<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

III. Impossible Conditions for a Free and Fair Referendum

In the May 2008 referendum the Burmese people are being asked to vote on a draft constitution. A referendum that would reflect the will of the populace requires freedom of access to information, freedom of speech and expression, a free media, and freedom of association and assembly. In Burma, none of these fundamental requirements for a free and fair referendum exist.

Burma’s generals claim that the draft constitution aims to bring about “discipline-flourishing genuine multiparty democracy.” Yet the very run-up to the referendum would seem to preclude that possibility. The government-controlled media offers only crude propaganda in favor of a “Yes” vote, and talks of criminal penalties for those who oppose the referendum, creating a climate of fear. There has been no critical public discussion of the constitution’s contents; most people have not even seen the document. The generals are sending a clear message that their hand-crafted constitution will continue the military rule that has persisted for more than four decades.

Lack of Information about the Constitution

International human rights law envisions that citizens have a right to participate in public affairs. This includes both access to information and a free exchange of viewpoints.²⁶

The proposed constitution has been 14 years in the making, yet many Burmese have not seen the draft and are unfamiliar with its content. During the National Convention sessions, long passages from the detailed guiding principles (which eventually comprised the draft constitution) and the National Convention’s tightly scripted “discussions” were published in the state-controlled media, including the English-language New Light of Myanmar and its Burmese-language version Myanmar Alin, Kyemon (The Mirror), and on Myanmar Television.²⁷ A primer book on the future constitution was released in 2006 and prominently advertised in state-controlled media in 2006-2007, but many people in Burma have been unengaged—out of deep skepticism, disdain, or boredom with a process that seems never-ending.

The exact content of the draft constitution was not made available to the public until the SPDC released it on April 4, 2008, just one month and six days before the referendum. The SPDC had released an earlier draft (the completed principles of the constitution) to public servants in August 2007.

Even after its public release, copies of the draft constitution are only available for sale in bookstores in Rangoon (Human Rights Watch has limited information about the availability of the draft constitution outside Rangoon—it is reportedly available for reading at some public libraries) at a cost of 1,000 Kyat (US85¢)—a significant sum for most Burmese, given the endemic poverty in the country. The distribution of the draft constitution through bookshops will only reach a tiny fraction of the population, as most bookshops received only 50 copies of the draft constitution,²⁸ and there are no indications that the SPDC plans to distribute the draft constitution in Burma’s extensive rural areas, where the majority of the population resides.

The draft constitution is only available in the Burmese and English languages, and has not been translated into any of the 135 other languages spoken by an estimated 40 percent of the Burmese population who belong to ethnic minority groups.²⁹ Many of those from ethnic minorities do not read Burmese or English, again excluding much of the population from the opportunity to comprehend the constitution.

Furthermore, referendum officials have failed to inform the population how the referendum will be conducted on voting day, a significant obstacle for a population that has not been allowed to participate in a single election since 1990.

The SPDC has not permitted critics of the draft constitution to produce or distribute their own materials opposing a “Yes” vote in the referendum. Under Law 5/96, criticizing the “roadmap to democracy” is a criminal offense and can lead to prison sentences of up to 20 years. Opposition politicians, journalists, activists, and political commentators told Human Rights Watch that people are unable to make informed public comment, organize debates, write articles, distribute leaflets, hold rallies, produce stickers, put up posters, or even wear T-shirts without fear of arrest and long prison sentences.

In most rural areas, the lack of information about the draft constitution coupled with the tight control exerted by local officials and the military over the local population will effectively deny the local population the opportunity to cast a free and informed vote. An ethnic Karen school headmistress from the Irrawaddy Delta region explained to Human Rights Watch how she believed government officials would pressure people to vote “Yes” on referendum day, with most of the people not even knowing what they were voting on:

We’re scared, if we don’t support [the referendum] we will have to pay [a price], [be forced to] resign from work, no promotions, summoned by the police all the time. In our area no one has seen the new constitution. In our area the authorities are very strict. If we don’t attend a [pro-government] meeting they know and there will be payback…. We hear only rumors. We have no trust in the government.³⁰

The SPDC, its security forces, and its civilian militias have used intimidation and harassment to silence political activists and drive them underground. Human Rights Watch interviewed a young NLD member who had fled to the Thailand-Burma border in March 2008 after officers from the Special Branch came looking for him and his pamphlets critical of the referendum at his parents’ Rangoon home.

