[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Burma Issues Newsletter, Sept. '93



Subject: Burma Issues Newsletter, Sept. '93 (long)


Burma Issues Newsletter
September 1992

BIN9.92

Burma Rights Movement for Action, B.U.R.M.A. (now renamed Burma
Issues) is a Bangkok-based non-governmental organization that
monitors events in Burma with a focus on human rights, ethnic
minorities and the ongoing civil war.

Burma Issues
PO Box 1076, Silom Post Office
Bangkok 10504 Thailand

phone: 662 234 6674

ECONOMICS
At the recent ASEAN meeting in Manila Philippines, US Secretary of
State James Baker and Senator Evans from Australia called on ASEAN
nations to place economic sanctions and an arms embargo on the
Burmese military regime until full human rights and democracy are
achieved there.  The ASEAN response was predictable.  Their
commitment to their policy of "constructive engagement", they
responded,  was to be continued, and they strongly disapproved of
connecting human rights to development aid. At the Non Aligned
Meeting held the last week of August, a similar statement was made. 
Human rights, although very important, should not determine
economic development aid for a nation.  The countries most vocal on
this issue are usually those which, themselves, fear that an
investigation of their own human rights record could mean a loss
for them of foreign economic development aid as well.  They would
try to perpetuate the idea that human rights and economic
development are two issues totally unrelated to each other.
In Burma, at least, nothing could be further from reality.  While
foreign investments in Burma have increased over the past few
years, the living standard of the people has continued to drop. 
Hundreds of thousands of people have been forcibly moved out of the
major urban centers into squalid, unsanitary "satellite villages". 
In the rural areas, some sources estimate that as many as one
million rural villagers have been displaced by military campaigns
and are now living in concentration camp-like settlements, as
refugees in neighboring countries are simply struggling for
survival deep in the jungles.  Despite economic "development" aid,
the human rights situation in Burma remains deplorable.
Nowhere has this issue hit home more clearly in Burma than with
foreign investments to develop Burma's vast mineral resource
potential.  Burma is rated as having very high potential in
chromium, copper, gold, lead, rare earth, silver, tin, tungsten,
zinc, barium, gemstones, gas and oil.  During the past three years,
a large number of foreign companies have entered Burma to
especially seek out and develop its oil and gas reserves.  Millions
of dollars have been paid to the Burmese military for these
concessions.  The money fuels the military machine and the only
thing left to the people is higher prices.  It is reported that
black-market prices for gasoline in Rangoon have hit 150-180 kyats
per gallon (about US$25 to $30) compared with the official price of
16 kyats (US$2.80).  (II 1991)
The link between human rights and economic development is emerging
most clearly in a recent development to exploit the vast natural
gas fields in the Gulf of Martaban.  The Petroleum Authority of
Thailand (PTT) approached the Burmese military regime in 1991 with
a US$1 billion proposal to invest in exploration for natural gas in
the region and to construct a 500 kilometer pipeline from the Gulf
of Martaban through Moulmein and on to Three Pagoda Pass where it
would feed a giant power plant in Thailand's Kanchanaburi Province. 
It is estimated that from 3 to 6 trillion cubic feed of natural-gas
could exist in this off-shore field.  (II March 20, 1991)
The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) would
purchase the gas from PTT.  Their main concern, however, is the
security of this gas supply.  The proposed gas pipeline would pass
through areas controlled by the Karen National Union.  It would
probably be necessary for the Burmese military regime to guarantee
that no sabotage of the pipeline would occur before the project
could successfully be completed.
In July of this year, an accord to develop the Martaban Gulf
natural gas field was finally signed between the state-run Myanmar
Oil & Gas Enterprise (MOGE) and the French oil company Total.  The
area which is to be explored and developed involves two off-shore
blocks M5 and M6 covering a total area of 26,140 square kilometers. 
The PTT is now expected to negotiate a partnership in the gas
development project with Total and MOGE.  PTT would probably take
a 30% stake in the project.  Field development and the pipeline are
now estimated to cost over US$2 billion, and would probably not be
completed until 1998.  PTT hopes to get an initial 250 million
cubic feet of natural gas per day.  (BP 29/7/92)
The opposition forces have raised serious doubts about this
project.  Their concerns cover several significant areas:
1. Environmental
The pipeline would run through heavily forested areas.  For
security reasons, large areas of the forest on either side of the
pipeline would probably have to be removed.  The destruction this
would create to the ecological balance in the area, including
potential erosion problems, has not yet been studied and there has
been no indication that the companies and government involved are
planning to make any such studies.  The same can be said concerning
the ecological and environmental problems created by drilling in
the Gulf of Martaban.  Vast areas of shoreline and sea habitats
could be seriously damaged by pollution created by these drilling
activities.
