not be given such a status. Muslims from Burma, such as
the Rohingya, are excluded from the process.

In focus groups conducted by the HRDF with 80 workers from Chiang Mai,
Bangkok and Samut Sakhon, lack of awareness of, and a lack of trust in the
national verification process, was prevalent. For instance, they were
unaware whether they had to verify their nationality, the costs involved,
what benefits it would bring and what the consequences would be if they did
not.

''I don't understand anything about this issue. It's like they are ordering
us to go into a cave, but we don't know what's inside. Is it dangerous?''
asked one man.

While some in the focus group had sworn off the process _ including a woman
who makes 110 baht a day and finds it far too expensive, and a man who
believed it was simply a disingenuous ploy to win votes in the upcoming
election _ most migrants interviewed seemed to be at various stages of
weighing up the personal costs, benefits and risks. There are reports that
the process has driven workers home to Burma and to seek refugee cards in
Malaysia, though most observers doubt there will be significant migrations,
because those journeys are also costly.

Mr Soda of the International Organisation for Migration concedes the
process puts migrants in a difficult position. ''If migrants do not accept
these conditions, they risk being dismissed by their employers. Migrants
will be assessing the cost of the process, versus the benefits.''

How robust those benefits will be is also being questioned. While most
observers agree that it should improve the legal status of workers, they
are also quick to point out that it won't necessarily improve workers'
rights.

''It's a thin layer of protection,'' says Paul Buckley of Uniap, noting
that the longstanding problems of employers holding on to the passports of
workers they fear would otherwise run away, will likely continue.

''This happens with documented Cambodians and Laos,'' says Mr Soda. ''Even
when they go through the proper channels. Suddenly they have this precious
piece of ID. It cost a lot, it took time and employers will still withhold
it and they'll still have debts to pay. That won't go away.''

Mr Robertson advocates a system in which workers are registered
independently and allowed to change employers freely. ''This would force
good practices and place an upward pressure on standards.''

Others suggested solutions include reducing the costs, extending the time
period (which everyone I spoke to called ''impossible''), eliminating
third-party brokers, moving jlnationality verification to Thailand and
better educating migrants and employers on the process.

There are signs some of these doubts are starting to receive attention. The
MoL has tinkered with the policy in recent weeks, extending the programme
to workers' children and vowing to regulate the nationality verification
brokers.

While these are improvements, observers are concerned by the failure of
both governments involved to acknowledge the migrants' security concerns.
''There is no easy solution. Thailand is dealing with one of the most
difficult migration flows in the region, and probably beyond. It's a
process which is virtually impossible to implement without a proper
structure on the other side. Thailand often benefits from these workers,
but it's not always easy,'' says Mr Soda.

As for the few who have been through the process, they seem to be happy, if
considerably poorer. Aung is proud, and quick to show off his passport. In
the two months since he obtained it, he's returned to Burma three times. He
enjoyed the easy passage through the provinces and crossing the border,
these times, without the smuggling fees.

The DoE did not respond in time for publication of this article.

About the author
Writer: Erika Fry

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/investigation/25874/long-standing-problems
News » Investigative Report

LONG-STANDING PROBLEMS
Published: 18/10/2009 at 12:00 AM
Newspaper section: Spectrum

Thailand's Burmese migrant community, estimated to number two to three
million, comprises a number of ethnic groups. Among these migrants are few
who have passports, and many who left their native land bankrupt and broken
by years of physical and economic persecution.

TAKE FIVE: Burmese migrant labourers enjoy a break outside a fish market.
Some have no identification, and some, like the Rohingya, are simply denied
that they ever lived in Burma at all.

For years, Thailand has attempted to formalise a process to import workers
from Burma, and to legalise those already here. Thai and Burmese officials
signed a memorandum of understanding to do so in 2003, but the governments
were unable to reach agreement on the process until last year, when it was
settled that verification of the nationality of workers - the key to
legalisation, since so few migrant workers have passports - would take
place in Burmese territory.