My father said, “Don’t come home, the Special Branch is looking for you.” I went into hiding. My pamphlets were about the referendum. If I got caught with the pamphlets I would get three years for criticizing the referendum or 20 years under the constitution law (5/96). I cannot go back. I worry about my friends, they have to live underground.³¹

Lack of Media Freedoms

Burma is a tough country in which to be a journalist, artist, comedian, rapper, or filmmaker. It remains one of the most repressive countries on earth in terms of its restrictive press laws and its frequent practice of jailing journalists. In 2007 the global press freedom organization Reporters Without Borders ranked Burma 165^th out of 167 countries reviewed for press freedoms, just ahead of Cuba and North Korea.³² The US-based Committee to Protect Journalists in 2007 listed Burma the second-worst country for media freedom, coming just before North Korea, and found that Burma was the fifth-leading jailer of journalists in the world.³³

The 1962 Printers and Publishers Registration Act requires that all materials for publication must first be submitted to the Press Scrutiny Registration Division (PSRD) in the Ministry of Information for approval, and such approval for non-state-owned newspapers and magazines can often take weeks. Publishers must submit each story to be published in triplicate to the PSRD, pay a fee, and wait out a nine-stage review process.³⁴ The PSRD can refuse to allow the publication of any story it deems inappropriate, including most criticism of the SPDC or the “roadmap to democracy,” and can order editors to rewrite stories.³⁵

At least seven prominent journalists are currently in prison for their work, including U Win Tin, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 1989 for “engaging in anti-government propaganda” in his writings and attempting to inform the United Nations about human rights abuses in Burma;³⁶ Maung Maung Lay Ngwe, imprisoned since 1990 for publishing information “that makes people lose respect for the government”;³⁷ Aung Htun, imprisoned since 1998 after publishing a seven-volume history of the student movement in Burma;³⁸ Thaung Tun, imprisoned in 1999 after producing an unauthorized film that exposed government mismanagement and human rights abuses;³⁹ and Ne Min, a freelance journalist who worked for the BBC and was sentenced to 15 years in prison in May 2004 on charges of illegally passing on information to “antigovernment” organizations (namely, the BBC) based outside Burma.⁴⁰ Thaung Sein, a freelancer, and Kyaw Thwin, a columnist with Dhamah Yate magazine, were arrested and sentenced in March 2006 for filming near the new capital Naypyidaw, and given three-year sentences for breaching the 1996 Television and Video Act.⁴¹ In 2004 the Supreme Court sentenced Zaw Thet Htwe, once the editor of the Burmese-language First Eleven sports magazine, to three years in prison on charges of high treason, after he had originally been sentenced to death the previous year for an article he wrote on corruption involving a grant to Burma from the international soccer organization FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association). He was released in 2005 following pressure from FIFA, Amnesty International, and Reporters Without Borders.⁴²

A typical recent case shows the extreme restrictions and the threat of criminal sanctions under which journalists in Burma work. In February 2008 security forces detained Ko Thet Zin, the chief editor of the weekly publication Myanmar Nation, and the weekly’s manager, U Sein Win Maung, arresting them at their paper’s offices. According to their relatives, the two journalists had been researching the September 2007 crackdown on democracy protests, and were found during the raid to be in possession of a Burmese translation of UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights Paulo Sergio Pinheiro’s 2007 report,⁴³ a DVD with video footage of the crackdown, and a book by the ethnic Shan leader Shwe Ohn titled “Let’s Build [an] Inseparable Union.”⁴⁴ In March 2008 the two journalists were charged with violating the Printers and Publishers Registration Act and accused of being in possession of “illegal materials”; trial is pending at this writing, and they could face up to seven years in prison if convicted. The publication of their weekly newspaper remains suspended.⁴⁵

The state-controlled New Light of Myanmar never reports critically about the government, focusing its coverage on bland stories about the government’s accomplishments, meetings, and charity activities engaged in by SPDC members, and vigorous denunciations of “external destabilizing elements” and their “internal stooges,” who are held responsible for all of Burma’s woes. During the lead-up to the referendum, the New Light of Myanmar faithfully reported the SPDC’s propaganda, branding opposition groups inside Burma and in exile as terrorists. A typical statement reads:

