Myanmar Opens to Business Opportunities, but is it sustainable?

IDSA COMMENT
Myanmar Opens to Business Opportunities, but is it sustainable?

Shebonti Ray Dadwal

June 14, 2013
If the participation of 900 delegates – the largest to date – from around the world, representing governments, business, civil society and academia at the World Economic Forum on East Asia in Naypyidaw from June 5-7 was any indication, then Myanmar has successfully shown that the international community is ready to do business with it. Located strategically between two of the world’s largest economies, holding some of the richest energy and mineral resources and an abundance of cheap labour, Myanmar is theoretically every businessman’s dream. Since its democratic transition in 2011, countries and their companies have been racing to get a piece of the Burmese pie in order to have a first-mover advantage. Not surprisingly, Myanmar’s energy sector, has elicited the most attention. With reserves assessed between 7.8 trillion cubic feet (tcf), the government’s 2011 bidding round offered 18 onshore blocks, eight of which were awarded to foreign firms, while the January 2013 round, which put up 18 onshore and 30 offshore blocks on offer, have attracted significant interest from international oil companies, including the majors. Another round for 20 more by the end of 2013 has been announced.

However, till recently, Myanmar’s gas was sold only to Thailand, though from July 2013, China too will receive 6.5 tcf of gas for 30 years from its Rakhine blocks, jointly owned by Myanmar, South Korea’s Daewoo and India’s OVL and GAIL following the completion of a pipeline. But if its energy resources are to be the vehicle that will drive its economic prosperity, then Myanmar has to introduce and implement reforms in its energy sector across the board.

With no transparency, accountability or public disclosure of how the revenues accruing from the sale of energy were managed or used, the perception is that they were utilised to prop up the military rule or went into the personal coffers of the junta. For example, Myanmar receives around $1- $2 billion a year from its natural gas exports to Thailand, but these are not reflected in public accounts. As a result, the country remains extremely poor and ironically, suffers from chronic energy shortages. More than 70% of Myanmar’s 60 million people live in villages, with the agriculture sector, albeit down to 36% from 57% in 2001, making up the bulk of the country’s GDP.

Myanmar Economic Corporation (MEC)

Myanmar Economic Holdings Ltd (MEHL)

Despite the huge gas reserves, the country has an installed generation capacity of 6,300 MW, with a per capita power consumption of 100 units.1 Only 26% of the population has access to electricity, and though it has more than adequate capacity to deal with peak loads, inadequate infrastructure and supply (from coal power plants and gas pipelines), load shedding of up to 500 MW is experienced. Moreover, although Myanmar produces 10.2 million tonnes of oil equivalent gas per year, an Accenture-ADB report says that all but 15% of it is sold to Thailand. Even the gas produced by the Daewoo consortium in the Rakhine coast has been sold to China.2 As a result, biomass accounts for 75% of primary energy supply, almost all of which is derived from fuel wood, followed by gas (10%) and oil (6%). The same is the case with hydropower. According to the Ministry of Electric Power, the country’s hydropower potential has been projected at more than 100,000 MW, but installed capacity is only 2,520 MW.3

The lack of development has given vent to domestic opposition. The new government has stated that they will do things differently. Recently, a Chinese-led conglomerate was stopped by landholders and monks from carrying out work on a copper project while Shan guerrillas attacked a Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE) compound close to the gas pipeline near the China border. In November 2012, after the Wanbao Mining Corporation, a subsidiary of China’s state-owned arms maker, Norinco, had asked for acquiring lands of 26 villages at the base of Letpadaung mountain, faced violent protests, the government established an inquiry led by Aung San Suu Kyi. What is of concern is that the Shwe Gas Movement has pledged to fight for higher compensation for land taken for the Chinese pipelines, and jobs for the people along the pipelines’ route. Although the inquiry allowed the company to continue its work, it ordered the company to pay market prices for the land acquisition as well as compensation for three years of crops.4

It is, therefore, clear that the government has realized that it has to change the way it does business. In November 2011, bowing to domestic pressure, the government said it had to “respect the people’s will” and scrapped a $3.6 billion dam project at Myitsone, one of seven planned by China Power Investment.5 Other foreign companies too have taken cognizance of the changes, while existing ones, namely Chinese and Thai firms are renegotiating their contracts. The government also stated that new discoveries will be used for domestic utilisation first, leaving excess resources for exports.