2.  Political
The pipeline, as now planned, would run through the Karen State and
possibly through parts of the Mon State.  In order to guarantee
protection of the pipeline, the Burmese military would have to
"secure" these areas.  This would involve heavy military
offensives.  For such offensives, the Burmese military will need a
steady supply of weapons and other military equipment.  Any
investments into this project will probably be used by the military
to drive out the Karen and Mon, and this becomes a direct
involvement in the internal political issues of Burma.  
3.  Human Rights
The areas through which the pipeline must pass are inhabited by
Karen and Mon villagers.  They have lived here for many
generations.  To insure that these villagers do not sabotage the
pipeline, or provide sanctuary to Karen or Mon soldiers who might
sabotage the pipeline, the villagers would all have to be removed. 
This would mean the displacement of perhaps hundreds of thousands
of minority villagers.  Examples of such relocations which have
taken place all over Burma during the past few years indicates that
the human rights of these villagers will not be guaranteed by the
Burmese military.  In fact, they could even be used as forced
laborers to build the pipeline and connecting roads just as they
are being forced to build railroads and roads in other parts of the
country.  If this project were truly aimed at economic development
of Burma, it should not bring such hardships on the people.
In today's complex world, human rights and economic development aid
can not be separated.  Economic development and the aid which it
requires either strengthens the human rights of a people, or it
supports those structures which destroy people's human rights.  Few
voices of leadership in the world today have the courage to stand
on this position.
On August 8 of this year, in a speech to Lions Club members in
Bangkok, Former Thai National Security Council chief Prasong
Soonsiri called on Thailand to recognize this reality.  He said
that some groups in Thailand have interests in logs, fisheries and
mining in Burma.  Thailand should consider abandoning these
interests.  Thailand, he continued, should also review its unclear
policy towards Burma.  Only some powers-that-be in the country
support the Burmese junta.
"We should do as wanted by the world concerning human rights
problems.  We should give moral support to the people of Burma who
fought for democracy.  They deserve the same support as the Thai
people who fought for democracy in May," Prasong said.  (BP 9/8/92)
Other Economic News
Texaco
In their 1991 Annual Report, Texaco reports that exploration
activity underway and planned includes "seismic studies on three
blocks totaling 10.1 million acres onshore and offshore Myanmar
(formerly Burma).  Texaco's interests range from 42% to 50%.  Two
wildcat wells are planned for 1992."
Premier Oil
Premier Oil is the only company to have won (in May 1990) an
offshore concession, in block 13 and 14 (32,000 square kilometers)
in the Gulf of Martaban.  Premier, which is proceeding with seismic
studies, is committed to drilling a minimum of three oil wells, the
first of which is scheduled for mid-1992.
Thai Military Bank Ltd.
Burma has granted Thai Military Bank a license to open the first
representative office of a foreign bank in Rangoon in decades.
Rangoon Radio reported that the decision to allow the Thai bank to
do business in the country was in line with government policy to
set up a monetary system conducive to a market-oriented economy.


HUMAN RIGHTS
The 1992 "rainy season/dry season" offensive of Slorc has included
an aggressive political aspect to change its human rights image on
the international scene.  Among other things, they have released a
small number of political prisoners, given permission to the family
of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to visit her (she has been under house
arrest for about three years now) and set work in motion to convene
a national convention to draw up a new constitution.  On ------
universities throughout the country were opened and on ----- Slorc
signed the UN accord on protection of civilians in war situations. 
>From an outsiders view point, all of these Slorc activities might
suggest that their military has softened its bellicose control over
the people.
The evidence, however, suggests that for people throughout Burma,
human rights has continued to deteriorate.  The following report
from Manerplaw outlines some of the suffering still being inflicted
on poor rural villagers.