Similar agreements with Cambodia and Laos were also agreed in 2003, and
have been in effect for several years, with all activities taking place in
Thai territory.

The process, as outlined in the Operational Manual for Burmese Nationality
Verification published by Thailand's Department of Employment, involves 13
different steps and actions to be taken by at least six separate Thai and
Burmese governmental agencies.

Basically, a worker is required to submit personal information, which is
passed from the provincial Employment Office to the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, and then to officials in Burma for verification and approval.

Once approval is received, the employer is notified that the worker
(accompanied by their employer or an appointed substitute) may travel to
one of the three border centres to obtain a temporary passport, which
permits them to return to Thailand to acquire a visa and obtain a work
permit, which is valid for two years and renewable for a period of four
years.

Theoretically, under this new system, migrants will have more freedom and
protection - they will be allowed to travel around the country freely (as
opposed to being restricted to a single province), apply for a motorbike
licence and be granted access to the Social Security Office's workers'
compensation fund.

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:03:20 -0400,
wrote:
>
>
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/25701/migrants-in-a-bind-over-rule
>
>
> Migrants in a bind
> Published: 16/10/2009 at 12:00 AM
> Newspaper section: News
>
> There is no question about it. Thailand needs to solve the problem of
> underground migrant workers, now estimated at 3 million strong. The
> challenge is how to do it right.
>
> The annual registration system has failed miserably because the
procedures
> are too complicated and costly, and job registration does not
automatically
> extend to migrants the medical and welfare protection that Thai workers
> receive.
>
> Given the registration's failure, the government is now requiring all
> migrant workers to verify their nationalities with their home countries
so
> they may enter Thailand legally with passports and may continue working
in
> Thailand. Like the ineffective annual registration, this nationality
> verification system is bound to fail. It is not only because the complex
> system offers little benefit. For many migrant workers, it is simply too
> dangerous. The majority of underground workers are from Burma and a large
> number of them are from ethnic groups facing violent persecution at home
> from the Burmese military junta. The Mon, Karen and Rohinya, for example.
> Turning themselves in and revealing their identities will likely put
their
> lives at risk, as well as those of their families back home.
>
> The nationality verification deadline has been set for the end of
February
> 2010. According to the cabinet resolution, only those carrying
nationality
> verification documents may stay and work. Those who do not will be
> deported. There is little chance of the 3 million migrant workers meeting
> the deadline, which is only four months away.
>
> The nationality verification system requires the migrant workers to go
> through different layers of bureaucratic red tape in both Thailand and
> Burma. Yet, the migrant communities have received little information
about
> how to go about it. Nor any systematic support. Confused and fearful,
they
> have become easy prey for brokers who work in hand in glove with corrupt
> officials on both sides of the border. The problem is not only about
being
> enormously overcharged. Many have become victims of cheating by bogus
> brokers.
>
> Given the confusing situation, uncertain benefits and fear of
persecution,
> many migrant workers have chosen to play wait-and-see, despite the threat
> of deportation. For them, it would not be too difficult to cross the
porous
> border and pay their way back into Thailand when there are still many
> corrupt officials and greedy employers looking for cheap slave labour.
>
> Labour and human rights groups have come up with recommendations to ease
> the knots in nationality verification. Among these are: extending the
> deadline, allowing the ones who have not yet completed the verification
> process to continue working, supplying the workers with clear and exact
> information, and regulating the brokers to prevent fraud, debt bondage
and
> human trafficking.
>
> Making the verification system transparent, accessible and affordable is
> crucial for it to succeed. So it would be a mistake for the government to
> ignore these recommendations, the most difficult of which to implement
> would be the one calling for Burmese authorities to set up nationality
> verification centres in Thailand, as talking sense with the junta is
easier
> said than done.
>
> Which brings home the fact that the root cause of the problem is in
Burma.
> So long as the junta continues to terrorise its people, this problem will
> not go away. But until these knots can be unravelled through internal and
> external pressures, Thailand cannot deny its responsibility to regulate
and
> provide migrant workers with decent welfare and work benefits.

***migrantjustice@hrdfoundation.org**

Read More...