A beginning has been made. The government has committed to implementing the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, a global standard to measure governance and transparency in resource-rich countries, and as was reflected in the joint statement signed during President Thein Sein’s visit to Washington states, “The United States and Myanmar reaffirm their shared objectives to manage their natural resources, including oil and gas, and the revenues they generate, transparently and for the benefit of all their citizens.”

With the advent of global companies into Myanmar, where does that leave China and India? In particular, Chinese companies, which had enjoyed a strong presence thanks to the sanctions making it largely off limits for Western firms, are now facing stiff competition as Myanmar is showing a tendency to turn increasingly to the West for its development. A clear pointer is that in the recent oil and gas bidding round, only one Chinese company, SIPC Myanmar Petroleum Company Ltd, was short-listed out of the fifty-nine. India has fared better, with seven Indian companies, including OVL, OIL, Gujarat Natural Resources Ltd, Cairn India Ltd, Prize Petroleum Company, Jubilant Energy (Kharsang) and Jubilant Oil and Gas being short listed, along with Australian, Pakistani, Japanese, Canadian, US and Malaysian contenders.6 No one, however, doubts that China will maintain its hold over the country, at least for some time. Nevertheless, it is not taking any chances and had ordered its state-owned companies to adopt corporate social responsibility practices and improve their public relations profile in the country. It has also appointed two veteran diplomats to strengthen bilateral relations.7

India too is investing substantially in Myanmar with investments worth $2.6 billion across several sectors, including downstream energy sector, infrastructure and telecom. But it too has come in for criticism particularly for the manner in which it operates. For instance, its $214 million Kaladan Multimodal Transit Transport Project has come for scrutiny from local communities for allegedly forced relocations, land confiscation without adequate compensation, discrimination in hiring workers and destruction of local heritage.

Despite the initial enthusiasm, it may be some time before real changes can be seen in Myanmar and for the country to make the transition from an extractive-driven economy to one where real development can be expected. According to a recent report on transparency from Resource Watch Institute, even Afghanistan is a better place to do business than Myanmar, and although some sanctions had been lifted, it is still too early to say whether the investments are warranted or at least commensurate with the risks involved. Apart from the recent violent clashes that broke out between Buddhists and Muslims, rampant corruption and lack of transparency and accountability in Myanmar, mismanagement is rampant, leading to the dismal development scenario.

Even India, which had proposed the construction of two large hydropower projects in Myanmar’s Chindwin river – the 1,200-MW Htamanthi and the 642-MW Shwezaye hydroelectric plants – has had to back out owing to the prohibitive cost of constructing the projects and the increasing political pressure from indigenous environmental groups.8

Eventually, however, whether the initial international business interest in Myanmar will be sustained will depend on how quickly it develops its infrastructure, particularly electricity.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.

http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/MyanmarOpenstoBusinessOpportunities_srdadwal_140613

1. Power Grid, IFC may tie up for rural electrification, distribution in Myanmar rural areas”, Myanmar Business Network, June 08, 2013, http://www.myanmar-business.org/2013/06/power-grid-ifc-may-tie-up-for.html
2. In June 2013, CNPC announced it had completed construction of its oil pipeline from Kyaukphyu to Kunming, and a parallel natural gas pipeline running alongside from Kyaukphyu to China’s Yunnan Province was undergoing operational trials. The gas will come from the Daewoo operated A1 and A3 blocks in which OVL has a 17% stake and GAIL has 8.5% stake in the Daewoo-led consortium in Blocks A1 and A3 in the Rakhine Coast in Arakan offshore in north-western Myanmar.
3. “New Energy Architecture: Myanmar, World Economic Forum in collaboration with Accenture and the Asian Development Bank, June 2013, p 14.
4. Jane Perlez and Bree Feng, “China Tries to Improve Image in a Changing Myanmar”, New York Times, May 18, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/world/asia/under-pressure-china-measures-its-impact-in-myanmar.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
5. Andrew Higgins, “Chinese-funded hydropower project sparks anger in Burma”, Washington Post, November 07, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/world/asia/under-pressure-china-measures-its-impact-in-myanmar.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
6. Animesh Singh, Indian cos checkmate China on Myanmar’s gas exploration bid, Pioneer, 13.6.13
7. Ian Storey, “China plays double game to protect its interests in Myanmar”, South China Morning Post, May 18, 2013, http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1239921/china-plays-…
8. Myanmar, India scrap two hydroelectric projects”, Hydroworld.com, June 6, 2013, http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/2013/06/myanmar–india-scrap-two-hydroelectric-projects.html
Add your comment

