Monthly Archives: May 2013

Australian Government Deports 14 Sri Lankan Tamil Asylum-seekers


The Australian government has separated 14 Sri Lankan Tamil asylum seekers, 4 men, 3 women and 6 children (including a 6 month old baby), who arrived by boat and were detained in a remote immigration detention centre in Christmas Island from other asylum seekers and have informed them that:

a/ They are not going to be allowed to make an application for asylum.
b/ They are going to be forcibly deported to Sri Lanka.

They will be taken by force to a military plane and flown to Sri Lanka at 9.30 am Christmas Island time (12.30pm Melbourne time)

We have emails and phone calls from these people seeking urgent legal assistance to apply for protection on grounds that they fear being returned to Sri Lanka.

Australia has refouled* more than 1000 asylum seekers to Sri Lanka in the last 6 months in this manner. ie they have deported these asylum seekers without allowing them apply for asylum and giving them access to legal representation.

We now have proof that there are approximately 330 people locked up in Negombo prison who have been returned from Australia, including 30 people imprisoned last week from the 100 plus who were deported. We have spoken to sources within the prison who have confirmed that this is so.

Some people are being released on "human bail". This requires a member of the family to go to Colombo and sign documents agreeing to pay money and post themselves for imprisonment if the person released on bail, disappears or tries to leave the country. It is now a crime for people on lists to leave Sri Lanka even if they have a valid passport and paid airline ticket.

These 14 people have sent emails requesting both legal support and advice and stating clearly that
"If I go back to Srilanka I will be tortured or be killed by the Sri Lankan authority. I have evidence and documents to prove my claim to seek protection in Australia. "

*The principle of "refoulement" was officially enshrined in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and is also contained in the 1967 Protocol and Art 3 of the 1984 Torture Convention.

The principle of non-refoulement arises out of an international collective memory of the failure of nations during World War II to provide a safe haven to refugees fleeing certain genocide at the hands of the Nazi regime. Today, the principle of non-refoulement ostensibly protects recognized refugees and asylum seekers from being expelled from countries that are signatories to the 1951 Convention or 1967 Protocol. This has however not prevented certain signatory countries from skirting the international law principle and repatriating or expelling bona fide refugees into the hands of potential persecutors.

The Best Business of Australia: What is Serco hiding?


Source Theage, 7 May
Services company Serco have warned of the threat of violence at the Christmas Island detention centre.

Services company Serco … doing well out of asylum seekers arriving in Australia.

The influx of asylum seekers may be a matter of national acrimony but there are those who welcome the boats with open arms and broad smiles. The British multinational which operates Australia’s detention centres is one of them.

Serco is rolling in it. According to its opaque financial statements which have just been filed, Serco Australia Pty Ltd enjoyed a rise in net profit from $49 million to $128 million last year. The bulk of this bottom line bonanza was not due to the surge in boats – although Serco’s immigration detention centre contracts with the federal government have spiralled by $1.5 billion in three years – but rather, due to a one-off gain arising from an acquisition.

Unlike last year, Serco has managed to report on time and in accordance with the Corporations Act but its financial statements are so inadequate as to warrant suspicion. It seems that Serco is hiding something.

What’s changed?

Advertisement

Nine years ago, the company prepared a ‘general purpose’ financial report for the year ended December 31, 2003. The auditor was Deloitte. Then, Serco had 1343 employees, $127 million in revenues and $63 million in gross assets.

Everything appeared to be in order. Its ‘general purpose’ report included disclosures for business segments, financial instruments, directors remuneration, and related party transactions. The directors of Serco and its auditor agreed back in May 2004 that Serco should prepare general purpose financial reports, that is, Serco was a reporting entity under the Corporations Act.

Somehow since then, Serco and its auditors have managed to transmogrify this reporting entity into a non-reporting entity. It is a gross failure in disclosure and accountability, says accounting expert from the University of NSW, Jeff Knapp. It is a failure, he says, which represents the extent to which ‘financial reporting among Australia’s leading proprietary companies has become a shambles”.

It was revealed last year how a range of multinationals running privatised water, gambling, transport, health and prisons services have failed to report on time, or at all.

Turning to Serco’s latest accounts, the company had expanded dramatically by 2012, boasting 5252 employees, $915 million in revenues and 493 million in gross assets.

“But somehow Serco and Deloitte believe that the company has become less significant from an accounting point of view,” says Jeff Knapp. “Serco now claims that the company is not a reporting entity and it prepares a special purpose financial report that does include disclosures for business segments, financial instruments , directors remuneration and related party transactions and balances.”

There has been no substantive change to the definition of ‘reporting entity’ and there appears to be no reason why Serco and Deloitte should think that the company was a reporting entity back in 2003 but is not a reporting entity any more.

It now has 3909 more employees, $788 million more revenues, $430 million more in assets and, in the past four years alone, its government contracts have ballooned from $323 million to a whopping $1.86 billion.

Good business

There is good money in detention centres.

And given the cherished position of companies which win mandates to run privatised government assets, their duty of disclosure and transparency should be greater, not less.

