Daily Archives: November 4th, 2013

ဆီးဂိမ္းၿပိဳင္ပြဲက်င္းပခ်ိန္တြင္ပိတ္ထားမည္႔ေက်ာင္းမ်ား မတ္လ တြင္အစား ထိုးျပန္ တက္ ရ မည္

Monday, November 4, 2013

ဆီးဂိမ္းၿပိဳင္ပြဲက်င္းပခ်ိန္တြင္ ေနျပည္ေတာ္ရွိ အေျခခံပညာေက်ာင္းမ်ားကုိ ဒီဇင္ဘာတစ္လလုံး ပိတ္ထားေပးမည္ျဖစ္ရာ မတ္လတြင္ အစားထိုးျပန္လည္တက္ရမည္ျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း အားကစား ၀န္ႀကီးဌာန၏ တရား၀င္ သတင္းထုတ္ျပန္ခ်က္အရ သိရသည္။

ဆီးဂိမ္းၿပိဳင္ပြဲက်င္းပခ်ိန္တြင္ ေနျပည္ေတာ္ရွိ အေျခခံပညာေက်ာင္းမ်ားကုိ တရား၀င္ပိတ္မည္ဟု သတင္း ထုတ္ျပန္ထားေသာ္လည္း အျခား တုိင္းေဒသႀကီးမ်ားမွာေက်ာင္းမ်ားကုိ ဒီဇင္ဘာတြင္ ပိတ္မည္ကုိ လက္ရွိအခ်ိန္တြင္ သတင္းထုတ္ျပန္ေပးရျခင္း မရွိေသးေၾကာင္း အားကစား၀န္ႀကီးဌာန၏ သတင္းထုတ္ျပန္မႈ တြင္ပါရွိသည္။

“မတ္လမွာ ေက်ာင္းတက္မယ္ဆိုေတာ့ ကေလးေတြအတြက္ ေတာ္ေတာ္ကို ပူလိမ့္မယ္ ဆယ္တန္းသမားေတြဆို ဒုကၡေရာက္ႏိုင္တယ္” ဟု ရန္ကုန္တိုင္းေဒသႀကီးမဂၤလာေတာင္ညြန္႕ျမိဳ႕နယ္ရွိ အထက္တန္းျပ ဆရာမတစ္ဦးက မွတ္ခ်က္ျပဳေျပာၾကားသည္။

ယင္းအျပင္ ေက်ာင္သား၊ ေက်ာင္း ၊ဆရာမ်ားကို အသံုးျပဳမည္ဆိုပါက စားေမးပြဲမ်ားကို ေနာက္ဆုတ္ရမည့္ အေန အထားျဖစ္ေနေၾကာင္း ၎က ဆိုသည္။

“အျခားတုိင္း ေဒသႀကီးက ေက်ာင္းေတြကုိ ပိတ္ေပးမွာလား။ မပိတ္ေပးဘူးလားဆုိတာ လက္ရွိအခ်ိန္မွာ ေျပာလုိ႔မရေသးပါဘူး။ ဒီရက္ပုိင္း အတြင္း တရား၀င္သတင္းထုတ္ျပန္ေပးသြားမွာပါ”ဟု အားကစား၀န္ႀကီးဌာန သတင္းႏွင့္ျပန္ၾကားေရးမွ တာ၀န္ရွိသူတစ္ဦးက ေျပာၾကားသည္။

၂၇ႀကိမ္ေျမာက္ဆီးဂိမ္းဖြင့္ပြဲ၊ပိတ္ပြဲ အခမ္းအနားကုိ အေျခခံပညာေက်ာင္း မ်ားမွာ ေက်ာင္းသူေက်ာင္းသားမ်ား အမ်ားဆုံးအသုံးျပဳကာ ဖြင့္ပြဲ၊ ပိတ္ပြဲအခမ္းအနားကုိ က်င္းပျပဳလုပ္ သြားမည္ျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း ေနျပည္ေတာ္ ရွိအေျခခံေက်ာင္းမ်ားကုိ ဒီဇင္ဘာလတစ္လလုံး ပိတ္ေပးထားျခင္းျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း အားကစား၀န္ႀကီးဌာနမွ တာ၀န္ ရွိသူတစ္ဦးကPeople Power သတင္းစာ၏ ဆက္သြယ္ေမးျမန္းမႈကုိျပန္လည္ေျဖၾကားသည္။

ေရးသားသူ – ေဇာ္ေဇာ္


Aung San Suu Kyi’s Comments on Muslims Expose Endemic Anti-Muslim Prejudice

Posted: 01/11/2013 17:38

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s interview with the BBC during her visit to the UK, has shocked many of her admirers. Despite being repeatedly pressed to do so, she repeatedly avoided giving a clear unequivocal condemnation of the anti-Muslim violence that is engulfing Burma.

As a Muslim Rohingya and an advocate for human rights who spent many years campaigning for her freedom, it is hard to express the shock I felt at her words during this interview.