U.K. Beheading Shows It’s Time To Fight the Doctrine of Jihad http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tarek-fatah/uk-beheading-jihad-terror_b_3325363.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

U.K. Beheading Shows It’s Time To Fight the Doctrine of Jihad Posted: 05/24/2013 10:05 am

Tarek Fatah

Columnist, The Toronto SUN

Anti-Islam Resistance Movement In Europe Deepens http://www.westernjournalism.com/anti-islam-resistance-movement-in-europe/

Anti-Islam Resistance Movement In Europe Deepens

May 27, 2013 by Louise Hodges 15 Comments

inShare8

There is a resistance movement in Europe, you’re just not going to hear about it, lest it jump the pond to the United States. They’ve been holding rallies across Europe, and you’re invited. Of course, this is not ever going to appear on the Nightly News.

Let me turn you onto the English Defense League, the European Defense League, and their American counterpart, the United States Defense League. They are currently accepting memberships. They make the Tea Party look like a bunch of amateurs, and frankly, I don’t think they really care what the IRS thinks about it.

This is their Charter:

“European Defence Leagues Memorandum of Understanding ‘Defending the right to defend free nations’

Memorandum of Understanding relating to the formation of a European network of advocates for human rights and personal freedoms, in opposition to Sharia Law and other forms of oppression.

Recognising the need to make a statement outlining the shared principles that will act as the foundations for future cooperation, the above-listed organisations have agreed the following:

We believe that our nations, our people and our traditions, are all in need of defence.

Islamic extremism threatens our rights, our freedoms, and even our very lives.

But it would not be so dangerous a foe if, unlike previous generations, we had not become paralysed in the face of this extremism.

We are paralysed by moral relativism, political correctness, cowardly appeasement, strict self-censorship and self-loathing.

We should not be afraid to speak our minds, to fly the flags of our nations, to say plainly what we believe to be right and what we believe to be wrong.

But instead, we seem ashamed of our identities, our traditions, our heritage.

We are tolerant and accepting, but often only because we fear to make a stand against intolerance and hatred.

We have, it seems, already begun to surrender.

It is almost as if we no longer believe in all that should make us proud; all that makes our countries distinct, and all that unites them.

Our politicians refuse even to talk about it.

Our newspapers insult and attack those who refuse to bow down – those who refuse to submit or surrender their freedoms – as if they are responsible for the assaults on freedom about which they protest.

And all the while, we let the radicals decide the modern face of Islam in Europe.

We all know that a battle is being waged, not between Muslim and non-Muslim, but between fundamentalist and reformer.

But what are we willing to do?

The more we capitulate, the more we appease, the harder the reformer has to fight.

The more we abandon our own principles, the more we forget our pride, the more confident the fundamentalist becomes.

That is why we need to be loud.

We need to send a message to the fundamentalists, to our governments, to the press, and to anyone who may have given up on the people of Europe:

We believe in the rights enshrined in the laws of our nations.

We believe in the freedoms long-enjoyed in our lands.

And we believe in the democratic traditions that best protect both our rights and freedoms.

We believe in equality under the law and due process, regardless of race or religion.

We believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience and freedom of worship.

And we believe that it is our right to speak out against those who would threaten these freedoms, as well as those who would enable them to do so.

In 2004, the European Court of Human Rights declared that “freedom of thought, of religion, of expression and of association as guaranteed by the [European] Convention [on Human Rights] could not deprive the authorities of a State in which an association, through its activities, jeopardised that State’s institutions, of the right to protect those institutions.”

In other words, the European Court of Human Rights recognised that we have a right to defend our democratic institutions from those who, in attacking these institutions, would exploit the rights and freedoms granted to them in the Western world.

Unfortunately, much of the modern Islamic world continues to deny the rights of its people and to suppress their freedoms.

And there are also some – not just the supporters of Sharia Law – who wish to see this model of oppressive, divisive, supremacist religious totalitarianism imported into Europe.

Within some Muslim communities it has already begun.

Honour killings, child grooming, hate preachers, home-grown terrorists, and women encased in the Burqa.

Much of the time it is Muslims themselves who are the first victims.

We must not be afraid to say what should be obvious to all:

Our way is better.

Not different, better.

Individual Muslims may well have plenty to offer, but there is much about Islamic culture that we cannot stay silent about.

We are committed to countering extremism, wherever it be found.