Now, terrorist insurgents are active under the pretext of democracy movements not only in underground areas and border areas but also in aboveground areas and urban areas. They are rising against the government in disguise, and have become audacious to attack and kill the people. Terrorist saboteurs have no justice, nor do they have relatives. Such criminals are always happy to commit subversive acts.⁴⁶

The New Light of Myanmar also portrayed the military (Tatmadaw) as theonly institution capable of protecting the country’s interests:

The patriotic Tatmadaw which is strong, efficient and modern, and can safeguard the State, its citizens and independence of the people against all internal and external dangers. These duties are assigned to it in the constitution by the national people.⁴⁷

Independent journalists, most of them working for Burma’s many weekly and monthly magazines, practice extreme self-censorship to avoid any run-ins with the authorities. In a series of interviews during March 2008, Human Rights Watch spoke with more than 10 Burma-based Burmese journalists about the daily challenges of working within such a system. Because of the SPDC’s severe restrictions, journalists inside Burma cannot inform the public about the critical issues in the forthcoming referendum vote for the constitution.

Journalists are unable to write stories critical of the draft constitution, or to write about how the public is responding to the issues involved. They are unable to write about how remote and rural communities view the referendum. The state media routinely ignores the views of ethnic communities, unless it is to show their support for various SPDC initiatives.⁴⁸ A journalist covering Burma for an international radio agency explained to Human Rights Watch how the Burmese public is denied news coverage free of propaganda:

Self-censorship is the enemy of journalism. If people disagree on the constitution they have no time, no way to voice those views. The [constitutional] principles have been widely distributed in government newspapers. But there has not been any articles debating or challenging the constitution. Journalists and public commentators who try to ensure Burmese people have access to real information about education, economics, trade, corruption, law and order, health and government policies, can be jailed, forced into exile or banned by the military government if their stories are deemed inflammatory to the regime.⁴⁹

The SPDC uses its institutions of control—the army, police, Special Branch, Military Intelligence (Sa Ya Ka—see below), and the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA)—and its vast network of informers to repress and generate fear among those journalists who dare to speak out against the government’s policies, referendum, or the constitution.⁵⁰ In April 2007 a journalist who works for a privately owned publication in Burma and an international news service spoke to Human Rights Watch about the daily harassment he faced:

I can’t write about politics in my country, unless I write pro-government views. The referendum has made me angry. I feel frustrated, and yet it’s hopeless. Working for foreign journalists is a scary experience. I was working with an international TV news crew as a researcher and translator. “Minders” from the Ministry of Information and one from Foreign Affairs warned me not to translate everything I was told. The “minders” were with us all the time. They warned me, “Rangoon is a small place, we can find you.” I was scared.⁵¹

In August and September 2007, during the violent crackdown against monks and citizens, Rangoon’s military commander ordered all journalists to stop taking photographs of the protests and issued a command to destroy cameras taken off people at the demonstrations. A Burmese photojournalist working for an international news agency was forced into hiding for weeks after receiving threats from police officers. He told Human Rights Watch why he had no other option but to flee Burma:

They knew me. Even though I was wearing my press accreditation and identification card I had no protection. They knew I was Burmese. They told me to stop taking photos. I knew they would get me. I photographed the woman union leader being taken and I was close to the Japanese photographer [Kenji Nagai] when he was shot. I had to leave. My life was in danger. I hid for weeks and made my way underground to the Thai border.⁵²

A dozen journalists told Human Rights Watch that they face greater restrictions on their work as the referendum approaches. State security forces have markedly increased scrutiny of their daily activities, and many independent journalists are afraid for their security. Journalists told Human Rights Watch they suspect they are being watched and followed, and that their phone calls are monitored. They know there are laws covering the reporting and discussion of the referendum, including Referendum Law 1/2008 and Law 5/96, but are unclear how they will be applied. Reporters are afraid of being caught by government security forces with the tools of their profession—cameras, USBs, CDs, tape recorders, and notebooks are all objects that attract suspicion and attention from authorities. A journalist told Human Rights Watch:

You don’t have to be beaten to be afraid. Constant rumors and whispers that people have been arrested and detained without trail is enough to make us cautious and afraid… If I see people standing outside my house, I get a taxi, I cannot go home. When I interview people I’m scared. I worry they might inform on me. I had to go to a temple for a job. I saw many plainclothes police there. I’m ready to be stopped. I try to write my notes in English so soldiers cannot read it. I don’t take earphones with me. If I have an MP3 [for recording interviews] I’m always prepared to throw it away.⁵³