The situation of Muslims in Burma today has now become critical
particularly for the Muslims in the Rakhine (Arakan) state who are
known as Rohingyas. The implementation of the military
dictatorship's project to exterminate the Muslims in Arakan in the
form of looting, rapes and killing have driven about 300,000 Muslim
refugees into Bangladesh, in spite of the fact that Muslims are
indigenous nationals of Burma. This is not the first time the
Muslims have suffered such atrocities under the junta. In 1978, the
scale of abuses became intolerable, with large scale harassment,
looting and rapes committed against Muslims.  As a result, over
200,000 of them fled over the border into Bangladesh to become
refugees.
It is absolutely true that the repression of Muslims in Arakan is
part of the gross and consistent pattern of human rights violations
committed by the SLORC against all forms of political opposition
and dissent and against vulnerable and weak sectors of the
country's populations, such as ethnic minorities, whom the military
authorities suspect may not support its national ideology. All the
available evidence indicates that Muslims are targeted for
repression by the Burmese security forces simply because they
belong to a particular religious minority, some members of which
seek greater autonomy from the central government's control, as
expressed in the report of Amnesty International issued in May this
year.
Despite the claims to the contrary by the regime, the religion of
Islam reached Arakan in the 7th Century AD. Historical facts still
exist of how the Muslims in those days took part in the defence of
Arakan and fought off invaders. In the old days Muslims and non-
Muslims in Arakan were able to live together so peacefully and
amicably that some Buddhist kings even adopted Muslim names and
titles.
It was not until after World War II that this peaceful coexistence
ended as a result of the instigation of narrow nationalists.
Suspicion deepened among people following the establishment of
militarism in 1962, when Ne Win began inciting hatred among the
nationalities with different religions.
Since the military came to power in 1962, freedom of religion and
freedom of movement for Muslims has been restricted. No Muslims
have been appointed to high government positions, and many Muslims
already employed in the government offices have been dismissed.
The holly pilgrimage of Haj to Makka has been banned. Since a few
years ago, a small number of Muslims are allowed to travel to Makka
for Haj, but this was a token gesture of the regime to make it
appear to the world that there is freedom of religion in Burma. The
regime has also forbidden the use of microphones for Azan (the call
to prayer), and seized land belonging to mosques and religious
institutions.
On many occasions, military suppression has forced Muslims to leave
their homes. The military dictatorship even joked that people
should draw pictures of Muslims so that future generations would
remember what Muslims once looked like. 
In 1968 some 3,600 Muslims, including women and children, were
arrested from all over Arakan and were driven to the areas of
Buthidaung and Maungdaw. After about five months they were finally
released and allowed to go back home, but many had meanwhile died
and many others were unable to reclaim their former properties. It
was at the same time the military regime instigated anti-Chinese
riots in Burma in which many innocent Chinese were killed. The
unrest was clearly a ploy to divert the people's attention from a
severe nationwide rice shortage.
The truth about the cruel injustice inflicted by the dictatorship
is that since 1974 in some areas of Arakan State the regime has
ceased issuing national registration cards to Muslims on coming of
age so that the regime can harass them and accuse them of being
foreigners. 
In 1982, an anti-Muslim riot was instigated in southern Burma in
which about twenty Muslims were killed and many mosques and
religious buildings were desecrated.
In 1983, the regime introduced some new citizenship acts, according
to which most of the Muslims and other minorities in Burma were
degraded to second-class citizens.
In 1987, when the people's dissatisfaction with the junta
intensified due to the repeated demonetization of the Burmese
currency, the junta instigated anti-Muslim riots to divert the
people's anger, especially in Taungyi, Prome and Mandalay.
As you are well aware, in 1988 the dictatorship massacred several
thousand people in Burma, which enraged the entire population. The
regime later arrested Nobel Peace prize winner Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
and many other politicians, earning world-wide condemnation. To
divert the attention of the local people, and to alleviate
international pressure, the regime held a general election in 1990,
in which the NLD led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi won 80% of the seats.
However, the regime stubbornly refuses to transfer power to the
representatives elected by the people. The anger of the people
therefore has increased, together with international condemnation
and pressure on the regime. 
