Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Human Rights Council holds Interactive dialogue with Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar
Human Rights Council
14 March 2011
The Human Rights Council in a midday meeting today held an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar.
Tomas Ojea Quintana, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said this was an important point in the political transition in Myanmar, with the legislative elections taking place in November last year, and the convening of the national parliament in January this year. The Government had announced the final stage of the seven-step roadmap to democracy and many people were hopeful that this transition would provide an opportunity for positive change. Myanmar was urged to see genuine national reconciliation through an inclusive process, without which the democratic transition would be incomplete. Without national reconciliation the people of Myanmar would continue to face uncertainty and militarization that drained resources of the country.
The deprivation of economic, social, and cultural rights affected almost all the people of Myanmar, not only those who had been victimized by the long years of civil conflict or those who dared to speak out politically, said the Special Rapporteur. Failure to address systematic discrimination and inequities in the enjoyment of those rights would undermine efforts to build a better future for the people of Myanmar. The Special Rapporteur had decided to focus on the right to education because not only was it a crucial enabling right, it was also essential in building a strong democracy. The new Government of Myanmar needed to address the widespread and systematic abuse of human rights as a matter of utmost urgency. The situation of grave human rights violations remained ongoing today in Myanmar. The new Government had a formidable task of forging a functioning democracy out of decades of military rule. The people of Myanmar deserved the support of the international community throughout this process.
Myanmar, speaking as a concerned country, said that multi-party general elections were peacefully convened on 7 November 2010 in Myanmar and the country was now in the process of adopting a multi-party democratic system. The positive political developments and changes vividly showed the commitment of the Myanmar Government, not only in fulfilling the aspirations of its people but also in responding to the wishes of the international community who wanted to see Myanmar as a democratic, stable and prosperous State. Despite their belief that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur was inappropriate, the Government of Myanmar had cooperated by extending invitations to the Special Rapporteur to see the true situation in Myanmar. The report of the Special Rapporteur contained allegations against the voting process of the 2010 elections in Myanmar. Myanmar totally disagreed with these allegations, because, as mentioned earlier, nothing was done contrary to the law in the process of the elections. Secondly, the allegation against the Government on imposing restrictions on parliamentarians was also untrue. The Government’s efforts in implementing equitable education throughout the country should not be ignored. Myanmar would continue to work in cooperation with the Special Rapporteur by accepting visits, providing access and relevant information. In reciprocity, they expected that the reports of the Special Rapporteur be based on principles of independence, impartiality, objectivity and optimism.
In the interactive dialogue, speakers said that Myanmar should release political prisoners and engage in dialogue with political opposition groups. The recent general elections were not conducted in a free and fair manner. What specific measures could be implemented to help promote democracy and freedom of expression? The report painted a grim picture of the human rights tragedy in the country. Systematic human rights abuses continued. The Special Rapporteur cited an increase in the number of prisoners of conscience in the run up to the elections. Thousands of prisoners continued to be held in deplorable conditions and tens of thousands of ethnic minorities were fleeing into neighbouring countries to avoid persecution. The liberation of Aung San Suu Kyi should not make the international community forget thousands of other political prisoners who were imprisoned in inhumane conditions and suffered torture and degrading treatments.
Other speakers said that despite mixed impressions of the international community about the state of affairs in Myanmar, the progress, particularly the holding of national elections, must be acknowledged. It was hoped that the post-elections process would lead to positive changes and speakers urged the new Government to ensure an inclusive path towards democratisation and national reconciliation. The imposition of selective resolutions and mandates for countries of the south was rejected and speakers opposed the path taken of sanctions and confrontation. The release of Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest last November was welcomed. Speakers rejected politicized country specific mandates, saying that this would lead to divisions and distrust among States. Politicized country specific mandates in the Council had to be eliminated forever.
Speaking in the interactive dialogue were Canada, Thailand, Cuba, United States, France, Republic of Korea, Japan, China, Maldives, United Kingdom, Algeria, Slovakia, brazil, European Union, Indonesia, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Norway, New Zealand, Cambodia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Slovenia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Viet Nam, and Australia.
The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Asian Legal Resource Centre, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
The Council today is meeting from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. It will next consider follow-up of its Special Sessions on Côte d’Ivoire and on Libya.
The Progress Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, (A/HRC/16/59), notes that Myanmar undertook national elections for the first time in over two decades on November 2010. One week later, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was released unconditionally upon the end of her house arrest term. The new national parliament began meeting on 31 January 2011. Amidst much uncertainty, there appears to be some cautious optimism that positive change may be possible. Among those changes that the people of Myanmar dare to hope for is the realization of their economic, social and cultural rights. For this reason, the Special Rapporteur begins to address in the present report the subject of economic, social and cultural rights, starting with the right to education.
Presentation of Report by Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar
TOMAS OJEA QUINTANA, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said this was an important point in the political transition in Myanmar, with the legislative elections taking place in November last year, and the convening of the national parliament in January this year. The Government had announced the final stage of the seven-step roadmap to democracy and many people were hopeful that this transition would provide an opportunity for positive change. Myanmar was urged to see genuine national reconciliation through an inclusive process, without which the democratic transition would be incomplete. Without national reconciliation the people of Myanmar would continue to face uncertainty and militarization that drained resources of the country. The deprivation of economic, social, and cultural rights affected almost all the people of Myanmar, not only those who had been victimized by the long years of civil conflict or those who dared to speak out politically. Failure to address systematic discrimination and inequities in the enjoyment of those rights would undermine efforts to build a better future for the people of Myanmar. The Special Rapporteur had decided to focus on the right to education because not only it was a crucial enabling right, but because it was also essential in building a strong democracy. The new Government of Myanmar needed to address the widespread and systematic abuse of human rights as a matter of utmost urgency. The international community had been waiting patiently for Myanmar to start taking those necessary measures, and needed strong signals that the new Government intended to change the policies and practices of the old Government. The new Government needed to confront the need for truth, justice and accountability.
The situation of grave human rights violations remained ongoing today in Myanmar. The Special Rapporteur had met with refugees and asylum seekers from different regions who suffered abuses such as forced labour, extrajudicial executions, sexual and gender-based violence, discrimination and others. They had fled to Malaysia where they found life difficult as they had no access to legal employment and their children did not have access to formal education, and many lived in fear for the families left behind. The Malaysian Government was working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in addressing refugee issues on humanitarian grounds. There was an extra-territorial dimension to the human rights problem in Myanmar and the countries in the region had a particular interest in persuading the Government of Myanmar to take necessary measures for the improvement of its human rights situation. Estimates of the numbers of Myanmar people who had fled to neighbouring countries were in the millions. The new Government had a formidable task of forging a functioning democracy out of decades of military rule. The people of Myanmar deserved the support of the international community throughout this process. The new Government must change the culture of impunity that had allowed for human rights abuses to go unchecked and unaccounted for, and must start addressing its responsibilities in promoting, protecting and fulfilling the economic, social and cultural rights of the people of Myanmar. The international community was ready to assist but also to take appropriate decisions to help guarantee human rights in Myanmar.
Statement by Concerned Country
THANT KYAW (Myanmar), speaking as concerned country, said that multi-party general elections were peacefully convened on 7 November 2010 in Myanmar and the country was now in the process of adopting a multi-party democratic system. Thirty-seven political parties and 82 independent candidates, making the total number of contestants 3,000, participated in the elections to run for the seats in the Pyithu Hluttaw (House of Representatives), Amyotha Hluttaw (House of Nationalities) and for the 14 State and Region Hluttaws. The participation of all registered political parties and individuals in the elections had been conducted in the context of the Electoral Law which had fully adhered to their right to peaceful campaigning and media. The vote casting and vote counting in all constituencies had been conducted in front of the contestants and the people. The advance voting had been carried out within the context of the Electoral laws and Bylaws. The positive political developments and changes vividly showed the commitment of the Myanmar Government, not only in fulfilling the aspirations of its people but also in responding to the wishes of the international community who wanted to see Myanmar as a democratic, stable and prosperous State.
Despite their belief that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur was inappropriate, the Government of Myanmar had cooperated by extending invitations to the Special Rapporteur to see the true situation in Myanmar. The report of the Special Rapporteur contained allegations against the voting process of 2010 elections in Myanmar. Myanmar totally disagreed with these allegations, because, as mentioned earlier, nothing was done contrary to the law in the process of the elections. Secondly, the allegation against the Government on imposing restrictions on parliamentarians was also untrue. They were completely free to raise proposals and questionnaires to the national governing bodies, in the interests of their local constituencies. Allegations against the Government for failing to implement the education policy were also misleading. The Government’s efforts in implementing equitable education throughout the country should not be ignored. In conclusion, Myanmar reiterated their desire to cooperate with the United Nations in the field of human rights. In this regard, they would continue to work in cooperation with the Special Rapporteur by accepting visits and providing access and relevant information. In reciprocity, they expected that the reports of the Special Rapporteur be based on principles of independence, impartiality, objectivity and optimism.
ALISON LECLAIRE CHRISTIE (Canada) thanked the Special Rapporteur for his report and supported his proposal for the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry. Canada also urged the Myanmar regime to release political prisoners and to engage in dialogue with political opposition groups. The recent general elections were not conducted in a free and fair manner and Canada noted the Special Rapporteur’s concerns that parliamentarians remained restricted and limited. Canada asked what specific measures could be implemented to help promote democracy and freedom of expression. Finally, Canada expressed its disappointment that the Special Rapporteur had still not received an invitation to visit Myanmar despite continuous requests in the last year. In this regard, Canada asked the Special Rapporteur whether or not he expected a favourable response soon to his requests for a country visit.
SEK WANNAMETHEE (Thailand) said that despite mixed impressions of the international community about the state of affairs in Myanmar, the progress, particularly the holding on national elections, must be acknowledged. The Thai Government hoped that the post-elections process would lead to positive changes and urged the new Government to ensure an inclusive path towards democratisation and national reconciliation. Thailand was advocating for Myanmar to strengthen its engagement with the Human Rights Council and urged the Government to consider positively the visit requested by the Special Rapporteur in order to demonstrate its willingness to cooperate with the Council. Human rights promotion and protection in Myanmar must be part of the process of democratisation and national reconciliation and this could be gradually achieved through human resource development and education. Thailand viewed that the rights to development and political rights were equally important and complementary and the international community should consider how best to help ease the hardship placed upon the people of Myanmar as a result of economic sanctions. International cooperation and assistance, particularly at the grass-roots levels and in socio-economic and development and humanitarian areas, remained critical and Thailand remained committed to continue its cooperation with all parties to promote sustained political and socio-economic development in Myanmar.