And we will guard against anything that would threaten our diverse and tolerant nations.

We are anti-extremist, anti-fascist, and anti-racist.

We will protest peacefully, but we will defend ourselves if need be.
We will be loud, and we will not back down.

Because the defence of our countries, our people, our rights, our freedoms, our values, and our futures demands nothing less.”

. . .nuff said . . .

http://www.westernjournalism.com/anti-islam-resistance-movement-in-europe/

http://news-eleven.com/local/19547-%E1%80%BB%E1%80%95%E1%80%8A%E1%80%B9%E1%80%9E%E1%80%B0%E1%80%9C%E1%80%B0%E1%80%91%E1%80%AF-%E1%80%A1%E1%80%91%E1%80%84%E1%80%B9%E1%80%A1%E1%80%BB%E1%80%99%E1%80%84%E1%80%B9-%E1%80%9C%E1%80%BC%E1%80%B2%E1%80%99%E1%80%BD%E1%80%AC%E1%80%B8%E1%80%B1%E1%80%85%E1%80%99%E1%80%8A%E1%80%B9%E1%80%B7-%E1%80%80%E1%80%AD%E1%80%85%E1%81%A5%E1%80%9B%E1%80%95%E1%80%B9%E1%80%99%E1%80%BA%E1%80%AC%E1%80%B8%E1%80%A1%E1%80%AC%E1%80%B8-%E1%80%A1%E1%80%91%E1%80%B0%E1%80%B8%E1%80%B1%E1%80%9B%E1%80%BD%E1%80%AC%E1%80%84%E1%80%B9%E1%81%BE%E1%80%80%E1%80%A5%E1%80%B9%E1%81%BE%E1%80%80%E1%80%9B%E1%80%94%E1%80%B9-%E1%80%80%E1%80%AC%E1%80%80%E1%80%BC%E1%80%9A%E1%80%B9%E1%80%B1%E1%80%9B%E1%80%B8-%E1%80%A5%E1%80%AE%E1%80%B8%E1%80%85%E1%80%AE%E1%80%B8%E1%80%81%E1%80%BA%E1%80%B3%E1%80%95%E1%80%B9-%E1%80%B1%E1%80%BB%E1%80%95%E1%80%AC%E1%81%BE%E1%80%80%E1%80%AC%E1%80%B8

ျပည္သူလူထု အထင္အျမင္ လြဲမွားေစမည့္ ကိစၥရပ္မ်ားအား အထူးေရွာင္ၾကဥ္ၾကရန္ ကာကြယ္ေရး ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္ ေျပာၾကား

Details Created on Sunday, 26 May 2013 04:41

ျပည္သူလူထု အထင္အျမင္ လြဲမွားေစမည့္ ကိစၥမ်ားကို အထူးေရွာင္ၾကဥ္ၾကရန္ တပ္မေတာ္ ကာကြယ္ေရး ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္မွဴးႀကီး မင္းေအာင္လိႈင္က ေမ ၂၁ ရက္တြင္ ေက်ာက္ပန္းေတာင္းတပ္နယ္မွ အရာရွိ စစ္သည္မိသားစုမ်ားႏွင့္ ေတြ႕ဆံုစဥ္ ေျပာၾကားခဲ့သည္။

စစ္ေရးအရ ေအာင္ျမင္မႈသည္ တပ္တစ္တပ္၏ မွတ္ေက်ာက္ပင္ျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း၊ စစ္ေရးစြမ္းရည္ ထက္ျမက္ေရးအတြက္ ေလ့က်င့္သား ျပည့္၀ေအာင္ ေဆာင္ရြက္သြားရန္ လိုေၾကာင္း၊ ပညာရည္ျမင့္မားမွ နည္းပညာ ျမင့္မားေသာ စစ္အသံုးအေဆာင္ ပစၥည္းမ်ားအား ကိုင္တြယ္အသံုးျပဳ ႏိုင္မည္ျဖစ္၍ စစ္သည္မ်ား ပညာေရးျမင့္မားေရး အေလးထားေဆာင္ရြက္ ေပးလ်က္ရွိေၾကာင္းလည္း ကာကြယ္ေရး ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္က ေျပာၾကားခဲ့သည္။

ျပည္သူၾကားမွ ေပါက္ဖြားလာေသာ တပ္မေတာ္ျဖစ္၍ ျပည္သူႏွင့္ တစ္သားတည္း ျဖစ္ေနေအာင္ လုပ္ေဆာင္ရမည္ျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း၊ ထုတ္ျပန္ထားေသာ အမိန္႔ႏွင့္ ညႊန္ၾကားခ်က္မ်ားကို သိရွိေအာင္ ေဆာင္ရြက္ၿပီး လိုက္နာေစာင့္ထိန္း သြားၾကေစလိုေၾကာင္းလည္း . . . . .

