On the 12th of February, Burma will celebrate Union Day in
celebration of the unity of ethnic Burman and minority ethnic leaders in 1947, a year prior to
Burma’s independence from Britain. The question of unity in Burma has been debated for
years through different views based on historical perspectives among Burman and non-
Burmese ethnic minorities.The Committee for the Emergency of a Federal Union (CEFU), a
united front for the ethnic minorities of Burma, held its 2nd conference in January near the
Thailand-Burma border. According to Nai Hongsa, secretary of CEFU and the general
secretary of the New Mon State Party, “During the conference, the committee worked on
forming political groups to represent the different ethnic minorities. The committee is
working together with the democracy groups and we [the CEFU] will fight for democracy,
politics, war, and diplomacy.” Ethnic leaders have been seeking basic human rights for their
people for over six decades, but all their proposed agendas have been rejected by the ruling
military government.
The current Union of Burma was accorded in 1947 without a complete picture of the political
landscape of the people native to Burma before British rule. The best form of the Union can
be built only if the leaders respect all cultural identities, languages, land rights and the right to
self-government under the writing of a new constitution.
The Union of Myanmar changed its name in 1992. This supposed union does not exist as the
country has been fighting civil wars since the first Union Day in 1948. According to Mon
veteran political leader, Vice Chairman of Mon National Democratic Front, Nai Ngwe Thein,
during a meeting between ethnic leaders and the National League for Democracy, at which
Aung San Suu Kyi was present, “Burma is not a Union State, but it is formed as a ‘Unitary
State’ based on the constitution of 1947.”
The “Union” that is claimed by modern Burmese leaders, both military and civilian groups, is
only political propaganda. Burma’s ethnic people have never been granted local
administrative power until today. The new government and parliament is dominated by 25%
military representatives and appointed ministers by the president. Both the lower and upper
house (People’s Assembly and National Assembly) are dominated by the military affiliated
Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP).
Five States were created in 1947 constitution and two new States formed in the 1974
constitution. These seven, ethnic States have never enjoyed the three pillars of governance;
executive, judicial and legislative powers. The ethnic states have lived in fear of armed
conflict between the Burmese army and ethnic resistance armed forces for the last sixty years.
The plight of these native people has forced them to flee home and seek protection in
Thailand, India and other neighbouring countries, and an estimated over three million non-
Burmese native-people live on Thailand’s common border with Burma, both legally and
illegally.
The Union of Myanmar’s government has ruled through military rule for over 60 years. The
ruling military officials have used propaganda on every occasion to accuse ethnic leaders for
the “disintegration of the union.” In fact, the Union of Myanmar has been ruled by only one
Page 2 of 2
native race, the Burmans, after British granted Independence in 1947. An accusation of
‘disintegration of the Union’ is groundless, but the propaganda is still ongoing in the
government’s official press.
A recently released article from the Australian National University’s Burma Observer
Nicholas Farrelly’s ‘Beyond Burma’s Stalemates’ said, “what we now need to acknowledge
it that the military leadership has crafted a political and economic system that will likely
endure well after elections are regularised. Their anticipation is that our lack of attention to
Burma ensures that the military and its civilian proxies will be quietly encouraged to continue
ruling the country.”
Ruling generals manipulate a “union spirit” by forcing local native-people to join mass rallies
during the Union Day Celebration in major cities despite most having little desire to be part
of the rally. The ethnic leaders have been seeking greater local autonomy rights instead of
state sovereignty in the past six decades. The unity accord only represents a quarter of the
modern political landscape. Even though some Karen, Mon, and Arakhan in lower Burma did
not join in the first Panglong Conference, they have never been satisfied with the central
government in political affairs.
A spirit of unity for the Union of Burma only can be achieved when racial respect is
practised, cultural tolerance is acknowledged and political participation is legally granted to
all ethnic minority people. Burma would then be able to claim a nation of peace with unity in
diversity and the dignity of all.
In conclusion, let us reflect on the wisdom of our former leader, the first president of Burma,
Sao Shwe Thaike, in his first address to the nation on the 4th of January 1948. The president
addressed the nation and said “it is unity which has brought our struggle for independence to
this early fruition and may unity continue to be the watchword for every member of the
Sovereign Independent Republic to be henceforth known as Union of Burma.”
After sixty years of mistrust, and misjudgement on social, political, and national affairs, the
current broken Union of Burma must be fixed and a genuine political process must
commence if the spirit of the Union that was established by our former leaders can be
implemented with dignity and hope for a new Burma.