Serco occupies a dominant position in the market. It has 8000 people in its care (almost 3000 of this country’s 5000 people in immigration detention) and there are the interests of many stakeholders to be considered, not least the taxpayer, on whose behalf elected officers in Canberra have struck billions in secret contracts.

The lobbyists register shows Peter Costello’s lobby group ECG Advisory Services (Jonathan Epstein, Peter Costello, David Gazard) has done work for Serco. What deals have been done? We do know that Serco has won $1.86 billion in contracts. Why are there no ‘related party transactions’ disclosed in the Serco accounts? What consultants are doing what? What are they earning, care of the taxpayer?

As the economic and political status of Serco has increased, rather than diminished, there is no justification for this plunge in reporting standards and disclosure.

“Serco and Deloitte seem to have taken a path of doing whatever it takes to avoid disclosures,” says Jeff Knapp. “Serco and Deloitte have some explaining to do. Who is going to hold them to account? The government, the corporate regulator (ASIC), the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia?

“Serco’s transition from reporting entity in 2003 to non-reporting entity in 2012 is another in a growing list of known examples of bad financial reporting practice. That list seems to be growing in size even faster than Serco.”

Sign off

On a lighter note, on page ten of the accounts the auditor Deloitte signs off its audit certificate with a true and fair opinion in relation to the group’s financial position as at 31 December 2011. At first glimpse, it appears that the 2012 accounts might not been audited at all.

But there is a more plausible explanation, and that is that Deloitte isn’t exactly over-servicing its large proprietary client and has just pocketed its $1 million in audit fees without getting the dates right. It probably meant to say 2012.

The 2012 consolidated accounts of the UK parent company, Serco Group Pty Ltd, published a couple of weeks ago, include the results of Serco Australia and other subsidiaries. Yet they too fail to reveal much additional information.

You can see that Serco Group total revenues were almost $1.1 billion in 2012 (up 33 per cent from the prior year). The $128 million in net profit after tax was almost entirely due to the $79 million exceptional gain on acquisition of the other 50 per cent of the Defence Maritime Services joint venture.

Apart from the Great Southern Rail transport business (which operates the Ghan and Indian Pacific rail), all other business relates to government outsourcing. Serco also operates prisons, hospitals and traffic cameras.

Victoria in focus

Interestingly for Victorians, the 2012 year accounts for Serco Traffic Camera Services (Vic) Pty Ltd (STCV) are out. This is Serco’s sole purpose subsidiary which operates Victoria’s traffic camera services on behalf of the Victorian Department of Justice.

And business is good. Net profit after tax increased to $3.5 million on revenues of $32 million in the 2012 year.

When it was first awarded the contract in late 2007, Serco estimated the four year contract to be worth $90 million (or $22.5 million a year). This would suggest that Serco revenues increase with the number of speeding fines collected (as they have increased at a similar pace over the past five or six years).

Strangely, STCV is directly owned by Serco Group Ltd (UK) and therefore its figures do not appear in the consolidated accounts of Serco Australia or Serco Group Pty Ltd.

Like other multinationals such as Google, Australian revenue is sometimes booked straight to other jurisdictions. Unlike Google, which pays a derisory amount of tax on its estimated $1 billion to $1.5 billion in local revenues, Serco paid $24 million (its $78.6 million one-off was exempt from tax). Gross profit was $118 million on revenue of $1.1 billion. So it at least deserves a tick on the tax front.

Here is the response to some questions sent to Serco:

We are committed to working transparently, in accordance with the law and financial reporting requirements.

As required by the Corporations Act 2001, we submit a Special Purpose Financial Report to meet the directors’ reporting requirements. We work hard to ensure that this is thorough and compliant with the Act and with accounting standards.

Serco Group plc is listed on the London Stock Exchange and in accordance with its Rules, publishes Annual Reports and Accounts and Stock Exchange Announcements. We publish the Group Annual Report and Accounts on our Serco Asia Pacific website.

Serco Asia Pacific is listed as a client of ECG Advisory Solutions on the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s Register of Lobbyists.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/what-is-serco-hiding-20130507-2j4pv.html#ixzz2Ser9qlTj

Myanmar’s Muslims Face Uncertain Future


Source Huffingpost, 1 May

OKKAN, Myanmar — They slept terrified in the fields, watching their homes burn through the night. And when they returned on Wednesday, nothing was left but smoldering ash and debris.

Myanmar

{A Muslim man pushes his bicycle by debris of damaged shops near local bazaar following fresh anti-Muslim violence broke out in Okkan, 64 kilometers (40 miles) north of Yangon, Myanmar, Wednesday, May 1, 2013. Hundreds of rampaging Buddhists armed with bricks on Tuesday, stormed a clutch of Muslim villages in the country’s latest outbreak of anti-Muslim violence.}

One day after hundreds of Buddhists armed with bricks stormed a clutch of Muslim villages in the closest explosion of sectarian violence yet to Myanmar’s main city, Yangon, newly displaced Muslims combed through the wasteland of their wrecked lives. Unable to go home, they faced an uncertain future – too fearful of more attacks even to leave.

"We ran into the fields and didn’t carry anything with us," Hla Myint, a 47-year-old father of eight, said after the mobs overran his village.