ထို႔ေနာက္ ေမ ၂၂ ရက္က မေကြးတပ္နယ္ရွိ ေအာင္ႏိုင္ဟိန္းခန္းမ၌ အမွတ္ (၈၈) ေျချမန္တပ္မ ဌာနခ်ဳပ္မွ အရာရွိစစ္သည္ မိသားစုမ်ားႏွင့္ ေတြ႕ဆံုရာတြင္လည္း ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္ ကာကြယ္ေရးကို က်ယ္က်ယ္ျပန္႔ျပန္႔ ႐ႈျမင္ၿပီး ျပည္သူလူထုက အားကိုးေသာ တပ္မေတာ္တစ္ရပ္ျဖစ္ေအာင္ လုပ္ေဆာင္သြားရမည္ဟု ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္မွဴးႀကီး မင္းေအာင္လိႈင္က ေျပာၾကားခဲ့သည္။

ျပည္သူၾကားမွ ေပါက္ဖြားလာေသာ တပ္မေတာ္ျဖစ္၍ ျပည္သူႏွင့္ တစ္သားတည္း ျဖစ္ေနေအာင္ လုပ္ေဆာင္ရမည္ျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း၊ ထုတ္ျပန္ထားေသာ အမိန္႔ႏွင့္ ညႊန္ၾကားခ်က္မ်ားကို သိရွိေအာင္ ေဆာင္ရြက္ၿပီး လိုက္နာေစာင့္ထိန္း သြားၾကေစလိုေၾကာင္းလည္း ၎က ေျပာၾကားသည္။

ထို႔ေနာက္ ကာကြယ္ေရး ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္က ေပးအပ္ေသာ လုပ္ငန္းတာ၀န္ကို ေအာင္ျမင္ေအာင္ လုပ္ေဆာင္မည္ ဟူေသာစိတ္အား အျမဲေမြးျမဴ သြားၾကေစလုိေၾကာင္း၊ အဆင့္အတန္းအားလံုး ကုိယ္စီတာ၀န္ သိရွိၿပီး မိမိ၏ တာ၀န္ကို ေက်ေက်ပြန္ပြန္ ထမ္းေဆာင္သြားၾကေစလုိေၾကာင္းလည္း ဆက္လက္ေျပာၾကားသည္။

တပ္မေတာ္သားမ်ား အေနျဖင့္ အရက္ေသာက္သံုးမႈ မျပဳၾကရန္ႏွင့္ ကြမ္း၊ ေဆးလိပ္ သံုးစြဲမႈတို႔အား လံုး၀ေရွာင္ရွားၾကၿပီး က်န္းမာေရး လိုက္စားၾကရန္လည္း ကာကြယ္ေရး ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္က ေျပာၾကားခဲ့သည္။

အရွိကိုအရွိအတုိင္းၾကည့္ျမင္ရမည့္ “၂၀၀ ၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒျပင္ဆင္ေရး” http://moemaka.com/archives/35039?fb_source=pubv1

အရွိကိုအရွိအတုိင္းၾကည့္ျမင္ရမည့္ “၂၀၀၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒျပင္ဆင္ေရး”

အရွိကိုအရွိအတုိင္းၾကည့္ျမင္ရမည့္ “၂၀၀၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒျပင္ဆင္ေရး”

တူေမာင္ညိဳ (၂၀၁၃ ခုႏွစ္၊ ေမလ ၂၅ ရက္)

“၂၀၀၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒ” ျပင္ဆင္ေရးသည္ လက္ေတြ႔အေကာင္အထည္ေဖာ္ၾကရမည့္ ကိစၥျဖစ္လာၿပီ။

သုိ႔အတြက္ ျပင္ဆင္ႏုိင္ေရးဆုိင္ရာလက္ေတြ႔ကိစၥမ်ားကို ေျပာၾကရာတြင္ အရွိကို အရွိတိုင္း ၾကည့္ျမင္ႏုိင္ၾကဖုိ႔လိုပါသည္။ အရွိ ကို အရွိအတုိင္းၾကည့္ျမင္၍ “၂၀၀၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒ” ေဘာင္ထဲသုိ႔ ဝင္ခဲ့ၾကၿပီးၿပီမဟုတ္ပါသေလာ။

