UN Amu Madu Kaba A Laksan Dat Kasa Mr. Vijay Nambia Laiza De Sa Du

UN Amu Madu Kaba A Laksan Dat Kasa Mr. Vijay Nambia Laiza De Sa Du

August  29, 2013
Written by KNET

2013 ning August shata (28) ya shani (11:00)am aten UN Amumadu kaba a laksan datkasa Mr. Vijay Nambia, Mss. Marian, P.C.G ni hte K.I.O machyoi hpung rapdaw ni gaw KIO Ginjaw rai nga ai Laiza Muklum de sa du ai lam chye lu ai.

Laiza de sa du ai Mr Vijay Nambia hte Mss. Marian, PCG, KIO machyoi hpung rapdaw ni gaw KIO Ginjaw Komiti Salang ni hte hkrumzup da nna Je Yang hpyen yen dabang, Woichyai hpyen yen dabang ni hta sa du gawan da ai lam chye lu ai.

Dai hpang manhkrum lu sha hpe rau jawm sha nna, (3:30)pm aten hta Laiza kaw nna Myitkyina de bai nhtang wa sai lam hpe chye lu ai.

UN Special Envoy Makes First Visit to Kachin Headquarters

UN Special Envoy Makes First Visit to Kachin Headquarters

RFA
2013-08-28

Vijay Nambiar (L) gives money to a Kachin family at a refugee camp in Myitkyina, Feb. 5, 2013. AFP

U.N. special envoy to Myanmar Vijay Nambiar visited the headquarters of Kachin ethnic rebels for the first time Wednesday, meeting with officials from the group’s political wing and touring camps for people who remain displaced by fighting which ended under a peace agreement signed in May.

Nambiar, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Special Advisor on Myanmar, arrived in Kachin state’s Laiza, headquarters of the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO), and spent around five hours in the area, holding talks with KIO officials and inspecting camps for internally displaced people (IDPs).

Doi Pyi Sa, head of the IDP and Refugee Relief Committee (IRRC), told RFA’s Myanmar Service that four peace facilitators were included in Nambiar’s entourage and that though he spoke with KIO leaders at length, it was unclear what they had discussed.

“It was just a visit and we were not able to discuss anything with him because of his time frame,” he said.

“He and his group visited the Diya IDP camp and an IDP camp in Laiza.”

The Laiza visit follows the establishment of a KIO Technical Advisory Team in the government-controlled Kachin state capital Myitkyina last month as part of a seven-point peace agreement the two sides signed at the end of May.

The peace talks were mediated by both the U.N. and China in the Kachin capital. And while they fell short of negotiating a full cease-fire, provisions in the agreement include monitoring mechanisms that have contributed to a reduction in military conflict in the region, according to the Kachin News Group.

However, fighting between militias loyal to rebels and the government has increased in northeastern Kachin state since mid-August, the news site reported.

Nambiar had visited Myitkyina in February, when he met with Kachin families at an area refugee camp.

Shan meeting

Nambiar met with Shan leaders in Myitkyina on Tuesday to discuss the status of their ethnic minority in Kachin state and said he was surprised to find that they were given little representation by the KIO.

Shan community leaders say around 20,000 members of their ethnic group have been displaced by the fighting in Kachin state, where Shan tribes have lived for centuries. Around 300,000 Shan live in Kachin state, which is home to about 1.2 million people.

A Shan tribal leader told RFA that he had spoken to Nambiar about the difficulties the displaced people of his ethnic group face in Kachin state.

“He replied that he thought the KIO and KIA [the organization’s armed wing] had been working for all people in Kachin state, but his impression was wrong because they have worked only for the Kachin ethnic group and not for the Shan,” the tribal leader said.

“The KIO and KIA are not representing our ethnic group, and we are not given any opportunity to have our voices heard.”

Shan leaders have said that many of the refugee organizations in Kachin state are Christian-backed and focus only on providing aid to the largely Christian Kachin population.

Members of the Shan community are also reluctant to take up offers to join Kachin refugee camps because they prefer to stay with their own ethnic group.

Shan leaders presented Nambiar with a letter containing a number of challenges the ethnic group faces in the region, and the envoy pledged to discuss the issue with the international community and rights organizations.

Quintana visit

Last week, Tomas Ojea Quintana, the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, expressed concern over issues linked to the relief, rehabilitation, and resettlement of refugees in northern Kachin state which were covered under the seven-point peace agreement.

Speaking at the conclusion of a 10-day trip to Myanmar, he said that U.N. humanitarian agencies had been provided with access to nongovernment-controlled areas only once between July 2012 and July 2013, calling the information “extremely concerning, particularly with regard to food security.”

He said that he had also attempted to visit Laiza during the mission, but that the state and central governments were unable to grant him clear permission.

The Kachin say they want greater autonomy and increased representation in reformist President Thein Sein’s nominally civilian government, which took power from the former junta in 2011 and set the country on a path to democracy.

Reported by Tin Aung Khine and Kyaw Myo Min for RFA’s Myanmar Service. Translated by Khet Mar. Written in English by Joshua Lipes.