Tears welling in his eyes, he added, "Now, we have nothing left."

Thet Lwin, a deputy commissioner of police for the region, put the casualty toll from Tuesday’s assaults at one dead and nine injured. He said police have detained 18 attackers who destroyed 157 homes and shops and at least two mosques in the town of Okkan, 50 miles (80 kilometers) north of Yangon, and three outlying villages.

The unrest was the first reported since late March, when similar Buddhist-led violence swept the town of Meikthila, further north in central Myanmar, killing at least 43 people. It underscored the failure of reformist President Thein Sein’s government to curb increasing attacks on minority Muslims in a nation struggling to emerge from half a century of oppressive military rule.

Muslim residents said a mixture of local villagers and people from nearby areas were responsible for the attacks around Okkan. Police gave no details on who was behind the assaults. But a local politician from the pro-government National Union party, Myint Thein, said members of a Buddhist campaign called "969" were involved.

The movement, which urges Buddhists to shop only at Buddhist stores and avoid marrying, hiring or selling their homes or land to Muslims, is small but has spread rapidly in recent months, and human rights activists say it has helped fuel anti-Muslim violence.

Stickers and signs bearing the 969 emblem – each digit enumerates virtues of the Lord Buddha, his teachings and the community of monks – have been popping up on shops, taxis, and buses in numerous towns and cities, including Yangon.

Hla Myint said that after the March violence, residents of Okkan began conducting informal security patrols to protect the village. But nothing happened for weeks and authorities told them not to worry.

"Things happened unexpectedly," he told The Associated Press. "When the crowds came, they shouted things like `Don’t defend yourselves, we will only destroy the mosque, not your homes, we won’t harm you.’"

They burned his village’s mosque, whose corrugated iron roof lay crumpled on the ground between the building’s charred walls, and "they destroyed our houses" anyway, he said.

Around 300 police stood guard Wednesday in the area, which was quiet. Debris from trashed shops in Okkan spilled into dirt roadsides. The town’s market was crowded, but Muslims were absent.

It was not immediately clear what would happen to the newly displaced in Okkan. Some were taking refuge in the few houses that were not razed; others simply sat in the open, under the shade of trees.

Several Muslims said they didn’t feel safe, but would not leave because they feared more attacks elsewhere. They wondered how they would survive and get food.

Hla Aung, a 39-year-old Muslim who lost his home in the violence, said police did nothing to protect him – echoing reports of idle security forces in Meikhtila and elsewhere. "They didn’t help us. They did not do anything. That’s why it’s really difficult to trust them."

Aung Myint, 46, who lives in a predominantly Buddhist area nearby that was undamaged, said several men from his village were beaten after they tried to convince the attackers to stop. "We didn’t dare to help them because we were worried for our own security," he said.

Stopping the spread of sectarian violence has proven a major challenge for Thein Sein’s government since it erupted in western Rakhine state last year. Human rights groups have recently accused his administration of failing to crack down on Buddhist extremists as violence has spread closer to Yangon, at times overwhelming riot police who have stood by as machete-wielding crowds attacked Muslims and their property.

Last week, New York-based Human Rights Watch accused authorities in Rakhine state – including Buddhist monks, local politicians and government officials, and state security forces – of fomenting an organized campaign of "ethnic cleansing" against a Muslim minority known as the Rohingya. Hundreds of people were killed there, and some 125,000 people, mostly Muslims, remain displaced with large swathes of the state effectively segregated along sectarian lines.

On Monday, a government-appointed commission investigating the Rakhine violence issued proposals to ease tensions there – including doubling the number of security forces in the volatile region and introducing family planning programs to stem population growth among minority Muslims.

Muslims account for about 4 percent of the nation’s roughly 60 million people. About one third of the nation’s population consists of ethnic minority groups, and most have waged wars against the government for autonomy.

___

Pitman reported from Bangkok. Associated Press video journalist Raul Gallego Abellan in Okkan contributed to this report.

Myanmar whitewashes ethnic cleansing


Source Atimes, 1 May

By Maung Zarni

An official report into last year’s violence in Rakhine State, launched on April 29 at the government’s foreign donor financed Myanmar Peace Center, is intellectually, ideologically, empirically and analytically flawed, underscoring President Thein Sein’s bid to whitewash the recent ethnic cleansing of Muslim Rohingya in the western state, which borders Bangladesh.

Established on presidential order, the Inquiry Commission has been conflicted from the day of its inception on August 17 last year. The five individuals who were hand-picked to launch the

report on Monday were a curious mix themselves: the country’s most famous political comedian, the former daughter-in-law of the late despot General Ne Win, a well-known former student leader, a well-known former exile, and the president’s personal adviser and interpreter.

Thein Sein and his allies are increasingly using various crisis inquiry commissions, including the Aung San Suu Kyi-led Letpadaung Mountain Copper Mine Inquiry Commission and now the Rohingya Ethnic Cleansing Inquiry Commission, as public relations instruments to deflect public attention from its spectacular failures in handling popular discontent, state-sponsored violence against civilian populations, and mass ethno-religious violence.