Summary only...

Lawyers oppose Ranong's plan to shut nurseries for Burmese kids

***By Boonluen Prompratarnkul
The Nation
RANONG
Published on September 3, 2009

The Lawyer's Council of Thailand has objected to plans by officials in Ranong and the Education ministry to take over 13 nurseries, where 2,000 Burmese children are being educated.
The council's sub-panel on human rights for migrant workers and stateless people objected plans to disband the nurseries on the grounds they were useful in providing education and keeping data on children who faced repatriation in the future.

The Basic Education Commission was planning to take over the nurseries, which had been set up by non-government groups, it was revealed.
The Ranong Governor, meanwhile, has a plan to repatriate the 2,000 Burmese youths and has ordered that 96 schools in the province be checked to see if they have Burmese kids who entered Thailand illegally, who should be repatriated.
Surapong Kongchantuk, vice president of the Lawyers Council sub-panel, voiced opposition to local officials' plan to disband the 13 Thai-Burmese "quality of life development centres" during a visit yesterday to help Ranong business people understand how to submit information about migrant workers to the national identity process.
"All countries around the world give importance and protection for children under 10, thus the province's plan to repatriate children going to these centres is probably against international policies, thus it could backfire on Thailand," he warned.
Surapong said the council wanted the centres to remain and for Thai authorities to supervise them. He said he had helped the Education Ministry draft regulations on supervising and managing education at Thai-Burmese centres around the country. This was done to allow local Basic Education offices to investigate now each centre was run, and especially the teaching and learning.
He stressed that educating children was different to them obtaining Thai nationality.
He said it would be better if the Burmese kids were included in the education system as that would reduce social problems and make it easier for them to be repatriated, because local authorities would have data about them.
Ranong Governor Wanchat Wongchaichana said he had asked to meet the committee coordinating the centres to find a way to stop any more being set up, because such "extensions" were seen as unnecessary.
Recent moves to register migrant workers had resulted in many people being repatriated, so many kids would also have to return to their home country with their parents, he said.
Officials would check on the centres and order them to be disbanded if any centre was deemed unnecessary, he said. They would also prepare to repatriate the 2,000 children, most of who entered Thailand illegally with their parents.
He said they would check 96 schools in the province to see if children entered the country illegally, so they could be sent back.
The nurseries set up in Ranong for migrant workers' children have mostly been organised by non-government groups. They have mushroomed because centres have been set up in places where workers had just 20-30 kids.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/worldhotnews/30111356/Lawyers-oppose-Ranong's-plan-to-shut-nurseries-for-Burmese-kids

Read More...

Summary only...

30,000 flee Myanmar amid fears of full-scale civil war

***Afp, Bangkok***

Fighting between Myanmar's isolated ruling junta and rebel ethnic armies in the remote northeast has driven up to 30,000 refugees into China, the UN said, as analysts warned of a full-scale civil war.
As thousands fled across its border, China issued a rare admonishment to its southern neighbour and close ally, urging it to resolve the conflict that has broken out in Kokang, a mainly ethnic Chinese region of Myanmar's Shan state.

A battle between the Kokang rebel group and the government's army began on Thursday in violation of a 20-year ceasefire, according to the US Campaign for Burma (USCB), which uses Myanmar's former name.
The mass exodus began after Myanmar's junta deployed troops in the region on August 8 and now "only elderly peoples are left at homes", while at least one Myanmar policeman was reportedly killed during the battle, the USCB added.
The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), which is liaising with local Chinese authorities on the displaced people's needs, said up to 30,000 crossed into the Chinese border town of Nansan, in southwestern Yunnan province.
"We have been informed that local authorities in Yunnan province have already provided emergency shelter, food and medical care to the refugees," UNHCR spokesman Andrej Mahecic said.
A statement from the Chinese foreign ministry said it "hopes that Myanmar can appropriately solve its relevant internal problems and safeguard the stability of the China-Myanmar border".
"We also urge Myanmar to protect the safety and legal rights of Chinese citizens in Myanmar," said spokeswoman Jiang Yu in the statement, posted on the ministry's website.
China is Myanmar's main source of military hardware and a major consumer of its vast natural resources, despite Western concerns over the military-ruled nation's rights record.
Chinese state media reported Friday that Beijing had increased its number of armed police along the Myanmar border.
The English-language Global Times, citing local officials, said that Myanmar nationals were still crossing the border into Yunnan province, without giving a specific figure.
Another ethnic group, the United Wa State Army, has now reportedly joined the Kokang forces' fight against the Myanmar junta, according to Khuensai Jaiyen, editor of the Shan Herald Agency for News.

