Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would first of all like to put on the record my thanks to the honourable member for Berowra for seconding this private members motion tonight. I would also like to thank all the honourable members for speaking. There is good reason for this chamber to debate the deplorable humanitarian, human rights, economic, racial, legal, constitutional and political crisis that confronts the people of Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi has said, ‘Please use your liberty to help us achieve ours.’ We are here; we can give that reassurance.

The most recent despicable act—one of many that form a pattern of systemic and widespread violations of all manner of human rights—of this brutal regime led by General Than Shwe involves the trumped-up charges against Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and someone who is admitted into the Companion of the Order of Australia, made worse by the fact that when she was charged she was already serving a six-year sentence, again on trumped-up charges, laid after she was a victim of an assassination attempt by the regime itself. At that time they also imprisoned her deputy, U Tin Oo, taking him back to his home in Rangoon to serve his sentence. I have here, Madam Deputy Speaker, Opinion No. 11/2005 (Myanmar) of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which says, among other things, that U Tin Oo’s liberty is arbitrarily deprived. I seek leave to incorporate the opinion into my contribution tonight.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

Dear Ms. Saffin,

I would like to refer to the forty-second session of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in which the Working Group adopted several Opinions on cases of detention submitted to it. The Working Group decided, inter alia. to transmit its Opinions three weeks after having transmitted them to the governments concerned, to the sources of information which had submitted the cases to the Group.

In accordance with the Working Group’s methods of work, I am sending to you, attached herewith, the text of Opinion No. 11/2005 (Myanmar) regarding a case submitted by you (Mr. U Tin Oo). This Opinion will be reproduced in the Working Group’s next report to the Commission on Human Rights.

Yours sincerely,

Miguel de la Lama

Secretary

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

OPINION No. 11/2005 (UNION OF MYANMAR)

Communication addressed to the Government of the Union of Myanmar on 12 October 2004

Concerning the case of Mr. U Tin Oo

The State is not a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

1.

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established by resolution 1991/42 of the Commission on Human Rights. The mandate of the Working Group was clarified by resolution 1997/50 and extended by resolution 2003/31. Acting in accordance with its methods of work, the Working Group forwarded to the Government the above-mentioned communication.

The Working Group regrets that the Government did not provide it, despite repeated invitation to this effect, with the requested information.

The Working Group believes that it is in a position to render an opinion on the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:

I.

When it manifestly cannot be justified on any legal basis (such as continued detention after the sentence has been served or despite an applicable amnesty act) (Category I);

II.

When the deprivation of liberty is the result of a judgement or sentence for the exercise of the rights and freedoms proclaimed in articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also, in respect of States parties, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Category II);

III.

When the complete or partial non-observance of the relevantinternational standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned relating to the right to a fair trial is of such gravity as to confer on the deprivation of liberty, of whatever kind, an arbitrary character (Category III).

international standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned relating to the right to a fair trial is of such gravity as to confer on the deprivation of liberty, of whatever kind, an arbitrary character (Category III).

4.

According to the information received, Mr. U Tin Oo, a citizen of Myanmar born on 3 March 1927, Vice-President of the National League for Democracy (NLD), was arrested by police and military forces on 30 May 2003 at around 7 p.m. in Kyi village near the Dipeyin (Tabayin) township, Sagaing Division, when the NLD convoy was attacked by government’ affiliated thugs during a speaking tour of Upper Myanmar. Scores were killed and hundreds were wounded during the attack. Mr. U Tin Oo received blows to the head.

5.

Mr. U Tin Oo waslaken to Kale (Kalay) prison, Sagaing Division, and detained there. He was later on transferred to Mandalay-Ohpho Prison. The detention of Mr. U Tin Oo was ordered by the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). As to the legal basis, no arrest warrant or detention order was issued against Mr. U Tin Oo, nor any charges raised against him. The detention.might be based on the 1975 State Protection Law.

6.

On 14 February 2004, U Tin Oo was shifted from Kale Prison to house arrest. However, he is still not allowed to see anyone. His home in Yangon is being guarded by armed and security personnel and his phone cut off.

7.

The source alleges that no charges have been raised against Mr. U Tin Oo and no trial is envisaged; his detention is not subjected to judicial review; he is held in incommunicado detention and denied access to a lawyer;

8.

The Government, which had the possibility to answer to these allegations, did not contest them.

9.

