Home / News / Urgent Appeals / BURMA: Villager jailed illegally over farmers' petition

BURMA: Villager jailed illegally over farmers' petition

December 15, 2004

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAM

15 December 2004

---------------------------------------------------------------------
UA-175-2004: BURMA: Villager jailed illegally over farmers' petition

Burma: Illegal imprisonment, denial of economic rights, un-rule of law
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from the Yoma-3 news service, Thailand about the illegal jailing of a villager in Burma in relation to a farmers' petition submitted to the authorities opposing the forced production of paddy. The villager, Ko Sein Win, was summarily sentenced to one-and-a-half years in prison for having an illegal lottery ticket in his possession. However, the real reason that he was jailed is believed to be because he organised the petition against government orders for farmers to produce dry season paddy.

Please write to the attorney general of Burma to protest against the denial of due process rights to Ko Sein Win, and urge that farmers in the country be given the freedom to make their own decisions regarding the planting of crops and their sale. 

Urgent Appeals Desk
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
---------------------------------------------------------

DETAILED INFORMATION:

Victim:
1. Ko Sein Win, 48, residing in Nonechaung village, Magu village tract, Bogalay township, Irrawaddy division
Alleged Perpetrators:
1. Deputy Superintendent Kyaw Soe, Kyeinchaung Police Station, Bogalay township
2. Constable Soe Hlaing, Kyeinchaung Police Station, Bogalay township
3. Nonechaung village section administrative committee head and members
4. People's Militia members
5. U Thein Htun Aung, Chairman, Bogalay Township Court
6. U Win Myint, Chairman, Bogalay Township Peace and Development Council

Ko Sein Win is a villager of Nonechaung who according to a local source had organised a petition with 60 farmer's names stating to the authorities that they did not want to grow the compulsory dry-season paddy crop. This is believed to have caused considerable irritation among the local authorities, because the Bogalay township chairman, U Win Myint, previously obtained an award for his work in increasing dry-season paddy production in Mawkyun township. Therefore, it is also believed that the local authorities strongly resented Ko Sein Win and have wanted to take revenge on him.

According to the information received, on the morning of 1 December 2004, Ko Sein Win was passing by the ward office of the Magu Village Tract Peace and Development Council (the local office of the ruling military council) at Kyonesein No. 2 Ward, when he was called inside. There he found Deputy Superintendent Kyaw Soe and Constable Soe Hlaing of Kyeinchaung Police Station, with the Nonechaung village section administrative committee head and members, and members of the People's Militia, a civilian paramilitary organisation with security responsibilities. They searched Ko Sein Win but could not find any documents or other materials with which to accuse him of wrongdoing. However, they found the stub for playing an illegal lottery. On this ground, they arrested him.

The following day, December 2, Ko Sein Win was sent before the Bogalay Township Court. He was given no opportunity to defend himself or have a lawyer present. The chief judge of the court, U Thein Htun Aung, sentenced him to one-and-a-half years in jail for having the lottery ticket.. The day after that, December 3, Ko Sein Win was sent to the Pyapon Prison.

According to other information available, the Bogalay chairman U Win Myint has also stated that he will eradicate the opposition party National League for Democracy (NLD) from the township. Ko Sein Win is a member of the NLD. Additionally, during the early morning hours of December 6, 13 other NLD members were arrested for attempting to organise a National Day celebration. Ten of the arrested persons were taken from their houses between two and four a.m. They were the township chairman, U Aung Khin Boe, the township secretary, U Aung Htay, the additional secretary, U Khin Maung Chit and three township committee members: U Thet Htun, Daw Mi Mi Sein, and Daw Khin Lay. The other four were ward or village committee members: Daw Hnin Hsi, Ko Nyein Htun, U Tin U and Ko Saw Panku. The other three persons taken at daytime were all members of the township organising committee: Ko Aung Myint, Ko Win Naing and U Hla Myint. All the persons have been charged under national security regulations and are currently under trial inside the Pyapon Prison.

The arrests come at a time that the government has been releasing thousands of prisoners from jails after admitting that the now defunct national military intelligence service may have committed 'irregularities'. However, only a few of the persons released so far have been prisoners of conscience. Meanwhile, the head of the service and former prime minister, General Khin Nyunt and all of his staff and associates have either been arrested or sacked from their jobs pending corruption inquiries. 


ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

It is clear from the description of the arrest of Ko Sein Win that the authorities had planned to jail him on some grounds, and had perhaps expected that he would be carrying documents that could link him to 'illegal' activities. The lengthy jail term for an illegal lottery ticket is an absurdity. In Burma, virtually every household plays illegal lotteries of one kind or another, including members of the local authorities themselves. In fact, the whole illegal syndicate system goes on with the knowledge of government officials, and the local agents are well-known, as they have to go around the streets and people's houses to conduct their trade. So the arrest of Ko Sein Win for the lottery ticket is just a pretext to get him in jail when no other means was available.