Although virtually none of the media inside Burma can elude state censorship, a vigorous exile press does provide access to a wider variety of information sources to those Burmese who can afford satellite dishes to obtain their broadcasts. Although satellite dishes and receiving international broadcasts are banned in Burma, an estimated one million Burmese, most of them living in urban centers, have access to such services, according to Reporters Without Borders.⁵⁴ International news services such as the BBC Burmese Service, Radio Free Asia, Voice of America, and the Norway-based Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB) provide critical information to those who can afford—and are brave enough—to listen to them.

Restrictions on Freedom of Expression, Assembly, and Association

Freedom of expression

In Burma, government surveillance by a variety of formal and informal security structures, as well as “mass-based” organizations such as the USDA, is so omnipresent that most Burmese are too afraid to utter any critical opinions of the government in public, in semi-private places like teahouses, and even in private homes. They know security forces may question them about conversations, and they risk arrest and imprisonment for speaking critically about the government.⁵⁵ In such a climate of fear and surveillance, free and open discussion about the referendum and draft constitution is impossible.

The SPDC uses a wide variety of overlapping organizations to monitor and control the population, and to create this pervasive climate of fear. Various security agencies, including the Special Branch police and Military Intelligence (Sa Ya Ka, from its Burmese acronym derived from Office of Military Affairs Security), normally in plainclothes, frequent any area of potential dissent, such as teahouses, guesthouses, markets, and shops, monitoring the conversations taking place and collecting intelligence from informers. Most known activists are under constant surveillance by these formal security agencies, and anyone these activists come into contact with risks arrest and questioning.⁵⁶

An ethnic Karen schoolteacher from Pa-An town described for Human Rights Watch how the constant surveillance prevented candor on political issues even during private conversations:

Even if we have [private] discussions, the government has many people who spy on us—the Ya Ya Ka [local government], “white shirts” [USDA], “Masters of Force” [a USDA-linked militia, see below]—they’re [recruited] from our community. We have no personal security amongst those in our community; they train these people to be able to watch their neighbors.⁵⁷

The formal security agencies are only the first level of control. Even more invasive and prevalent are the different levels of the SPDC, operating from the national level right down to the township and ward level, and the “mass-based” USDA, the “civilian” organization created and controlled by the SPDC to provide a civilian face for its military rule. At local levels the USDA and its abusive militia, the Swan Arr Shin (“Masters of Force”), directly monitor the activity of all persons in their area, and deal violently with anyone believed to be a threat to the SPDC.⁵⁸ Other mass-based organizations completely under the control (and leadership) of the SPDC, such as the Myanmar War Veterans’ Association (MWVA), the Myanmar Women’s Affairs Federation (MWAF), and even the Auxiliary Fire Brigade, engage in a variety of activities to ensure SPDC control, including harassment, monitoring, and physical attacks against opposition activists.⁵⁹

In Burma, all household residents have to be registered and a list of all occupants given to the local authority, after which a copy of the list is attached to the outside of the house. Local authorities have to be notified of all visitors, and households have to have those exact people staying there, no fewer and no more.⁶⁰ At any time of the day or night local authorities or the security agencies can enter any home to check the occupants against the list of household residents.

The military runs networks of informers, and neighbors spying on neighbors creates a sense of paranoia and mistrust among people in the communities. The SPDC rewards those who inform with personal gains such as preferential access to education, job promotion, and foodstuffs.⁶¹

Authorities also intimidate employers to pressure their workers to side or vote for the government. This intimidation is not subtle. It comes in undiluted threats from the military intelligence. Plainclothes military personnel monitor workers, and report “wrongs” or “suspicions” to authorities for further action to be taken against the “culprits.” Aung Zay, a trader from Kyai Klad in Irrawaddy division, explained to Human Rights Watch how workers must cooperate or risk harassment:

The company owner tells his workers which way to vote—workers depend on the boss—they have to listen to the boss, but the workers can choose. If the boss doesn’t listen he will be restricted in his trading, he will find it hard to get permits [for goods, selling licenses, to travel, and sending and receiving freight].⁶²

A former member of the government-sponsored USDA from a Rangoon township told Human Rights Watch about the work he did for the USDA on orders from the SPDC in relation to the referendum. He explained how the SPDC used violent thugs working with the local authorities to generate fear in local ward/quarters and to persuade voters of the merits of a “Yes” vote. He said that military intelligence officers and members of the local authority usually accompanied the USDA on their forays. He related an incident from March 2008 in which their mission was to identify “Yes” and “No” referendum voters. The potential “Nos” were later targeted for nighttime threats, abuse, and beatings.