The Working Group finds that Mr. U Tin Oo could not benefit of the fundamental guarantees of due process, being an administrative detention. No arrest warrant was issued, no charges have been brought against him; he has not be subjected to an independent judicial process, held in camera and without access to defense.

10.

As to the situation of his house arrest, the Working Group has already stated in its Deliberation No. 1 that house arrest may be compared to deprivation of liberty provided that it is carried out in closed premises which the person is not allowed to leave, which is the case here, as the Government has not denied it.

11.

The Government was also unable to provide information as to the facts that gave rise to Mr. U Tin Oo’s arrest. At the time of his arrest was in a speaking tour in the country for the NLD party. The Working Group considers his deprivation of liberty takes place for the mere exercise of his political rights and the exercise of the right of freedom of movement, peaceful demonstration and of freedom c_^,f expression, all rights protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rigths.

12.

In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:

The deprivation of liberty of Mr.

U Tin Oo is arbitrary being in contravention of articles 9, 10, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and falls within categories II and III of the categories applicable to the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group.

13.

Consequent upon the opinion rendered, the Working Group requests the Government to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation, and bring it into conformity with the standards and principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Adopted on 26 May 2005

The law—and it galls me to call it that—under which Aung San Suu Kyi is currently charged is called the Law to Safeguard the State Against the Dangers of Those Desiring to Cause Subversive Acts 1975. The name says it all. It is an Orwellian sounding act, sometimes called the State Protection Act. It is an act that is used to silence any political contestation voice other than the military in Burma.

We know that there is a humanitarian crisis in Burma. People are hungry and children are malnourished—their development and growth stunted. Since 1990 the matter of human rights in Burma has been before the United Nations and resolutions have been passed every year since 1991. People like Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, the previous UN special rapporteur on human rights violations in Myanmar, has recently called for an inquiry that should happen through the Security Council. He is calling for a commission of inquiry into the human rights violations, possibly leading to an indictment being taken to the International Criminal Court, which can happen in that procedural way through the Security Council. I strongly endorse such a call. It is time. The generals have had long enough.

Part of the reason that Aung San Suu Kyi has been charged is that somebody broke into her home in University Avenue and there is a law in Burma that to have a guest stay overnight you must have permission. When it was a socialist regime it was form 9; it is now just a rule that is enforced. If you do not have that permission, you have violated the law thereby endangering the state or whatever is determined at the time. This is what they are going on about with her at the moment. We also know that there is a constitutional crisis in Burma. Suu Kyi recently said, ‘We are facing a crisis of constitution, not a constitutional crisis.’

I want to note also that on Friday, 19 June it was Aung San Suu Kyi’s 64th birthday. A resolution was passed by all sides in this House and I also note that honourable senators passed a resolution in the Senate on Thursday, 18 June. On Thursday, 18 June all members overwhelmingly signed the card and some people ate some cake. I also note that Aung San Suu Kyi had a cake in prison. She shared that and the bit of food that she had with fellow prisoners and the guards. The purpose of the card was not only to wish her a happy birthday, as many people around the world have done—and there is a special website for it now—but also for us to say to her, ‘We wish you freedom, and anything at all that we can do, in our small way, we will do from here.’ It was nice to have the support of absolutely everybody.

I also want to commend a couple of Australian companies, Downer EDI and QBE, for voluntarily withdrawing their operations in Burma this year. I just wanted to put that on the public record. (Time expired)

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians often comment about the adversarial nature of the parliamentary process. I would like to remind people that a great deal is done by agreement. I second this motion, but I do so because I very much respect the work of the member for Page in relation to human rights issues generally. I think she has been quite remarkable in the way in which she has motivated many of us to become engaged in the issue relating to Aung San Suu Kyi. I commend her for her effort last Friday to record the 64th birthday of Aung San Suu Kyi and for coordinating the messages that could be sent to her because of the inspiration that she has been to so many people. I commend her on that.

This motion was proposed at an earlier point in time, before Aung San Suu Kyi’s recent arrest. Although it observes, towards the end, something of the Security Council processes, it was intended to note 27 May as the 19th anniversary of the National League for Democracy’s overwhelming victory in Burma’s first democratically-held elections. I commend those who are interested in this matter to read the text of the motion, because it outlines much of the history of Aung San Suu Kyi’s circumstances and some of the efforts that are being made to secure her freedom.

