IRRAWADDY: ISSUE OF FEBRUARY 15 199

[strider@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Received: (from strider) by igc2.igc.apc.org (8.6.9/Revision: 1.9 ) id WAA26584; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 22:07:51 -0800
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 22:07:51 -0800
Subject: IRRAWADDY: ISSUE OF FEBRUARY 15 1995

IRRAWADDY: ISSUE OF FEBRUARY 15 1995

The Irrawaddy 
Independent News & Information
Vol.3 No.10, 15 February 1995

address:  Burma Information Group
          P.O.BOX 14154
          SILVER SPRING
          MD 20911
          U.S.A

************************
Inside Stories:

 THE DETENTION OF AUNG SAN SUU KYI UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
 SLORC'S IMPOTENT MEDIA
 VALUE OF KYAT REFLECTS NE WIN'S FEAR LOSING FACE
 THE POWER OF GOLF
 NEW MILITARY HOSPITAL IN RANGOON
 AN OPEN LETTER TO MAJOR CHO HTWE

************************
THE DETENTION OF AUNG SAN SUU KYI UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

By James D.Ross

Slorc's Foreign Minister Ohn Gyaw replied to Yozo Yokota's
question over the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi. (See
Irrawaddy Vol.3  No.7 ) But according to international law it is
an unlawful detention. James D. Ross says,  ?Perhaps it is naive
to expect that a region that has committed so many
serious violations of human rights against its citizens is
capable of meeting international standards in this specific
case.? James D. Ross is currently working at the Human Rights
Task Force on Cambodia. He contributed his analysis to the
Irrawaddy.


Burma's State Law and Order Restoration Council (Slorc), in its
reply to questions from the United Nations Special
Rapporteur on Myanmar in October 1994, reconfirmed that Aung San
Suu Kyi is being detained under Sections 10 (b) and 14 of the
1975 Law to Safeguard the State against the Dangers of those
Desiring to Cause Subversive Acts (the ?Anti-Subversions Law?). 
This law has been used in recent years in Burma to detain
without charge or trial political prisoners and hold them for
long periods.
According to the reply of Slorc Minister of Foreign Affairs Ohn
Gyaw, Aung San Suu Kyi is being held under house arrest ?for her
own good and for the good of the country? because she promoted
?the cause of these unsavory political elements? who sought ?to
create disunity among the only unified
establishment left in this country, the Tatmadaw [armed
forces].? 
Furthermore, ?despite repeated cautions on the part of the
authorities, she made seditious speeches inciting the people to
acts of violence and to cause division within the armed forces
and the people.? Section 10 (b) of the anti-Subversion Law
permits the Central Body of the Cabinet (in effect, the Slorc) to
take ?preemptive measures? to ?protect the state
from dangers.? Unlike other provisions of the law, it does not
require a declaration of the State of Emergency The government
can detain the accused for up six months or restrict the
rights of the accused for up to a year (including to ?restrict
the movement of the person as required?).
Section 14 of the law was amended in August 1991 to allow
one-year extensions of detention or restriction for up to five
years. The expiration of the latest six-month extension of Aung
San Suu Kyi's detention order on January 20, 1995 raised hopes
that the opposition leader would be released. The Slorc now
indicates she will be held at least until July 29, 1995 ? and
nothing prevents the regime from imposing a new order at anytime.
The Anti-Subversion Law contains limited review,
reporting and appeal provisions that may or may not have been
adhered to by the Slorc. The law permits the Cabinet to review
the detention or ban every two months and revise it as
necessary. 

An appeal against detention or restriction order can be filed
with the Cabinet. In the case of an extended order of
detention or restriction, an appeal can be filed with the
courts. Still, a person who ?opposes or violates the detention or
restriction order? faces up to five years imprisonment.
While it is not known whether Aung San Suu Kyi has at any
point appealed her detention, the absence of an independent
judiciary in Burma renders this scant review process
meaningless. In reality the Anti-Subversion Law provides the
Burmese government unfettered powers to hold individuals for
indefinite periods. Since her detention began in July 1989, the
Slorc has interpreted and amended the law to suit their needs,
rather than the requirements of justice and the rule of law. Both
the provisions of the law and the treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi
violate widely accepted standards of international human rights
law. 