In instances where the role of government institutions was instrumental, for instance in last year’s pogroms in Rakhine State, inquiry commissions have become useful tools of deflection for Naypyidaw. The latest official report, originally classified as "secret", of the Rakhine Sectarian Violence Inquiry Commission was strategically released to counter the damning and credible April 22 report "All You Can Do is Pray: Ethnic Cleansing and the Crimes Against Humanity in Myanmar", released by US-based rights lobby Human Rights Watch.

The Inquiry Commission was stacked with cooperative technocrats, ethnic minority leaders, socialites, religious leaders and so-called human rights activists who were prepared or compelled to sign off on the report despite knowing it contained verifiably false and distorted facts about important issues under investigation.

As a product of such an unholy alliance, the commission’s report is patently un-professional, non-independent and unprincipled. Devoid of crucial truths, it is a document utterly uninformed by any well-established analytical concepts such as "ethnic formation", "identity formation", "state’s mobilization" in genocide studies, "discourse", "nationalism", "history" – through which all scholars and researchers of the social world attempt to make sense of even ordinary human affairs, including genocides.

Ethnic labels in Myanmar, including for the Chin and the Kachin, were externally imposed by British colonial administrators and American Baptist missionaries on the "natives". These were disparate groups who originally identified themselves tribally, as clans and along geographic lines. The new ethnic labels were less than 50 years old upon independence in 1948. Mal-informed by the prevailing pseudo-scientific knowledge about race and ethnicity in Europe, the British colonials and American missionaries grouped these "tribal peoples" in borderlands together for administrative expediency.

As Indian economist and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen correctly pointed out during a public seminar on Myanmar at Columbia University last September, the geographical areas now known as Arakan or Rakhine State frequently changed hands among neighboring feudal rulers, and boundaries were always elastic in the pre-colonial era.

The Rohingya Ethnic Cleansing Inquiry report officially stresses how the Rakhine feudal lords expanded their reach over territories in what was then Bengal, while making light of the fact that there were Bengali kings who ruled what was then the Kingdom of Arakan. Academics, especially establishment ethno-nationalist historians, have long proven capable of recounting the past only from a victor’s perspective. The two leading scholars on the Inquiry Commission are no exception.

For a commission that was led by two historically trained Burmese and a retired Rangoon [now Yangon] University history professor, the report’s treatment of the history of a people whom the commission insisted on referring to as "Bengali" is anything if not "ethnocidal" – that is, an attempt to erase concrete historical evidence that the Rohingya, a self-referential identity, existed as an ethnic community and was officially recognized by the state under the democratic government of prime minister U Nu.

This recognition of the Rohingya as an official constitutive ethnic group of the country, as well as their full citizenship status, was not confined to civilian politicians from the ruling political parties. During its two-year caretaker government (1958-60), the army’s senior most leadership of General Ne Win and his deputies including Brigadier Aung Gyi officially recognized the Rohingya by their own self-chosen ethnic name: the Rohingya.

While Thein Sein’s commission’s historians claimed to have poured over the archival records at the country’s National Archives relevant to these "Bengalis", to borrow the standard Rakhine reference to the Rohingya of western Myanmar, they violated professional ethics as researchers by blatantly omitting any concrete evidence that the Rohingya were both an official ethnic group and citizens of Myanmar.

In fact, one doesn’t need to bother going to the archives to verify the Rohingya’s ethnic identity and their citizenship status. Photographic copies of the verifiably authentic official records (for instance, Burma’s Encyclopedia published by the Government Printing Press in 1964, official transcripts of speeches by the Burmese generals bearing the Rohingya’s name, Burmese state newspaper clippings announcing a national radio program for various ethnic languages including the Rohingya language, parliamentary records, etc) are easily accessible in numerous social media sites and on-line archives.

But the commissioners, either as anti-Rohingya Islamophobes or under duress from the government that appointed them to the Inquiry Commission, especially the professional historians among them, evidently chose to weed out any historical evidence that contradicts Myanmar’s racist Citizenship Act of 1982, which was designed with input from Rakhine nationalists and earlier anti-Muslim elements in the Ministries of Defense and Immigration to strip Muslim Rohingyas both of their ethnic identity and citizenship standing.

Forgotten history
In the hands of the commission’s Cornell- and Harvard-trained historians, including the likes of chairman Myo Myint, secretary Kyaw Yin Hlaing and Professor Tun Aung Chain, the Rohingya’s migratory history began only in 1824 and going on to the Japanese advent in 1942, when large scale communal violence between the Rakhine and the Rohingya took place. The entire two decades of the 1950s and 1960s, during which the Rohingya were both official ethnic peoples and had citizenship rights, were completely skipped in the report’s historical section. This omission highlighted the anti-Rohingya Rakhine nationalist version of history which denies that the Rohingya ever existed.

State-sponsored ethnocide, which began with the brutal immigration campaign of 1978 which drove out nearly 200,000 Rohingya from the Rakhine state across to neighboring Bangladesh, was "unproblematized" by the commissioners, all of whom insisted that they were "politically independent". The ethnocide is all the more shocking considering the commission’s ethnic diversity, including representatives from the ethnic Kachin, Chin, Karen, Shan and other communities that have experienced oppression from state authorities.