Short URL: http://monnews.org/?p=1843
celebration of the unity of ethnic Burman and minority ethnic leaders in 1947, a year prior to
Burma’s independence from Britain. The question of unity in Burma has been debated for
years through different views based on historical perspectives among Burman and non-
Burmese ethnic minorities.The Committee for the Emergency of a Federal Union (CEFU), a
united front for the ethnic minorities of Burma, held its 2nd conference in January near the
Thailand-Burma border. According to Nai Hongsa, secretary of CEFU and the general
secretary of the New Mon State Party, “During the conference, the committee worked on
forming political groups to represent the different ethnic minorities. The committee is
working together with the democracy groups and we [the CEFU] will fight for democracy,
politics, war, and diplomacy.” Ethnic leaders have been seeking basic human rights for their
people for over six decades, but all their proposed agendas have been rejected by the ruling
military government.
The current Union of Burma was accorded in 1947 without a complete picture of the political
landscape of the people native to Burma before British rule. The best form of the Union can
be built only if the leaders respect all cultural identities, languages, land rights and the right to
self-government under the writing of a new constitution.
The Union of Myanmar changed its name in 1992. This supposed union does not exist as the
country has been fighting civil wars since the first Union Day in 1948. According to Mon
veteran political leader, Vice Chairman of Mon National Democratic Front, Nai Ngwe Thein,
during a meeting between ethnic leaders and the National League for Democracy, at which
Aung San Suu Kyi was present, “Burma is not a Union State, but it is formed as a ‘Unitary
State’ based on the constitution of 1947.”
The “Union” that is claimed by modern Burmese leaders, both military and civilian groups, is
only political propaganda. Burma’s ethnic people have never been granted local
administrative power until today. The new government and parliament is dominated by 25%
military representatives and appointed ministers by the president. Both the lower and upper
house (People’s Assembly and National Assembly) are dominated by the military affiliated
Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP).
Five States were created in 1947 constitution and two new States formed in the 1974
constitution. These seven, ethnic States have never enjoyed the three pillars of governance;
executive, judicial and legislative powers. The ethnic states have lived in fear of armed
conflict between the Burmese army and ethnic resistance armed forces for the last sixty years.
The plight of these native people has forced them to flee home and seek protection in
Thailand, India and other neighbouring countries, and an estimated over three million non-
Burmese native-people live on Thailand’s common border with Burma, both legally and
illegally.
The Union of Myanmar’s government has ruled through military rule for over 60 years. The
ruling military officials have used propaganda on every occasion to accuse ethnic leaders for
the “disintegration of the union.” In fact, the Union of Myanmar has been ruled by only one
Page 2 of 2
native race, the Burmans, after British granted Independence in 1947. An accusation of
‘disintegration of the Union’ is groundless, but the propaganda is still ongoing in the
government’s official press.
A recently released article from the Australian National University’s Burma Observer
Nicholas Farrelly’s ‘Beyond Burma’s Stalemates’ said, “what we now need to acknowledge
it that the military leadership has crafted a political and economic system that will likely
endure well after elections are regularised. Their anticipation is that our lack of attention to
Burma ensures that the military and its civilian proxies will be quietly encouraged to continue
ruling the country.”
Ruling generals manipulate a “union spirit” by forcing local native-people to join mass rallies
during the Union Day Celebration in major cities despite most having little desire to be part
of the rally. The ethnic leaders have been seeking greater local autonomy rights instead of
state sovereignty in the past six decades. The unity accord only represents a quarter of the
modern political landscape. Even though some Karen, Mon, and Arakhan in lower Burma did
not join in the first Panglong Conference, they have never been satisfied with the central
government in political affairs.
A spirit of unity for the Union of Burma only can be achieved when racial respect is
practised, cultural tolerance is acknowledged and political participation is legally granted to
all ethnic minority people. Burma would then be able to claim a nation of peace with unity in
diversity and the dignity of all.
In conclusion, let us reflect on the wisdom of our former leader, the first president of Burma,
Sao Shwe Thaike, in his first address to the nation on the 4th of January 1948. The president
addressed the nation and said “it is unity which has brought our struggle for independence to
this early fruition and may unity continue to be the watchword for every member of the
Sovereign Independent Republic to be henceforth known as Union of Burma.”
After sixty years of mistrust, and misjudgement on social, political, and national affairs, the
current broken Union of Burma must be fixed and a genuine political process must
commence if the spirit of the Union that was established by our former leaders can be
implemented with dignity and hope for a new Burma.
Short URL: http://monnews.org/?p=1843
0 comments :
Post a Comment