I wanted to spend a little of my time tonight noting what a special lady Aung San Suu Kyi has been. To have spent 13 of the last 19 years in detention, her commitment to democracy and her country have been inspirational. During the past 19 years she could have left Burma. She could have been free. However, she chose not to be. It meant that she did not get to see her husband before he passed away—something that she was prepared to endure for her cause.

I think it is very important to commend the activities of organisations like Amnesty International. I also commend the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, whose op-ed I read last Friday, and I support the efforts to bring about change. I noticed some commentary in an interesting website called ‘Moreorless: heroes and killers of the 20th century’. It had this to say:

The military dictators of Burma have turned a country that was once known as the “rice bowl of Asia”, and which is endowed with many natural riches, into a basket case. They have cynically manipulated and brutalised the country’s ethnic minorities, and suppressed those fighting for democracy.

Suu Kyi is the symbol of the Burmese people’s struggle for freedom. Her poise, humility and integrity stand in stark counterpoint to secrecy and self-interest of the junta. The SPDC’s treatment of Suu Kyi is the yardstick of its commitment to democracy and human rights. So far it is not measuring up. Under its current leadership it is unlikely it ever will.

The only hope for Burma appears to be the development of a fracture within the junta that leads to its collapse. This is unlikely while Burma’s neighbours—China, India and ASEAN—continue to either support Than Shwe and his cronies or condone them by their silence.

That is a very short but perspicacious piece. I would encourage members to read the speech by Aung San Suu Kyi’s son in accepting her award of the Nobel Peace Prize, because it says something about the family’s commitment and about her. I noted in particular her son’s comment:

I know that if she were free today my mother would, in thanking you, also ask you to pray that the oppressors and the oppressed should throw down their weapons and join together to build a nation founded on humanity in the spirit of peace.

He goes on to say:

Although my mother is often described as a political dissident who strives by peaceful means for democratic change, we should remember that her quest is basically spiritual.

I think she is a remarkable lady with a remarkable family. This motion deserves support. (Time expired)

Belinda Neal (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on the motion moved by the member for Page and to congratulate her on raising this very important matter today. I rise because this House cares and has grave concerns about the treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi at the hands of the dictatorial military regime of Burma. Since her return to Burma in 1988, Suu Kyi has been a beacon for freedom and human rights in that very troubled nation. In both her personal and public lives, Suu Kyi has inspired people in her own country and around the world through her unwavering fight to bring a democratically elected government to Burma.

In 1988, mass demonstrations against the country’s military regime saw Burma thrown into turmoil. By October of that year, approximately 3,000 protesters had been killed. This civil disobedience forced the regime to call almost democratic elections. In 1990, Suu Kyi led the National League for Democracy to an overwhelming victory in Burma’s first democratic election. This was despite the fact that she and many other NLD officials and supporters were in detention at the time of the vote. The NLD won almost 60 per cent of the valid vote and 80 per cent of the seats, but the military dictatorship imposed martial law and refused to recognise the election result. This constituted a gross violation of domestic and international law.

Since those momentous occurrences, the Burmese regime has subjected Suu Kyi to years of unlawful incarceration and deprivation of liberty in one form or another. She has been detained for 13 out of the last 19 years. It should be noted with regret that, according to Amnesty International, up to 2,000 other supporters of democratic reform are also in detention in Burma. These people are political prisoners. An assassination attempt was made on Suu Kyi in 2003.

I join with the member for Page in condemning in the strongest manner the actions of Burma’s State Peace and Development Council and its leader, Than Shwe. The continued unlawful detention of Suu Kyi on trumped-up charges is a violation of human rights that has been condemned by representative bodies around the world. The Association of South-East Asian Nations, or ASEAN, has rightly said that the unlawful actions against Suu Kyi meant that the ‘honour and the credibility’ of the Burmese regime ‘are at stake’. I note with approval that the Australian foreign minister, Stephen Smith, has unreservedly condemned the continued detention of Suu Kyi. The minister has called for her ‘immediate and unconditional release’ and has reaffirmed the Australian government’s financial sanctions targeting senior members of the regime. The events in Burma since 1988 go to the heart of democratic principles, international law and human rights across the world. I welcome the Australian government’s strong stance on these matters.

The trial of Suu Kyi that is underway at the moment is a sham being carried out under an oppressive and dictatorial regime. People around the world have united behind the calls for justice for Suu Kyi. They have also united to bring pressure to bear on the regime of Burma to make positive steps towards holding democratic elections in that country. The first step along this road is the immediate release of Suu Kyi and the dropping of the phoney charges against her. If Burma is to take its place in the world and be recognised as a nation that values democracy, human rights and the rule of law, Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy must be part of that process.