Ethno-religiously, the commission was a good mix – that is, except that there was no Rohingya – nay, "Bengali" – representation. Dr Myo Myint (Bama or Bama-identified), Khun Tun Oo (Shan), Jana Lahtaw (Kachin), Dr Salai Andrew (Chin), U Soe Thein (Bama), Dr Yin Yin Nwe (Shan-Bama), Dr Kyaw Yin Hlaing (Shan-Bama), Zarganar (Bama), Aung Naing Oo (Bama), Ko Ko Gyi (a national security race?), Tin Aung Moe (Bama), Daw Than Than Nu (Bama), (Vet) Dr Aye Maung (Rakhine with neo-Nazi views), Aye Thar Aung (ultra-nationalist Rakhine), Reverend Margay Gyi (Karen), U Tun Aung Chain (Karen). There are also Myanmar Muslims (ethnically Indians) and Myanmar Hindu.

With the exception of the Muslim commissioners, none of these ethno-religious diverse commissioners fought against the state-sponsored ethnocide of the Rohingya in the form of the commission’s vehement opposition to the word "Rohingya". The two Muslim leaders who challenged this ethnocide and stood up for the Rohingya’s own "imagined identity" were kicked out. Their crime? – frivolous charges of speaking to the press about the inquiry while others who also spoke to the media were left untouched.

As to be expected, the report made no mention of how politics got in the way of establishing truths about the mass violence in Rakhine State. In fact, the commission sought to confirm the popular anti-Muslim racism without problematizing the recent growth of this increasingly virulent strain of Islamophobia and anti-Bengali sentiment across all indigenous national races of Myanmar.

The commission did raise passing concern about the 969, a neo-Nazi movement ostensibly led by Buddhist monks from Myanmar’s leading teaching monasteries, and its divisive impact on ethnic and social relations in society. But it fell far short of pointing out the need to take seriously the new neo-fascist turn in the country’s well-known anti-Muslim, pro-Buddhist racism. The report’s authors chose to describe the now world infamous 969 rather mildly as "a campaign among the Buddhist to defend their own faith and to encourage intra-Buddhist commerce and trade".

All this is troubling but not unexpected. It was under the Religious Affairs Director-Generalship of Commission chair Dr Myo Myint that there was a proliferation of anti-Muslim quasi-religious publications, long before the previous crop of ruling generals allowed for greater freedom of press, assembly and speech. The leading voice of 969, Buddhist monk Wirathu, recently told the Associated Press that his views were formed as early as 2001.

Sadly, nearly half of the commissioners are my old, and now former, friends. Their collective document is unmistakably Bama racist/Orientalist in orientation, treating both communities in the conflict with a typical popular Bama contempt and dislike. This is adding insult to injury for both parties in the conflict, namely the Rakhines and the Rohingya.

The Rakhines are portrayed essentially as lazy natives who can not compete with the thrifty, business-savvy, hard-working "Bengalis" without the intervention of the state and its blood-based neo-fascist 1982 Citizenship Act.

The Rohingya are described as elementary school children-like people who, having obtained commission members’ hand-phone numbers from their Muslim contacts in Yangon, kept on calling the commission members to blabber on about their sufferings and whine about their grievances.

These portrayals repeat a crucial racially charged popular narrative that turns out to be factually incorrect, namely that three Bengalis raped and brutally murdered a 28-year-old Rakhine Buddhist woman, the supposed first spark of the following pogroms. This was pointed out to me personally by a more honest commission member, Myanmar’s most famous political comedian and former political prisoner, Zarganar.

This rape case is vitally important because the commission identified it as a key trigger for anti-"Bengali" mobilization by Rakhine nationalists, politicians and parties, including some of the Rakhine members of the Inquiry Commission, including Aye Maung, a vet-cum-MP in Naypyidaw from the Rakhine National Development Party, an ultra-nationalist group that has claimed to be working for the "purification of Rakhine state".

But the arrested and alleged rapists were officially registered as two Kaman Muslims and a Rakhine adopted by a Rohingya Muslim family in Pauk-taw Township. Zarganar, one of the five members who was one of the leading spokespersons for the commission at the press conference where the report was launched, told this writer in no uncertain terms that he interviewed the doctor in Rakhine state who performed the post mortem of the raped woman’s corpse.

According to this videotaped interview, the alleged Rakhine rape victim bore no sign of having been raped. Yes, she was brutally murdered and her jewelry was gone. But she was certainly not raped, recounted Zarganar, based on his one-on-one recorded interview with the doctor. The doctor was eventually forced by the authorities to sign the official post-mortem report that established the rape that did not take place.

Then there was no mention of the "suicide in police custody" of one of the alleged rapists – Htet Htet, a non-Bengali adopted son of a Bengali family. Nor was there any mention of the fact that his freshly widowed wife was also found dead, allegedly having "drowned" in a local well.

Was there foul play? It appears that Zarganar, the well-respected political comedian and dissident who went to jail four times since the 1988 pro-democracy uprisings crushed by the military, was compelled to put his name to the official commission report which contained statements and misinformation which he himself knows are patently and verifiably false.