In early 1991 the regime, with the intention of reestablishing
unity among non-Muslims, started inciting anti-Muslim riots, and
began a systematic harassment of Muslims in Arakan. The Muslims
were continually arrested, beaten, tortured, some were even killed,
their property looted, the women raped and conscripted into forced
labor. These abuses have been documented in some detail by some
international human rights organizations, and have been witnessed
even by diplomats taken to the area by the SLORC themselves. These
repeated persecutions have caused the present critical situation on
the Burma-Bangladesh border today, and many more refugees are still
arriving, which suggests that the abuses are still continuing. 
Although there has been an agreement for repatriation, the SLORC
has refused to allow the United Nations to monitor the return of
the refugees. Any repatriation, must be completely voluntary and
must be overseen by the United Nations. Otherwise, repatriation
would only condemn these refugees to further persecution. The
regime has consistently proven its insincerity with an inclination
to dishonor such agreements.
It is noteworthy that Burma is presently one of the few countries 
in the world where fascism and militarism remain in practice.
Unless we can put an end to this brutal dictatorship, not only the
Muslims but also the entire population will be unable to live
peacefully in Burma.  The international community can help in this
most important task by taking action on several crucial issues:
(1) to help put an end to Burma's 44-year long civil war,
(2) to take firm steps to end the despotic rule of this military
junta by imposing economic and other sanctions,
(3) to help establish a genuine federal union where the oppressed
minorities can enjoy equal rights and self-determination,
(4) to help for the release of Nobel laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
and all political prisoners and for the re-establishment of
democracy in Burma,
(5) to help return the Muslim refugees from Bangladesh only under
the observation of UN representatives in Burma for the safety and
the security of the refugees.                                     
                        
POLITICS
Burma and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)
Brief Background to NAM
The first Afro-Asian conference was held in Bandung, Indonesia from
17 to 24 April, 1955. The host was President Sukarno of Indonesia.
Prime Ministers Neru of India, U Nu of Burma, Mohamed Ali of
Pakistan, Chou En-lai of China and delegations from twenty nine
Asian and African states participated in the conference. Delegates
presented various proposals of numerous different views. The
conference was able to pass a extraordinary 10-point resolution
which laid the foundations for a non-aligned and neutral position
towards the cold war raging between the East and the West.  The
second conference was planned to be held in Algeria in June, 1965
but on June 17 a military coup led by the defence minister toppled
the Algerian government and the conference had to be canceled.
The Belgrade Conference was held in 1961. Owing to the
participation of some non-Asian and non-African countries it was
called the first Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement or NAM for
short. The conference was co-sponsored by Tito (Yugoslavia),
Sukarno (Indonesia), Nehru (India), Nasser (Egypt) and Nkhrumah
(Ghana).  When a draft resolution was presented which was anti-
Israel in nature, most of the delegates seemed to be satisfied with
it, but U Nu of Burma took the floor to persuade the participants
to consider a more balanced version which was proposed by India.
Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and Nepal supported U Nu. After some discussions
the more moderate Indian resolution was adopted unanimously. Thus
U Nu, and Burma, became a prominent figure in the NAM. This was one
of the supportive factors which helped Burma's U Thant to become
the Secretary General of the UN that same year. U Thant was seen by
the world as a representative of the NAM and his skillful handling
of the serious international crises e.g. Congo crisis (1962), Cuban
missile crisis (1962), Cyprus (1964), 6-day Arab-Israeli war
(1967), and China's admission to the UN (1971), helped to elevate
the prestige of Burma and the NAM in the eyes of the world. 
As the cold war intensified the NAM had to deal with various new
crises. The military regime of Burma, already under the leadership
of General Ne Win, ignored their responsibility as a member of the
NAM and began to avoid the movement. The regime explicitly proved
their disloyalty in 1979 by completely removing themselves from the
movement, accusing it of committing serious mistakes and not
keeping to a neutral position. 
Present Situation
In 1992, the Burmese military regime again suddenly took an
interest in becoming a part of NAM.  During the August NAM meeting,
which was being held in Indonesia, Burma requested and was granted
re-entry into this international group.  They bring the total
membership of NAM to 108.
NAM's acceptance of Slorc as the legitimate ruling power of Burma
comes as a shock to many people since the Slorc was absolutely and
democratically dismissed by the people of Burma in the 1990 general
elections.  Many observers, as well as most members of the
opposition in Burma, see Slorc's interest in NAM not based on
Slorc's interest in rejoining the international community, but
rather based on their own selfish interest in trying to gain
international legitimacy for their continued control over the
country and people. Slorc's dismal human rights record should have
been sufficient reason for NAM to hold off allowing Burma reentry
into the organization until power is finally transferred to a
government elected and accepted by the people, the civil war ended,
and all political prisoners released.