The people who say “No” we write down their name and address. If they still say “No” we go back late at night and beat them. We go with Ya Ya Ka and take them to the jail. We accuse them of being a thief, a drunk. We explain we can give them trouble, give them many problems. Most are scared. [One person] we talked to about the referendum… he said he was not interested, he was against it. We came back later to his house and took him to the Ya Ya Ka office and pushed and beat him and told him he faced many problems.⁶³

Freedom of association and assembly

Freedom of association and assembly is sharply restricted in Burma by a range of laws, as well as by police and military actions to disperse any public gatherings deemed to be anti-government. The colonial-era Unlawful Association Act (1908) remains in force, broadly outlawing any association that “interferes with the administration of the law… [or is] a danger to the public peace.”⁶⁴ SLORC Order No. 2, issued during the student demonstrations of 1988, bans “[g]athering, walking, marching in procession, chanting slogans, delivering speeches, agitating, and creating disturbances on the streets by a group of five or more people... regardless of whether the act is with the intention of creating a disturbance or of committing a crime or not.”⁶⁵ The State Protection Law of 1975 permits the administrative detention for 90 days (renewable for an additional 90 days) of persons mobilizing for perceived anti-government activity.⁶⁶ During the 2007 crackdown, authorities also invoked article 144 of the Penal Code, which bans groups of five people gathering together.⁶⁷

On August 22, 2007, New Light of Myanmar reported the arrest of 18 political activists who had engaged in a peaceful “walking” protest against rising prices. The papers headline trumpeted, “Agitators taken into custody for undermining stability and security of the nation, attempting to disrupt the National Convention.” The newspaper story named the “agitators” and their “crimes”:

Information was received in advance that with ill-intention of grabbing power, internal and external destructive elements who do not wish to see the endeavors of the government are plotting to oust the government by resorting to three strategies; to disrupt the National Convention, to cause civil unrest similar to the ’88 disturbances and to commit various acts within [sic.] the framework of law.… Tonight, authorities concerned have taken into custody and are interrogating the so-called ’88 generation students Min Ko Naing, Ko Ko Gyi, Pyone Cho (a) Htay Win Aung, Min Zeya, Min Aye (a) Thura, Kyaw Min Yu (a) Jimmy Zeya (a) Kalama, Kyaw Kyaw Htwe (a) Markee, Arnt Bwe Kyaw, Panneik Tun, Zaw Zaw Min, Thet Zaw and Nyan Lin Tun for their acts may undermine the efforts for ensuring peace and security of the State, the success of the National Convention and the seven-step road Map and peaceful transfer of the State power.⁶⁸

Even peaceful and non-threatening protests may subject the protestor to arrest and a long prison term. For example, in April 2007 an HIV-positive man, Ko Tin Ko, held a peaceful solitary protest outside the Dagon Center in Rangoon to call on the authorities to provide more antiretroviral drugs, and was promptly arrested and detained at a communicable diseases hospital for his actions.⁶⁹

On August 23, 2007, security forces detained Ohn Than for mounting a solo protest in front of the disused US Embassy in Rangoon, shouting pro-democracy slogans. In April 2008 he was sentenced to life in prison for “causing disaffection to the state,” the crime of sedition under section 124(a) of the Penal Code of Burma.⁷⁰

Despite these severe restrictions, activists are seeking to mount protests against the upcoming referendum, and security personnel are detaining them as a result. On March 27, 2008, more than 30 NLD activists wearing T-shirts with “NO” emblazoned on them briefly took to Rangoon streets urging the public to register a “NO” in the May 10 referendum. Three days later, on March 30, security forces detained five of the activists who had taken part in the protests. Khin Oo, Ye Zaw Tike, Zarni Aung, Aung Kyaw, and Tin Oo Maung were taken from their homes by the authorities to undisclosed locations. On the night of April 1, Tin Myint and Tun Aung, respectively chairperson and a youth member of Thigankyun township NLD branch, were arrested by Special Branch police, and at this writing are still in custody.⁷¹