The entire report is riddled with inter-contradictions and inconsistencies that are not explained. For instance, the report raises the issue of the lack of or weak inter-agency coordination among the army, intelligence, civil administration, immigration, attorney general’s office and Rakhine chief/prime minister’s office. It discusses how and why the security forces and constitutive agencies only listened to direct orders from Naypyidaw.

But the commission chose not to ask why Naypyidaw failed to issue orders to provide adequate measures to protect the targeted Rohingya communities. Instead, the National Defense and Intelligence Council (or Kar-lon in Burmese) did nothing to mobilize security forces to protect the Rohingya, troops which Thein Sein and his deputies knew would obey only direct orders from ministerial headquarters.

Perhaps one silver living in the dark episode is that the report accurately states that local authorities in Rakhine State have absolutely no power to order security forces, including army, police, and border-control interagency troops, to do anything to quell mass violence. This was and still is something only Thein Sein’s central government can do.

Command questions
That begs the question: why did the union level leadership of Thein Sein and his deputies on the Council in Naypyidaw choose not to mobilize the troops to restore order while the same security troops were called in to firebomb sleeping Buddhist monks protesting a China-invested mining project at 2 am using canisters containing white phosphorous? Alas, this is a question that fell outside of the purview of the presidential commission.

Furthermore, vague if not imaginary statistics are cited throughout the 186-page document without accompanying narratives or explanations. The commission did not even bother to account for its own official statistics from the government. The fact is that the greatest number of deaths and destruction were borne by the Rohingya. And yet a highly disproportionate number of the Rohingya vis-a-vis the Rakhine have been tried.

In the first wave of Rohingya-Rakhine violence in June last year, 4,188 Rohingya homes were destroyed while the Rakhine suffered the loss of 1,150 homes. In the second wave of violence in October, 2,371 Rohingya homes were destroyed as opposed to only 42 homes that belonged to the Rakhine. And again, out of a total of 1,835 arrested in connection with the mass violence, 1,589 are Rohingya and only 246 are Rakhine.

Perhaps the scholarly presidential investigators on the commission could advance and test a hypothesis that the economic productivity of Rakhine Buddhists (all Buddhists in Myanmar?) must be inversely correlated with the destructive capacity of the group. For the report orientalized the Rakhine as a low-productivity group, or more crudely, lazy natives.

The commission’s official statistic implies the awesome power of a small group of Rakhine – 246 to be exact – to destroy thousands of homes and dozens of mosques in about a dozen different towns and cities and make over 120,000 Rohingya refugees homeless, shelter-less, internally displaced persons in a span of just five months.

If this number of Rakhine terrorizers, arsonists and slaughters does not seem quite convincing given the magnitude of death and devastation they had wrought throughout northern and southern Rakhine State, then who else aided and abetted the principal terrorizers among the Rakhine who wanted a Rakhine State only for the Rakhine?

There is no mention in the report of a single case wherein any official, security or civil, was held accountable for his or her leadership failure, or worse, participation in the pogroms. According to Zarganar, his official request that the investigators be allowed unfettered access to all the important officials alive, past and present who have served in western Myanmar over the past 25 years was never granted. He told me that many of the officials were transferred to remote places after the commission was formed on August 17.

So what is Naypyidaw trying to hide? That question, of course, also lied outside the mandated scope of the Presidential Inquiry Commission.

The spread of rumors and hate-speech against Rohingya on social media was touched on as an important issue, and yet no attempt was made to point out that Thein Sein’s spokespersons, Major Zaw Htay and Deputy Minister of Information Ye Htut, are internationally known figures who use social media to disseminate deliberately false news and engage in hate and fear-mongering.

At the time of the crisis, Zaw Htay was spreading grossly inaccurate news, including that "a group of armed radical Muslims have entered Rakhine from [the] Bangladesh side". Meanwhile, Ye Htut spread official lies, including the notion that there was "no need for further provision of shelter for the Bengali IDPs because the government has provided them with everything for the coming rainy season".

The report rightly recommends urgent provision of adequate shelter and other humanitarian assistance because of the dire, overcrowded IDP camps for 100,000-plus "Bengali". Echoing the International Crisis Group’s monocausal explanation that communal violence often accompanies democratic openings, the report sees greater freedom of speech as a causal explanation for the spread of hate speech.

The commission decided it was not worth noting that it purged U Nyunt Maung Shein and U Tin Maung Than, the two prominent and non-pliant Muslim members of the commission who were actually pushing for truths about the communal violence. That push obviously did not go down well with chairman Dr Myo Myint and Border Control Minister Lt-General Thein Htay.

According to U Tin Maung Than, two days after a 15-minute heated phone conversation last autumn over what should be reported to commission patron Thein Sein and how frequently reporting should be done, he was expelled from the commission in the same manner he was appointed – that is, with no prior knowledge nor explanation.

Chairman Myo Myint was on record saying to U Tin Maung Than that "the welfare and security of these people are not the commission’s responsibility, nor do you need to send President Thein Sein important updates." Although Zarganar pushed to get access to crucial heads of security forces stationed in Rakhine State to conduct a proper inquiry, he later complained that both the commission’s chairman and secretary did their best "to derail the inquiry".