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad defended the readmission
of Burma to NAM in a statement which reflected the policy of
"constructive engagement" which the ASEAN countries have been
pushing for several years now.  "We could leave Burma out of the
Non-Aligned Movement but that is not the way to change Burma's
position," he said.  "The fact that they associate with others
means that they have to live up to the standards of others."
However, Burmese Foreign Minister Ohn Gyaw made it clear that NAM
membership would not promote nor encourage political liberalization
in Burma.  This process, he affirmed, is an internal affair.  (BP
3/9/92)
Since many of the members of NAM are sensitive to charges of human
rights abuses in their own countries, it came as no surprise that
there was not a receptive ear to calls by the West to link economic
aid to fundamental freedoms. (TN 1/9/92)  At a closing press
conference, Foreign Minister Ali Alatas of Indonesia emphasized
NAM's opposition to any linking of human rights with development. 
"Both development and human rights are vital," he said.  "But
linking one to the other in a conditionality relationship will
reduce the value of both."  (BP 7/9/82)
Slorc has consistently made it clear that the way they conduct
their internal affairs is no concern of either their international
friends or foes, and that their extralegal rule over the country
is, in fact, accepted by most of the international community.  In
Declaration 1/90 the Slorc stated, "The State Law and Order
Restoration Council is not an organization that observes any
constitution; it is an organization that is governing the nation by
Martial Law....it is the government that has been accepted as such
by the United Nations and the respective nations of the world."
(para 6 of Declaration 1/90, issued on July 27, 1990). By saying
this they mean they need not comply with any law, yet they
(including their misdeeds) are recognized by the UN as legitimate.
With the end of the communist "threat" in most of the world, there
is a serious danger that "human rights" will become the new
political tool of the West to manipulate events in developing
countries for the specific interests of the West.  Yet, at the same
time, there is an equal danger that despotic rulers in many
developing countries will shrug off challenges to their human
rights records as an "interference in their internal affairs" or,
more commonly, a difference in the Western and Eastern definitions
of what constitutes true human rights.  The human rights of a
people has been outlined in several international documents
including the UN Charter of Human Rights.  These rights are not
limited by national boundaries, nor a particular ruling parties
interpretation.  The UN Charter of Human Rights is, in fact,
suppose to protect individuals from such "elite" interpretations.
The United Nations and NAM should take the task of protecting the
basic human rights of individuals much more seriously rather than
offering tacit approval of regimes which are known to be oppressing
their people through arbitrary arrests, executions, forced labor,
military operations, forced displacement and religious and/or
ethnic persecution.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Karenni and Karen States
In the Karenni (Kayah) State, Slorc continues to direct attacks
against civilian populations as punishment for their moral support
of the Karenni National Progressive Party (KNPP) and the Karenni
Nationalities People's Liberation Front (KNPLF).  Villagers, most
of whom must already struggle daily to survive, are being forcibly
relocated, used as forced labor and portage, and deprived of their
homes, land, food and possessions.  
In an attempt to cut off civilian support for the opposition by
depopulating entire areas, in mid-March 1992 the Slorc gave orders
to 76 villages in Pruso, Deemawso, and Loikaw townships of western
Karenni State to leave the area by March 21.  The orders said that
any man, woman, or child thenceforth seen in the area would be shot
on sight.  This policy is frighteningly reminiscent of the "free
fire zones" US military forces established in Viet Nam during the
war there which left hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese villagers
homeless, hopeless, hungry and angry.
The population of the villages affected by this relocation is
estimated to be over 20,000 people.  All of them were ordered to
move to Slorc relocation camps outside Pruso and Deemawso towns. 
Instead, thousand fled into areas more firmly under opposition
control, or to Karen National Union territory far to the south, or
to the homes of friends and relatives in the towns.  Others have
simply hidden in the jungle to take their chances rather than
submit to the camps.
It is estimated that about 7,000 were finally interned in Deemawso
camp, and the KNPLF estimates a similar number in Pruso camp,
although information of the Pruso camp can not yet be confirmed. 
Some people have finally been able to escape from these
concentration-like camps, and their stories bring the harsh
realities of present-day interior of Burma into more focus.