Suu Kyi won the Nobel Peace Prize for her decades-long struggle for democracy in Burma. She too has called on the world to join that struggle, saying, ‘Please use your liberty to promote us.’ The Australian government has been steadfast in its support of Suu Kyi. I urge all Australians to show their solidarity with Suu Kyi and with the people of Burma. Change must come to Burma, and all Australians must do their bit to continue to fight for this to occur.

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In September 1988, the Burmese National League for Democracy, the NLD, was formed, with Suu Kyi as the general secretary. Since then she has been in this most remarkable position. I congratulate the member for Page, Janelle Saffin, for bringing forward this motion for Australians to continue to support Aung San Suu Kyi. Aung San Suu Kyi is influenced by both Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence and, more specifically, Buddhist concepts. Aung San Suu Kyi entered politics to work for democratisation, helped found the National League for Democracy on 27 September 1988 and was put under house arrest on 20 July 1989. She was offered her freedom if she left her country but she refused.

One of her most famous speeches is the freedom from fear speech, which begins:

It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.

In 1990, the military junta called a general election, which the National League for Democracy won with certainty. Being the candidate, Aung San Suu Kyi under normal conditions would have assumed the office of Prime Minister. Instead, the results were nullified and the military refused to hand over power. Consequently, there was an international outcry, as there should have been. Aung San Suu Kyi was forced into house arrest at our home on University Avenue in Rangoon.

During her arrest, she was awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 1990 and the Nobel Peace Prize the year after. Aung San Suu Kyi used that Nobel Peace Prize of US$1.3 million to set up a health and education trust for the Burmese people. Suu Kyi has been placed under house arrest on copious instances since she began her political career, spending 13 of the past 19 years under house arrest. During these periods, she has been barred from meeting her party supporters and international visitors. International visitors have likewise been prevented from meeting her.

Suu Kyi met the leader of Burma, General Tan Shwe, who was accompanied by General Khint Yunt, on 20 September 1994 while under house arrest. It was the first meeting that she had had since she had been placed in detention. When the military government has released Suu Kyi from house arrest, it has made clear that if she left the country to visit her family in the United Kingdom it would not allow her to return. It is the unfortunate case that after Suu Kyi underwent a hysterectomy in September 2003 that the government again placed her under arrest in Rangoon.

The results from UN facilitation have certainly been mixed. She has had the opportunity to meet special envoys from the UN, but that has led to no real outcome. There have been significant issues for the people of Burma, who have always sought to have her removed from detention. Many nations and figures have continued to call for her release and that of 2,001 other political prisoners in the country. The UN has attempted to facilitate dialogue between the junta and Suu Kyi. On 6 May 2002, following secret confidence-building negotiations led by the United Nations, the government released her and a government spokesman said that she was free to move because ‘we are confident that we can trust each other’. Aung San Suu Kyi proclaimed that this was a new dawn for the country. However, on 30 May 2003, a government sponsored mob attacked her caravan in the northern village of Depayin, murdering and wounding many of her supporters. The government again imprisoned her in Rangoon.

Aung San Suu Kyi has received vocal support from many Western nations in Europe, Australasia and North and South America, as well as India, Israel, Japan and South Korea. In December 2007, the US House of Representatives voted unanimously, 400 to zero, to award Aung San Suu Kyi the Congressional Gold Medal. The Senate concurred on 25 April 2008. On 6 May 2008 also, President Bush signed legislation awarding Aung San Suu Kyi the Congressional Gold Medal. (Time expired)

Kerry Rea (Bonner, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to support the motion put forward by the member for Page and, once again, in conjunction with others, I congratulate her on what is, I think, a very well-worded motion. I am very happy to endorse it.

When I gave my first speech in this place early last year, I used a quote from Martin Luther King which said that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere—a sentiment that at the time expressed my personal view of the importance of fighting for justice and human rights across the world. As a statement I think that defines the issue that we are trying to confront in Burma by supporting the National League for Democracy by calling for the immediate release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and for the brutal military regime in Burma come to an end. I did not know when I used that quote at that time that Martin Luther King actually said that on the day that I was born; I think it is an interesting coincidence that I chose it. Unfortunately, it is still a quote that is apt today.

