News
The Slippery Path to Legitimacy in Myanmar By Brian McCartan
Myanmar prime minister Thein Sein (L); and Myanmar's democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi. Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi met new civilian president Thein Sein for the first time on August 19, 2011 an official said, in the latest sign the regime is reaching out to its opponents.Myanmar's new civilian government is making big efforts to show its legitimacy as a democratic regime. With little concrete action to back up government pronouncements, questions remain whether the world is simply seeing a repeat of the smoke and mirrors practiced by the military junta it has supposedly replaced.
CHIANG RAI TIMES – The most notable development of recent weeks was the August 19 meeting between opposition leader and Nobel laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Myanmar president Thein Sein. The former general was the last prime minister under the military dictatorship that ruled the country since 1962.
The one-hour meeting took place during Aung San Suu Kyi’s first.”visit to the new capital at Naypyidaw where she also attended a government workshop on economic development. Although few details have emerged from the meeting, Aung San Suu Kyi told reporters afterward she was “happy and satisfied” with the discussion and hoped to meet with the president again. On August 24, she told reporters she believed Thein Sein wants “real positive change”.
Although Aung San Suu Kyi has been able to meet with government officials in the past, the meeting with Thein Sein was a clear attempt by the government to show it to establish a high-level dialogue with the democracy leader. The country’s dictator, Senior General Than Shwe, had refused in the past to meet her. The meeting followed two previous discussions with Labor Minister and former general Aung Kyi.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s visit to Naypyidaw was her second journey upcountry since being released from house arrest in November 2010. Her detention was a direct result of the large crowds she was able to draw during a tour of upper Myanmar in 2003 that culminated in an attack on her caravan by thugs believed to be controlled by the military regime at Depayin in Sagaing division.
This marks a change from previously stricter government attitudes. In June, Aung San Suu Kyi was warned to refrain from involvement in politics and warnings that trips up country could result in chaos and riots, a warning that large crowds or demonstrations may result in a military crackdown.
She has also been able to release two “open letters” critical of government policy. The first presented her views on controversial dam projects and the second called for a nationwide ceasefire with the country’s ethnic groups to be followed by discussions on peace and national reconciliation.
Aung San Suu Kyi was barred from participating in the election and her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), was ordered disbanded after failing to register. The NLD’s opposition to the 2008 constitution and election rules remains a major stumbling block between the government and what would be Myanmar’s strongest opposition party.
Overtures and an apparent softening towards Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD were periodically used by Myanmar’s military rulers in the past, often to avert international criticism. The generals, however, viewed her widespread popularity as a dangerous influence. Each time, the pro-democracy icon was put back under lengthy periods of house arrest during which she was often cut off from contacts outside the country. The Depayin crackdown on her and her party resulted in the deaths of some 70 of her supporters.
Myanmar’s new civilian government, while composed of many of the same members of the regime that repeatedly put Aung San Suu Kyi under arrest and jailed her supporters, has broadened its seeming magnanimity beyond a narrow focus on a struggle between her and the generals. Thein Sein has called for both a return of exiles and peace talks with the various ethnic groups engaged in armed struggle against Naypyidaw.
Mr. Thein Sein (65) was chosen by the Presidential Electoral College in Myanmar's administrative capital of Nay Pyi Taw. The College was constituted on the basis of results of a controversial “democracy-restoring” general election
Thein Sien announced during a speech to local businessmen on August 17 in Naypyidaw that the government would allow exiles to return home and would consider leniency towards that that had committed crimes other than murder. He also indicated the government is willing to work with the exiles to develop the country.
The announcement, however, has received a cautious response in exile communities. Many want to see more formal legal guarantees, especially concerning political offenses, before accepting the offer. Unclear as well is the status of the over 100,000 refugees along the Thai-Myanmar border and those exiles who have taken up arms against the regime and could be prosecuted for murder.
An August 18 peace overture by Thein Sein to armed groups representing several of the countries minority groups ‘s was met with similar skepticism. The groups have objected to the stipulation that negotiations must be conducted through state and division governments first before proceeding to the national level.