Inquiry commissions are generally not about seeking or finding incriminating evidence that will lead their commissioning presidents to the gallows. Thein Sein may be a liar with a straight face but he ain’t dumb. Preemptively, the eight mandates outlined by Thein Sein in fact did not include any study of the role of the state, its institutions, or the responsibilities of the national leadership.

Above all, the report simply reinforced the state-sponsored Rohingya ethnocide and chose to overlook the elephant in the room: the military-led state and its crucial role in the Rohingya ethnic cleansing. Instead of shedding light on the utter inaction of the characteristically trigger-happy Myanmar security forces, the commission focused instead on highlighting the need to modernize these already heavily and happily armed troops.

Rigged recommendations
The first dozen recommendations in the four-page English-language Executive Summary of the report are all about security sector modernization, not security reform, while lip service is paid to the need to act in line with international human rights standards and Myanmar’s international treaty obligations.

The report recommends that the international community, spelled Washington, help to equip security forces with new toys, including CCTV capacities, assault speedboats, and various new weapons to deal with the cross-border problem of Bangladesh’s "population explosion". Certainly, the US Pentagon would love to help bring the Tatmadaw (Myanmar’s army) and other auxiliary units up to the human rights standards exercised at the US-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq or Guantanamo Bay detention facilities in Cuba.

For a report that bore the signatures of 24 technocrats, establishment historians and academics, wealthy local merchants and traders, socialites and religious leaders, the recommendations about security sector modernization are rather impressive, so much so that one wonders if the report was the commission’s gift to the Ministry of Defense and its next generation of generals.

For a report littered with references to "human rights" and "international legal norms", its contents shows no sign that commissioners even bothered to glance at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the UN Conventions on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Nor did the commission deem it worthwhile to consult with either the research findings and reports from the Arakan Project or the National University of Galway’s authoritative "Crimes Against Humanity in Western Burma".

In fact, the commission considered the use of the term "ethnic cleansing" as part of an attempt to unduly internationalize local issues and an act of international nongovernmental organization (INGO) exaggeration. Or, perhaps, the commissioners felt human rights documentation was out of their professional depth without such training or an official political mandate. The commission must have known, however, that other non-native organizations such as Human Rights Watch were going to do an independent and more professional job of investigating the violence.

Meanwhile, the commissioners seemed very much at ease when advocating "voluntary" population control of the Rohingya. The commissioners were of the view that this rapid procreation or "population explosion" among the people they insisted on calling "Bengalis" made worse the already acute sense of collective existential insecurity among the Rakhine.

There is detectable patriotic sentiment in the reports finding that 80% of the fertile agricultural acreage in certain locations of Rakhine State are now in the hands of hard-working and thrifty "Bengali" agricultural workers and land-owners while landless and lazy Rakhine have fallen deeper into destitution.

Even Myanmar’s civil society, manufactured by the European Union and international donor funding, must be pleased with the commission’s emphatic framing of the genocide as simply "communal violence". Alas, this is the civil society that refuses to call ethnic cleansing in their midst by its proper name.

In the words of Aung Myo Min, a Myanmar human rights educator from the Human Rights Education Institute: "In such a sensitive situation, the use of the phrase ‘ethnic cleansing’ is unacceptable. Ethnic cleansing means eliminating other ethnic groups. This is not the case [in Rakhine State]."

George Orwell, the inventor of the phrase "double-speak", worked in Myanmar during the colonial period in the 1920s. Orwell’s ghost continues to roam in "democratic" Myanmar, possessing the dissidents, technocratic and intellectual mountebanks, ethnic nationality leaders, religious figures, human rights educators, and civil society leaders. In sum: Allah bad, Buddha good.

Buzzword phrases such as "clean government", "good governance" and "transparency" perversely litter the commission’s report. No doubt the new policy of this soon-to-be clean government will be to approach the issue of "communal violence" holistically, including through the preventative use of the "weapons of conflict resolution" the report recommends the international community provide to Myanmar’s ethnocide-complicit security forces.

A truly independent inquiry would have recommended the establishment of an early warning system of future genocidal waves. It also would have recommended more empirical research that probed the deeper causes of last year’s "communal violence" in Rakhine State. The commission’s varnished findings suggests the need for a new resolution research center, located perhaps near the Rohingya mass graves which Human Rights Watch uncovered.

Scholars in the field of genocide studies have established that extraordinary mass violence, including ethnic cleansings, are seldom simply domestic or internal events in nation states. Rather, they frequently have an international dimension. These dark events generally take place in an international environment where external players are more concerned with their own strategic and commercial interests than large scale human sufferings, be they in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Sri Lanka, and now Myanmar.

Donor governments of the pro-human rights West have reacted with hostility to Human Rights Watch’s characterization of their newfound business and strategic partners in Myanmar as "ethnic cleansers" and "criminals against humanity". Thein Sein’s inquiry, on the other hand, is sprinkled with the liberal discourses of conflict resolution, humanitarian management, and national reconciliation. It is thus no doubt more palatable to the international community of diplomats, investors and military strategists determined to cozy up to his self-proclaimed "democratic" regime.