We live in a global village. That is why democratically elected members of parliaments across the world should stand in unison to call for the end of brutal regimes wherever they currently exist. We should stand together, and I see that, in terms of democratic parliaments, there is a very strong move across the globe, led by the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and many other leaders to call for the immediate release of Aung San Suu Kyi and to acknowledge the democratic leader of that country.

Democracy is a very fragile beast, as we all know, and it does have its faults. But until we are presented with another form of government that promotes individual freedoms and support for the human rights of a nation’s citizens in a better way, we should all be calling at least for it to become much more widespread as a system of government.

The democratic rights and human rights of individual citizens in a democratic nation with a free parliament and laws do not only protect the citizens of that country but, indeed, has an impact on all of us, and that is why I believe that the Martin Luther King quote is so important. I also think it is a responsibility of all of us, as community leaders, to support, as I said, the many comments and the moves from the United Nations and other organisations calling for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. I think we should support the statements that have already been made by many ASEAN leaders who are calling on the Burmese military regime to release her and to acknowledge her position as a democratically elected leader.

I know I joined with others last Thursday in acknowledging her birthday. It was her 64th birthday. She has been in detention for 13 of the last 19 years, and has been the democratically elected leader of Burma for almost the last 20. It means that she was elected leader—and has since been in detention over that period of time—when she was just a year or two younger than me.

I hope by the time I reach my 64th birthday that not only will Aung San Suu Kyi be free but also the rights and freedoms of all Burmese citizens will be enshrined by their government, that they will enjoy the democratic freedoms that we enjoy and that we in this parliament will no longer need to move motions like this against the incarceration of democratically elected leaders. I hope that the world will have moved on. But unless the Burmese government releases the 2,000 political prisoners led by Aung San Suu Kyi, I fear that we are many years away not just from a democratically elected government in that nation but, unfortunately, also in others around the world. It is symbolic that they be released. It is important for the people of Burma but it is also important for us as global citizens. (Time expired)

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whenever I look around the world, I always see reminders of how the hard-working people of many nations are held back by autocratic regimes. I see examples of countries where the potential of the nation, and particularly its people, is being held back by the lack of democracy. These are nations where the spirit, enterprise and hard work of even the poorest people are yoked by regimes dedicated to the maintenance of their own power and wealth. The examples of such regimes are far too many, and the oppression will forever be intolerable.

This motion, however, gives me the opportunity to speak on one example of an autocratic regime that oppresses democracy and its people in order to perpetuate its hold on power and its pursuit of self-interest. I speak of the Union of Myanmar—the nation that most of us still refer to as Burma.

This motion notes that we have just passed the 19th anniversary of the 1990 general election that resulted in an overwhelming victory for Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy, which won 392 of the 492 seats. Burma operated as a democracy between 1948, when it became independent from the United Kingdom, and 1962, when it became a military dictatorship. General Ne Win seized power, taking advantage of the instability of the democratic government.

The people of Burma wanted a return to democracy and, from late 1985, student protests gathered in intensity. The result was the fall of the government on 8 August 1988 in what is called the Four Eights uprising. Tragically, General Saw Maung declared martial law and seized control. It was he who first formed the State Law and Order Restoration Council, which then suspended the constitution. Maung was replaced by Senior General Than Shwe in 1992, and in 1997 SLORC was renamed the State Peace and Development Council.

It is right to say that name changes make no difference to the way a regime like this operates. Autocratic, self-serving regimes are defined by their record in murders, tortures, rapes, forced relocations, forced labour, recruitment of child soldiers and imprisonment of political opponents. Both SLORC and SPDC are condemned for their crimes against their own people. The outcomes for the people of Burma, which come from the oppression of the SPDC, are a failed economy and significant, widespread poverty. These are the usual economic hallmarks of regimes that hold the descriptors of dictatorships, communism or socialism.

A sad example of classic mismanagement is the 2005 decision by the junta to establish a new capital, known as Naypyidaw. The regime determined that it would establish a brand new capital, and it has been reported that they began moving government departments when it was still completely undeveloped. It has been suggested that the move commenced at 6.37 am on 6 November 2005 because a monk had stated that this time and date was astrologically significant. On 11 November at 11 am the second wave, comprising 1,100 military trucks carrying 11 military battalions and 11 government departments, left Rangoon. It would appear that the emphasis on the number 11 suggests an adherence to superstitious reasons, but it caused great dislocation because of the insufficient infrastructure.