Ms. Naw Ler Eh, who is a 28-year-old Karenni Baptist, recently
arrived in the Karen National Union territory with her husband and
3 small children.  They were one of the families from Ku Bra
Village in Deemawso Township who faced relocation.  
In March 1991, before the relocation started, Naw Ler Eh was forced
to go along with the Burmese military as a porter.  She had to
leave her three small children, ages 3, 6, and 8, behind.  
"The soldiers made me carry about 30 kilograms (about 66 pounds) of
their rations such as rice, salt, sardines and other things.  They
only gave us a very little bit of plain rice to eat."
The group of porters Naw Ler Eh was with consisted of 6 women and
20 men.  They were often beaten by the soldiers despite being weak
and sick.  "The soldiers hit me in the face with their rifle butts. 
They beat two men and one woman to death while I was a porter", she
related.  Even when sick with malaria they had to continue carrying
their loads over the mountains.
Naw Ler Eh was luckily enough to be one of the survivors of this
group.  She returned to her village and family only to hear
sometime later that all of the village was to move to the Slorc
camp in Deemawso by March of 1992.
"It's a long way to Deemawso and I had to carry my 3 year old girl
on the front and a load of rice on my back.  There was no way I
could carry any other belongings, only as much rice as I could
take.  My 6 year old daughter and 8 year old son had to walk all
the way over the hills with us, and we were very slow.  It took us
two whole days to walk.  I tried to keep the children from crying
by telling them we were going to Deemawso to play."
At the Deemawso resettlement camp, they were given a small hut
within an enclosed area which was guarded by soldiers.  A small
lake provided dirty water which had to be used for everything.  No
food was furnished by the military, and the people had to survive
off of what they had brought with them.
Finally, in desperation, people pleaded with the guards to allow
them to go into the nearby town to find work so they could buy
food.  The soldiers then began giving special passes for this, but
never to more than one person in a family at a time.  
Hte Bu, the husband of Naw Ler Eh, was taken along with a group of
other men to work on a railway being built by Slorc nearby.  The
railroad is a part of Slorc's "Border Area Development" program
which is funded by the UNDP.  This project uses forced labor to
build roads and railways which will give the Slorc army better
access to opposition areas.
"I had to work on the railway for 4 days.  They assigned each of us
a stretch of ground one-eighth of a mile long by 26 feet wide, and
ordered us to build a railway embankment.  It went right across
people's rice fields.  We had to dig and pack the dirt all with our
bare hands.  There were no tools at all.  Then after working all
day, we just had to sleep in the dirt where we worked.  They gave
us no food; we could only eat whatever we had brought along."
Finally Naw Ler Eh, along with her husband and children decided to
escape from the camp.  On the night of June 1, thirty people in the
closed camp jumped the surrounding fence and ran into the jungle.
They took refuge in a KNPLF area.  Then on July 1 they decided to
travel on to the KNU area which they felt would be safer.  It took
two weeks for them to travel through the jungle to safety.  Along
the way 2 members of their groups were shot by Slorc patrols. 
More and more refugees such as Naw Ler Eh and her family are
showing up along the Burma/Thai border.  Their security here is
also not certain as the Thai government has not guaranteed them a
safe place to stay.  They do not know when they will once again be
victimized by a war which has been going on for so long that they
can not remember a time of peace.
Source:  Mannerplaw Report
Kachin State
Reports from the Kachin State in northern Burma indicate the
relocation of the population and forced labor is probably carried
out nation-wide by the Slorc.
In Kying Hkrang, 30 kilometers north of the Kachin State capital of
Myitkyina, the Burmese military has begun the construction of a
hydro-electric power plant.  An agreement between Slorc and the
People's Republic of China has been signed for this project, and
the PRC is supplying 160 technical experts as well as material and
equipment.  
Every household in Myitkyina and the surrounding areas has been
conscripted to supply one worker per week.  If a family can not
supply a worker due to old age or sickness, they must then hire an
outsider to fulfill their responsibility.  Workers are also
required to supply their own food.
Slorc funds the project by giving jade to the PRC and by extorting
money from each family in the area.  The amount that each family
must pay depends upon their financial status within the community. 
The sum ranges from 3,000 kyats to 300,000 kyats per household.  
Source:  Kachin State Update