Quintana "Being Left Totally Unprotected by the Nearby Police" in Meikthila As Angry Mobs

Hpawt-hpra Jinghpaw Wunpawng Amyu Sha ni a Mung Masa Gam Maka

Jinghpaw Wunpawng Amyu sha ni gaw  ginru ginsa labau hta galu kaba nga ai Amyu sha hte Mungdan hku nna nga grin hpawng-de sa wa lu na matu grak lagra shakut shaja wa yu ai labau sakse laili laika ni hpe tam sawk sagawn hkaja na matu nloi ai.

1947 ning du hkra Jinghpaw Wunpawng amyu sha ni a lapran e Mung Masa, Hpyen masa, machye machyang hpaji madang, sut masa hku nna Uhpung masum daram ga garan nga ai hpe dan dan dawng dawng mu chye hkaja lu ai.

Dai Uhpung masum gaw:

1.    Shaning tsa lam kahtap nna Myen Hkawhkam ni hte mahku mara htinglu htinglai nga lai wa ai Hukawng Magam Du ni hte aru arat ni.

2.    1890 ning hkan na English mung maden ni a lawu e hpyen magam gun shing nrai English/ American magam gun ai hte hpaji jawng lung hpang wa ai Sinli-Manmaw Jinghpaw Wunpawng Amyu sha ni.

3.    Kadai maigan amyu a ginjang ka-up nhkrum ai sha nga pra hkrat wa ai Hting-nai Jinghpaw Wunpawng Amyu sha ni rai nga ai.

Ndai Uhpung masum a lapran na ginru ginsa shingdu labau, Mung Masa, Sut Masa hte Hpaji machye machyang madang nbung hkat ai marang e 1948 – 1961 lapran Parliament Democracy mung masa kata Jinghpaw Amyu sha ni a mung masa, Sut Masa, hpaji masa ni hpe bawngring gan-ga madang sharawt lu ai madang atsang de n du wa lu ai sha kadai mung kadai chye ai hku shakut shaja wa ai hpe labau hta hkaja chye lu ai, ningmu kaja ni hpe jahkrup bawngban nhtawm tatut hkrang shapraw woi galaw sa wa lu ai lam nnga ai hpe hkaja chye lu ai, mi moi na bum langai hta Du langai up sha ai akyang lailen ni hpe mung nshamat nshayawm lu ma ai. Dai majaw 1949 ning Du Kaba Lahpai Zau Seng Rawt Malan hpang wa ai hp eaten kadun aloi sha Jinghpaw Wunpawng shada adup agrawp kau ya ai lam rai nga ai.

1962 ning kaw nna tinang mungdan ngu ai pandung hte rawt malan gasat wa ai hkrunlam hta  raitim uhpung kata ningbaw ningla shada nju ndawng, mung shawa hpe lam nchye woi, daru magam ahkang aya kashun hkat nna rawt malan labau ahkyeng amang byin lai wa yu sai. Myen hte simsa lam ngu ai ga hpaw dat shagu Uhpung kata “ga kaprang” wa ai chyu byin lai wa yu sai ..

Ya numdaw langai hta bai du nga saga ai, myit hkrum mangrum makai hkak, ta gindun let mungdan bungli hpe galaw sa wa ai nrai yang tinang a gam maka tinang hparan lu ai mungdaw mungdan ngu ai gaw shum tsun sa.. shingran na matu pi nmai na nhten.

Ya anhte du nga sai aprat ninggam gaw laiwa sai (10)ning hkan na masa hte pi nbung sai hpe hkaja chye lu ai.. kanu dapnu hpe woi awn nga ai hpu-awn nkau gaw tinang KIO/KIA hta grau dam lada tsaw ai Uhpung kaba ni hpe pi jum hpareng woi awn ai ningbaw ningla ni nga wa sai hte maren US, UK, Japan sha n-ga mungkan chyam hkra tinang kaw rawng ai atsam ni hpe sunglang woi awn na matu ahkaw ahkang kaba ni mung lu nga saga ai… ningbaw ningla kaja ni hpe shaprat nga ai aten ladaw rai nga ai the maren amyu sha ni hpe woi awn na, amyu sha mung masa hpe woi awn na matu respected leaders law law dan pru wa magang nga sai hpe mu chye lu nga saka ai. shingre respected leaders law law byin pru wa na matu ningbaw ningla magam bungli gun hpai nga sai ni hku nna Hpyen majan gasat ai lam, mung masa machye machyang hte mung shawa hte kanawn mazum(public relationship skill) hta ningtawn ra ai sha n-ga moral quality hpe mung chye na hkan sa ai ningbaw ningla ni hpawt-hpra a matu ra nga sai aten rai nga ai.. teng sha wa ram nan ram sai ngu ai ningbaw ningla langai hpe hkan shingdang hkum pat tawn lu na gaw kadai mung dangdi lu na nrai nga ai.

Amyu sha ningbaw ningla ngu sai hte maren Ja Nhkun langai, Hpun Lawk langai tinggyeng sut hpaga the mying jahten la ai lam hpe koi gam nhtawm  Amyu sha ting a hpaji lam(Statewide Education system), amyu sha sut hpaga lam, amyu sha Gaw-gap lam ngu ai, dam lada ai hku myit shajin tawn ra na rai nga ai, daigaw billion dollars investment ni re majaw grau kaba grau dam lada ai hku sa wa ra nga saga ai, anhte na anhte n-galaw chye yang ,,, maigan wa hpe sha kam ra na gaw lai nli re.