JUAN QUINTANILLA (Cuba) said that as a position of principle Cuba rejected the imposition of selective resolutions and mandates for countries of the south and Cuba opposed the path taken of sanctions and confrontation. The strengthening of the human rights situation required a long strategy of development and cooperation and sanctions only contributed to worsening the differences and problems. The human rights situation in Myanmar had already been subjected to review by the Universal Periodic Review’s Working Group and the report would be considered at the seventeenth session of the Human Rights Council in June. It was according to that scenario that the international community should give a follow up to the situation of human rights.
MARGARET WANG (United States) said the United States welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur and thanked him for the work he had done. The United States was disappointed that the Special Rapporteur had not been invited to the country despite his requests since February 2010. The report painted a grim picture of the human rights tragedy in the country. Systematic human rights abuses continued. The Special Rapporteur cited an increase in the number of prisoners of conscience in the run up to the elections. Thousands of prisoners continued to be held in deplorable conditions and tens of thousands of ethnic minorities were fleeing into neighbouring countries to avoid persecution. Democratic Governments had to answer to their citizens regarding the distribution of national resources, prison conditions, law enforcement issues and the general respect for human rights. Finally, the Universal Periodic Review process offered a chance to address some of these issues but, unfortunately, the Government of Myanmar rejected many thoughtful recommendations, including recommendations to combat impunity and increase cooperation with the United Nations.
JEAN BAPTISTE MATTEI (France) said that the first elections in Myanmar were held in conditions that could not be considered free and democratic. France asked the opinion of the Special Rapporteur on the possibilities of a genuine democratic transition. The liberation of Aung San Suu Kyi should not make the international community forget thousands of other political prisoners who were imprisoned in inhumane conditions and suffered torture and degrading treatment. France called for their immediate release and for respect of freedom of expression in Myanmar. Massive human rights violations still occurred in Myanmar and France said that a credible and independent investigation was needed now more then ever. France also called on Myanmar to put in place immediate measures to fight against impunity and asked the opinion of the Special Rapporteur on the role the international community could play in this regard.
PARK SANG-KI (Republic of Korea) said the Republic of Korea recognized that the Government of Myanmar was in the final stage of the seven-step roadmap to democracy, given that the elections were held last November and the first session of a new Parliament was convened in January. The Republic of Korea also welcomed the release of Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest last November. In this regard, the Government of the Republic of Korea noted that the Special Rapporteur mentioned in his report that, amid much uncertainty, there appeared to be some cautious optimism that positive change may be possible. To this end, they believed that political will on the part of the Myanmar Government was vital. The Government of the Republic of Korea joined the Special Rapporteur in recommending that the Myanmar Government take seriously the wide-ranging calls for a more inclusive political process and to find the means to include all parties in the national reconciliation and transition processes.
KENICHI SUGANUMA (Japan) said Japan welcomed the submission of the report and the presentation of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. Japan said that it was unfortunate that the recent general elections did not take place in a free and fair manner. Japan strongly urged the Government to release the thousands of prisoners of conscience who had been detained for opposing the current regime. Japan also deeply regretted that the Special Rapporteur had not been extended a visit, despite numerous requests in the past year. The delegation took note of the particular focus on education in the report of the Special Rapporteur. Education was clearly essential to any healthy society and the Government of Myanmar had an obligation to increase the access and availability of education in their country, including human rights education.
JIANG YINFENG (China) said China welcomed the progress made in the promotion and protection of human rights by the Government of Myanmar. Last November, Myanmar had held general elections and the process had been smooth and successful. Those developments should be welcomed and recognised. China urged the Human Rights Council to give an impartial assessment of the progress made in Myanmar in order to encourage this country. As a friendly neighbour of Myanmar, China hoped it maintained its stability and achieved socio-economic development. In this sense, China was ready to provide assistance to Myanmar, together with the international community.
AISHATH LIUSHA ZAHIR (Maldives) said the Maldives supported the democratic transition process in Myanmar, as guided by the roadmap. They believed that the Myanmar authorities should be encouraged and supported in their stated aim of transforming the country into a functioning, liberal democracy, with strong human rights safeguards. However, the Maldives also believed that Myanmar had to be honest, open and transparent in the implementation of the reform roadmap, and unfortunately Myanmar was currently failing in this regard. The Maldives recent democratization experience demonstrated that trust was by far the most important commodity during a period of transition. Trust and confidence were needed between domestic political actors, and between the authorities and the international community. The Maldives believed that the Special Rapporteur’s report contained useful recommendations such as the establishment of a more inclusive political process, to ensure that the democratization programme ended up as more than words on a piece of paper. They urged the Myanmar authorities to implement these recommendations in full.
PETER GOODERHAM (United Kingdom) said the United Kingdom expressed its sincere appreciation for the continued commitment of the Special Rapporteur to the investigation of the human rights situation in Burma, in spite of the refusal of the military regime to allow him to enter the country over the last twelve months. The United Kingdom fully supported the Special Rapporteur’s calls for truth, justice and accountability to be meaningfully addressed. The delegation also shared the Special Rapporteur’s regret that political and civil freedoms, including freedom of expression, continued to be denied. The United Kingdom agreed with the Special Rapporteur’s assessment that the 2010 elections were not credible and would be interested to better understand why he believed that prospects could be better in 2015.
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said that Algeria had been encouraged by the approach recommended by the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar, based on seeking dialogue and cooperation with the country. Myanmar had entered a new historic phase with the adoption of the new Constitution in 2008 and the national elections in 2010. Algeria hoped that this would mean the transition to democracy and the national reconciliation. Several recommendations formulated by the Special Rapporteur meant that major efforts needed to be made by Myanmar in the promotion and protection of human rights. For tangible and solid results to be achieved, the Special Rapporteur must establish a lasting relationship with the authorities, based on trust.
BRANISLAV LYSAK (Slovakia) said that Myanmar was at a critical juncture. Slovakia regretted that the Special Rapporteur had not been able to enter the country since February 2010 and called upon the Government of Myanmar to facilitate his visit as a matter of priority. For the same reasons, Slovakia considered that the continuation of the mandate was imperative. Slovakia said that there had been lots of expectations of the international community prior to the constitution drafting process as well as following the elections, the country’s first after more than 20 years. The process’s credibility had been seriously undermined from the very beginning. Of concern were the disproportionate costs as well as direct imprisonment threats aimed to discourage those seeking electoral justice. Slovakia concurred with the Special Rapporteur that the November 2010 elections failure to meet international standards would pose further challenges for country’s transition.
MARIA NAZARETH FARANI AZEVEDO (Brazil) said Brazil highlighted the timely attention given by the Rapportuer to the promotion of economic, social and cultural rights in Myanmar. Recommendations contained in the report to strengthen international cooperation for the promotion of human rights in Myanmar were also laudable. Brazil would like to ask the Rapporteur about the impact of cooperation activities undertaken by United Nation agencies in Myanmar, such as the United Nations Children’s Fund and the International Labour Organization on the human rights situation on the ground and how international cooperation could be geared, either through the Rapporteur or other mechanisms of the United Nations human rights system, towards the implementation of recommendations accepted by Myanmar within the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. Brazil would also like to seek the opinion of the Special Rapporteur on what the opportunities were for Myanmar to strengthen the process towards a more democratic form of governance through equivalent improvements in the areas of the rule of law, access to justice and human rights. What were the views of the Special Rapporteur on how the release of people detained on political grounds could contribute to peace and national reconciliation?
RADKA PATALOVA (European Union) said that the European Union regretted that the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Myanmar had not been allowed in the country since 2010 and strongly encouraged the Government to allow the Special Rapporteur to make the visit as soon as possible. The country’s human rights situation remained of serious concern, with more than 2,000 political prisoners. Instead of their release that the Government had been considering before the elections, their numbers had increased and their conditions of detention remained of serious concern. The European Union urged the Government to release immediately all prisoners of conscience and embark on the process of inclusive national reconciliation. The European Union took note of the country’s participation in the Universal Periodic Review and deeply regretted the rejection of many substantial recommendations. The European Union strongly regretted that the Government had not held free, fair, transparent and inclusive elections and strongly called upon the Government to recognise the National League for Democracy’s pre-election registration status and lift restrictions on its representatives and on other political and civil society actors. In conclusion, the European Union strongly supported the renewal of this mandate and the Special Rapporteur’s further work and his important contributions.
DICKY KOMAR (Indonesia) said that the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar indicated the need for Myanmar to address the deficit in economic, social and cultural rights, as indicated in the 2010 Human Development Report, as an utmost priority while stressing the important role of the international community to provide necessary assistance. In this context, Indonesia asked the Special Rapporteur what would be the most effective measures that would better increase Myanmar’s level of cooperation with the international community based on the principles of genuine dialogue and cooperation. Indonesia welcomed the holding of general elections as well as Myanmar’s decision to release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Indonesia considered that both events had to be considered as positive and significant milestones since the absence of any form of elections in over two decades. The international community should respond positively to the recent developments in Myanmar to ensure that further improvement could take place in the country.
JURG LAUBER (Switzerland) said Switzerland had followed the elections in Myanmar and it entirely shared the assessment of the Special Rapporteur that the elections were held in an environment of intimidation, coercion and corruption. More than 2,000 prisoners of conscience were held in detention under vague laws in dreadful conditions and those that were in ill health had not received the medical attention they required. Switzerland called on the Government of Myanmar to release these prisoners as soon as possible and to begin a dialogue with the opposition, including the National League for Democracy to find a peaceful solution. Switzerland said that permitting the Special Rapporteur to visit the county would constitute a significant signal by the Government.