In rural regions, villagers say they are also threatened and beaten by soldiers and local officials for perceived anti-SPDC activities.⁷² A Karen district officer told Human Right Watch about the problems faced by his constituents trying to make sense of the constitution:

If we meet to discuss [the constitution] the soldiers will cause us problems, so we have to meet in secret. If we campaign or hand out leaflets we will be killed. Even in small cases, not big like the referendum, they will kill.⁷³

Rallies called by the USDA or other pro-government organizations do not face any obstacles being organized, and attendance at such stage-managed events is often mandatory for the residents of an area. If residents refuse to attend, they can be “fined” an unofficial tax imposed by local authorities or military units for non-compliance. The refusal may be used against them and their families in other ways too.⁷⁴ Human Rights Watch spoke to a manager of a computer shop who was told to send staff to one such rally:

The SPDC order us to attend mass rallies, they use trucks to bring the people [to the rallies]. You know you can’t refuse, if you do you will face hardships. You stop getting permits, orders for stock from the government. The Ya Ya Ka [local authorities] and members of the [volunteer, pro-government] Fire Brigade came to my shop and asked me to send two staff to a rally in December. I had to send them to the Ya Ya Ka office by 4 a.m. I’m a businessman, I have to contribute to whatever they want. I want a good relationship with them.⁷⁵

As already noted, the SPDC has created a variety of government-controlled, “mass-based” (and purportedly volunteer) organizations as part of a civilian facade to continued military rule. Independent nongovernmental organizations are permitted to operate in “non-political” spheres—development work and health and local community programs—but must carefully circumscribe their activities in order not to run afoul of the government.

Political parties are subjected to particular scrutiny by the SPDC, and their activities are severely curtailed. By 1996 the Election Commission of Burma had deregistered at least 80 of the 93 political parties that had contested the 1990 elections, often using spurious reasons with no legal foundation as a basis for their decisions. Aside from the NLD and the military-backed National Unity Party (NUP), the only political parties that continue to function in Burma are those that represent the interests of certain ethnic nationalities, in some cases those that have signed ceasefire agreements with the SPDC such as the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO) and United Wa State Party (UWSP). Legal political parties organized along ethnic lines still exist and attended the National Convention from the beginning, such as the United Karen League, Union Pa-O National Organization, Shan State Kokang Democratic Party, Mro O Khami Unity Organization, Kokang Democracy and Unity Party, Lahu National Development Party, and the Wa National Development Party.

The party that won the second highest number of seats in the 1990 election, the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy (SNLD), was outlawed in 2005 after the SPDC arrested the leadership, including Hkun Htun Oo and others, and sentenced them each to over 90 years in prison for attempting to liaise with members of the Shan armed faction.⁷⁶

The SPDC continues to severely repress the NLD, although it remains a lawful political party. As noted in Chapter II, NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi has been under strict house arrest since May 2003. The NLD’s national committee, made up mostly of elderly NLD officials, is allowed to meet occasionally, but the SPDC have arrested and imprisoned hundreds of NLD branch leaders and members over the years for carrying out ordinary party activities.⁷⁷

Authorities harass members of the NLD in order to pressure them to resign from the party. A teacher, a former NLD member in Pa-An town, explained how he was pressured to resign from the NLD by the local authorities in 2007:

They called me in to the Ya Ya Ka office and told me to resign from the NLD. If I didn’t they said they’d find something “wrong” with me. They have all the names of NLD members. We have no choice, we have to resign. Even though I resigned they still investigated me to find something “wrong.” It is easy to find something wrong—they accuse you of being drunk, or they deny you a promotion or travel documents. My family was worried. I had to sign my resignation statement.⁷⁸

A trader from Irrawaddy division told Human Rights Watch how he witnessed a noodle maker lose his business after he joined the NLD in 2005:

He soon lost his permit [to trade] and was closed down. He no longer lives there, he had to move away. As a businessman I have to act according to their [SPDC’s] rules. If I do so, if I do it’s okay. The unwritten law is don’t join the NLD. If you maintain a good relationship with the SPDC there’s no trouble. I do business with people who are connected [to the SPDC], I can’t join opposition groups, I can’t have an opinion, I can’t talk about politics, I can’t talk about the referendum. I can only talk with close friends and listen to the radio in secret. I can’t listen openly to the BBC.⁷⁹

Pre-referendum attacks on political activists

Since late March 2008, plainclothes assailants believed to be members of the security forces, the USDA, or the Swan Arr Shin militia, have committed a number of attacks on NLD and human rights activists, apparently to intimidate the opposition while hiding government responsibility.