In fact, his arrest on one day, trial the next and jail the day after speak strongly to the 'un-rule of law' in Burma. During the year, the AHRC has released a number of appeals on similar arrests and flawed judicial procedures. See for instance: UA-21-2004, UA-40-2004, UA-111-2004 and UA-112-2004.

The dry-season paddy programme that Ko Sein Win had organised a petition against is deeply unpopular in Burma. It is a holdover from the socialist era that ended in 1988, under which farmers were subjected to government directives on what to grow, when, where, and how much to give to the government under a quota system. Despite many government announcements in recent years stating that the system has been changed, farmers are still being forced to grow dry-season paddy crops and give quota paddy to the authorities. The dry-season paddy is mainly unpopular because it requires too many inputs to grow for too little yield, and is therefore not worth the effort for the farmers, who prefer to grow a different kind of crop (such as peanuts or beans) at this part of the year. For details on the programme, see the earlier Voice of the Hungry Nation report published by the AHRC, in particular, the section on Rice under the Scope of Inquiry, and the findings on Paddy Procurement.


SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the attorney general to express concern over the jailing of Ko Sein Win, and demand that he is given due legal process. Please also urge that farmers be given the freedom to make their own choices about what crops to grow and how to sell them. A suggested letter follows. Please note that for the purposes of this letter, the country should be referred to as Myanmar, rather than Burma.

----------------

Dear Dr Tun Shin

Re: Case of Ko Sein Win in Bogalay Township Court on 2 December 2004

I am deeply concerned by the information that I have received indicating that a villager in Bogalay Township, Ko Sein Win, was sentenced to one-and-a-half years in jail on 2 December 2004 for having an illegal lottery ticket.

According to the information I have received, Ko Sein Win, a resident of Nonechaung village, Magu village tract, Bogalay township, was detained at the ward office of the Magu Village Tract Peace and Development Council at Kyonesein No. 2 Ward on the morning of December 1. The arresting officers were Deputy Superintendent Kyaw Soe and Constable Soe Hlaing of Kyeinchaung Police Station. Also present were the Nonechaung village section administrative committee head and members, and members of the People's Militia. They arrested him after searching him and finding only a lottery ticket stub.

The following day, December 2, Ko Sein Win was sent before the Bogalay Township Court. He was given no opportunity to defend himself or have a lawyer present. The chief judge of the court, U Thein Htun Aung, sentenced him to one-and-a-half years in jail for having the lottery ticket. The day after that, December 3, Ko Sein Win was sent to the Pyapon Prison.

From the information I have received, it appears that the authorities in Bogalay township were intent upon arresting Ko Sein Win because he had earlier organised a petition with 60 farmer's names stating to the authorities that they did not want to grow the dry-season paddy crop. The chairman of the Bogalay Township Peace and Development Council, U Win Myint, is known to have been awarded for his work increasing dry-season paddy production in Mawkyun township. It follows that his arrest and imprisonment were motivated by revenge.

Under any circumstances, Ko Sein Win was not given the opportunity to defend himself in court as required by law. Therefore, I urge you to investigate this case and see to it that he be given his due process rights without delay.

Finally, I urge the Government of Myanmar to end its coercive practices towards farmers without delay. Despite public statements in recent times that there would be reforms to the paddy production and procurement system to permit farmers to make their own decisions about what to grow and how to sell it, this does not appear to have been the case. The fact that villagers face retribution for attempts to assert their economic rights speaks to the failure of the government to implement the said reforms. However, without changes in the management of this system it is unlikely that Myanmar will progress and its people secure their fundamental rights to food and good health.

Yours sincerely

---

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

Dr Tun Shin
Director General
Office of the Attorney General
101 Pansodan Street
Kyauktada Township
Yangon
MYANMAR
Fax: + 95 1 371 028 / 282 990 / 282 449


PLEASE SEND COPIES TO:

1. General Soe Win
Prime Minister
c/o Ministry of Defence
Signal Pagoda Road
Yangon
MYANMAR
Fax: + 95 1 652 624

2. Maj-Gen Maung Oo
Chairman
Myanmar Human Rights Committee
c/o Ministry of Home Affairs
Corner of Saya San Street and No 1 Industrial Street,
Yankin Township
Yangon
MYANMAR
Fax: +95 1 549 663 / 549 208

3. Mr. Paulo Sergio Pineheiro
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar
c/o Ms. Hulan Tsedev
Room 3-090
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,
Palais Wilson,
Rue des Paquis 52, Geneva
SWITZERLAND
Tel: + 41 22 9179 281
Fax: + 41 22 9179 018
email: htsedev.hchr@unog.ch