Read More...

Summary only...

Cruelty and heartlessness

OMMENTARY

***Writer: Sanitsuda Ekachai***
Published: 27/08/2009 at 12:00 AM
Newspaper section: News

If decency is measured by how we treat those inferior to us, then we cannot call ourselves decent, given our heartlessness towards migrant workers.
Last week, two Rohingya teenage boys wilted and died inside Ranong detention centre. Doomed for a life in a limbo behind bars, they just lost the will to eat, to move, to live. Out of intolerable despair, they simply perished.
One was 18, the other only 15.

Imagine their mothers' grief.
The week before, police in Samut Prakan province raided a cultural festival of ethnic Karen migrant workers while they were in the middle of a religious ceremony. It so happened that it was also Her Majesty the Queen's birthday and Mother's Day that day, so a ceremony to express filial gratitude and to pay homage to he Queen was also part of the festival.
Still the police thought what they were doing posed a threat to society. More than 150 workers were arrested and immediately sent to the immigration centre for deportation.
Many of them are legally registered migrant workers. Many have wives and children back here. Imagine their families' shock and agony...
This is probably the crux of the problem - our inability to imagine the suffering of the downtrodden, which narrows our minds and shuts our hearts - although we take pride in calling ours a Buddhist country.
Of course, we can continue pointing the finger at the ruthless Burmese junta for drowning us with endless waves of war and economic refugees. In fact, this is what many of us do to free our troubled conscience whenever we hear of abuse. But the blame game does not address another important part of the oppression problem - our own heartlessness.
It is estimated that there are more than two million migrant workers in Thailand. Most of them are ethnic minorities who have fled extortion, persecution and harsh poverty in lawless Burma. The Muslim minority Rohingya, for example, are not even recognised as Burmese citizens and, according to the Burmese junta, must be expelled. The Karen, meanwhile, are considered dangerous rivals who must be suppressed.
In Thailand, these people are often subjected to slave-like work conditions. If the Thai workers faced the same plight overseas, however, we would be fuming and frothing with anger against such inhumanity.
Whenever there arises a tragic case of rights abuse at home, we will hear human rights activists lecturing the authorities about Thailand's duty to protect basic rights and freedoms of migrant workers in accordance with various international declarations and rights conventions.
Mostly it is a useless exercise. Not because these rights are not locally applicable, but for these principles to materialise, the parties concerned must share a moral common ground: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
Which is not the case here. Why so? Ask the authorities and they will chime in condescendingly: "We need to protect our national security." The overwhelming influx of illegal immigrants is stealing scarce resources from lawful Thai citizens, they charge. Besides, these people carry with them a host of diseases. Their strange language and culture also make it difficult to monitor their criminal activities, thus posing a threat to society.
Being nice only attracts more of them to come, they insist.
Sadly, this heartlessness prevails because it strikes a chord with mainstream society.
It is not that we are inherently cruel. It is only that we are the products of racist nationalism which permeates every social institution in our society.
Yes, prejudice is human when we are still trapped in the "we/they" dichotomy driven by instinctive group preservation. But it is another matter when we let it grow into inhumanity to legitimise what is otherwise unacceptable cruelty.
We must rethink our racist nationalism. Not only to save our souls. When identity politics of the downtrodden can easily turn ugly, undoing racism is a necessity to save our children and our country from ethnic violence.

***http://bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/22750/cruelty-and-heartlessness

Read More...

Summary only...