Ethnic leaders feel that as representatives of their peoples they deserve to negotiate on a national level, especially since several of the groups, such as the Karen National Union (KNU) and Kachin Independence Organization (KIO), operate across two or more states and divisions.
Ethnic groups also object to being asked to negotiate separately with the government. Instead, they wish to negotiate as a bloc, through the recently formed United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC). The group is an alliance of the KNU, KIO, Shan State Progressive Party, Chin National Front, New Mon State Party and Karenni National Progressive Party (KNPP). The UNFC has insisted any negotiations must take place between the government and the UNCF.
A core element of current ethnic demands for negotiations with the government is for any discussions to be conducted within the framework of the 1947 Panglong agreement. The agreement which was made with Myanmar’s independence hero, General Aung San, was aimed at establishing a federal system and guaranteeing ethnic minority rights. Its suspension in the wake of the 1962 coup installing military rule was a major reason for ethnic groups such as the Kachin and Shan to take up armed struggle. The current government insists any discussion should be conducted within the framework of the 2008 constitution.
Other reformist activity has taken place in the newly formed parliament which is currently in its second session. During a speech to mark the opening of the second session, Thein Sein said the government is working to ease tensions with opposition parties that “still do not accept the country’s constitution”, a veiled reference to the NLD. He also said the government is seeking improved relations with ethnic minorities, noting that border development was important for security.
Within parliament, MPs have been able to criticize government policies and put forward motions that may have gotten them arrested in years past. Shan State MP Sai Maung Tin sent a report at the end of July documenting army abuses and urging the formation of a peace commission to Thein Sein and both vice presidents, and cabinet ministers. During the second session, Health Minister Dr Pe Thet Khin gave a speech critical of budget allocations for health.
While problems remain in parliament over procedural matters, MPs are able to raise and debate issues based on real concerns rather than the simple rubber stamping of government decisions. Speaker of the Lower House and former general and key junta leader, Thura Shwe Mann, in a speech to parliament declared it the most responsible institution for promoting democracy and human rights and urged the adoption of legislation to protect the nation and its citizens. He also called on MPs to listen to the voices of the people and take strong steps based on past lessons.
Most recently, on August 27, several members of parliament, including from the bloc of military MPs that makes up 25% of parliament, raised the issue of a sweeping prisoner amnesty in the Lower House. The issue was reportedly forwarded for more discussion to the National Defense and Security Council, a body headed by Thein Sein. The military MPs may be seeking freedom for military officers, many who are former intelligence officials, imprisoned during a 2004 purge that also resulted in the house arrest of former regime Number 3 and military intelligence chief and prime minister, Khin Nyunt.
The issue of some 2,100 political prisoners is key for continued rapprochement between the government and Aung San Suu Kyi as well as improved relations with the West, particularly the United States. During a recently concluded visit by UN Human Rights Rapporteur for Burma, Tomas Ojea Quintana, government officials told the UN envoy they feared the release of prisoners would result in social unrest. The state-run New Light of Myanmar quoted Upper House Speaker Khin Aung Myint as telling Quintana, “Political prisoners will be released when they are certain not to disrupt the nation’s peace and stability.”
At the same time, other government officials continued the regime’s traditional obfuscation of the issue. An August 26 article in the New Light of Myanmar quoted Chief Justice Tun Tun Oo as saying, “There are no prisoners serving a sentence for their beliefs; prisoners are all serving their terms for crimes they have committed.” And Home Minister, Lieutenant General (retired) Ko Ko, disputed Quintana’s numbers for political prisoners, claiming many were convicted of drug trafficking, murder, bombings, insurgency and other crimes.
Quintana’s five-day visit was his first in 18 months and coincides with calls by activists for a United Nations commission of inquiry into government complicity in human rights violations, a movement Quintana started after asking for an inquiry by the UN Commission for Human Rights. After meeting with government ministers as well as Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD, Quintana summed up his trip saying that despite recent steps toward rapprochement with the opposition, human rights challenges remain.
Indeed, the government may display more openness to Aung San Suu Kyi and allow more open debate of issues in parliament, but simple pronouncements cannot erase the distrust of almost 50 years of military misrule. Many of the generals who made up the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) now hold key positions in the cabinet.