PATRICK RUMLAR (Czech Republic) said that the report of the Special Rapporteur had not mentioned concrete changes brought about by the elections and the Czech Republic asked for further details on this issue. The elections had not brought about true progress towards democracy and human rights and had demonstrated how the Government of Myanmar deprived its citizens from the basic rights and fundamental freedoms. The Czech Republic requested the Special Rapporteur to be more specific on the question of how the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights could help to achieve an effective enforcement of full enjoyment of civil and political rights in Myanmar. The Czech Republic remained highly concerned about the situation of ethnic minorities in Myanmar who suffered from frequent violations of their human rights. What was the evaluation of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of the ethnic minorities, the Czech Republic asked. Also, it wished to know what role the international community could play in taking important steps towards a national reconciliation and a full respect of human rights which were the crucial prerequisites for launching a process of democratisation in Myanmar.
HELGA FASTRUP ERVIK (Norway) commended the Special Rapporteur for his comprehensive report. His words confirmed that last year’s general elections in Myanmar were hampered by lack of freedom of expression and association. However, Norway noted that there were some reasons of cautious optimism and asked the Special Rapporteur to look for areas of cooperation where achievements could be made. During the Universal Periodic Review a number of recommendations (74) were accepted by the country and Norway urged the Special Rapporteur to look for cooperation for the implementation of these recommendations. They regretted that the visit to Myanmar by the Special Rapporteur had not been conducted and they agreed with the concern of the Special Rapporteur about the lack of social and economic development in Myanmar. It was important that Myanmar embarked on a process of reform and this would be regarded favourably by the international community.
MICHAEL MCBRYDE (New Zealand) said New Zealand welcomed the release of Aung Sun Suu Kyi as a positive step which should be followed up with the release of all political prisoners. During Myanmar’s Universal Periodic Review earlier this year, the international community expressed grave concern about human rights abuses in the country. New Zealand recommended that Myanmar should prioritise its work with the International Labour Organization on a Joint Action Plan to progress the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1612 and to ensure the effective implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, especially the rights to education and health. New Zealand would be interested to know what work the Special Rapporteur planned on the rights of children and in particular on the ongoing issue of use of child soldiers in Myanmar.
BIENG THENG (Cambodia) said that the situation in Myanmar was complicated and challenging and the country was engaged in its continuing transition to democratisation. This was a bold challenge for Myanmar to overcome and therefore the Human Rights Council should take those efforts into account through a practical approach of constructive dialogue and productive cooperation. The Council must take note of the recent political developments and the progress the Government of Myanmar had made in the implementation of the seven-step roadmap to democracy. Cambodia welcomed the efforts of the Government of Myanmar on the promotion and protection of human rights through the Universal Periodic Review process and its willingness to make further progress in cooperation with the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Myanmar in order to address the concerns of the international community about the situation in the country.
SO SE PYONG (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea commended the efforts of the Myanmar Government to improve the human rights situation and opposed selectivity and double standards. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea rejected politicized country specific mandates as this led to divisions and distrust among States. It was high time that the international community rejected politicization in the Council. Otherwise, this would mean the repetition of the same mistakes of the former Commission. Politicized country specific mandates had to be eliminated forever.
MARKO HAM (Slovenia) said the human rights situation in Myanmar remained serious, however it subscribed to the opinion of the Special Rapporteur that the post electoral period represented an opportunity for positive developments in the field of human rights. Slovenia called on the Government to follow the example of the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi with an unconditional and immediate release of all prisoners of conscience. Could the Special Rapporteur please give the Council a short assessment regarding further implications for other countries in the region if Myanmar failed to address the most urgent human rights challenges? Slovenia hoped that the Government of Myanmar would follow the recommendations from the country’s Universal Periodic Review, especially those that concerned the ratification of the two core covenants and other key human rights treaties.
YONG CHANTHALANGSY (Lao People’s Democratic Republic) said that the Lao People’s Democratic Republic noted with appreciation the significant efforts of the Myanmar Government to engage the country toward democracy and the improvement of livelihoods of its citizens. The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic supported the principle of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations of non-interference into internal affairs of other countries and pursued and implemented consistently its foreign policy of peace, national independence and cooperation, based on the principles of mutual respect for independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Government of Myanmar would take all necessary measures to improve the political and economic situation including the reinforcement of human rights in the country. The Lao People’s Democratic Republic urged the international community to work together with the Government of Myanmar to achieve all the goals of the roadmap.
TRAN CHI THANH (Viet Nam) noted with satisfaction the organization for the first time in over two decades of national elections on 7 November 2010, which served as a benchmark of the transition process in Myanmar, providing more opportunities for the protection and promotion of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. Viet Nam also appreciated the unconditional release by the Government of Myanmar of Aung San Suu Kyi. In their view, these evolutions were an important step forward to the national reconciliation and democracy. However, national reconciliation was a difficult process that could not be shortcut. Hence, Viet Nam strongly encouraged Myanmar to continuously more forward in this rights way.
PETER WOOLCOTT (Australia) said Australia urged the Myanmar authorities to take practical steps recommended by the Special Rapporteur to ensure that its people had the right to education on a non-discriminatory basis that reflected cultural identity, language and values. Australia had made clear its view that the November 2010 elections had fallen well short of democratic norms and Australia would be watching very closely what would emerge from Myanmar’s political process. Australia continued to call on the Myanmar authorities to release more that 2,100 political prisoners still remaining. It was the responsibility of Myanmar to address justice and accountability and end impunity. Those should be high priorities for Myanmar’s new Government and parliaments. The Special Rapporteur noted that recommendations made by the international community on ways to improve the human rights situation in Myanmar remained largely outstanding and Australia reiterated its hope that Myanmar would look at all of the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations and take credible steps to address them.
MICHAEL ANTHONY, of Asian Legal Resource Centre, said the Asian Legal Resource Centre continued to document numerous cases of arbitrary detention, torture, forced disappearance and the demented use of courts to arbitrarily sentence persons without any rational, legal justification. While welcoming the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in November 2010, the Asian Legal Resource Centre condemned the sham elections that preceded it and saw no credible signs of any progress concerning human rights in the country since then. The Asian Legal Resource Centre urged the Council to take the Government’s disconnection and deception into consideration when taking action. Propping up Governments that grossly abused the rights of their citizens had been shown to be flawed, immoral and unsustainable in the Middle East and North African and these lessons had to be applied in Myanmar, to bring to an end decades of fear and suffering.
POOJA PATEL, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia), in a joint statement with Worldview International Foundation and Conectas Direitos Humanos, said that contrary to the State Peace and Development Council’s rhetoric that only processes that were within the framework of the Constitution and in the Parliament would be recognized, they noted with irony that the Parliament itself faced suppression of the freedom of expression and was not even given oversight of the new national budget for the upcoming fiscal year. In this context, the Asian Forum would be interested to hear from the Special Rapporteur his comments on the national budget. Despite the numerous reports and well-documented evidence of gross violations of human rights in the country, the State Peace and Development Council had demonstrated a complete lack of political will to undertake necessary measures to address them. The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development urged the Human Rights Council to immediately act upon the repeated calls of the Special Rapporteur with concrete steps to bring about a United Nations-mandated Commission of Inquiry.
JULIE DE RIVERO, of Human Rights Watch, said the Special Rapporteur’s latest report overviewed the often neglected but important education sector in Myanmar and looked at the human rights dimensions of disastrous State policies that had degraded education in the country. To this date, tens of thousands of civilians had been displaced into Thailand as a result of the post-election military offensive in Karen State. Human Rights Watch had documented human rights violations such as civilians forced to carry wounded combatants through areas containing anti-personnel landmines and the practice known as atrocity de-mining. The performance of the Government’s new Attorney General at the Universal Periodic Review had showed the obstinacy and callous defiance the Government had towards international scrutiny over its human rights record.
PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, said the Government of Myanmar had failed in its commitment to take any comprehensive remedial action for its serious human rights failures. Amnesty International urged all Member States to support the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and called on Myanmar to accept additional visits by the Special Rapporteur and to permit an International Commission of Inquiry to be established to investigate credible allegations of grave crimes in Myanmar. The Government should release all prisoners of conscience, halt all violations of international human rights and humanitarian law and provide adequate reparations to victims in accordance with international standards.
TOMAS OJEA QUINTANA, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar, in concluding remarks, said that the Government of Myanmar had made extraordinary efforts throughout the country to carry out the national elections. Despite this, the elections had not been free, inclusive and had not respected fundamental rights. Many delegations said today there was a degree of optimism in a sense that those elections would open possibilities for the future. The new Myanmar authorities would be responsible in many ways for running the country and that was why they needed to take immediately the necessary political decisions to end all historical abuses that were carried out in the country and they had a responsibility to address these concerns. The Government had cooperated with the Special Rapporteur, who had an opportunity to visit the country on several occasions, and had engaged with the Universal Periodic Review and with some Special Procedures. The cooperation must be taken forward by the Government so that there was a clear sense of improvement in the human rights situation in the country.
The first recommendation made concerned prisoners of conscience and many of them had received extreme sentences, often contrary to the Constitution of Myanmar itself. Those prisoners of conscience must be released immediately. Secondly, the reaffirmation of legal authorities was needed, to ensure independent and impartial procedures, which would tackle the issue of impunity. The next recommendation concerned legislative reform and the restitution of the laws of the old Government with new laws that would uphold rights. Reform of the armed forces was recommended as well and the new authorities must take a decision to usher the reform so that in the regions where clashed occurred, civilian rights would not be compromised. The Government also needed to address the issue of forced labour and recruitment of children into armed forces. There was discrimination against some ethnic minorities, against the Constitution of the country. The people of Myanmar suffered from violations of their human rights and increasingly were not in a position to exercise their economic, social and cultural rights properly; the new Government must do everything possible to improve those rights in the country. The Government needed to adopt a genuine human rights agenda that was forward looking, which would be an indicator that the country was ready to join the international community and ensure a better future for its people.
