Burma’s union parliament today passed an unprecedented motion to investigate a dissident blogger, who criticised the legislature for acting “above the law” in an internet article published on Monday.
The emergency proposal, tabled by lower house representative, Dr Soe Yin, called for the creation of a committee “to investigate and take actions” against the blogger — known only as Dr Seik Phwa — after he publicly questioned the parliament’s legislative powers. The motion was passed by 347 votes to 157, while 42 abstained.
Dr Soe Yin, a member of the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), accused the blogger of defaming the union parliament and “misleading the public and the international community” in a recent blog post called “Is the parliament above the law?”.
In the article, Dr Seik Phwa challenged the legislature’s decision to grant itself greater powers over the election of Burma’s constitutional tribunal. The article mocked their decision to overrule President Thein Sein’s recommendations on a new bill to amend the country’s constitutional tribunal law, despite being accused of breaching the constitution.
“The very people who swore to safeguard the constitution are now violating it intentionally,” Dr Seik Phwa wrote. He further mocked the parliament by suggesting that a new constitutional clause should be added, which says: “No matter what the constitution says, a decision approved by parliamentary speakers and their colleagues should be adopted.”
It follows months of disagreements between the union parliament and government over the role of Burma’s constitutional tribunal. The row kicked off in March last year when the court issued an order limiting the power of parliamentary committees and commissions. It culminated in the dismissal of all nine judges last September after the parliament voted to impeach them.
The legislature is now seeking to expand its powers over the appointment of the tribunal’s chairman. But according to Burma’s controversial 2008 constitution, the new chairman should be appointed exclusively by the president, although with the parliament’s approval. However, Burma’s constitution also allows the parliament to ignore legislative recommendations made by the president.
Lower house representative Ye Htun told DVB on Monday that a group of MPs had discussed and approved of the president’s amendments, but were overruled in the final vote.
Analysts say the ongoing dispute demonstrates growing discord within Burma’s ruling party. The parliamentary standoff has been dominated by members of Thein Sein’s own affiliated USDP party, and largely spearheaded by his former army colleague and speaker of the lower house, Shwe Mann.
But the implication of Dr Seik Phwa risks denting Burma’s progress on media freedom. The parliament’s decision to investigate the blogger comes the same week that the government abolished a draconian law on public speeches, previously used to silence critics.
Since coming into power in March 2011, President Thein Sein has led a dramatic democratic reform programme in the former pariah state, including freeing political prisoners and removing media restrictions. But in a report released on Thursday, Reporters Sans Frontière (RSF) warned that journalists are still prevented from openly criticising the government.
“[Journalists have] tried to publish articles critical of the authorities but quickly discovered that the government’s red lines had not retreated as much as they had imagined,” said the report.
Burma currently ranks 169 out of 179 on RSF’s press freedom index.
Win Aung contributed reporting.
This article was originally published on 17 January. It incorrectly stated that Burma’s parliament is seeking to expand its powers over the appointment of all nine new tribunal judges. This should have read the appointment of the new tribunal chairman. It was updated on 22 January.
Tags: constitution, constitutional tribunal, law, parliament
Meikhtila displaced return home
The blog owner requires users to be logged in to be able to vote for this post.
Alternatively, if you do not have an account yet you can create one here.
Powered by Vote It Up
This problem comes from our culture which does not accept any critism. We took as insult instead. Critism can be good or bad but have to take it and analyze, instead of using the resource chasing who the person that wrote, we should be using this resource somewhere useful. Our culture taught us since young to respect the older/respectable people. Even if we say something right and if it is against them, they took as insult. Older people (sometimes monk) use to use the word, “I will hold your neck and send you to heaven whether you like it or not”. When these kids grown up, they inturn start using this method. Military used it for the sake of unity of the country, they will wipe everyone against them. They are higher, powerful and always right ! We have to change this culture. Respect and making one’s point of view is different. We should not mix these two up.
Here go back to old regime rules. Why this USDP guy Dr. Soe Win is afraid of being criticized by blogger. The government should investigate those MP and representatives wealth, asses and their income first before those bloggers who criticized them.
This is the sort of mindset that thrives with a military attitude on life: “We are not to be criticized! We obey orders!”
Well a big public body trying to fight a small individual whose say probably does not amount to any big issue.
Is the Hluttaw really above the Law as the accusation goes?
If it isn’t, why worry and be afraid. The blogger cannot bite you a dent. And he has the right of free expression that the Hluttaw must not trod upon.
If the legislators are really bent on investigating and recriminating the blogger, then this public body is no where near a democratic reform group. Shame to us all.
So it was the military regime that had the attitude ” We are always right.” Now it is the parliament that has the attitude “We are always right.”
So what has changed?
No much. Only one authorian regime with another, isn’t it?
Why can the parliament impeach the judges? because there is no independent judiciary.
Why is there no independent judiciary?
Dare we say, because there is no monarchy.
Justice must be a separate and independent domain, with its own concept and values that have nothing to do with politicians, so-called law makers. ‘Political laws’ are not necessarily natural justice; natural justice is derived from fundamental concepts of equity and human right. get it?
that is why monarchy is always non-partisan.
No doubt DVB in its own way will practise dictatorship in its power to censor. Is that correct?
Why ASSK not protects the investigation and cosequence of taking action to critical blogger.
Did she agrees with those who are afraid of openess and critcism.
This is the right moment for her to protect the people who sincerely criticise to anybody for their wrong doing in the country.
What kind of Democracy she is seeking for.
Nobody is untouchable in the free world.
A Legislature stacked with people with shady past such as drug trafficking, Rohingya turned MP, one who owns and runs brothels, how can they ever stand to criticism? What if someone dug up their unsavory past? To me, Daw Suu may have her own reasons to enter into that organisation, but her presence there is like a tablet one used to clear the ‘murky’ water of Burmese politics.
How about the bloggers and website owners of http://www.myanmarexpress.net. Is it a government funded website?
Suu Kyi is not there to protect anyone. She is there for the soundbites. And for herself. Her eyes are fixed on power: Presidentcy in 2015. Sweet revenge on Aung San Oo, poor soul, who wanted to overthrow Shu Maung and disowned his sister for treason, marrying an Englishman, a man of the country that assassinated Aung San. that is the absolute truth.
Openness will destroy Suu Kyi and all other crooks. it will also expose how shallow and useless the journalists are; thy have no understanding of history.
Harold MacMillan, the outgoing British PM, told Sir Alex Douglas Hone not to engage in Afghanistan as the old British really understood the problems there. They were great historians. Winston Churchill was a great historian too.
New and younger English politicians and Americans invaded Afghanistan and they think they can leave behind a peaceful Afghanistan. Keep dreaming. Taliban will be back, Mr. Kazai.
for the sake of education of Burmese, we advise DVB not to censor this message. because it is the reality everyone should know.