She started by dismissing reports of ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya Muslim minority. On what basis does she make this denial? Despite repeated requests, in the 16 months since the violence against Muslims began in Rakhine State, she has not once visited the area. In contrast, Human Rights Watch has been to the areas where attacks took place, gathered evidence, and had experts in international law examine it. Their conclusion is that there is evidence of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Presented with such evidence, how can anyone who cares about human rights just dismiss this out of hand as she did?

Given the opportunity to clearly condemn attacks against Muslims, she repeatedly refused to do so. Instead she generalised by saying she condemned all violence and hatred. She has moral authority like no other person in Burma. When she speaks, people listen. If she strongly condemned attacks on Muslims it would make a difference. It could calm the situation. But she didn’t. Instead, she went beyond just trying to explain why the violence was taking place, and sounded like she was making excuses for it. First she did this by saying it was because Buddhists were also living in fear. How can this be true? Buddhists are by far the biggest majority in Burma. Secondly she talked about Buddhists also being subjected to violence and having to flee Burma. The overwhelming majority of violence has been Buddhists attacking Muslims, not the other way around. No Buddhists have fled Burma because of attacks by Muslims. They fled because of repression by the Buddhist led dictatorship. Even if there was real fear as she claims, that doesn’t justify people taking to the streets and burning alive their Muslim neighbours.

In the past 16 months alone, 140,000 Rohingya Muslims have been forced to flee to squalid temporary camps. This compares to less than five thousand Rakhine Buddhists who fled homes after tit-for-tat attacks when violence against Rohingya began in June last year. Why is Aung San Suu Kyi trying to portray this as two sides suffering equally, when the facts prove this is not the case?

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi also started talking about global Muslim power, as if this is some kind of threat to Burma? To hear a Nobel Peace Prize winner talking in the same way about Islam as bigots and racists is very disappointing. There are conspiracy theories about a global Muslim conspiracy to take over Burma, but these kind of things are spread by crazy people on Facebook. It is not what you expect from a University educated leader of a democracy movement. Instead of dismissing these claims as the dangerous nonsense they are, she gave them credibility in the eyes of many Burmese.

When Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was asked about the Monk Wirathu, who incites hatred and violence against Muslims, she also avoided criticising him, again just using generalisations saying she condemns hate of any kind. This hasn’t gone unnoticed in Burma.

Perhaps one of her most revealing comments was when she talking about Muslims integrating. She was not only talking about the Rohingya. She was talking about Muslims generally. How and why do people who are native to Burma, having lived there countless centuries, need to integrate? They are Burmese, and unlike most Rohingya Muslims, they have Burmese citizenship. Most have never even travelled abroad, and nor have any of their ancestors. But Aung San Suu Kyi doesn’t seem to see them that way. She sees them as different and needing to integrate. Seeing as the only difference is their religion, does she share the common view among many Buddhists in Burma that Muslims are not real Burmese?

In the west admirers might be shocked and disappointed by Aung San Suu Kyi’s comments, but in Burma the consequences are much more serious. Those who are inciting anti-Muslim hatred have taken great encouragement from her words, and we expect more violence against us. The United Nations has an opportunity to help by including the establishment of a commission of inquiry into this violence in the General Assembly resolution on Burma which they are currently drafting. This could establish the truth and make recommendations for action. We already knew the government won’t stop the violence, and it is now clear the democratic opposition won’t do anything either. If the UN also abandons us, we will be left without hope.

Follow Tun Khin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tunkhin80

ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံသား ဥပေဒ ၂ ခုကေျပာေသာ လူမ်ိဳးအမည္။

Burma calls on USA to provide ‘solid reason’ for surveillance


Burmese presidential spokesperson Ye Htut has said that Burma expects the USA to provide a “solid reason” as to why it used its embassy in Rangoon as a surveillance outpost to hack phone calls and electronic communications for Washington.

According to a recent leak by US intelligence whistleblower Edward Snowden, the US has 90 surveillance facilities set up around the world including its embassy in Burma.

“We only know from what we read in the international media, however we would like to second the remarks made by the EU and other US allies such as Brazil and Mexico that the US needs to provide a solid reason to have hacked into emails and telephone conversations by leaders and citizens of their countries otherwise it will signify a lack of diplomatic ethics,” said Ye Htut.

Speaking to DVB, he added: “If you want to peep into someone’s house, you need a solid reason for doing so.”

He also said it was “no surprise” to learn that the US was spying on other countries.

“It is not surprising to find out that the US has been spying on us given that they have the technology to do so. However they need to consider whether it is an appropriate thing to do or not,” he said.

Responding to DVB, a US embassy spokesperson in Rangoon, Sarah Hutchison, said, “We know these matters have created significant challenges in our relationships with some of our closest foreign partners. As the [US] President has said, the United States is reviewing the way that we gather intelligence to ensure that we are properly balancing the security concerns of our citizens and international partners with the privacy concerns that all people share. We want to ensure we are collecting information because we need it and not just because we can. We are going to continue to address these issues with our partners in diplomatic channels.”