For use of the information media; not an official record
တစ္ဆိုင္ရွိသည္။ လွည္းတန္းမီးပိြဳင့္နားတြင္ ပန္းအိကဖီးႏွင့္ လွည္းတန္းေစ်း
မေရာက္မီ ေစတနာရွင္ကဖီးကို ေတြ ့ရဦးမည္။
အဓိပတိလမ္းက ထြက္ၿပီး ညာဘက္ခ်ိဳး၊ R.C 2 ဘက္ သို ့ေက်ာင္းသားအုပ္ႀကီး
လမ္းေလွ်ာက္ခ်ီတက္ခဲ့သည္။ ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို ့ရင္ထဲတြင္ ဖုန္းေမာ္ေသဆံုးတာႏွင့္
ပက္သက္ၿပီး ႀကိတ္မႏိုင္ခဲမရၿဖစ္ၿပီး ေဒါသတေခ်ာင္းေခ်ာင္းထြက္ေနႀကသည္။
ထိုစဥ္က ကမာရြတ္ရဲစခန္းမွာ လွည္းတန္းမီးပိြဳင့္နားတြင္ ရွိသည္။ ဂ်က္ဆင္ေရွ ့ႏွင့္
မာလာေဆာင္နားတြင္ “ မံႈေရႊရည္...သီခ်င္းေလးလိုကြယ္...” သီခ်င္းေတြ ဖီလင္အၿပည့္
ထည့္ဆိုႀကၿပီး အာေခါင္ေၿခာက္မွ ၿပန္ႀကၿပီး လွည္းတန္းမီးပိြဳင့္နားက အလင္းဆိုင္တြင္
တံတားၿဖဴမွတ္တိုင္အလြန္တြင္ သံဆူးႀကိဳးမ်ားႏွင့္ တားဆီးထားသည္ကို ေတြ ့ရသည္။
ေနာက္ကိုလွည့္ႀကည့္လိုက္ေတာ့ အင္းလ်ားလမ္းထိပ္အထိ ၿပည္လမ္းမေပၚတြင္
ေက်ာင္းသားထုႀကီးကို လိႈက္ေမာအားရဖြယ္။ ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို ့ေရွ ့ဆက္ မတိုးႏိုင္ႀကေတာ့ပါ။
ထိုစဥ္က တကၠသိုလ္ေက်ာင္းသားမ်ားမွာ လြယ္အိတ္အရွည္ လြယ္ႀကပါသည္။ တခ်ိဳ ့
စာအုပ္ကို လက္ထဲကိုင္၊ ေဘာပင္ကို အက်ီ ၤအိတ္ထဲ ထည့္ႀကသည္။ ပရက္တီကယ္ခ်ိန္ကို
အေလးထားႀကသည္။ ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို ့ အရွည္ႀကီးဆိုင္ ထိုင္တာမ်ားပါသည္။ မႏ ၱေလးေဆာင္ႏွင့္
နီးသၿဖင့္ ပိုအဆင္ေၿပသည္။ ေတာင္ငူေဆာင္နားမွာ ဦးခ်စ္ဆိုင္ ရွိပါသည္။
သိပ္မႀကာခင္ ေက်ာင္းသားေတြ ေအာ္သံႀကားရသည္။ မာလာေဆာင္ဘက္က လံုထိန္းကား
ေတြ ၀င္လာၿပီ။ ေက်ာင္းသားေတြကို ညွပ္ပိတ္ၿပီး အေသအေႀကၿဖိဳခြင္းေတာ့မည့္ သေဘာ
ရွိသည္။ ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို ့မွာ နံပတ္တုတ္ႏွင့္ ေသနတ္ေတြကို ၿပန္လည္ခုခံစရာ ဘာဆိုဘာမွ မရွိပါ။
မေက်နပ္ၿခင္းမ်ားရွိသည္။ ဖုန္းေမာ္ၿဖစ္ရပ္မွန္ကို ေဖာ္ထုတ္ေပးေစခ်င္သည္။ လူသတ္တရားခံကို
အေရးယူေပးရမည္။ ထိုစိတ္မ်ားကို အရင္းတည္ၿပီး အစိုးရကို အာခံႀကၿခင္းၿဖစ္သည္။
ထိုစဥ္က ေက်ာင္းသားမ်ားသည္ အၿပင္စာမ်ားကို တခုတ္တရ ဖတ္ႀကသည္။ ကဗ်ာေတြ ေရး
ၿပီး အၿပန္အလွန္ ေပးဖတ္ႀကသည္။ မဂၢဇင္းမ်ားထံ စာမူေတြ ပို ့ႀကသည္။ ေက်ာင္းသားမ်ားသည္
ရိုးသားႀကသည္။ တည္ၿငိမ္ႀကသည္။ ေအးေဆးႀကသည္။ ရင့္က်က္ႀကသည္။ ရန္ကုန္တကၠသိုလ္
သည္ ရန္ကုန္တကၠသိုလ္ဟန္၊ ရန္ကုန္တကၠသိုလ္မာန္ အၿပည့္ႏွင့္။
တခ်ိဳ ့အင္းလ်ားကန္ေပၚ တက္ေၿပးသည္။ တခ်ိဳ ့ၿပည္လမ္းဘယ္ဘက္ၿခမ္းရွိ အိမ္မ်ားဘက္
ေၿပးႀကသည္။ ကၽြန္ေတာ္ အင္းလ်ားကန္ေပါင္ေပၚ တက္ေၿပးသည္။ လံုထိန္းကားမ်ား တရေဟာ
ေမာင္းခ်လာသည္ကို ၿမင္ရသည္။ အင္းလ်ားကန္ေပါင္သည္ ေၿပးေပါက္ပိတ္ႏိုင္ေသာ သတ္ကြင္း
သဖြယ္ၿဖစ္သြားႏိုင္သည္ဟု ေတြးမိၿပီး ေၿခကုန္သုတ္ၿပီး ဟိုဘက္ၿခမ္းက အိမ္ေတြဆီ အသက္ရွဴ
မွားမတတ္ ထြက္ေၿပးမိသည္။ ၿခံအုတ္တံတိုင္းမ်ားေပၚ ေက်ာ္တက္ႀကရာ ေက်ာင္းသူမ်ားကို
ဦးစားေပးၿပီး ဆြဲတင္တြန္းတင္ႀကသည္။ တခ်ိဳ ့အိမ္မ်ား မသိမသာတံခါး ဟ ေပးထားသည္။
ထိုစဥ္က ခင္ေမာင္တိုး၊ စိုင္းထီးဆိုင္ႏွင့္ ခင္၀မ္းသီခ်င္းတို ့သည္ ေက်ာင္းသားမ်ားႀကား
ေရပန္းစားလွသည္။ ထမီတိုတို၊ ေၿခသလံုသားေပၚေအာင္ ၀တ္ႀကေသာ ေက်ာင္းသူမ်ားကို
ႀသဘာေပးႀကသည္။ ကိုယ္ပိုင္ကားေမာင္းၿပီး ေက်ာင္းတက္ႀကေသာ ေက်ာင္းသူတခ်ိဳ ့ကို
ခိုးႀကည့္ႀကသည္။ သိပၼံလက္ေတြ ့ခန္း ၀င္ရန္ အဓိပတိလမ္းကို တေမွ်ာ္ႀကီး ေလွ်ာက္ရသည္။
ေနာက္ဘက္တြင္ က်န္ခဲ့ေသာ ေက်ာင္းသားမ်ားကို လံုထိန္းမ်ားက ရိုက္ႏွက္ႀကသည္။
ေၿခေထာက္ၿဖင့္ ကန္ေက်ာက္ႀကသည္။ ေက်ာင္းသူမ်ား ေအာ္ဟစ္သံမ်ားကို ႀကားရသည္။
ထိုတံတားသည္ နီၿပီ။ က်န္ရစ္ခဲ့ေသာ ေက်ာင္းသားမ်ားႏွင့္ အဖမ္းခံရေသာ ေက်ာင္းသားမ်ားကို
ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို ့ မေမ့ၿပီ။ ေဇာ္ေဇာ္ ပါသြားၿပီ။
ရန္ကုန္တစ္ၿမိဳ ့လံုး “ ေတာက္ ” ေခါက္လိုက္ႀကသည္။
၁၄- ၃- ၂၀၁၁
ျပည္တြင္းေမးလ္မ်ားသို႕႕ တဆင့္ပိ႕ု ၍မီဒီယာတိုက္ပြဲဆင္ႏြဲၾကပါစို႕.
19K View Download
21K View Download
15 March 2011 Yeyintnge's Diary.doc
4096K View Download
15 March 2011 Yeyintnge's Diary.pdf
3380K View Download
15 March 2011 Yeyintnge's Diary
ပုံ - သန္းေရႊ၊ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္မႈးၾကီး၊ ဥကၠ႒ နအဖက ၂ဝ၁ဝ ျပည့္ႏွစ္၊ ေအာက္တုိဘာလ ၂၈ ရက္စြဲျဖင့္ “ ျပည္ေထာင္စု တရားစီရင္ေရး ဥပေဒ (နအဖ ဥပေဒအမွတ္- ၂ဝ/၂ဝ၁ဝ) ကိုျပ႒ာန္းခဲ့သည္။ ဤဥပေဒပုဒ္မ ၇၄ ျဖင့္ “၂ဝဝဝ ျပည့္ႏွစ္။ တရားစီရင္ေရး ဥပေဒ (၂ဝဝဝ ျပည့္ႏွစ္၊ နအဖ ဥပေဒအမွတ္ ၅)ကုိ႐ုပ္သိမ္းလိုက္သည္” ဟုေဖာ္ျပသည္။ ၂ဝဝဝ ႏွင့္ ၂ဝ၁ဝ တရားစီရင္ေရး ဥပေဒမ်ားတြင္ပါရွိေသာ တရားစီရင္ေရးဆုိင္ရာမူမ်ား ကြာဟခ်က္ဟု မေတြ႔ရပါ။ သို႔ေသာ္ စာတူေသာ္လည္း လက္ေတြ႔က်င့္သုံးမႈမ်ား ပုိမိုဆုိရြားလာသည့္ ပုဒ္မမ်ားႏွင့္ အမႈေပါင္းေျမာက္မ်ားစြာ ရွိေနသည္ကုိေတာ့ ျငင္းမရပါ။ ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္အတြင္း သက္ဆုိင္ရာ ျပ႒ာန္းဥပေဒမ်ားႏွင့္ လုံးဝကုိက္ညီျခင္းမရွိဘဲ တရားစီရင္ ဆုံးျဖတ္ထားသည္မ်ားကို ေဖာ္ထုတ္ၾကရပါမည္။
စာတူေသာ္လည္း လက္ေတြ႔က်င့္သုံးမႈမ်ား ပုိမိုဆုိရြားလာသည့္ ပုဒ္မမ်ားႏွင့္ အမႈေပါင္း ေျမာက္မ်ားစြာ ရွိေနသည္ကုိေတာ့ ျငင္းမရပါ။ ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္အတြင္း သက္ဆုိင္ရာ ျပ႒ာန္း ဥပေဒမ်ားႏွင့္ လုံးဝကုိက္ညီျခင္းမရွိဘဲ တရားစီရင္ ဆုံးျဖတ္ထားသည္မ်ားကို ေဖာ္ထုတ္ၾကရပါမည္။
(က) ဥပေဒႏွင့္အညီ လြတ္လပ္စြာ တရားစီရင္ေရး၊
(ခ) ဥပေဒအရ ကန္႔သတ္ခ်က္မ်ားမွ အပ ျပည္သူ႔ေရွ႕ေမွာက္တြင္ တရားစီရင္ေရး၊
(ဂ) အမႈမ်ားတြင္ ဥပေဒအရ ခုခံေခ်ပခြင့္ႏွင့္ အယူခံပိုင္ခြင့္ ရရွိေရး၊
(ဃ) ျပည္သူတို႔၏ အက်ိဳးစီးပြားကုိ ကာကြယ္ေစာင့္ေရွာက္၍ တရားဥပေဒစုိးမိုးေရး၊ နယ္ေျမ ေအးခ်မ္းသာယာေရး တည္ေဆာက္ရာတြင္ အေထာက္အကူ ျဖစ္ေစေရး၊
(င) ဥပေဒကုိ ျပည္သူမ်ားက နားလည္လိုက္နာ က်င့္သုံးလာေစရန္ ပညာေပးေရးႏွင့္ ျပည္သူမ်ားက ဥပေဒကုိ လိုက္နာေသာ အေလ့အက်င့္ ပ်ိဳးေထာင္ေပးေရး၊
(စ) ျပည္သူအခ်င္းခ်င္းႏွင့္ ပတ္သက္ေသာ အမႈကိစၥမ်ားကုိ ဥပေဒေဘာင္ အတြင္း၌ ေက်ေအး ျပီးျပတ္ေစေရး၊
(ဆ) ျပစ္မႈ က်ဴးလြန္သူကုိ အေရးယူအျပစ္ေပးရာတြင္ အက်င့္စာရိတၱ ျပဳျပင္မႈကုိ ဦးတည္ေရး၊ ဟုေဖာ္ျပထားပါသည္။
ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္အတြင္း အထက္ပါမူမ်ားႏွင့္ ကုိက္ညီျခင္းမရွိဘဲ အေရးယူေဆာင္ရြက္ေသာ အမႈေပါင္း ေျမာက္မ်ားစြာ ရွိေနပါသည္။ ျပည္သူ႔ေရွ႕ေမွာက္တြင္ တရားစီရင္ျခင္းမရွိေသာ ေက်ာင္းသားေခါင္းေဆာင္ ကိုမင္းကိုႏိုင္တို႔ အမႈတြဲမ်ားကို ေတြ႔ျမင္ႏုိင္ပါသည္။ တရားဥပေဒ စိုးမုိးမႈကို ဖ်က္ဆီးပစ္သည့္ နအဖ ဗုိလ္ခ်ဳပ္မႈးၾကီးအမိန္႔ျဖင့္ ဒီပဲယင္း လူသတ္မႈမ်ိဳးလို အမႈမ်ားကိုေတြ႔ျမင္ႏုိင္ပါသည္။
ဥပေဒ ပညာေပးေရးကို ဘာတခုမွ် မလုပ္ခဲ့ဘဲ ၂ဝဝ၈ ဖြဲ႕စည္းအုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ပုံ အေျခခံဥပေဒကို အတင္းအဓမၼ မဲထည့္ခုိင္းျခင္းက ေပၚလြင္လြန္းပါသည္။ ျပစ္မႈက်ဴးလြန္သူ ကို အေရးယူအျပစ္ေပးရာတြင္ အက်င့္စာရိတၱျပဳျပင္မႈကို မဦးတည္ဘဲ အက်င့္စာရိတၱပ်က္ျပားသြားေအာင္ မတရား အလုပ္ခိုင္းေစျခင္းမ်ိဳး၊ ေထာင္တြင္းညွဥ္းပန္း သတ္ျဖတ္မႈမ်ိဳး လုပ္ေဆာင္ေနသည္ကို ေထာင္တြင္းက်ဆုံးသြားေသာ ႏိုင္ငံေရးသမား ၁ဝဝ ေက်ာ္ရွိေနျခင္းက သက္ေသျပေနပါသည္။
တရားလႊတ္ေတာ္ခ်ဳပ္မွာ စစ္ဘက္ဆုိင္ရာ တရား႐ုံးမ်ား၏ အေပၚတြင္ ရွိမေနပါ။ ျပည္ေထာင္စု တရားလႊတ္ေတာ္ခ်ဳပ္၏ အျမင့္ဆုံး တရားစီရင္ေရး အာဏာ ေပ်ာက္ဆုံးေနပါသည္။
ျပည္သူမ်ားက ဥပေဒကို လုိက္နာေသာ အေလ့အက်င့္ ပ်ိဳးေထာင္ေပးေရး ရွိရမည့္ အစား သက္ဆုိင္ရာ ဥပေဒႏွင့္ပတ္သက္ေသာ အာဏာပိုင္ အဆင့္ဆင့္ အားလုံးက ဥပေဒကုိ ခ်ိဳးေဖာက္ေနၾကသည္ကုိသာ ေတြ႔ျမင္ေနရပါသည္။ ေခါင္က မိုးယုိလွ်င္ တအိမ္လုံး ေဆြးေျမ႕ပ်က္စီးတတ္ပါသည္။
ဤ ၂ဝ၁ဝ တရားစီရင္ေရး ဥပေဒ ပုဒ္မ- ၇၂ တြင္ ဤဥပေဒကို ျပည္ေထာင္စု သမၼတ ျမန္မာ ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္ ဖြဲ႕စည္းပုံႏွင့္ အညီ ဖြဲ႕စည္းသည့္ ျပည္ေထာင္စု လႊတ္ေတာ္က ျပင္ဆင္ျခင္း၊ ျဖည့္စြက္ျခင္း သို႔မဟုတ္ ႐ုပ္သိမ္းျခင္း ျပဳလုပ္ႏုိင္သည္ဟုပါရွိသျဖင့္ ပုံ သန္းေရႊ က ျပင္ဆင္ျခင္း ၊ ျဖည့္စြက္ျခင္း သို႔မဟုတ္ ႐ုပ္သိမ္းျခင္း မျပဳလုပ္ႏုိင္သကဲ့သို႔ ဤဥပေဒ ကိုလည္း ၎တဦးတည္းက ျပ႒ာန္း၍ မရႏုိင္ေၾကာင္း သိထားအပ္ပါသည္။ ျပည္ေထာင္စု ဥပေဒျပဳ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကသာ ျပ႒ာန္းရပါမည္။
၂ဝ၁ဝ တရားစီရင္ေရး ဥပေဒ ပုဒ္မ -၈ တြင္ ျပည္ေထာင္စု တရားလႊတ္ေတာ္ခ်ဳပ္သည္ စစ္ဘက္ဆုိင္ရာ တရား႐ုံးမ်ားႏွင့္ ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္ ဖြဲ႕စည္းပုံ အေျခခံ ဥပေဒဆုိင္ရာခုံ႐ုံး၏ စီရင္ပိုင္ခြင့္ အာဏာမ်ားကုိ မထိခိုက္ေစဘဲ ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္၏ အျမင့္ဆုံး တရား႐ုံးျဖစ္သည္ဟု ျပ႒ာန္းထားသျဖင့္ တရားလႊတ္ေတာ္ခ်ဳပ္မွာ စစ္ဘက္ဆုိင္ရာ တရား႐ုံးမ်ား၏ အေပၚတြင္ ရွိမေနပါ။ ျပည္ေထာင္စု တရားလႊတ္ေတာ္ခ်ဳပ္၏ အျမင့္ဆုံး တရားစီရင္ေရး အာဏာ ေပ်ာက္ဆုံးေနပါသည္။ ပုဒ္မ ၃ဝ (ဃ) (၄) တြင္ ျပည္ေထာင္စု တရားသူၾကီးခ်ဳပ္ႏွင့္ ျပည္ေထာင္စု တရားလႊတ္ေတာ္ခ်ဳပ္ တရားသူၾကီးမ်ားသည္ ထင္ေပၚ ေက်ာ္ၾကားသည့္ ဂုဏ္သတင္းရွိေသာ ဥပေဒပညာရွင္အျဖစ္ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ သမၼတက ယူဆသူ၊ ဟုပါရွိပါသည္။ ပုဒ္မ ၄၈ (ဃ) (၃) တြင္လည္း ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္ သမၼတက ယူဆသူ ဟုေဖာ္ျပ ထားပါသည္။ ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္ တခုလုံးဆုိင္ရာမ်ားတြင္ ပုဂၢလိက လုံးဝမဆန္္သင့္ပါ။ ျပည္ေထာင္စု တုိင္းရင္းသား ျပည္သူမ်ားကို အေလးထားသင့္ပါသည္။
ဥပေဒစနစ္ပ်က္ပါက ဥပေဒအရ တရား စီရင္ရသည့္ တရားစီရင္ေရး စနစ္ တခုလုံးလည္း ပ်က္စီးယိုယြင္း သြားပါေတာ့ မည္။ ေခြးတေကာင္လုံး ေရထဲ နစ္ေနမွေတာ့ ေခြးေပၚက ေခြးသန္းေတြက ဘာေကာင္မို႔လို႔ လဲ။
မည္သည့္ႏုိင္ငံ၏ ဥပေဒစနစ္တြင္မဆို မည္သည့္ဥပေဒကမွ် ေနာက္ေၾကာင္းျပန္ အာဏာသက္ေရာက္ျခင္း မရွိေစရပါ။ သို႔ေသာ္ ၂ဝ၁ဝ တရားစီရင္ေရး ဥပေဒ ပုဒ္မ -၆၁ တြင္ ဤဥပေဒ အာဏာမတည္မီ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ ေအးခ်မ္းသာယာေရးႏွင့္ ဖြံ႔ၿဖိဳးေရးေကာင္စီက ဤဥပေဒကို အေကာင္အထည္ေဖာ္ေရးအတြက္ ၾကိဳတင္ေဆာင္ရြက္သည့္ လုပ္ငန္းရပ္မ်ား သည္ ဖြဲ႕စည္းပုံ အေျခခံဥပေဒအရ ေဆာင္ရြက္သည္ဟု မွတ္ယူရမည္ဟုေဖာ္ျပထားခ်က္ ကို ေတြ႔ရပါသည္။ အာဏာမတည္မီကကိစၥအားလုံး ေနာက္ေၾကာင္း ျပန္ထားမႈမ်ား ျဖစ္ေနပါသျဖင့္ ျပ႒ာန္းလာသမွ် ဥပေဒမ်ားမွာ ဥပေဒမ်ား (မည္သည့္ဥပေဒမွ် မဆို ဟုဆုိထားသျဖင့္) မဟုတ္ၾကေတာ့ပါ။ အားလုံးပ်က္ျပယ္သြားၿပီးျဖစ္ပါသည္။ ထို႔ေၾကာင့္ ၂ဝဝ၈ ဖြဲ႕စည္းပုံ အာဏာတည္ၿပီးမွ ျပ႒ာန္းရမည့္ ဥပေဒမ်ားသာ ျဖစ္ပါသည္။ ေျပာင္းျပန္မွားယြင္း ခြ်တ္ေခ်ာ္ေနသည့္ ဥပေဒစနစ္ကို ေတြ႔ရပါသည္။ ဥပေဒစနစ္ပ်က္ပါက ဥပေဒအရ တရား စီရင္ရသည့္ တရားစီရင္ေရး စနစ္တခုလုံးလည္း ပ်က္စီးယိုယြင္း သြားပါေတာ့မည္။ ေခြးတေကာင္လုံး ေရထဲ နစ္ေနမွေတာ့ ေခြးေပၚက ေခြးသန္းေတြက ဘာေကာင္မို႔လို႔လဲ။ စနစ္တခုလုံး ေရထဲ နစ္ေနသည္ကို ကူပါကယ္ပါ ေအာ္ရပါေတာ့မည္။မီးေလာင္လွ်င္ မီးကင္းေခါက္ရန္ လူတုိင္းတြင္ တာဝန္ရွိပါသည္။
၂ဝ၁ဝ တရားစီရင္ေရးဥပေဒ ပုဒ္မ -၆၆ တြင္ “ျပည္ေထာင္စု တရားသူ ၾကီးခ်ဳပ္သည္ ျပည္ေထာင္စု လြတ္ေတာ္ အစည္းအေဝးတြင္ျဖစ္ေစ၊ ျပည္သူ႔လႊတ္ေတာ္ သုိ႔မဟုတ္ အမ်ိဳးသားလႊတ္ေတာ္ အစည္းအေဝးတြင္ျဖစ္ေစ ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္ သို႔မဟုတ္ အမ်ား ျပည္သူတို႔ႏွင့္ သက္ဆုိင္သည့္ အေရးၾကီးေသာ တရားစီရင္ေရးဆုိင္ရာ အေျခအေနကို အခါအားေလ်ာ္စြာ တင္ျပႏိုင္သည္။ ” ဟုေဖာ္ျပထားပါသည္။ ျပည္ေထာင္စု တရားသူၾကီးခ်ဳပ္ အေနျဖင့္ အထက္ေဖာ္ျပပါ လက္ရွိအေျခအေနမ်ားကို ယခုလႊတ္ေတာ္မ်ား က်င္းပေနခ်ိန္တြင္ တင္ျပဝံ့ပါ၏ေလာ။ မလိမ္မညာစတမ္း အမွန္တရားကို ရွာေဖြ ေဖာ္ထုတ္ရဲရပါမည္။
၁၅ - ၃ - ၂ဝ၁၁
(ကၽြႏ္ုပ္ကိုယ္ေဖ်ာက္၀ိဇၨာသည္ ေဆာင္းပါးေရးသူျဖစ္ပါသည္။ ယခုလည္းေဆာင္းပါးတပုဒ္ ေရးထုတ္လိုက္ပါသည္။ ေဆာင္းပါးလား၊ ဘာလား၊ ညာလားကေတာ့ စာဖတ္သူအလိုက် မွတ္ယူပါေလ။ ယခုစာတြင္ေဖာ္ျပထားေသာ အမည္ “ကိုသူငယ္” မွာ အမည္ရင္းမဟုတ္ပါ။)
၁၉၇၀ ခုႏွစ္ မတိုင္မီကျဖစ္ရပ္။
ကိုသူငယ္တို႔တလမ္းတည္းေန လူငယ္မ်ားက လမ္းထဲမွာ အာဇာနည္ေန႔အခမ္းအနား က်င္းပခဲ့ၾကပါတယ္ခင္ဗ်ာ။
ဦးစြာပထမ ရဟန္းသံဃာမ်ားကို အာရုဏ္ဆြမ္းကပ္တယ္။ သံဃာေတာ္မ်ားထံမွ တရားနာယူတယ္။ ျပဳခဲ့တဲ့ေကာင္းမႈကုသိုလ္အစုစုကို ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းနဲ႔တကြ အာဇာနည္ႀကီးမ်ားကို အမွ်အတန္းေ၀တယ္။ လြတ္လပ္ေရးတိုက္ပဲြ၀င္ က်ဆံုးသြားသူမ်ားကိုလည္း အမွ်အတန္းေ၀တယ္။
သံဃာေတာ္မ်ား ျပန္ၾကြသြားေတာ့ စားဖြယ္ေသာက္ဖြယ္ အမယ္မယ္ကို ျပင္ၾကတယ္ခင္ဗ်။ က်ဳပ္တို႔လူမ်ိဳးရဲ့ ထံုးတမ္းစဥ္လာဓေလ့လို႔ ေျပာရလိမ့္မယ္ထင္ပါ့။ ဟိုလူကိုဖိတ္။ ဒီလူကိုေခၚ။ ၾကြပါခင္ဗ်။ ထိုင္ပါခင္ဗ်။ အဲဒီလိုနဲ႔ ဧည့္ခံေကၽြးေမြးဖို႔ရာ ရႈပ္ယွက္ခတ္ေနၾကတယ္။
အဲဒီလို ရႈတ္ယွက္ခတ္ေနခ်ိန္မွာ လမ္းထဲက ဦးလွမင္းအိမ္ကို ကိုသူငယ္ ခပ္သုတ္သုတ္ထြက္လာခဲ့တယ္။ ဟိုးအရင္က ေဗဘီဗိုက္တာ ကေလးေဆးကို တီဗီမွာ ပလူပ်ံေအာင္ ေၾကာ္ၿငာခဲ့တာ ဦးလွမင္းပါ။ ဦးလွမင္းဟာ လမ္းသူလမ္းသားေတြနဲ႔ အေခၚအေျပာမရွိ၊ ခပ္စိမ္းစိမ္းျဖစ္ၿပီး ဘက္ပဲ့ေနတဲ့လူပါခင္ဗ်ာ။ ဒီလိုလူကို ကိုသူငယ္က လမ္းသူလမ္းသားေတြနဲ႔ ေရာေႏွာေႏြးေထြးလာေအာင္ ဆက္ဆံေရး ဂေဟဆက္ေပးခ်င္တယ္။ ဒါေၾကာင့္ ဦးလွမင္းကိုအပါေခၚဖို႔ ထြက္လာခဲ့တာ။ ဦးလွမင္းကို အသင့္မေတြ႕ေတာ့ ေတြ႕တဲ့လူကိုပဲေျပာရေတာ့တယ္ဗ်ာ။
“ဦးလွမင္းကို လာဖိတ္တာ။ အာဇာနည္ေန႔ အလွဴလုပ္တယ္ဗ်ာ။ ဧည့္သည္ေတြကို ေကၽြးဖို႔ျပင္ေနၿပီ။ ဦးလွမင္းေရာ”
ကိုသူငယ္က သြက္လက္ပါေပ့။ တဖက္လူက ဘာမွ်မတုန္႔ျပန္။ မထံုတက္ေတး၊ ေအးတိေအးစက္ႏိုင္လြန္းလွတယ္။ ဒါေၾကာင့္ ကိုသူငယ္က ေနာက္ထပ္တေက်ာ့, ေက်ာ့လိုက္ရျပန္ပါတယ္္ခင္ဗ်ာ။
“ဦးလွမင္းေရာ အာဇာနည္ေန႔အလႉကို တပါတည္းေခၚသြားမလို႔”
တဖက္လူက ေငါင္ေတာင္ေတာင္ ေၾကာင္အမ္းအမ္း..။ ကိုသူငယ္ အီလည္လည္ျဖစ္လာရတယ္။ ေတာ္ပါေသးရဲ့။
ဦးလွမင္း အိမ္ထဲကထြက္လာလို႔။ ဦးလွမင္းက ျငင္ျငင္သာသာ စကားဆိုလာပါတယ္။
“ကိုသူငယ္ ထိုင္ေလ။ လာလာ ဒီမွာထိုင္”။ ဦးလွမင္းက ေျပာေျပာဆိုဆို ဆက္တီဧည့္ထိုင္ခံုမွာ ထိုင္လိုက္တယ္။ ဒီေတာ့မွပဲ ကိုသူငယ္လည္း ဦးလွမင္းနဲ႔ မ်က္ႏွာခ်င္းဆိုင္ ၀င္ထိုင္လိုက္တယ္။ ဦးလွမင္းရဲ့မ်က္ႏွာက မၾကည္မလင္ခင္ဗ်။ မလန္းမဆန္း ညိွဳးညိွဳးႏြမ္းႏြမ္းခင္ဗ်။ ဦးလွမင္းက အသံသဲ့သဲ့ေလးနဲ႔ စကား “စ” တယ္။
“အာဇာနည္ေန႔ အလႉလုပ္လို႔ လာဖိတ္တာ၊ ဟုတ္လား..ကိုသူငယ္ … အင္း …”
ဦးလွမင္းက စကားကို ဆိုင္းငံ့လုပ္ထားတယ္။ စကားမဆက္ေသးဘဲ အိမ္ေရွ႕လမ္းမဘက္ကို ေငးၾကည့္ေနေလရဲ့။
တခုခုေတာ့ တခုခုပဲလို႔ ကိုသူငယ္ သတိျပဳမိတယ္။
“ကိုသူငယ္..။ က်ေနာ္ဦးလွမင္းကို မသိဘူးလား”
ဒီေမးခြန္းက ကိုသူငယ္ကို ပေဟဠိျဖစ္ေစတယ္။ ဒါေၾကာင့္ ကိုသူငယ္ရဲ့ႏႈတ္မွ တအံ့တေႀသာ စကားတစ္ခြန္း`လႊတ္´ ခနဲထြက္သြားပါေလေရာ။
ခဏေလးအတြင္းမွာပဲ ကိုသူငယ္`ျဖတ္´ခနဲ သတိျပန္၀င္လာတယ္။ သည္ေတာ့မွပဲ ျဖစရာကို ေျဖမိေတာ့တယ္ဗ်ာ။
“သိတယ္ေလ။ ဦးလွမင္းကို က်ေနာ္ကဘာျဖစ္လို႔ မသိရမွာလဲ။”
အဲဒီလို ကိုသူငယ္က ေျဖသာေျဖလိုက္ရတယ္။ စိတ္ထဲကပေဟဠိကေတာ့ ပေဟဠိဟာ, ပေဟဠိပါပဲဗ်ာ။
“ေႀသာ္..ကိုသူငယ္က က်ေနာ့္ကိုဦးလွမင္းရယ္လို႔ပဲ သိေနတာကိုး။ ဒီလိုပဲြမ်ိဳးကို က်ေနာ္မသြားရဲပါဘူးဗ်ာ။”
ဦးလွမင္းရဲ့စကားသံက ေျပာရင္းနဲ႔ တိမ္တိမ္သြားတယ္။ မ်က္ႏွာကလည္း ေအာက္ဘက္ကို ငိုက္က်သြားတယ္ခင္ဗ်။ ထိုင္ခံုရဲ့ ယာဘက္လက္တန္းေပၚမွာ ယာတံေထာင္ဆစ္ကိုေထာက္လို႔..။ ငိုက္က်ေနတဲ့နဖူးကို ယာဘက္လက္ဖမိုးနဲ႔ု ပင့္မ ထားေလရဲ့။ ဦးလွမင္းဘာျဖစ္ေနတာလဲ။ ကိုသူငယ္ ေတြးရခက္လွတယ္။ အင္း.. ကိုသူငယ့္ ပေဟဠိကေတာ့ တခါပေဟဠိၿပီးတာနဲ႔ ေနာက္ထပ္ပေဟဠိေတြက ပြားပြားလာတယ္။ အဲဒီအခ်ိန္မွာပဲ ဦးလွမင္းရဲ့ေခၚသံယဲ့ယဲ့ကို ၾကားရျပန္တယ္။
အဲဒီေခၚသံေနာက္မွာ ဦးလွမင္းရဲ့တိုးတိုးညွင္းညွင္း ငိုရိႈက္သံက တဲြလ်က္သားပါလာတယ္ဗ်ာ။ ဦးလွမင္းက ခ်ဳပ္တီးမရေတာ့လို႔ လက္ေလွ်ာ့လိုက္တယ္ထင္ပါ့။ ငိုရိႈက္သံရ့ဲေနာက္မွာ ဟီးခနဲငိုခ်သံႀကီးက ပြင့္အံထြက္က်လာျပန္တယ္။
အဲဒီငိုခ်သံႀကီးနဲ႔ပဲ ဦးလွမင္းက စကားကို ထစ္ထစ္ေငါ့ေငါ့ ဆက္ေျပာတယ္ဗ်။
“ကိုသူငယ္လာဖိတ္တာ ေက်းဇူးတင္ပါတယ္။ ဒါေပမယ့္ဗ်ာ..”
ဦးလွမင္းက စကားကို ဆက္မေျပာႏိုင္..။ ေခါင္းကေတာ့ ငိုက္စိုက္ၿမဲငိုက္စိုက္လ်က္..။ ရိႈက္လို႔ရိႈက္လို႔ေနပါတယ္။
အေတာ္အားယူၿပီးမွ စကားကို ဆက္ႏိုင္တယ္။
“က်ေနာ့္လိပ္ျပာက က်ေနာ့္ကို ေၿခာက္တယ္၊ လွန္႔တယ္၊ သေရာ္တယ္။ လူေတာထဲတိုးရဲတဲ့အားအင္ က်ေနာ့္မွာမရွိေတာ့ပါဘူးဗ်ာ။”
ဦးလွမင္း ဘာေတြကိုေျပာေနတာလဲ။ ေျပာရင္းငို၊ ငိုရင္းေျပာ..။ ကိုသူငယ္တေယာက္ အူလည္လည္ ျဖစ္လာတယ္။ ထသြားရလည္းအခက္။ ဆက္ထိုင္ေနရလည္းအခက္။ ကိုသူငယ္ အခက္ႀကံဳေနတုန္းမွာပဲ ဦးလွမင္းထံမွစကားက ထြက္လာျပန္တယ္။
“က်ေနာ္ဦးလွမင္းဟာ ဘယ္သူဘယ္၀ါျဖစ္ပါတယ္လို႔ ကိုသူငယ္ သိလိုက္ရၿပီဆိုပါစို႔္။ ကိုသူငယ္က်ေနာ့္ကို သတ္ပစ္ခ်င္လိမ့္မယ္။ သတ္ပါဗ်ာ။ သတ္သာသတ္လိုက္ပါေတာ့ဗ်ာ”
ဦးလွမင္းရဲ့ငိုရိႈက္သံက လိႈက္ခနဲ, လိႈက္ခနဲ ထြက္လာတယ္။ ကိုသူငယ့္ရင္ထဲ သိမ့္ခနဲခံစားလိုက္မိရဲ့။ တဆက္တည္း ပါပဲ၊ ဦးလွမင္းဟာ ဘယ္သူလဲ။ သူ႔ကို ဘာေၾကာင့္သတ္ပစ္ခ်င္ရမွာလဲ။ သူကဘာေၾကာင့္ ငိုႀကီးခ်က္မ ယူႀကံဳးမရခံစားေနရသလဲ။ `လဲ´ေပါင္းမ်ားစြာနဲ႔ ကိုသူငယ္ ၿခာၿခာလည္ၿပီ။ အဲဒီလို ၿခာၿခာလည္ေနတုန္းမွာပဲ၊ လံုး၀ေမွ်ာ္လင့္မထားတဲ့ မခ်ိတင္ကဲစကားလံုးက ဦးလွမင္းရဲ့ႏႈတ္မွ အားမာန္ပါပါ လြင့္ထြက္လာတယ္။
“ဦးလွမင္းဆိုတဲ့က်ေနာ္ဟာ ေဖာ္ေကာင္ဘညြန္႔ဗ်..။ ေဖာ္ေကာင္ဘညြန္႔..။ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္တို႔ကို လုပ္ႀကံခဲ့တဲ့ ဂဠဳန္ေစာရဲ့တပည့္ ေဖာ္ေကာင္ဘညြန္႔”
ကိုသူငယ္ အံ့အားသင့္သြားတယ္။ `ေဖာ္ေကာင္ဘညြန္႔´ ဆိုပါကလား။ ႏွလံုးသားထဲမွာ ႏွစ္ေပါင္းမ်ားစြာ အၿမစ္တြယ္လာခဲ့တဲ့ နာက်ည္းစိတ္ေၾကာင့္ ရင္ထဲမွာမခံမရပ္ႏိုင္ ခံစားလိုက္ရတယ္။ အသည္းကို အပ္နဲ႔အဆြခံရလို႔ နာတယ္ဆိုတာမ်ိဳးဟာ ဒီလိုနာတာမ်ိဳးျဖစ္ေလမလား။ အဲဒီလို ကိုသူငယ္ေတြးမိတယ္။ ႏုတ္ႏုတ္စဥ္းၿပီး သတ္ခ်င္ခဲ့တဲ့သူတေယာက္ကို ပက္ပင္းတိုးမိၿပီ။ အဲဒီလူကလည္း သတ္သာသတ္လိုက္ပါလို႔ ေျပာေနျပန္ၿပီ။ ကိုသူငယ္ဘာလုပ္ရမလဲ။ သက္ျပင္းတခ်က္`မႈတ္´ထုတ္လိုက္တယ္။