If anything, the Rohingya Ethnic Cleansing Inquiry Commission report offers a hint of things to come out of Thein Sein’s Myanmar Peace Center, into which foreign donors have already poured millions of dollars to pursue state-sponsored "peace" with the Kachin, Karen, Shan, Chin and other ethnic victims of over 50 years of state-sponsored terror. One can only hope that these ethnic communities are not given similar racist treatment as that suffered by the Rohingya.

Maung Zarni is a Burmese activist blogger (www.maungzarni.com) and visiting fellow of Civil Society and Human Security Research at the London School of Economics.

(Copyright 2013 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Anti-Muslim Violence in Okkan Township Injures 10


Source ABC news, 30 April

Buddhist mobs hurling bricks overran a pair of mosques and set hundreds of homes ablaze in central Myanmar on Tuesday, injuring at least 10 people in the latest anti-Muslim violence to shake the Southeast Asian nation.

Terrified Muslim families who fled the assaults around Okkan, about 70 miles (110 kilometers) north of Yangon, could be seen hiding in forests along roads and crouching in paddy fields afterward. Some, in a state of shock, wept as their houses burned in the night and young men with buckets futilely tried to douse the flames.

The unrest was the first reported since late March, when similar Buddhist-led violence swept the town of Meikthila, further north, killing at least 43 people. It underscored the failure of reformist President Thein Sein’s government to curb increasing attacks on minority Muslims in a nation struggling to emerge from half a century of oppressive military rule.

Residents said as many as 400 Buddhists armed with bricks and sticks rampaged through Okkan on Tuesday afternoon. They targeted Muslim shops and ransacked two mosques; about 20 riot police were later deployed to guard one of them, a single-story structure, which had its doors broken and windows smashed.

The worst-hit areas were three outlying villages that form part of the town. Each village contained at least 60 mostly Muslim homes; all were torched. Columns of smoke and leaping flames could be seen rising from burning homes in the villages as a team of police approached, pausing to take pictures with their cellphones.

Regional police chief Win Naing said at least 10 people were injured, most rescued from burning homes in the villages. There were no immediate reports of deaths.

Win Naing gave no details on who was behind the assault. Khin Maung Than, a Muslim in Okkan, said he recognized some of the attackers, but many faces were unfamiliar.

The mobs smashed his shop, stealing watches, breaking glass, and leaving overturned lamps and furniture scattered across the floor.

He said he climbed to the roof to escape and then took refuge with Buddhist neighbors who hid him. Returning to the shop that doubles as his home, he said: "I am speechless. I have never experienced such riots in my life."

The 60-year-old, who is married to a Buddhist woman, said he had heard of last month’s violence in Meikhtila, but: "I didn’t realize we’d face this because our town was very peaceful."

His wife, San Htay, said police in the town were quickly overwhelmed. They tried to disperse the crowds, she said, and several were injured in the mayhem.

"I can’t explain how desperately sad I am now. My heart beats so fast because of fear," she told The Associated Press.

Stopping the spread of sectarian violence has proven a major challenge for Thein Sein’s reformist government since it erupted in western Rakhine state last year. Human rights groups have recently accused his administration of failing to crack down on Buddhist extremists as violence has spread closer to the economic capital, Yangon, at times overwhelming riot police who have stood by as machete-wielding crowds attacked Muslims and their property.

Interview with a resident on violence in Oak Kan

Source Mmedia, 30 April

Oak Kan

The following is the transcript of M-Media interview with a Muslim resident on Ok Kan resident.

“The mob destroyed mosque, religious school, and shops and homes owned by Muslims. They burnt down a hut next to the school. The other shops and homes are destroyed but not set on fire. I am sure the school is gone. I can’t go and see that area now.

They also destroyed Haji Maung Shwe’s building and Haji Tin Oo’s shop. Many Muslim owned shops and houses were destroyed. Until now, they are still destroying. I am hearing the noise.

Also in my ward, destruction and attacks are going on right now. The house in front of mine is gone, so my house might have been gone as well.

There are police and army, but they can’t do anything. Many people from nearly villages marched to town for the attack. I can’t estimate how many. They all came from all four sides. We are stuck in the middle.

I know how it was started. About 10 AM, a Muslim woman and a young novice monk bumped accidentally as they walk past each other. The bowl of the monk dropped and the elm went to the ground. She was accused of doing it intentionally. I heard she bought the bowl and elm for the monk as compensation. At that same time, many people came. Immediately, the crowd became a mob.

Now we are running away from our home. We are staying at a Buddhist friend’s home. My Buddhist friend said riots are doing this intentionally. He told me not to leave the house. He said two mosques have been destroyed. These mosques are Zay Mosque (Market Mosque) and Lan Cho mosque. There are only these two mosques in Ok Kan. Many shops have also been destroyed”

M-Media learns that although the incident was an accident, it has been manipulated to make it a religious riot. Although a case is open at a police station, it did not work. Only violence took place.

According to latest information, security forces fired into the air to control the riot.

%d bloggers like this: