Monday, June 24, 2013

International Socialist Attacks On Burmese Army Intensified

From 1948 to 1988 our Burmese army had been the extremely-rare Socialist Army supporting the stupid  leftwing Socialist dictatorship of late General Ne Win – May his soul burn in hell to eternity.

But the devastating result of that Socialist dictatorship – itself the legacy of late General Aung San and his Socialist comrades - has basically reshaped the army into a patriotic-rightwing conservative and nationalist army since that failed 1988 Uprising.

Withstanding massive international pressure including the devastating international sanctions last 20 odd years Burmese Army has gradually been changing its direction from old-Left to new-Right and now Burma is a so-called semi-democratic state ruled by so-called quasi-civilian government.

But Burma is still controlled by the military class since the ruling class and the business elites are ex-military or somehow connected to the military through blood and economic ties. And the leftist elements of the society and the outside world really hate to see that.

The so-called democracy activists inside and outside Burma are now waging a war to reshape Burma into a left-leaning social democratic state and their attacks on Burmese army, the only truly-Burmese institution strong and brave enough to stand against them on their way to evil-Socialism, have intensified recently.

I’ve already written many posts on the massive financial support from that leftwing billionaire George Soros the founder of Open Society to the Burma’s Open Society led by that army-hating Socialist Min Ko Naing and his so-called 88-Generationers.

Taking advantage of newly-found openness and media-freedom in Burma many of these leftist attacks are often cloaked in the form of academic seminars and conferences and workshops held right on Burmese soil.

And this post is to let the Burmese people know that actually these academic-sounding lefties are the wolves in sheep skins trying to drag Burma into their brutal Socialist clutch again.

(Following article written by Dr. Melissa Crouch a socialist-academic from National University of Singapore appearing recently in Socialist media Asia Sentinel is one of those intensifying attacks.)

Will Myanmar's Soldiers Return to Barracks?           

The rule of law and the constitution matter. This is evident in Myanmar, where current steps towards constitutional amendment have the potential to determine the future direction of the country's transition process. A key issue is whether the role of the military, as defined by the Constitution of Myanmar, will be changed.

A constitution in any democracy must clearly define the position of the military and provide for appropriate national defense, while providing mechanisms to prevent the misuse of power. There should be civilian control over the military, and the military should be subordinate to the executive arm of government in particular. To achieve this, the military cannot also be part of the legislature, nor have the power to appoint ministers.

A range of constitutional approaches can limit military power. Some constitutions adopt a minimal approach and briefly refer to the military as subordinate to the executive, leaving other details for further regulation by the legislature. Others take a more expansive approach and set out in detail the role of the military and the limits of its powers.

In Myanmar the military is under the control of the Defense Services Commander-in-Chief, who is appointed by the President. But the President's appointment is subject to the approval of the National Defense and Security Council, a majority of whose members are from the military. In practice, this means the military has significant influence in appointing its own commander. The Constitution does not specify the term of the Commander-in-Chief, the qualifications the position requires or the circumstances in which he could be removed from his position. In contrast, the office of the President has a clear term, the candidate must meet set requirements, and there is a clear process for removal from office.

There are further differences in relation to the composition of Parliament and the election of members. The Commander-in-Chief has the power to nominate the Defense Service personnel in both houses of Parliament, which makes up 25 per cent of the seats. He also has the power to recommend the appointment of the Minister of Home Affairs, Border Affairs and Defense.

The 2008 Constitution creates a complex relationship between the President, the Commander-in-Chief and the military-dominated National Defense and Security Council. Contrary to some recent reports, it is unclear which position has the most power, but the office of the President appears to be subject to greater regulation, at least in comparison to the Commander-in-Chief.

In addition to being subordinate to the executive, the military must not be immune from the law and should also be required to comply with human rights obligations. There are several different approaches to military justice in democratic countries. In some systems, a crime committed by a military officer may be heard by the general courts, and in other contexts such cases are heard by a system of special military courts.

For example, Indonesia has a system of Military Courts with a right to appeal to the Supreme Court, a general body. There has been recent public debate in Indonesia about whether the matters that go to military courts would be dealt with more fairly by the general courts. The Constitution of Myanmar also provides for a system of courts martial, with an ultimate appeal to the Commander-in-Chief. In contrast to Indonesia, there is no right to appeal to the Supreme Court in Myanmar, which means that the decision of the Commander-in-Chief is not subject to review.

Special military courts allow for a degree of specialization because they are constituted by judges who have a background in the military. But one concern is that these judges may be less independent in their decision-making. Instead, using the general court system to determine cases concerning the military suggests that military officers are subject to the same law and institutions as everyone else.

This is why it is important that the current constitutional amendment process clarify the role of the military. Formal changes to ensure that the military is subject to the control of the executive, and that there are clear limits to its power, would be an important step.

But while the formal safeguards of an amended Constitution will help Myanmar transition to democracy, substantive changes matter too. It is equally important that there exists a culture and mentality within broader society that the military should in fact play a subordinate role to the executive, have no influence over the legislature, and remain subject to the rule of law. Recent reports highlighting the excessive role and dominance of the military are one indication that such a cultural shift may now be occurring.

(Melissa Crouch is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Law Faculty, the National University of Singapore. From 8–10 May 2013, Dr Crouch participated in the Myanmar Constitutional Democracy Workshop hosted by the Sydney Law School in Yangon.)

The Socialist behind the Constitution Workshop?

The Workshop held from 8-10 May this year clearly was a part of the International Socialists’ grand plan to amend Burma’s 2008 Constitution and pave the way clear for Aung San Suu Kyi, clearly the Socialists’ favourite to rule Burma, to become the president in coming 2015 General Elections.

Right now these bloody Socialists want to remove that 25% Military Representation from all the parliaments in Burma.

Their well-hidden agenda also is to reshape Burma into a so-called true-Federal Union where small percentage minorities like Muslims and other ethnics will have more say on the affairs of Burma than us Buddhist Burmese, clearly the large majority population wise.

If Socialists get their way all seven present divisions representing us Buddhist Burmese will be grouped as one only Burman (Bama Pyee-ne) State with the equal right as newly-formed North-Arakan Islamic State or Wa Independent State. It sucks and it definitely is scary!

Just look at the key person behind that so-called Myanmar Constitutional Democracy Workshop participated by Melissa Crouch. The Workshop’s only Patron is none other than Janelle Saffin the well-known long-term anti-Burmese-military activist and a hardcore leftwing Socialist politician from Australia.

The previously Australian-Labour-Government-Whip Janelle Saffin currently represents the rural NSW electorate of Page. A marginal labour seat Page (covering the towns of Lismore, Balina, Kyogle, Casino, Yamba and Grafton) had traditionally been held by the conservative National Party.

Good news for our Burma is that the latest polls in Australia are indicating she and the Julia Gillard-led Australian Labour Party will lose most of their seats to the conservatives in coming September General Elections.

(26 June 2013 Update: Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard just lost her job last night as she was defeated by former PM Kevin Rudd in the Australian Labor Party Leadership Spill. Janelle Saffin's time meddling in Burmese politics is now almost over too.)
Australian Socialist MP Janelle Saffin Calling for Gay Marriage Rights.
Australian MP Janelle Saffin Condemning Burmese Military Government (2009)?
Janelle Saffin, Julia Gillard, and 3 NLD MPs in Canberra during
NLD's Socialist  MPs' May-2012 visit to Australia.
Related posts at following links:
George Soros's "New World Order" Through UN!
What Exactly was Shans' 1962 Federal Mu (Federal Policy)