ဦးလွမင္းက တဟီးဟီးနဲ႔ ငိုေနျပန္တယ္။ တခ်က္တခ်က္မွာ ရိႈက္သံက ၀မ္းေခါင္းထဲက အလိပ္လိုက္ ထြက္လာတယ္။ ေခါင္းကို ျပန္မေဖာ္ႏိုင္။ ငိုရင္းနဲ႔ေျပာျပန္တယ္။
“ကိုသူငယ္..။ က်ေနာ့္ကို ရြံသြားၿပီလား။ မုန္တီးနာက်ည္းသြားၿပီလား။ က်ေနာ္က ေဖာ္ေကာင္ဘညြန္႔ေလ။ လူေတာထဲ ဘယ္လို၀င္ရဲေတာ့မလဲဗ်ာ”
ခုမွပဲဦးလွမင္းရဲ့ ဘက္ပဲ့တဲ့အေၾကာင္းရင္းကို ကိုသူငယ္ သေဘာေပါက္ေတာ့တယ္။
“အာဇာနည္ေန႔မွာ ကိုသူငယ္တို႔က ေကာင္းမႈကုသိုလ္ေတြ ျပဳၾကတယ္၊ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္တို႔ကို အမွ်ေ၀ၾကတယ္၊ ေက်းဇူးေတြ ဆပ္ၾကတယ္။ က်ေနာ္ကေတာ့ ဒီအခ်ိန္ေရာက္လာတိုင္း လူမသိေအာင္ အိမ္ထဲမွာ ႀကိတ္ႀကိတ္ငိုေနခဲ့ရပါတယ္ဗ်ာ”
ဦးလွမင္းက ၿဖိဳင္ၿဖိဳင္စီးက်ေနတဲ့ မ်က္ရည္မ်ားကိုသုတ္..။ ႏွာရည္မ်ားကိုညွစ္ထုတ္..။ ကိုသူငယ္ကေတာ့ ဘာဆက္ေျပာရမယ္မသိ။ ငိုင္သြားၿပီ။
“ကိုသူငယ္.. က်ေနာ္ေဖာ္ေကာင္ဘညြန္႔ဟာ ဦးေစာက နန္းရင္း၀န္လုပ္ခဲ့ဘူးေတာ့၊ အထင္ႀကီးခဲ့တယ္။ သူလိုပုဂၢိဳလ္ႀကီးမ်ိဳးနဲ႔ တဲြရတာဂုဏ္ရွိတယ္လို႔ ထင္မိခဲ့တယ္။ ပုဂၢိဳလ္ေရး ဆည္းကပ္ကိုးကြယ္မိခဲ့တယ္ေပါ့ဗ်ာ။ ဦးေစာနဲ႔တဲြရင္ ကိုယ္ကလည္း ဆယ္တန္းေအာင္ၿပီးဆိုေတာ့ ေနာင္တ္ေန႔မွာ ၀န္ႀကီး, ၀န္ကေလးျဖစ္လာမယ္။ အာဏာရွိမယ္။ ဂုဏ္ရွိမယ္။ ဥစၥာလည္းၾကြယ္၀လာမယ္။ အဲဒီလိုသူေျပာခဲ့သမွ်ကို ဟုတ္ႏိုးႏိုးထင္ၿပီး ေလာဘတက္မိခဲ့တယ္ဗ်ာ။”
ဦးလွမင္း.. အဲ.. ေဖာ္ေကာင္ဘညြန္႔..။ သူက ငံု႔ထားတဲ့ေခါင္းကို ျပန္ေမာ့လိုက္တယ္။ မ်က္ရည္ေတြကို လက္ဖ၀ါးနဲ႔ပဲ သုတ္ပစ္တယ္။ မ်က္လံုးေတြကရဲလ်က္..။ မ်က္ႏွာႀကီးကလည္းနီလို႔..။ ဖြင့္ဟ၀န္ခံၿပီးၿပီမို႔ စိတ္ထဲေပါ့သြားေလသလား။ ကိုသူငယ္ကို မ်က္ႏွာငယ္ငယ္နဲ႔ ေမာ့ၾကည့္ၿပီး စကားဆိုလာျပန္တယ္။
“ဦးေစာဟာ အႀကံပက္စက္တယ္၊ ရက္စက္တယ္၊ ၾကမ္းၾကဳတ္တယ္။ ဒါကိုေနာက္ပိုင္းမွာ တျဖည္းျဖည္း သတိေတာ့ ျပဳမိပါရဲ့။ ဒါေပမယ့္ အသိဉာဏ္ဓာတ္ခံက အားနည္းေတာ့ ဦးေစာရဲ့ငါးမွ်ားခ်ိတ္က ငါးစာကိုပဲ အာသာငမ္းငမ္း မက္ေမာေနခဲ့တာဗ်။ ငါးမွ်ားခ်ိတ္ကို မျမင္ႏိုင္ခဲ့ဘူး။ ဦးေစာကို ခြာရေကာင္းမွန္းနည္းနည္းေလးမွ သတိမျပဳမိခဲ့ဘူး။ က်ေနာ့္အဖို႔ သူ႔အရွိန္အ၀ါက ႀကီးလြန္းပါတယ္ဗ်ာ။ ဒီေတာ့သူ႔ရဲ့ ခိုင္းေစညႊန္ၾကားမႈေအာက္မွာ က်ေနာ္ အလိုတူအလိုပါ က်ဴးလြန္မိခဲ့ေတာ့တာေပါ့ဗ်ာ”
ကိုသူငယ္လာတာက ဦးလွမင္းဆီ။ အခုေတာ့ ဦးလွမင္းက ေဖာ္ေကာင္ဘညြန္႔ျဖစ္။ ေဖာ္ေကာင္ဘညြန္႔နားမွာ ကိုသူငယ္မထိုင္ခ်င္ေတာ့။ ထျပန္ခ်င္ၿပီ။ ေတာ္ပါေသးရဲ့..။ ေပ်ာက္ေနတဲ့ ကိုသူငယ္ကို လိုက္ရွာတဲ့သူငယ္ခ်င္း ေရာက္လာလို႔..။
ဒီေတာ့မွပဲ ကိုသူငယ္ထြက္ေပါက္ရပါေတာ့တယ္။ ဒါေပမယ့္ေဖာ္ေကာင္ဘညြန္႔နဲ႔ ေရွ႕ဆက္ ဘယ္လိုစခန္းသြားမလဲ။ ဒါက ကိုသူငယ္အတြက္ ေနာက္ထပ္ေပၚလာတဲ့ ပေဟဠိသစ္ပါခင္ဗ်ား။
ဂဠဳန္ေစာကိုေဖၚတာက ေဖယ္ေကာင္ဘညြန္႔..။ ေဖယ္ေကာင္ဘညြန္႔ကို ေဖာ္တာက ေဖယ္ေကာင္လွမင္း..။
ဂဠဳန္ေစာက သူ႔အတြက္ နာမည္ႀကီး၀တ္လံုေတာ္ရမင္း မစၥတာ ဗတားနစ္ကို ေၾကးႀကီးႀကီးေပးၿပီး ငွားတယ္။ အားမရေသးလို႔ ဘိလပ္ (ေခၚ) အဂၤလန္က နာမည္ႀကီး၀တ္လံုေတာ္ရမင္း မစၥတာကားတစ္ဘင္းနက္ (ေကစီ) ကိုလည္းေငြပံုေအာၿပီး ငွားလိုက္ေသးတယ္။
သို႔ေသာ္လည္း အသက္ကိုရင္းၿပီး အမႈေတာ္ထမ္းခဲ့ၾကတဲ့ တပည္မ်ားအတြက္ ငွားေပးတာကေတာ့ သာယာ၀တီနဲ႔ အုတ္ဖိုက ေတာေရွ႕ေနႏွစ္ဦးပါတဲ့ခင္ဗ်ာ။
ဒီေတာ့မွပဲ တပည့္ေက်ာ္ေတြ ဇာတ္ရည္လည္ၿပီး ဂဠဳန္ေစာဟာ သူ႔လိုအင္ဆႏၵသက္သက္အတြက္ မိမိတို႔ကိုဓားစာခံ, လက္ပါးေစ, လက္ကိုင္ဒုတ္အျဖစ္ အသံုးခ်ခဲ့တာလို႔ သေဘာေပါက္ကုန္ၾကသတဲ့။ ဂဠဳန္ေစာကို သူ႔တပည့္ေတြက စိတ္လည္းနာ၊ အသဲလည္းနာ၊ ႏွလံုးလည္းနာ၊ ရွိရွိသမွ်အားလံုးနာကုန္ၾကသတဲ့။
ထူးထူးၿခားၿခား သင္ခန္းစာကို ေပးခဲ့သူႏွစ္ေယာက္က ေမာင္စိုးနဲ႔စိန္ႀကီး..။
ေမာင္စိုးေျပာခဲ့တာက “ဂုဏ္ရွိတဲ့ အထက္တန္းလူတေယာက္နဲ႔ တဲြဲျဖစ္ရတဲ့ကိစၥမွာ ပူစရာမရွိပါဘူး။ သူ႔ဘာသာ
ၾကည့္လုပ္သြားလိမ့္မယ္” တဲ့..။ ေမာင္စိုးေျပာတာ အမွန္ပါပဲ။ ဂုဏ္ရွိတဲ့အထက္တန္းလူ ဂဠဳန္ေစာက သူဘာသာသူ ၾကည့္လုပ္သြားတာပါပဲခင္ဗ်ား။
စိန္ႀကီးကေတာ့ တမ်ိဳးတဘာသာခင္ဗ်။ ဂဠဳန္ေစာေနာက္ မလိုက္ခ်င္လို႔ အႀကိမ္ႀကိမ္ေရွာင္ခဲ့ပါရဲ့။ ေနာက္ဆံုးမိဘ
ႏွစ္ပါးရဲ့ဆႏၵကို မၿငင္းရက္လို႔ ဂဠဳန္ေစာေနာက္ပါသြားရတာ။ ႀကိဳးစင္ေပၚတက္ခါနီး သရဏဂံုတင္တဲ့အထဲ သူကမပါဘူးတဲ့..။ “ဒီဘ၀ဒီေလာက္အျဖစ္ဆိုးတာ၊ ေရွ႕ဘ၀ေတြမွာ ျဖစ္ခ်င္ရာျဖစ္စမ္း။ လႊတ္ထားလိုက္မယ္” တဲ့..။
ေဆာင္းပါးတပုဒ္ၿပီးသြားၿပီ။ သက္ဆိုင္သူမ်ားအတြက္ ၀တၱရားေက်သြားၿပီမို႔ က်ေနာ္ကိုယ္ေဖ်ာက္ဝိဇၨာ စိတ္လက္ ေပါ့ပါးသြားပါၿပီခင္ဗ်ား။ အားလံုး … အားလံုးေသာ ပုဂၢိဳလ္မ်ား၊ စစ္အာဏာရွင္သန္းေရႊ အသံုးခ်ခံရတာကို
ေရွာင္ရွားႏိုင္ၿပီး အပါယ္က်ၿခင္းမွ လြတ္ကင္းႏိုင္ၾကပါေစသတည္း။ ။