Curbs on protesting continue in Myanmar despite legal changes
Controversial law still used to jail demonstrators, curtail freedom of assembly.
 |
| |
| National League for Democracy supporters take part in a rally in Yangon ahead of by-elections in March 2012 |
Yangon:
Robert Sann Aung’s business card tells you all you need to know
about the Yangon-based advocate. “6th time former political prisoner
[sic],” reads the calling card of the man who defends almost all
activists brought to court in Myanmar.
He is kept most busy by
the country’s 2011 Right to Peaceful Assembly and Peaceful Procession
Law — since the start of 2013, he has taken on 60 cases where people
were charged under this law. Other lawyers are “too afraid” to take on
such cases, said the advocate, who works pro-bono for activists.
More
cases keep adding to the stacks of paper filling his small first-floor
office. They attest to the failure of a recent amendment backed by
opposition lawmakers that activists had hoped would finally ensure the
right to demonstrate ahead of all-important elections next year.
Myanmar’s
law governing all public gatherings — introduced by the reforming
administration that had taken over from the military government earlier
in 2011 — allowed people to take to the streets to press for change for
the first time in decades.
However, the law included the
controversial Article 18, which required demonstrators to obtain
permission from local authorities before protesting. It also set out
punishments of up to one year in prison, and has become the most
commonly laid charge in the jailing of activists in post-junta Myanmar.
The
amendment put forward by National Democratic Force and National League
for Democracy (NLD) members of parliament, which finally passed into law
on June 24, was initially celebrated for cutting potential jail terms
by half, and for seemingly removing the option for authorities to deny
permission to protest.
In reality, little has changed.
Robert
Sann Aung already has four cases on his books involving people who
demonstrated — having given notice to authorities — while the amended
law was in force.
They include political activists, two lawyers
who oppose a plan to change Myanmar’s electoral system to proportional
representation, and a woman who demonstrated to demand that police
prosecute her alleged rapist.
“The amendment says ‘no denial’,
but police still deny [permission] and set up these cases,” he told
ucanews.com. “Before [the amendment] it was actually easier to protest
in downtown [Yangon].”
'There are only ghosts there'Authorities
around the country have reportedly continued to reject protest
applications, sometimes citing arbitrary rules about the application
process or the period of notice required.
Robert Sann Aung said
some township authorities in the former capital’s busy downtown area
have begun telling prospective demonstrators that they must instead
stage rallies at a former horse racing stadium outside of the center.
Kyaikkasan, the British colonial-era hippodrome, is mostly vacant and far from any foot traffic.
“A
protest is a message to the public, but Kyaikkasan is not a public
place — there are only ghosts there,” Robert Sann Aung said, adding
sardonically that if the authorities insisted on forcing protests into
such a location, they should at least broadcast them.
“If they show it on TV, then we would protest there,” he said.
Some
local authorities have defended their continued use of Article 18 to
reject protest requests and subsequently charge peaceful protesters by
referring to bylaws that have apparently not been replaced.
But
an analysis by London-based freedom of expression campaigners ARTICLE 19
found that the law’s new wording is itself unclear, leaving it open to
abuse by authorities.
Andrew Smith, a legal officer for ARTICLE
19, said the way the law was amended — chiefly taking out a part saying
authorities must decide whether or not to grant permission and then
inform the applicants of the decision — had left the legislation with
“very uncertain scope”.
“Because the provisions that were left in
it still give vague and discretionary powers to law enforcement, in
effect what remains is a permission-based system, without the police and
local authorities having any obligation to communicate a decision back
to the people making the request, which at least existed in the previous
version,” Smith said.
“So you could basically make the argument that the amendments have made the law less clear than it was previously.”
The
law still requires demonstrators to tell authorities the reason for
their gathering, inviting censorship of controversial protests, Smith
said.
“It implies that the police have this broad power to only
give permission to those assemblies that are on topics that they see as
in compliance with those requirements in the law, which are so vague
that the police can basically reject any request for permission on the
basis of what they agree with and not agree with,” he said.
Government
spokesman Ye Htut, who has previously defended the right of authorities
to deny permission for some protests, did not respond to a request for
comment.
Election concernsWith general
elections expected in late October or early November 2015, rights groups
said it was unclear how the authorities will respond to the inevitable
spontaneous gatherings around the polls.
Kyaw Thu, director of
the Paung Ku consortium of local NGOs, said that authorities could also
misuse the amended law by insisting that it disallows them from
intervening in non-peaceful protests.
The law “can be easily
misused and manipulated by authorities who could readily allow counter
protests by thugs in the period ahead of the election and during the
election campaign, or to instigate targeted violence in communal
conflicts,” he said, recalling the Depayin massacre of 2003, in which a
pro-government mob attacked a convoy carrying opposition leader Aung San
Suu Kyi.
“This gap also readily allows good excuse for
religious, racial and nationalist campaigns which are already happening
at different scales that could be intensified towards the election.”
The
elections are expected to be the first time the vastly popular NLD
participates in a nationwide vote since the military handed over power.
With
much at stake, Amnesty International’s campaigner on Myanmar, Laura
Haigh, said it was of particular concern that authorities were
continuing the tactic of locking up demonstrators.
Some 80 people
are incarcerated in the country and 130 more are awaiting trial for
political acts including protesting, according to the latest tally.
“General
elections are just over a year away and we’re seeing actually this
quite large number of people being arrested and imprisoned, and for
peaceful protests,” Haigh said.
“Coming up to an election I would
be extremely concerned about further restrictions on freedom of
expression and peaceful assembly.”
Source:
ucanews.com