In addition, holding 25% of seats in parliament, other former military officers hold senior positions in ministries and make up a large portion of the majority Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP). The shadow of former military supremo Senior General Than Shwe still darkens Myanmar’s democratic transition and many analyst expect him to take a behind-the-scenes role in the running of the country in a similar manner to China’s Deng Xiaoping or Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew.
A power struggle between hardline former military officers headed by Thiha Thura Tin Aung Myint Oo and perceived moderates led by Thein Sein is believed to have stymied political and economic reform. Thein Sein and like-minded MPs are keen to show they are doing something good for the country and reinforce the idea that civilians and not the military are in control of the government.
Myanmar's Vice President Thiha Thura Tin Aung Myint Oo
Tin Aung Myint Oo’s loyalists are wary of democratic rule and its potential for dissent. Some analysts, however, believe this rivalry was created by design by Than Shwe in order for no one leader to gain enough power to challenge him in his semi-retirement.
Cynical observers note that Myanmar’s leaders have opened up before only to tighten up again once international pressure is off. There is some reason to believe that current moves are aimed at reducing opposition to Myanmar’s desire to gain the chair of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 2014. Myanmar was denied the chairmanship in 2006 over Western pressure on ASEAN over the country’s human rights record. The regional grouping is to make a decision on the issue in coming months.
Regardless of the reasons behind reform or hardline efforts to block it, there has certainly been an unprecedented openness in recent weeks. The government, encumbered as it is with former junta members and military men, cannot be expected to make a rapid shift to a liberal and open democracy.
Still, simple pronouncements and debates in parliament, unless translated to policies and action, will not give the government the democratic legitimacy it seems to crave. To be taken seriously by the population and the international community there must be concrete action.
Talks with Aung San Suu Kyi need to be followed up with inclusion of the NLD into national reconciliation efforts and the freedom to influence policy, even if as an outsider until the next elections. Unless the government can reign in the army in the border areas and restore peace on equitable terms with the ethnic groups, it is likely the civil war will continue and may even broaden.
Invitations to exiles to return home is a good step, if legal guarantees are extended, but without the rehabilitation of political prisoners in Myanmar’s prisons, it will remain a largely empty gesture. This is a tall order, but without these measure, elements such as anti-corruption drives and economic reforms will not be enough to prove the government’s legitimacy.
Concrete moves towards reform may put the government on a path that will be difficult to reverse without reverting to direct military rule and a return to pariah status. But then, Myanmar’s military rulers have never shown a need to rely on logical thinking, instead making decisions based more on preservation of their power. This is now compounded by the interest of many generals to maintain their grip on very lucrative business empires.
Brian McCartan is a Bangkok-based freelance journalist. He may be reached at [email protected].
A recent report indicates that since Trudeau’s announcement of his gun buyback program four years ago, almost none of the banned firearms have been surrendered.
The federal government plans to purchase 2,063 firearm models from retailers following the enactment of Bill C-21, which amends various Acts and introduces certain consequential changes related to firearms. It was granted royal assent on December 15 of last year.
This ban immediately criminalized the actions of federally-licensed firearms owners regarding the purchase, sale, transportation, importation, exportation, or use of hundreds of thousands of rifles and shotguns that were previously legal.
The gun ban focused on what it termed ‘assault-style weapons,’ which are, in reality, traditional semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have enjoyed popularity among hunters and sport shooters for over a century.
In May 2020, the federal government enacted an Order-in-Council that prohibited 1,500 types of “assault-style” firearms and outlined specific components of the newly banned firearms. Property owners must adhere to the law by October 2023.
Trudeau’s Buyback Hasn’t Happened
“In the announcement regarding the ban, the prime minister stated that the government would seize the prohibited firearms, assuring that their lawful owners would be ‘grandfathered’ or compensated fairly.” “That hasn’t happened,” criminologist Gary Mauser told Rebel News.
Mauser projected expenses ranging from $2.6 billion to $6.7 billion. The figure reflects the compensation costs amounting to $756 million, as outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).
“The projected expenses for gathering the illegal firearms are estimated to range from $1.6 billion to $7 billion.” “This range estimate increases to between $2.647 billion and $7 billion when compensation costs to owners are factored in,” Mauser stated.
Figures requested by Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs concerning firearms prohibited due to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council reveal that $72 million has been allocated to the firearm “buyback” program, yet not a single firearm has been confiscated to date.
In a recent revelation, Public Safety Canada disclosed that the federal government allocated a staggering $41,094,556, as prompted by an order paper question from Conservative Senator Don Plett last September, yet yielded no tangible outcomes.
An internal memo from late 2019 revealed that the Liberals projected their politically motivated harassment would incur a cost of $1.8 billion.
Enforcement efforts Questioned
By December 2023, estimates from TheGunBlog.ca indicate that the Liberals and RCMP had incurred or were responsible for approximately $30 million in personnel expenses related to the enforcement efforts. The union representing the police service previously stated that the effort to confiscate firearms is a “misdirected effort” aimed at ensuring public safety.
“This action diverts crucial personnel, resources, and funding from tackling the more pressing and escalating issue of criminal use of illegal firearms,” stated the National Police Federation (NPF).
The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association (CSAAA), representing firearms retailers, has stated it will have “zero involvement” in the confiscation of these firearms. Even Canada Post held back from providing assistance due to safety concerns.
The consultant previously assessed that retailers are sitting on almost $1 billion worth of inventory that cannot be sold or returned to suppliers because of the Order-In-Council.
“Despite the ongoing confusion surrounding the ban, after four years, we ought to be able to address one crucial question.” Has the prohibition enhanced safety for Canadians? Mauser asks.
Illegally Obtained Firearms are the Problem
Statistics Canada reports a 10% increase in firearm-related violent crime between 2020 and 2022, rising from 12,614 incidents to 13,937 incidents. In that timeframe, the incidence of firearm-related violent crime increased from 33.7 incidents per 100,000 population in 2021 to 36.7 incidents the subsequent year.
“This marks the highest rate documented since the collection of comparable data began in 2009,” the criminologist explains.
Supplementary DataData indicates that firearm homicides have risen since 2020. “The issue lies not with lawfully-held firearms,” Mauser stated.
Firearms that have been banned under the Order-in-Council continue to be securely stored in the safes of their lawful owners. The individuals underwent a thorough vetting process by the RCMP and are subject to nightly monitoring to ensure there are no infractions that could pose a risk to public safety.
“The firearms involved in homicides were seldom legally owned weapons wielded by their rightful owners,” Mauser continues. The number of offenses linked to organized crime has surged from 4,810 in 2016 to a staggering 13,056 in 2020.
“If those in power … aim to diminish crime and enhance public safety, they ought to implement strategies that effectively focus on offenders and utilize our limited tax resources judiciously to reach these objectives,” he stated.
Related News:
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.
According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.
Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.
The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.
Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.
Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.
To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.
Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.
On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.
In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.
Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.
Pixa Bay
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.
TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.
When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.
And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.
Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.
A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.
Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.
But today, it feels more like reality.
Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.
SOURCE | CNN
(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.
The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.
Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.
This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.
In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.
The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.
This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.
The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.
In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.
According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.
Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.
The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.
For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.
Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.
As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.
As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.
The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.
SOURCE: AP
SEE ALSO:
Could Last-Minute Surprises Derail Kamala Harris’ Campaign? “Nostradamus” Explains the US Poll.
-
News3 years agoLet’s Know About Ultra High Net Worth Individual
-
Entertainment1 year ago
Mabelle Prior: The Voice of Hope, Resilience, and Diversity Inspiring Generations
-
Health3 years agoHow Much Ivermectin Should You Take?
-
Tech2 years agoTop Forex Brokers of 2023: Reviews and Analysis for Successful Trading
-
Lifestyles2 years agoAries Soulmate Signs
-
Health2 years agoCan I Buy Ivermectin Without A Prescription in the USA?
-
Movies2 years agoWhat Should I Do If Disney Plus Keeps Logging Me Out of TV?
-
Learning2 years agoVirtual Numbers: What Are They For?