On April 3, two men attacked NLD member Tin Yu in Hlaing Tharyar township. The assailants arrived on a motorcycle, and one had a walkie-talkie at his waist (normally used by security officials). According to Tin Yu, his assailants hit him in the face with batons. After the attack Tin Yu was taken to a hospital and had 20 stitches for facial wounds he sustained in the attack. He told journalists he was convinced he was attacked by the security forces or an SPDC-backed organization:

The only people who have walkie-talkies are Swan Arr Shin, the Union Solidarity and Development Association, and the Fire Services Department. Of course, the police and the military intelligence also have them. So, who can it be except them?⁸⁰

The Hlaing Tharyar township NLD chairman, Myint Hlaing, was hit on the head and required several stitches to his head after an unknown assailant attacked him outside his home on March 30.⁸¹

Myint Aye, a founder of the Human Rights Defenders and Promoters (HRDP) group and one of the few human rights activists openly working inside Burma, was attacked by two assailants in Sachaung township in Rangoon on March 27. The men beat him severely on the head with batons, and he had to be hospitalized after the attack. Myint Aye believed he was attacked because of his human rights activities.⁸²

Continued Widespread Detention of Political Activists

According to the Thailand-based Assistance Association for Political Prisoners—Burma (AAPP), there are at least 1,890 political prisoners currently held in Burmese prisons. This includes 755 new detainees since January 2007, the majority of whom were detained following the September 2007 crackdown. Political opposition activists face constant harassment, state-sponsored violence, vicious slandering in the state-controlled press (where they are routinely described as the “internal stooges” of “external destabilizing elements”), arbitrary arrest and detention, and long-term imprisonment. Many have been imprisoned after unfair, often summary trials simply for engaging in peaceful political actions or peacefully expressing their political beliefs, including some who have received life sentences.⁸³ Such arrests and imprisonment continue in the run-up to the referendum.

The widespread arbitrary detention of political activists impacts on Burma’s political scene in two major ways. First, it has removed many of the most prominent activists, including most of the top leadership of the ’88 Generation student movement, from the public scene, preventing them from organizing against the referendum and other issues. Second, the harsh sentences handed down against political activists serve to intimidate the larger population of Burma, sending a clear message to refrain from opposition activities or risk the consequences.⁸⁴

In the first three months of 2008 at least 52 activists have been detained by the security forces. Most of those recently detained are members of the NLD, the ’88 Generation, human rights activists, and labor rights activists, accused of involvement in the August-September 2007 democracy protests or smaller protests since then, including anti-referendum protests (as documented elsewhere in this report).

Lack of Independent Monitoring Structures, and SPDC Control over the Organs of State

There will be no domestic or international monitoring of the constitutional referendum. The SPDC does not permit domestic monitoring groups—there are no independent, nongovernmental organizations that would be allowed to monitor and report on the conduct of the referendum. The state Referendum Commission is not expected to play a monitoring role, and if it did, there is no basis for believing it would or could act independent or impartially.

Burma has refused to allow any foreign monitoring of the referendum. The Referendum Commission rejected a proposal from UN Special Advisor Ibrahim Gambari that Burma invite international monitors to observe the referendum vote and to ensure the process met international standards. The government responded that it was within Burma’s sovereign right to hold such a referendum and that foreign monitors had not been invited to monitor Burma’s 1973 referendum.⁸⁵ The Referendum Commission also refused Gambari’s offer of UN technical assistance with organizing the referendum, saying that Burma “has adequate experience” conducting elections.⁸⁶ Since the government rigged the 1973 referendum, and overturned the results of the most recent national election in 1990, SPDC claims of having “adequate experience” ring hollow.

The absence of domestic and international monitoring mechanisms, as well as the sharp restrictions on both domestic and international media, mean that both the Burmese people and the international community will be kept in the dark about the conduct of the referendum. Any SPDC manipulation of the process, whether behind-the-scenes or in public, may go unpublicized, at least in the short term.