Jinghpaw Wunpawng amyu sha yawng a mung masa pandung de du na matu gaw maigan jasam wa dangdi lu ai nrai .. anhte yawng a myit hkrum kahkyin gumdin ai myit jasat gaw madung n-gun kaba rai na re .. Mung masa shawng de lahkam sa wa lu na matu ningpawt ninghpang hku nna KIO/KIA ningbaw ningla ni hta myithkrum n-gun rawng ra ai. daihpang Nawku hpung ni, Lawngwaw, Lashi, Azi, Rawang, Lisu, Jinghpaw amyu sha ningbaw ni mung masa hkrum bawngban zuphpawng galaw nhtawm Wunpawng Mungdan/ Kachinland a shawnglam gam maka hpe myit hkrum masing jahkrat nhtawm mung masa bungli ndai hpe rau jawm galaw sa wa ra ai. Dai hpang wunpawng mungdan/ Kachinland kata nga shanu ai Myen, Sam, Gorkha(nepali), Miwa the kaga bawsang ni a amyu sha ahkaw ahkang (mung masa ahkaw ahkang chyawm gaw kadai mung kade mungdan hta lu nga chyalu ahkaw ahkang rai na re) hte ngamu ngamai shimlam ni hpe jawm gaw sharawt sa wa ya lu ai shani she bawngring gan-ga simsa ngwi pyaw ai Kachinland/ Wunpawng mungdan ngu ai shingran hpe tatut hkam sha mu lu na re ngu ai labau hta sharin la ai ningmu hte sawn lu ai lam ni hpe tang madun dat nngai rai.


Yu Maya Hpyen Magam Gun Dingsa
August 18, 2013

Burma: Joint Letter to President Obama on Reporting Requirements

Burma: Joint Letter to President Obama on Reporting Requirements

August 12, 2013


The Honorable Mr. Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20500


Dear President Obama,

We are writing to express our concerns regarding the first public reports from U.S. companies under the Burma Responsible Investment Reporting Requirements (“Reporting Requirements”). We commend the companies that have complied with the July deadline for timely reporting but are concerned that the reports exhibit serious informational gaps. We call on your Administration to correct these oversights and avoid setting a precedent allowing companies to avoid forthright disclosures in future reports.

The Reporting Requirements were intended to help the U.S. Government and U.S. businesses manage the impacts of investment and safeguard human rights in Burma, as well as to provide the transparency that civil society groups need in order to promote responsible investment. However, the reports cannot assist in these efforts if companies interpret the drafting language to avoid making full disclosures. In order to ensure that the Reporting Requirements fulfill their intended purposes, we advise your Administration to make clear that companies are expected to:

· Assume responsibility for due diligence on the impacts of their investments, regardless of whether they manage those investments in a manner that is “passive” or hands-on;

· Disclose their Burmese partners; and

· Fully comply with the Reporting Requirements by submitting summaries or copies of their policies and procedures under Question 5 on Human Rights, Worker Rights, Anti-Corruption, and Environmental Policies and Procedures, Question 6 on Arrangements with Security Service Providers, and Question 7 on Property Acquisitions.

Application of due diligence responsibilities to passive investments

The U.S. investment sanctions – of which the Reporting Requirements are an integral part – are predicated on the understanding that investments in Burma may exacerbate human rights abuses, conflict, and corruption and could frustrate U.S. foreign policy interests. They make no distinction between the character of investments; rather, they apply equally to hands-off ("passive") investors and those actively engaged in managing their investments. Yet in three separate reports, two related investment funds, Capital Bank and Trust Company and Capital International Inc. (collectively, “Capital”) declined to report on their human rights, worker rights, anti-corruption, and environmental policies and procedures, arrangements with security service providers, property acquisition practices, payments to the Burmese government, or even the general nature of their investments in Burma. In fact, Capital provided no detail about the extent and nature of these investments, and justified its failure to report on the grounds that its investments in Yoma Strategic Holdings, Ltd. (“Yoma”) are merely “passive.”

The fact that Capital believes it has no responsibility to manage the impacts of its investments is especially disturbing because Yoma has operations in plantation agriculture and real estate, sectors that are notorious for land confiscation, labor abuse, and environmental destruction. If all investment funds with a “passive” relationship to their Burmese investment targets were to take the same position, U.S. capital could flood high-risk sectors – such as extractives, plantation agriculture, and infrastructure development – without providing the transparency needed to ensure that these investments are not in fact harming U.S. foreign policy interests.

Your Administration should clarify that all investors in Burma are expected to report thoroughly on their activities, even self-declared “passive” investors. “Passive” investors – just like handson investors – should explain in detail the nature and scope of their investment and the due diligence, if any, they have conducted. International standards concerning responsible corporate investment, including the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, which the U.S. has endorsed, demand human rights due diligence from all companies that operate internationally, and apply equally to active and passive investors.

Several national governments and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights have concluded that all investors – even minority investors – should use their leverage with business partners to prevent and address human rights abuses uncovered as a result of thorough due diligence. The Administration must not allow the first public reports to establish the precedent that companies may skirt detailed reporting by declaring their investments “passive,” thus negating the very purpose of the Reporting Requirements.

Identification of Burmese partners

For the Reporting Requirements to incentivize positive, responsible investment behavior, companies must disclose the names of their local partners, subsidiaries, and subcontractors. This information, if reported publicly, can empower your Administration and civil society groups to have more productive exchanges with companies, thereby assisting U.S. investors to mitigate the adverse impacts of their investments. However, companies are interpreting the Reporting Requirements as if they did not contemplate this outcome. Hercules Offshore, a company involved in offshore oil and gas activities that submitted the most detailed of the initial five reports, explained that its due diligence procedures included its local suppliers and subcontractors. However, and despite the fact that the Reporting Requirements ask companies to disclose the names of all companies covered by their reports, Hercules declined to identify its local supplier.

Your Administration should insist that companies publicly identify their Burmese partners in order to support civil society monitoring of U.S. investments. Due diligence necessarily covers suppliers, purchasers, and contractors, particularly in Burma, where corruption and human rights risks remain high. Neither civil society organizations nor the U.S. Government can monitor such risks unless investors disclose the identities of these related entities.

Publication of policies and procedures

In order to allow civil society organizations and the U.S. Government to trouble-shoot U.S. companies’ investment relationships and manage problems before they occur, investors have been required to provide concise summaries or copies of their policies and procedures related to human rights, the environment, labor, land acquisition, and corruption. If companies’ procedures are vague or inadequate, they may run an unreasonably high risk of contributing to human rights and other abuses in Burma. Moreover, without adequate information about these policies and procedures, constructive engagement with individual investors becomes much more difficult.

The report submitted by Crowley Marine Services does not fulfill this requirement. Rather, Crowley states only that the company “maintains” policies, without explaining, describing, or attaching them to the report. Your Administration should require Crowley to submit summaries or copies of relevant policies and procedures. Otherwise, Crowley's report may set a negative precedent that the Reporting Requirements can be ignored without consequence.

Tracking reporting obligations

Finally, our organizations are interested in the extent to which the Administration is tracking U.S. companies’ investments in Burma in order to ensure reporting when they reach the $500,000 threshold. Has the State Department received all the reports it expected to receive to date, and how will it proceed if it suspects that a report has been unlawfully withheld? We believe the U.S. Government should have an established mechanism to monitor the overall level of U.S. investment in Burma and to require investors to submit reports. Investors should not be able to conceal their investments.

Thank you for your consideration of these recommendations. Our organizations are pleased that the Reporting Requirements have gone into effect, and we hope that your Administration will take the necessary steps to establish a precedent of thorough and high-quality reporting by U.S. companies. As always, we are grateful for the continued engagement by senior leadership in your Administration on these critical issues.




Signed by:

Access
Actions Birmanie – Belgium
AFL-CIO
Altsean-Burma
Burma Campaign UK
Burma Environmental Working Group
Burma Partnership
EarthRights International
Fortify Rights
Freedom House
Global Witness
Human Rights Foundation of Monland
Human Rights Watch
Institute for Asian Democracy
International Labor Rights Forum
International Trade Union Confederation
Investors Against Genocide
Jubilee USA Network
Karen Human Rights Group
Karen Environmental and Social Action Network
Karenni Civil Society Network
Land Core Group of the Food Security Working Group
Orion Strategies
Physicians for Human Rights
Responsible Sourcing Network, a project of As You Sow
United to End Genocide
US Campaign for Burma

CC:
John Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State
Jacob Lew, U.S. Secretary of Treasury
Susan Rice, National Security Advisor
Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications
Uzra Zeya, Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor, Department of State
Daniel Russel, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of East Asia and the
Pacific, Department of State
Cheryl Hesse, Capital Guardian Emerging Markets DC Master Fund, Emerging
Markets Growth Fund, Inc., and Capital Guardian Emerging Markets Restricted
Equity Fund for Tax-Exempt Trusts
Charles Lestage, Hercules Offshore, Inc.
Mark Miller, Crowley Marine Services, Inc.

“၂၀၀၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒ” ကို ခ်ိဳးေဖာက္ႏုိင္သူ ဗိုလ္ေရႊမန္း

“၂၀၀၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒ” ကို ခ်ိဳးေဖာက္ႏုိင္သူ ဗိုလ္ေရႊမန္း
တူေမာင္ညိဳ (၂၀၁၃ ခုႏွစ္၊ ၾသဂုတ္လ ၁၂ ရက္)

     (Photo – Irrawaddy)

သမၼတ(ဦး)ဗိုလ္သိန္းစိန္၏ “တရားဥပေဒစုိးမိုးေရး” ဆိုသည္မွာ လႊတ္ေတာ္ဥကၠ႒ ဗုိလ္ေရႊမန္း ျပဳသမွ် ကို “လႊတ္ေတာ္ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္ အမ်ားစု၏ သေဘာဆႏၵအရ အတည္ျပဳထားျခင္း ျဖစ္ေသာေၾကာင့္ အမ်ား ဆႏၵကို အေလးဂရုျပဳ ေသာအားျဖင့္” ဟူေသာ စကားရပ္ ျဖင့္ နာခံရျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။

“အမ်ားဆႏၵ”ဆိုသည္မွာလႊတ္ေတာ္တြင္းရွိႀကံ့ဖြံ႔အမတ္အမ်ားစု၏ဆႏၵျဖစ္ပါသည္။“စည္းကမ္းျပည့္ဝ ေသာ ဒီမုိကေရစီ” ဆိုသည္မွာလည္း ထိုႀကံ့ဖြံ႔ အမတ္အမ်ားစု၏ ဆံုးျဖတ္ခ်က္ကို နာခံရျခင္း ပင္ျဖစ္ပါ လိမ့္မည္။

ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္၏ “တရားဥပေဒစုိးမုိးေရး” ဆုိသည္မွာလည္း “လႊတ္ေတာ္တြင္း အသံတိတ္ ေနထုိင္ျခင္း”ႏွင့္ ဗိုလ္ေရႊမန္း ၏ လႊတ္ေတာ္တြင္းလုပ္ေဆာင္မႈမ်ားကို (ေဆြးေႏြးေဝဖန္ျခင္းပင္မျပဳဘဲ) ဒီခ်ဳပ္အမတ္မ်ားက ေထာက္ခံမဲေပးရျခင္းမ်ိဳးသာျဖစ္မည္ဟု ခန္႔ မွန္းရပါသည္။

ဥပေဒတြင္ ဆိုရိုးစကားတစ္ခုရိွပါသည္။ (Ignorance of Law is no excuse) “ဥပေဒကို မသိဘူးဆိုရံု မွ်ျဖင့္ ကင္းလြတ္ခြင့္ မရႏုိင္” ဆိုသည့္ စကားပဲျဖစ္ပါသည္။

သို႔ေသာ္ ဗိုလ္ေရႊမန္းအပါအဝင္ လႊတ္ေတာ္အမတ္မင္းမ်ားသည္ သိလ်က္ႏွင့္ပင္ ဥပေဒကို ခ်ိဳးေဖာက္ ခဲ့ၾကသည္။ ခ်ိဳးေဖာက္ ေနဆဲျဖစ္သည္။ ဗိုလ္ေရႊမန္းတို႔အုပ္သည္ “၂၀၀၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒ” စိတ္ႀကိဳက္ ေရးဆြဲ အတည္ျပဳခဲ့ၾကသည္။ ထုိဥပေဒျဖင့္ပင္ သူတု႔ိသည္ “ေရြးေကာက္ခံအမတ္မ်ား” ျဖစ္လာ ၾကျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။

ယင္းသုိ႔ေသာေနာက္ခံမ်ားႏွင့္ ျဖစ္ရပ္မ်ားကို သိေသာ္လည္း ဒီခ်ဳပ္အမတ္မ်ားသည္ လႊတ္ေတာ္တြင္း၌ ထိုလုပ္ရပ္မ်ားႏွင့္ ပတ္သက္လွ်င္ ေရငံုႏႈတ္ပိတ္ လုပ္ေနၾကသည္။ ပူးေပါင္းပါဝင္ ေထာက္ခံမႈပင္ ျပဳေနၾကပါသည္။

ဗိုလ္ေရႊမန္းတို႔အုပ္သည္ “၂၀၀၈အေျခခံဥပေဒ” ကို မည္သုိ႔ခ်ိဳးေဖာက္ေနၾကသနည္း။

လႊတ္ေတာ္က ေရးဆြဲျပ႒ာန္းသည့္ ဥပေဒမ်ားသည္ အေျခခံဥပေဒႏွင့္ မဆန္႔က်င္ရန္ လိုအပ္ပါသည္။ သုိ႔ေသာ္လည္း ဗိုလ္ေရႊမန္းတို႔အုပ္သည္ အေျခခံဥပေဒပါ ျပ႒ာန္းခ်က္မ်ားႏွင့္ ဆန္႔က်င္ၿပီး ဥပေဒမ်ား ျပ႒ာန္းခဲ့ၾကသည္။ ျပ႒ာန္းေနၾကသည္။

ဆန္႔က်င့္ခ်ိဳးေဖာက္ ေနမႈမ်ားကို ဥပေဒပုဒ္မ အရအတိအက် ေျပာရမည္ဆုိလွ်င္ အေျခခံ ဥပေဒ ပုဒ္မ ၄၈၊ ပုဒ္မ ၁၉၈၊ ပုဒ္မ ၄၄၆ ၊ ပုဒ္မ ၄၄၉ တို႔ကို အတိအလင္းခ်ိဳးေဖာက္ထားပါသည္။

ျဖစ္ရပ္အေနျဖင့္တစ္ခုခ်င္းအစဥ္လိုက္ ေျပာရလွ်င္ –
- ဦးသိန္းစုိးခံုရံုးဆံုးျဖတ္ခ်က္ကို ပယ္ဖ်က္ျခင္း (၂၀၁၂ ခုႏွစ္၊ ၾသဂုတ္လ ၂၈ ရက္)

- ခံုရံုးဥကၠ႒ ဦးသိန္းစိုးနဲ႔ ခံုရံုးအဖြဲ႔ဝင္မ်ားကို ထုတ္ပယ္ျခင္း (၂၀၁၂ ခုႏွစ္၊ စက္တင္ဘာလ ၆ ရက္ )

- “ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္ဖြဲ႔စည္းပံု အေျခခံဥပေဒဆုိင္ရာ ခံုရံုးဥပေဒ ” ကို ျပင္ဆင္ျပ႒ာန္းျခင္း (၂ဝ၁၃ ခုနွစ္၊ ဇန္နဝါရီလ ၂၁ ရက္)

- ဦးျမသိန္းအပါအဝင္ ခံုးရံုးအဖြဲ႔(သစ္) ခန္႔အပ္ တာဝန္ေပးအပ္ျခင္း (၂၀၁၃ ခုႏွစ္၊ ေဖေဖၚဝါရီလ ၂၅ ရက္)

တုိ႔ပင္ျဖစ္ပါသည္။

အဆိုပါျဖစ္ရပ္ ၃ ခုတြင္ ဗိုလ္ေရႊမန္းတုိ႔အုပ္သည္ သူတုိ႔စိတ္ႀကိဳက္ ေရးဆြဲအတည္ျပဳခဲ့ေသာ “၂၀၀၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒ” ကိုပင္ ေဘးခ်ိတ္ၿပီး စိတ္ႀကိဳက္လုပ္ေဆာင္ ခဲ့ၾကျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။ အေျခခံဥပေဒပုဒ္မ ၃၈၄ ကို ခ်ိဳးေဖာက္ ၾကျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။

ဦးသိန္းစုိးခံုရံုး၏ “ဆံုးျဖတ္ခ်က္”ကို ပယ္ဖ်က္ရာ၌ တည္ဆဲဥပေဒကို ေက်ာ္လြန္ခ်ိဳးေဖာက္ခဲ့ၿပီး။ ခံုရံုးဥပေဒျပင္ဆင္ျပ႒ာန္းရာ တြင္လည္း ဖြဲ႔စည္းပံု အေျခခံဥပေဒပါ ျပ႒ာန္းခ်က္မ်ားကို ဆန္႔က်င္ခဲ့ ပါသည္။

 

ဦးသိန္းစိုးခံုရံုး၏ ဆံုးျဖတ္ခ်က္ကို ပယ္ဖ်က္ရာ၌ အေျခခံဥပေဒပုဒ္မ ၃၂၄ ကိုခ်ိဳးေဖာက္ခဲ့ျခင္းျဖစ္ၿပီး။ “ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္ဖြဲ႔စည္းပံု အေျခခံဥပေဒဆုိင္ရာခံုရံုးဥပေဒ ” ကို ျပင္ဆင္ျပ႒ာန္းရာ၌လည္း ဖြဲ႔စည္းပုံ အေျခခံဥပေဒ ပုဒ္မ ၃၂၁၊ ပုဒ္မ ၃၂၃၊ ပုဒ္မ ၃၂၄၊ ပုဒ္မ ၃၂၇ တို႔ကို တိတိလင္းလင္း ဆန္႔က်င္ခ်ိဳးေဖာက္၍ ျပင္ဆင္ ျပ႒ာန္းခဲ့ျခင္းျဖစ္ပါသည္။

 

ယင္းသို႔ အေျခခံဥပေဒပါ ျပ႒ာန္းခ်က္မ်ားကို ဆန္႔က်င္၍ ျပင္ဆင္ျပ႒ာန္းခဲ့ေသာ ဥပေဒျဖင့္ ဦးျမသိန္း အပါအဝင္ ခံုးရံုးအဖြဲ႔ (သစ္) ကို ခန္႔အပ္ခဲ့ျပန္ပါသည္။

 

Rule of law ကိုေျပာၾကမည္၊ လက္ေတြ႔က်င့္သံုးၾကမည္ဆုိလွ်င္ အနိမ့္ဆံုးအားျဖင့္ မိမိတို႔စိတ္ႀကိဳက္ ေရးဆြဲ အတည္ျပဳခဲ့ၾက ေသာ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ တိတိက်က် ေလးစားလုိက္နာဖို႔ လိုပါသည္။ ကိုယ္လုိခ်င္သည့္ အဓိပၸါယ္ကို ဆြဲယူ မဖြင့္ဆိုၾကဖုိ႔လိုသည္။

 

ဗိုလ္ေရႊမန္းတို႔ လုပ္ေနသည့္ လုပ္ရပ္မ်ားသည္ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပံုအေျခခံဥပေဒ ပုဒ္မ ၁၉၈ “ျပည္ေထာင္စု လႊတ္ေတာ္၊ တိုင္းေဒသႀကီး လႊတ္ေတာ္၊ ျပည္နယ္လႊတ္ေတာ္၊ ကိုယ္ပိုင္အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ခြင့္ရ တိုင္းဦးစီးအဖြဲ႔၊ ကိုယ္ပိုင္အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ခြင့္ရ ေဒသဦးစီးအဖြဲ႔က ျပ႒ာန္းလိုက္သည့္ဥပေဒ ျပ႒ာန္းခ်က္တစ္ရပ္ရပ္ သည္ လည္းေကာင္း၊ တည္ဆဲဥပေဒ တစ္ရပ္ရပ္သည္ လည္းေကာင္း၊ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပံုအေျခခံဥပေဒပါ ျပ႒ာန္းခ်က္ ႏွင့္ ဆန္႔က်င္ေနလွ်င္ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပံု အေျခခံဥပေဒပါအတိုင္း လိုက္နာက်င့္သံုးရမည္” ဟူေသာ ျပ႒ာန္းခ်က္ ကို တိတိလင္းလင္း ခ်ိဳးေဖာက္ေနပါသည္။

 

ယခုလည္း မၾကာမီက ျပ႒ာန္းခဲ့ၿပီးျဖစ္ေသာ “တုိင္းေဒသႀကီး သို႔မဟုတ္ ျပည္နယ္ လႊတ္ေတာ္ ဆုိင္ရာ ဥပေဒ” ႏွင့္“အဂတိ လိုက္စားမႈတိုက္ဖ်က္ေရးဥပေဒ” တုိ႔သည္ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပံု အေျခခံဥပေဒႏွင့္ ညီၫြတ္ျခင္းရွိ/မရွိ ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္ဖြဲ႔စည္းပံု အေျခခံဥပေဒဆုိင္ရာခံုရံုး က စိစစ္ေပးရန္တာဝန္ရွိေၾကာင္း သမၼတ(ဦး)ဗိုလ္သိန္းစိန္ ထုတ္ေဖၚေျပာဆို ထားျပန္ပါသည္။

 

ဖြဲ႔စည္းပံု အေျခခံဥပေဒႏွင့္ ညီၫြတ္ျခင္းမရွိဘဲ၊ ဖြဲ႔စည္းထားသည့္ အေျခခံဥပေဒဆုိင္ရာ ခံုရံုးသည္ အေျခခံဥပေဒႏွင့္ ညီၫြတ္ ျခင္းရွိ/ မရွိ မည္သုိ႔ စိစစ္ဆံုးျဖတ္မည္လဲ။ ဤအခ်က္ကပင္ ယေန႔ (နဝတ-နအဖ) စစ္အုပ္စု၏ အေမြခံ ႀကံ့ဖြံ႔စစ္တစ္ပုိင္းအစုိးရ၏ လိမ္ညာမႈ လွည့္စားမႈကို အထင္းသား၊ အရွင္းသားလွစ္ဟျပ ေနျခင္းပင္ျဖစ္ပါသည္။ သူတုိ႔သည္ သူတု႔ိစိတ္ႀကိဳက္ ေရးဆြဲထားသည့္ အေျခခံဥပေဒ ကုိပင္ ေလးစားလိုက္နာမႈမရွိေခ်။

မွန္တန္းဥပေဒ တစ္ရပ္သည္ ဥပေဒအႏွစ္သာရ ( spirit of law) ႏွင့္ ဥပေဒအေရးအသား (letter of law) ညီၫြတ္ရန္လိုအပ္ ပါသည္။ ေရွ႕ေနာက္ညီၫြတ္ရန္ (cosistency) လိုပါသည္။

 

"၂၀၀၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒ” ၏ ဥပေဒအႏွစ္သာရ( spirit of law) မွာ “စစ္အာဏာရွင္ စနစ္ သာလွ်င္ျဖစ္ၿပီး၊ ဥပေဒအေရးအသား (letter of law) မွာလည္း ယင္းအႏွစ္သာကို ဒီမုိကေရစီ မ်က္ႏွာဖံုး တပ္ေပးရန္ႏွင့္ အကာအကြယ္ေပးရန္ သာျဖစ္သည္။ ေလ့လာသံုးသပ္မည္ဟု ႀကံ့ဖြံ႔ ထိပ္သီးမ်ားေျပာေနသည္မွာ “၂၀၀၈အေျခခံဥပေဒ”၏ အႏွစ္သာရအား သံုးသပ္/ ျပင္ဆင္ရန္ မဟုတ္ေခ်။ အေပၚယံအသြင္ သ႑ာန္ကိုသာ သံုးသပ္/ ျပင္ဆင္ရန္ျဖစ္သည္။

 

ၾသဂုတ္လ ၆ ရက္ေန႔တြင္ ဗိုလ္ေရႊမန္းဦးစီး၍ ျပဳလုပ္ခဲ့ေသာ “တိုင္းရင္းသား လူနည္းစုမ်ား အခြင့္ အေရး ကာကြယ္ေရး ဥပေဒ ၾကမ္းေဆြးေႏြးပြဲ”တြင္ “ဖက္ဒရယ္” သို႔သြားရန္ အခ်ဳပ္အားျဖင့္ နည္းလမ္း ႏွစ္ခုရွိေၾကာင္း၊ “၂၀၀၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒအား လံုးဝေျပာင္းလဲ သည့္နည္းျဖင့္ အေကာင္အထည္ေဖာ္ျခင္းႏွင့္ “၂၀၀၈အေျခခံဥပေဒ” တြင္ ေပးအပ္ထားသည့္ အခ်က္မ်ားအား လိုအပ္သလို ေျပာင္းလဲ ျပင္ဆင္ျခင္းနည္းလမ္းတို႔ ျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း၊ အဆိုပါနည္းလမ္းႏွစ္ခု အနက္ “၂၀၀၈ ဖြဲ႕စည္းပံု အေျခခံဥပေဒ” ဒုတိယနည္းလမ္းသာ အသင့္ ေတာ္ဆံုးျဖစ္ သည္ဟု သံုးသပ္ခဲ့ၾက မဟုတ္သေလာ။

 

သို႔ပါ၍ “၂၀၀၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒ” ကို ပုဒ္မတစ္ခုခ်င္း၊ စာသားတစ္ပိုဒ္ျခင္း ေလ့လာသံုးသပ္ေနမည္ /ျပင္ဆင္ေနၾကမည္ဆုိလွ်င္ စစ္မွန္ေသာ ဒီမိုကေရစီႏွင့္ ဖက္ဒရယ္ျပည္ေထာင္စု မွတ္တုိင္သုိ႔ ခရီးဆက္ႏုိင္လိမ့္မည္ မဟုတ္ပါ။

 

“၂၀၀၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒ” ကို လံုးဝဖ်က္သိမ္းၿပီး အသစ္ျပန္လည္ေရးဆြဲမွသာ ျဖစ္ႏုိင္ပါလိမ့္မည္။

 

ၫြန္း

- ဖြဲ႔စည္းပံုအေျခခံဥပေဒ (၂၀၀၈)

- သတင္းထုတ္ျပန္ခ်က္ (၁၄/၂၀၁၃) ၊ ၂၀၁၃ ခုႏွစ္၊ ၾသဂုတ္လ ၇ ရက္

- သတင္းထုတ္ျပန္ခ်က္ (၁၅/၂၀၁၃) ၊ ၂၀၁၃ ခုႏွစ္၊ ၾသဂုတ္လ ၈ ရက္

 

Moemaka website မွကူးယူေဖၚျပပါသည္။

ABSDF Calls Burma to Have Complete New Style of Regime in Rangoon Peace Talk

Burma Signs MoU with China to Take Satellite Picture and Data for Research

Burma Signs MoU with China to Take Satellite Picture and Data for Research

၈၈ လူထုလႈပ္ရွားမႈ အတြင္း လူ႔အခြင့္အေရး ခ်ဳိးေဖာက္မႈေတြကို အခုအခါမွာ စံုစမ္းေဖာ္ထုတ္ အေရးယူဖို႔ သင့္မသင့္ (ျမန္မာ့အေရး ကမၻာ့အေရး)

၈၈ လူထုလႈပ္ရွားမႈ အတြင္း လူ႔အခြင့္အေရး ခ်ဳိးေဖာက္မႈေတြကို အခုအခါမွာ စံုစမ္းေဖာ္ထုတ္ အေရးယူဖို႔ သင့္မသင့္ (ျမန္မာ့အေရး ကမၻာ့အေရး)

 

 

2013 Share Shagan Ninghtoi Masat KIO Tingnyang Up kaw na Mungga

Share Shagan MS Nht MG by Tu Lum Marip

ဖက္ဒရယ္စနစ္ အတြက္ အေျခခံဥပေဒ အသစ္ ေရးဆြဲရမည္ဟု ၈ေလးလုံး ေငြရတု ေၾကညာခ်က္ထုတ္

ဖက္ဒရယ္စနစ္ အတြက္ အေျခခံဥပေဒ အသစ္ ေရးဆြဲရမည္ဟု ၈ေလးလုံး ေငြရတု ေၾကညာခ်က္ထုတ္

U.S. updates Myanmar sanctions to maintain gem import ban

U.S. updates Myanmar sanctions to maintain gem import ban

REUTERS
By Paul Eckert
WASHINGTON | Wed Aug 7, 2013 4:34pm EDT

(Reuters) - The United States updated sanctions on Myanmar on Wednesday to maintain a ban on importing rubies and jade amid a relaxation of curbs on U.S. trade with the Southeast Asian nation, American officials said.

President Barack Obama's executive order continues a gradual lifting sanctions aimed at encouraging political and economic reforms since the military government that had run the country also known as Burma for five decades stepped aside in 2011.

"The administration is maintaining restrictions on specific activities and actors that contribute to human rights abuses or undermine Burma's democratic reform process," deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said in a statement.

The U.S. ban on imports of Myanmar jade and rubies remains in place because of concerns that the mining of those gems benefits military figures and shadowy businessmen and fuels corruption and human rights abuses in ethnic minority regions that have been theaters of armed conflict for decades.

"We want to encourage responsible trade and investment in Burma, and at the same time we want to continue to target ... those sectors and entities and individuals that we consider to be problematic," said a U.S. official, who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity.

Without Wednesday's adjustment, the ban on rubies, jade and jewelry that contains them would have lapsed with the expiry on July 28 of a general import ban under legislation known as the Burma Freedom and Democracy Act.

Wednesday's move also paves the way for the lifting of prohibitions on U.S. dealings with some people or entities in Myanmar on the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) blacklist maintained by the Treasury Department.

Lifting the ban on U.S. interactions with such people or companies still requires a license from Treasury, a second U.S. official said. Myanmar's list includes military figures accused of rights abuses and corruption under the former ruling junta.

Human rights activists and ethnic minority groups remain wary about the government of President Thein Sein, a former general now heading a quasi-civilian government in Myanmar, and they lobbied vigorously to keep some sanctions in place.

"We are strongly opposed to removing anyone from the SDN list who has not demonstrated they have cut ties with the Burmese military, military-owned businesses and returned confiscated land," said Jennifer Quigley, executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Burma, a Washington advocacy group.

In a letter to Obama last month, 30 groups from Kachin state, where much of the jade is mined, warned that an easing of the ban would worsen a conflict over resources that has raged since a ceasefire broke down in 2011.

"The prospect of huge profits to be made could encourage increased militarization and even fresh conflict as government forces seek to secure control of areas where mines are or where deposits may be," said the groups from Kachin, a state that borders China.

(Editing by Doina Chiacu)