The anti-Subversion Law is an administrative detention law.
Administration detention is defined as any form of detention by
the state that is conducted without judicial supervision, either
by virtue of laws that permit detention without trial, or as a
result of the systematic, illegal practice by an
agency of the executive. In Asia, various forms of
administrative detention were promulgated under British
colonial rule and still survive also-called ?internal
security? or ?national security? laws. 

They are commonly used today in such countries as Malaysia and
India, as well as Burma, against political prisoners and
others the state wishes to detain, but not bring before the
courts. Administrative detention violates international human
rights standards against  arbitrary arrest and detention. It also
undermines due process protections that are essential for the
rule of law. In practice, administrative detention often results
in the violation of other human rights, notably the right to be
free from torture and other forms of mistreatment in detention.
UN Special Rapporteur Louis Joined, who drafted a report on
administrative detention for the UN Sub-Commission on
Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in
1990, concluded that ?the practice of administrative
detention, more than any other form of detention, leads to
serious risks of violation of the recognized intangible
rights.? He noted that in some countries administrative
detention had ?become an instrument for the long-term
suppression of all dissidence, for putting an end to criticism
and protest and for eliminating political opposition.?
As a member of the United Nations, Burma has an obligation to
recognize and observe the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. The Universal Declaration at Article 9 declares that: ?No
one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.? 
The prohibition on arbitrary detention is essential to the right
to ?life, liberty and security? set out in Article 3 of the
Universal Declaration.

A detention can still be ?arbitrary? even if it is governed by
national laws, such as Burma's Anti-Subversion Law. As a US
international law expert stated in 1958, ?Arbitrary arrest or
detention implied and arrest or detention which was in-compatible
with the principles of justice or with the dignity of the human
person irrespective of whether it had been carried out
inconformity with the law.? The drafters of the Universal
Declaration were well aware of Nazi Germany's Nuremburg Laws,
which sought to give legal cover to heinous state actions. As
these laws demonstrated, laws themselves may be arbitrary or may
empower the state to act arbitrarily. Under various international
human rights treaties, criminal suspects must either be tried for
a violation of a preexisting law by an independent judiciary
under procedures which guarantee due process, or they must be
released. Administrative detention, which bypasses these
protections and permits executive discretion to limit basic
liberties, directly contradicts these basic assumptions of
international law. 

Although Burma is not a party to the major international human
rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Human
Rights, many legal scholars view the prohibition on arbitrary
arrest as indicative of just cogons, a widely-accepted
standard having the force of law. Under international law, states
may resort to administrative detention during a state of
emergency. Even then, it is only lawful if there is a
genuine threat to the existence of the state that is properly
declared, and the detention is limited to the degree necessary to
redress the causes of the emergency. 

While the Anti-Subversion law contains provisions for a State of
Emergency, the Slorc has not declared one, nor would one be
justifiable under international law.Even if there is a State of
Emergency, international law creates a presumption against
prolonged administrative detention, as well as detention that
escapes the oversight of the courts. The Universal Declaration at
Article 29 states: ?In the exercise of his rights and
freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as
are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due
recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and
of meeting the just requirements of morality,
public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.? 

Many commentators have interpreted the Universal Declaration's
limitation clause to restrict limits on certain rights to
those declared by a constitutionally legitimate government and
then, solely for the purpose of restoring democratic rule. As the
International Human Rights Law Group and others have
concluded, the legitimacy of the Slorc is doubtful. And the
regime's actions since taking power, far from restoring
democracy as its leaders have proclaimed, have entrenched
military rule.

The practice of administrative detention often violates
international law standards for the treatment of prisoners. UN
instruments, such as the Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners, the Basic Principles on the
Independence of the Judiciary, the Code of Conduct for Law
Enforcement Officials, and the Basic Principles on the Role of
Lawyers, represent what Amnesty International has called an
?Authoritative set of internationally recognized standards.? The
UN instruments elaborate rules affecting the treatment of 
detainees. They require judicial control of detention and
provide for the effective enforcement of the basic rights of the
detainee. For instance, the UN Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention formally
recognizes the need for a judicial role at all times in the
Protection of detainees, both the order to detain and the
exercise of power by the authorities ?shall be subject to
recourse before a judicial or other [nonpolitical or military]
authority.? The Body of Principles also provide that the
detainee? shall have the right to defend himself or to be
assisted by counsel as prescribed by law.?