It has also been said that the city has a huge development of tunnels under it to address the paranoia of the SPDC leadership, which fears either an internal insurrection or a foreign invasion. The regime seems to be increasingly guided by government-employed astrologers, which is shown by the creation of the new capital and which increasingly undermines any form of confidence in the new regime. It is therefore little wonder that the economy flounders and the people are increasingly impoverished. We know that Burma is a country torn by internal division and that the SPDC oppresses its ethnic minorities even more than the ethnic Burmese majority. Reconciliation with the ethnic tribes such as the Karen people can best be achieved through the leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi.

I join with other speakers on this motion in calling on General Than Shwe to immediately and unconditionally release Aung San Suu Kyi, senior NLD leader, the courageous former general U Tin U, other members of the executive and all pro-democracy political prisoners in Burma.

I will finish by saying that the SPDC, as the rulers of the Union of Myanmar, is a regime that has no legitimacy. It is corrupt, it is incompetent and it is holding the people of Burma and the ethnic minorities back. Only through that democracy will that country and all its people thrive. I think that all the people of that nation want the SPDC’s time to be over. I hope that, when the time comes, the cost of freedom, particularly in terms of human life, will be minimal. Finally, I thank the member for Page for the opportunity to speak on this worthy matter and for her work in this area.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My voice tonight is somewhat diminished by a cold, but I will do everything I can to speak on behalf of the millions of Burmese who have no voice. I commend the member for Page for moving this motion and I commend the other members who have spoken in support of it. For many years Burma’s regime, the State Peace and Development Council, has shown a profound disregard for the human rights and democratic aspirations of the Burmese people. The Burmese regime has presided over the stark deterioration of the Burmese economy. Burma has become a poor and isolated country.

In 1988, students, professionals and others launched a nationwide uprising aimed at bringing an end to authoritarian rule. Millions of people courageously marched on the streets, calling for freedom and democracy. The military responded by gunning down thousands of demonstrators and imprisoning thousands more in one of South-East Asia’s most bloody episodes. The most recognisable face of Burma, the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Aung San Suu Kyi, has been in and out of house arrest and prison since 1988. Her transgression, her crime, was to lead the National League for Democracy to a decisive election victory in 1990. She has not been convicted of any crime but has been held as a threat to national security. Faced with having to release her, even under its own draconian security law, the regime has now brought spurious charges relating to a minor incident.

Aung San Suu Kyi has been formally charged with breaching the terms of her detention because a US citizen intruded into her compound. There is immense concern that her arrest and current trial is simply a device to extend her detention. This trial stands condemned by the international community. I welcome the strong statements in this respect from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and its member governments. This latest outrage shows yet again that the Burmese regime remains utterly indifferent to the views of the international community and human rights standards.

The military regime continues its brutal domination over its people. Numerous governments, non-government organisations, United Nations bodies and international organisations have documented Burma’s widespread problems: intense human rights violations and the complete deterioration of health care, education and a functioning economy. The world further witnessed the Burmese government’s human rights violations in September 2008 during the ‘saffron revolution’. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in peaceful demonstration, led by Buddhist monks, demanding peace and freedom in their country—only to be countered with force. Thousands were imprisoned, hundreds were killed and monasteries were raided. The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Burma reported last year that he had received information indicating that the military regime had destroyed, forcibly displaced or forced the abandonment of more than 3,000 villages in eastern Burma, where ethnic minorities predominate. At least one million people fled their homes as a result of the attacks, escaping as refugees and internally-displaced persons.

Organisations such as Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First and Amnesty International have reported on the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed under the rule of Burma’s military regime, including the recruitment of tens of thousands of child soldiers and attacks on ethnic minority civilians. In December 2008, the UN General Assembly adopted by a vote of nearly four to one a resolution calling on Burma to free all political prisoners, including detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, and criticising the human rights record of the Burmese regime. I raise my voice in support of that resolution, in support of her release from detention and in support of the release of all political prisoners in Burma.

In closing, I will refer to the recommendations of Amnesty International in its report, Crimes against humanity in eastern Myanmar:

Put an immediate halt to all violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by government forces and aligned militias, including the targeting of civilians and civilian objects for attack, indiscriminate attacks, extrajudicial executions and other unlawful killings …

Ensure that all acts violating international human rights and humanitarian law are subject to prompt, independent, and impartial investigations, and that suspected perpetrators, including those suspected of ordering these acts, regardless of rank, are brought to justice—

(Time expired)

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allowed for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.