4. Mr. Leandro Despouy
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers
Att: Sonia Cronin
Room: 3-060
OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9160
Fax: +41 22 917 9006
E-mail: scronin@ohchr.org

5. Ms. Hina Jilani
Special Representative for human rights defenders
Att: Ben Majekodunmi
Room 1-040
OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 93 88
Fax: +41 22 917 9006
E-mail: bmajekodunmi@ohchr.org


Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commissin (AHRC)
Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-175-2004
Countries :
Issues :
Document Actions
Share |
Subscribe to our Mailing List
Follow AHRC
Extended Introduction: Urgent Appeals, theory and practice

A need for dialogue

Many people across Asia are frustrated by the widespread lack of respect for human rights in their countries.  Some may be unhappy about the limitations on the freedom of expression or restrictions on privacy, while some are affected by police brutality and military killings.  Many others are frustrated with the absence of rights on labour issues, the environment, gender and the like. 

Yet the expression of this frustration tends to stay firmly in the private sphere.  People complain among friends and family and within their social circles, but often on a low profile basis. This kind of public discourse is not usually an effective measure of the situation in a country because it is so hard to monitor. 

Though the media may cover the issues in a broad manner they rarely broadcast the private fears and anxieties of the average person.  And along with censorship – a common blight in Asia – there is also often a conscious attempt in the media to reflect a positive or at least sober mood at home, where expressions of domestic malcontent are discouraged as unfashionably unpatriotic. Talking about issues like torture is rarely encouraged in the public realm.

There may also be unwritten, possibly unconscious social taboos that stop the public reflection of private grievances.  Where authoritarian control is tight, sophisticated strategies are put into play by equally sophisticated media practices to keep complaints out of the public space, sometimes very subtly.  In other places an inner consensus is influenced by the privileged section of a society, which can control social expression of those less fortunate.  Moral and ethical qualms can also be an obstacle.

In this way, causes for complaint go unaddressed, un-discussed and unresolved and oppression in its many forms, self perpetuates.  For any action to arise out of private frustration, people need ways to get these issues into the public sphere.

Changing society

In the past bridging this gap was a formidable task; it relied on channels of public expression that required money and were therefore controlled by investors.  Printing presses were expensive, which blocked the gate to expression to anyone without money.  Except in times of revolution the media in Asia has tended to serve the well-off and sideline or misrepresent the poor.

Still, thanks to the IT revolution it is now possible to communicate with large audiences at little cost.  In this situation there is a real avenue for taking issues from private to public, regardless of the class or caste of the individual.

Practical action

The AHRC Urgent Appeals system was created to give a voice to those affected by human rights violations, and by doing so, to create a network of support and open avenues for action.  If X’s freedom of expression is denied, if Y is tortured by someone in power or if Z finds his or her labour rights abused, the incident can be swiftly and effectively broadcast and dealt with. The resulting solidarity can lead to action, resolution and change. And as more people understand their rights and follow suit, as the human rights consciousness grows, change happens faster. The Internet has become one of the human rights community’s most powerful tools.   

At the core of the Urgent Appeals Program is the recording of human rights violations at a grass roots level with objectivity, sympathy and competence. Our information is firstly gathered on the ground, close to the victim of the violation, and is then broadcast by a team of advocates, who can apply decades of experience in the field and a working knowledge of the international human rights arena. The flow of information – due to domestic restrictions – often goes from the source and out to the international community via our program, which then builds a pressure for action that steadily makes its way back to the source through his or her own government.   However these cases in bulk create a narrative – and this is most important aspect of our program. As noted by Sri Lankan human rights lawyer and director of the Asian Human Rights Commission, Basil Fernando:

"The urgent appeal introduces narrative as the driving force for social change. This idea was well expressed in the film Amistad, regarding the issue of slavery. The old man in the film, former president and lawyer, states that to resolve this historical problem it is very essential to know the narrative of the people. It was on this basis that a court case is conducted later. The AHRC establishes the narrative of human rights violations through the urgent appeals. If the narrative is right, the organisation will be doing all right."

Patterns start to emerge as violations are documented across the continent, allowing us to take a more authoritative, systemic response, and to pinpoint the systems within each country that are breaking down. This way we are able to discover and explain why and how violations take place, and how they can most effectively be addressed. On this path, larger audiences have opened up to us and become involved: international NGOs and think tanks, national human rights commissions and United Nations bodies.  The program and its coordinators have become a well-used tool for the international media and for human rights education programs. All this helps pave the way for radical reforms to improve, protect and to promote human rights in the region.