The specifics of Aung San Suu Kyi's detention violate these
minimum standards. She has had no meaningful opportunity to
appoint legal counsel, no right to challenge her detention and no
review by an independent judiciary.

The detention of Aung San Suu Kyi is in clear violation of
international human rights laws and standards. 
Perhaps it is naive to expect that a region that has committed so
many serious violations of human rights against its
citizens is capable of meeting international standards in this
specific case. 

But perhaps through the unconditional release of Aung San Suu
Kyi, the Slorc can begin to show a willingness to abide by
international law.        





SLORC'S IMPOTENT MEDIA

By Jee



Recently the ABSDF confirmed that their headquarters had
fallen into the hands of Slorc forces. Earlier, the KNU
abandoned Manerplaw, the seat of Democratic forces in Burma. So
Slorc can claim, in the civil war it is winning one battle after
another.
But what about the media war?
Using its impotent media, Slorc is trying to mislead people both
at home and abroad by declaring that Manerplaw was
captured by a breakaway faction of the KNU and not by Slorc
forces. Even for the well brainwashed Army personnel it would be
hard to believe such lies. It is always a problem with
self-promoted generals to truly estimate the news awareness of
the Burmese people.
Once Burma was a land of newspapers. In the 1950s newspapers
played an important role in maintaining democracy in the
country. An American historian writes that, ?In the absence of
opposition in parliament, the newspapers had taken its place by
criticising the government and leading the people in
Burma.? The then Prime Minister held press-conference
regularly, twice a month. Both quality and quantity of
newspapers in Burma were high.
In March 1962, newspapers and students protested the coup
staged by Ne Win and his clique. As a result, leading
journalists were arrested, prominent newspapers were
nationalised and publications of other papers come to a stop.
Since then freedom of expression has ceased to exist in Burma.
Radio is always a 'Government organ' and has enjoyed little
credibility as long as news is concerned. The same with TV which
was introduced in 1979. For 30 years or so, so called State Media
carried nothing but propaganda. The people wanted information
from the government, not propaganda. They could not relinquish
the struggle for information.
During the 1988 uprising, it become more and more clear. The
military dictatorship, did not dare to provide correct
information, but instead tried to fabricate storities. News
blackouts made more people turn to foreign radio services such as
BBC, VOA and AIR. They do not want to see, hear or read State TV,
Radio and newspapers any more.
Will the Slorc media recover from the lack of public trust? It
has already lost its credibility. Who will believe it? Slorc
should think twice before using its impotent media to mislead
public opinion. So in the media war, Slorc is losing one
battle after another.          
(Jee contributed this comment to the Irrawaddy.)


VALUE OF KYAT REFLECTS NE WIN'S FEAR LOSING FACE

By U Thaung

Why does the Burmese government retain the highly unrealistic
exchange rate of six kyats to one US dollar, while the black
market rate is more than  hundred?
The question has arisen since the Burmese military government
introduced its open market policy with reasonable investment laws
for foreign investors.

Under the present exchange rate, any deal that does not earn
direct dollar revenue will be very unprofitable in terms of
foreign currency. 

The capital brought in is undervalued at the official exchange
rate, while profits will not be allowed to be repatriated at the
same official exchange rate.

Investors can get six kyats for every dollar they bring in,?
deduced an economist in his paper on the Burmese military way of
running a capitalist system. Why? The question was asked again
and again.

Lt-Gen Khin Nyunt and his associates never talk about this
question. Are they fools or is there another reason?
Yes! There is a reason on this issue. It is a top secret. Only
the top brass and a few people like me, know the reason behind
it.

The present military rulers, don't dare to think of changing the
rate of Burmese currency.

It happened nineteen years ago in January 1975. One morning I was
summoned by the Minister of Finance, Government of the Socialist
Republic of the Union of Burma, to his office and handed a
statement to release as a press communique. At that time I was a
Deputy Director at the Information Ministry, working as a press
liaison officer.

The announcement stated that the exchange rate of Burmese
currency, the kyat would change to K. 5.35 to the US, down dollar
from the previous rate of K4.81 to a dollar.
?It's devaluation!? without hesitation I happened to make the
remark.

?No! No! You must not use that word. Use the word revalued.
Definitely not devaluation. The cabinet ministers instructed me
not to use that word,? the minister told me in all
seriousness. 

He even looked worried on this matter. Though the newspapers
owned by the state obediently printed it as instructed, I was
curious about the absurd order and continued to dig up the story.
I obtained the inside story, but dared not to print at that time.
Now it can be told.
Dictator Ne Win had an inferiority complex about the value of the
Burmese currency during his rule. 

When Burma was freed from the British, the Burmese currency
exchange rate was kyats 4.76 to a US. dollar. The
parliamentary governments could maintain that exchange rate
through out their times. Nevertheless, since Ne Win staged the
coup in 1962, the kyat's value deteriorated. In 1971, the kyat
was devalued to 5.35 to a US. dollar. The dictator was ashamed
and very unhappy about this devaluation and he ordered his
government to increase the kyat's value artificially. It was
valued at kyat 4.81 to a US. dollar in 1973.

And in January 1975, the IMF pressured the Burmese Government in
accordance with the 'Special Drawing Right' and the
government had to devalue the kyat as suggested by the IMF.  Ne
Win was furious for about this action. It seemed that he believed
his face value had been devalued too. Ne Win summoned all the
cabinet ministers to his office and gave them a strong order not
to devalue the kyat in the future.
?You can do that over my dead body,? he said. Thus, there
would be no one who dared to touch the issue of currency
valuation. No matter how difficult it made trade exchange or how
much the kyat value shrunk, the current rate would stay until the
death of the great king.


THE POWER OF GOLF

Before I left for Myanmar, Dr Som - my fourth mentor ?
encouraged me to learn golf. He told me it would come in
handy, even in Yangon, and more business was done on the green
than in the office. Frankly, he was right about this as he has
proved to be about so many other things,? said Mr Aroon
Buranatanyarat, assistant vice-president of Siam City Bank's
Yangon Representative Office.

He said his favourite partners are HE U Kyi Aye, governor of the
Central Bank of Myanmar and Col Hla Thein, managing
director of Myanmar Foreign Trade Bank. 

It is hardly surprising. Burma's military officers play golf
because their godfather Gen Ne Win was crazy in about golf. So
all military officers practiced to play golf. Many diplomats in
Rangoon said that their golf is improving. 


NEW MILITARY HOSPITAL IN RANGOON


Recently, Slorc built a new military hospital in the
Mingaladon area. This 300-bed hospital will be finished in the
near future. As a civil war in Burma is going on the Slorc needs
more hospitals for their soldiers. At a recent battle between KNU
and Slorc, a hundred Burmese soldiers were killed. Slorc suffered
huge causalities during the recent offensive against the Kawmoora
camp. The source in Rangoon said, these soldiers do not know what
they are fighting for. 
(Inside sources)    


AN OPEN LETTER TO MAJOR CHO HTWE


Two months ago BIG received a letter from inside Burma which we
thought was that one of the usual letters send by
democracy-loving Burmese who want to inform. But the sender said
in the letter, ?To Burma Information Group, in order to use in
your newsletters [I] send a attached correspondent. Signed by
?Myanmar lover?
But as the letter was registered the sender signed his real name
on the back of the envelop. It was Major Cho Htwe. 
The information sent by Major Cho Htwe is not new to us. It is
about some minor problems among Burmese activists in the
U.S.A. Since Cho Htwe's letter is not worth reporting in our
newsletter we request Major Cho Htwe and other military
intelligence officers to send more information regarding human
rights abuses in Mandalay Moat, Ye-Tavoy railway road, as well as
power abuses by Slorc leaders and corruption among Slorc leaders.
For instance, Lt-Gen Kyaw Ba, Minister for Tourism recently
received a ?gift? amounting to 10% of hotel projects when
Leokayed 10 new major hotels. We would appreciate it if you can
send us more information on these issues.
Please do not hesitate to inform us. We will not censor or delay
to report your information.(Burma Inforamtion Group)