ျပင္ဆင္ေရးလက္ေတြ႔ကိစၥမ်ားကို ေျပာရမည္ဆိုလွ်င္ လႊတ္ေတာ္တြင္းျပင္ဆင္မည္ျဖစ္သျဖင့္ ျပည္ေထာင္စုလႊတ္ေတာ္အတြင္း ရရွိထားသည့္ မိမိပါတီ၏ လႊတ္ေတာ္အမတ္အေရအတြက္ ႏွင့္ “၂၀၀၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒ” အခန္း (၁၂) တြင္ျပ႒ာန္းထားသည့္ အေျခခံ ဥပေဒ ျပင္ဆင္ေရးဆုိင္ရာ ျပ႒ာန္းခ်က္မ်ား [ပုဒ္မ ၄၃၆ (က) (ခ) ] သည္ လက္ေတြ႔အက်ဆံုးအခ်က္အလက္မ်ားျဖစ္ပါလိမ့္မည္။

ေဖၚျပပါ အခ်က္ ၂ ခ်က္ကို မူတည္ၿပီး ပုိ၍လက္ေတြ႔က်က်ေျပာရမည္ဆိုလွ်င္ “၂၀၀၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒ” ျပင္ဆင္ေရး၏အဆံုး အျဖတ္ကံၾကမၼာသည္ ႀကံ့ဖြံ႔ပါတီႏွင့္ဗိုလ္မင္းေအာင္လိႈင္တုိ႔ လက္ဝယ္တြင္ရွိေနသည္။ ႀကံ့ဖြံ႔အမတ္မ်ားႏွင့္ စစ္သားအမတ္မ်ားေပါင္းထား သည့္မဲျဖင့္သာ ျပင္ဆင္ႏုိင္မည့္အေျခအေနျဖစ္သည္။

ထုိ႔အျပင္အေျခခံဥပေဒပုဒ္မ ၄၃၆ (က) ႏွင့္(ခ) အရ ၇၅ ရာခုိင္ႏႈန္းရွိရမည့္ အရပ္သားအမတ္အေရအတြက္သည္ ယခုအခါ ၁၉ ေယာက္ေလ်ာ့နည္းေနၿပီျဖစ္သည္။ သုိ႔အတြက္ စဥ္းစားေနၾကသလုိ “အရပ္သားအမတ္ ၇၅ + စစ္သားအမတ္ ၁ ဦး” (၇၅ ရာခုိင္ ႏႈန္းေက်ာ္) ဆိုသည့္ စဥ္းစားနည္းတြင္ စစ္သားအမတ္ ၂၀ အနည္းဆံုးရမွသာ ျပင္ဆင္ႏုိင္ေတာ့မည့္သေဘာျဖစ္ေနသည္။ ဤအတိုင္း ဆိုလွ်င္ အေျခခံဥပေဒျပင္ေရး/မျပင္ေရးအဆံုးအျဖတ္သည္ ဗိုလ္မင္းေအာင္လိႈင္လက္ထဲ ေရာက္ေနသည္ဟုပင္ေျပာရေတာ့မည္။

- စိတ္ႀကိဳက္ေရးထားသည့္ “၂၀၀၈အေျခခံဥပေဒ”

- ျပည္ေထာင္စုလႊတ္ေတာ္ထဲရွိ ႀကံ့ဖြံ႔ပါတီ အမတ္အမ်ားစု

- စစ္သားအမတ္ (၁၆၆) ဦး

- ဝက္လက္အမတ္အဆုိတင္ထားသည့္ “အေျခခံဥပေဒေလ့လာသံုးသပ္ေရးေကာ္မရွင္”

- ျပည္ေထာင္စုလႊတ္ေတာ္ သက္တမ္းထက္ဝက္အတြက္ နာယကသည္ (ဗိုလ္) ဦးေရႊမန္း ျဖစ္လာမည္၊

စသျဖင့္ ျပင္ဆင္ေရးအတြက္လက္ဦးမႈမွန္သမွ်သည္ (ကာလံု)ႏွင့္ ႀကံ့ဖြံ႔ပါတီလက္ထဲမွာရွိေနသည္။

ဤအခ်က္မ်ားသည့္ “၂၀၀၈အေျခခံဥပေဒ” ကို လႊတ္ေတာ္တြင္းနည္းျဖင့္ျပင္ဆင္ၾကမည္ဆိုသည့္ ႏုိင္ငံေရးပါတီ အဖြဲ႔အစည္း မ်ား ႀကိဳတင္သိရွိႏွင့္ၾကၿပီးျဖစ္မည့္အခ်က္မ်ားျဖစ္ပါလိမ့္မည္။

ဤအေျခအေနေအာက္တြင္ ေမလ ၂၃ ရက္ေန႔စြဲျဖင့္ အမ်ဳိးသားဒီမိုကေရစီအင္အားစုပါတီ (NDF) ၏ ၂၀၀၈ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပံု အေျခခံ ဥပေဒ ျပင္ေရးႏွင့္စပ္လ်ဥ္းသည့္ သေဘာထား ေၾကညာခ်က္အမွတ္ ( ၇/ ၂၀၁၃ ) ေပၚထြက္လာပါသည္။

ထိုေၾကညာခ်က္အေပၚက်ေနာ့္အျမင္ႏွင့္ယူဆခ်က္ကိုတင္ျပရလွ်င္ (NDF)ပါတီ၏ ျပင္ဆင္ေရး နည္းဗ်ဴဟာသည္ ျပင္ဆင္ေရး အတြက္ အကန္႔အသတ္ျဖစ္ေနေသာ အခ်က္မ်ားျပင္ဆင္ေရးကို ဦးတည္ခ်က္ ထားပံုေပၚပါသည္။

(NDF) ပါတီျပင္ဆင္ေရး နည္းဗ်ဴဟာသည္ ၂၀၀၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒ၊ ပုဒ္မ ၄၃၆ (က) ႏွင့္ (ခ) ကို ျပင္ဆင္ႏုိင္ေရးကို အဓိက အခ်က္ျဖစ္ထားပါသည္။ ယင္းအခ်က္၊ ယင္းပုဒ္မကို ျပင္ဆင္ထားလွ်င္ “၂၀၀၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒ”တစ္ခုလံုးကို ျပင္ဆင္ရန္ မခက္ခဲေတာ့ဟု စဥ္းစားပံုေပၚပါသည္။ တကယ္ေတာ့ျပင္ဆင္ရန္ခက္ခဲေသာ အခ်က္ကို ျပင္ဆင္ဖုိ႔ဆိုသည့္ကိစၥမွာလည္း (ကာလံု) ႏွင့္ ႀကံ့ဖြံ႔ပါတီတို႔၏ လက္ထဲမွာသာရွိေနသည္မဟုတ္သေလာ။

ထို႔အျပင္ သမၼတေလာင္းအျဖစ္ေရြးခ်ယ္ခံရေရးအတြက္ “ပုဒ္မ ၅၉ (စ) တြင္ ျခြင္းခ်က္ထည့္သြင္းေရး” ၊ “၁၄ ျပည္နယ္ ဖြဲ႔စည္းေရး” ၊ “လြတ္ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းသာခြင့္” သမၼတသေဘာျဖင့္ေပးအပ္ႏုိင္ေရး၊ စစ္သားအမတ္မ်ားကို စစ္တိုင္းဌာနခ်ဳပ္ အလုိက္ ေရြးခ်ယ္ေရး၊ ျပည္နယ္လႊတ္ေတာ္က ျပည္နယ္ဝန္ႀကီးခ်ဳပ္ခန္႔အပ္ေရး၊ ျပည္ေထာင္စုတရားလႊတ္ေတာ္ခ်ဳပ္သို႔ “ထပ္ျဖည့္အာဏာ” ေပးအပ္ေရး စသည့္စိတ္ဝင္စားဖြယ္ရာ အခ်က္မ်ားပါရွိပါသည္။

ယင္းအခ်က္မ်ားနက္ “၁၄ျပည္နယ္ဖြဲ႔စည္းေရး” သည္ တုိင္းရင္းသား အင္အားစုမ်ား (ပါတီႏွင့္လက္နက္ကိုင္အဖြဲ႔အစည္းမ်ား) ဘက္မွ ေျပာစရာဆုိစရာရွိလာမည္ျဖစ္ပါသည္။

ျပည္ေထာင္စုတရားလႊတ္ေတာ္ခ်ဳပ္တြင္ “မူလစီရင္ပိုင္ခြင့္အာဏာ”၊ “အယူခံစီရင္ပိုင္ခြင့္အာဏာ”၊ “ျပင္ဆင္မႈစီရင္ပုိင္ခြင့္ အာဏာ”တုိ႔အျပင္ “ထပ္ျဖည့္အာဏာ” ဆုိသည့္ကိစၥကလည္း ထူးျခားပါသည္။ ဤကိစၥသည္ “ဖြဲ႔စည္းပံုအေျခခံဥပေဒဆုိင္ရာခံုရံုး”အေပၚ ျပည္သူ႔လႊတ္ေတာ္က ဆံုးျဖတ္ခ်က္ခ်ခဲ့သည့္ ျဖစ္ရပ္ႏွင့္ဆက္ႏြယ္ႏုိင္သည္ဟုစဥ္းစားမိပါသည္။ သုိ႔တည္းမဟုတ္ ျပည္ေထာင္စုတရား လႊတ္ေတာ္ခ်ဳပ္သို႔ ေပးအပ္ထားသည့္ “မူလစီရင္ပုိင္ခြင့္အာဏာ”မ်ား မျပည့္မဝ/မလံုမေလာက္ျဖစ္ေန၍ ထပ္ျဖည့္သည့္ သေဘာျဖစ္မည္ မလား မသိပါဘူး။ ဤကိစၥကို ေရွ႕ေနမ်ား၊ ဥပေဒပညာရွင္မ်ားကသာရွင္းျပႏုိင္ပါလိမ့္မည္။ တရားေရးမ႑ိဳင္ဘုံးဘံုးလဲေနသည္ ကေတာ့ အလြန္ကို ေသခ်ာပါသည္။

“၂၀၀၈အေျခခံဥပေဒ”ကို ျပင္ဆင္ႏုိင္ျခင္းရွိသည္/မရွိသည္က တစ္က႑ျဖစ္ေသာ္လည္း (NDF) ပါတီက သူတုိ႔ျပင္ဆင္လုိ သည္မ်ားကို တင္ျပသျဖင့္သူတုိ႔၏သေဘာထားဆႏၵႏွင့္ အာသီသကိုသိရပါသည္။ အနိမ့္ဆံုးအားျဖင့္ “၂၀၀၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒ” ျပင္ဆင္ ေရးႏွင့္ စပ္လ်ဥ္းၿပီး (NDF) ပါတီ၏ သေဘာ ထားႏွင့္စဥ္းစားနည္းကို ျပည္သူမ်ားသိရွိေလ့လာခြင့္ရ သည္မဟုတ္ေလာ။

“၂၀၀၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒ” တြင္ အခန္း ၁၅ ခန္းပါရွိသည့္အနက္ အခန္း (၉) ၊ အခန္း (၁၀) ၊ အခန္း (၁၁) ႏွင့္ အခန္း (၁၄) တုိ႔မွ အပ က်န္အခန္း ၁၁ ခန္း ႏွင့္ပတ္သက္ၿပီး (NDF)ပါတီက ျပင္ဆင္၊ ျဖည့္စြက္၊ ျဖဳတ္ပယ္လုိသည့္အခ်က္မ်ားကို သက္ဆုိင္ရာ အခန္း ႏွင့္ပုဒ္မ အလိုက္တင္ျပထားပါသည္။

ျမင္သာေအာင္ (NDF) ပါတီ၏ “ျပင္ဆင္ၿပီး ဥပေဒ (မူၾကမ္း) ” မွ သတိျပဳမိေသာ အခ်က္အခ်ိဳ႕ကိုထုတ္ႏုတ္တင္ျပပါမည္။

အခန္း (၁) တြင္

- အမ်ဳိးသားႏိုင္ငံေရး ေဆာင္ရြက္မႈအခန္းက႑တြင္ တပ္မေတာ္က ျပည္သူ႕ဆႏၵႏွင့္အညီ ပါဝင္ေရး

- တုိင္းစစ္ဌာနခ်ဳပ္ အလုိက္ စစ္သားအမတ္မ်ားကို ကာခ်ဳပ္ကလႊတ္ေတာ္သုိ႔ တင္ျပေရး ႏွင့္စစ္သားအမတ္မ်ား ေလွ်ာ့ခ်ေရး

- သမၼတသည္ စစ္ေသနာပတိခ်ဳပ္ျဖစ္ေရး

အခန္း (၂) တြင္

- ရွိရင္းစြဲ တုိင္းေဒသႀကီး ၇+ ျပည္နယ္၇ ကို “၁၄ ျပည္နယ္” အျဖစ္ ပုိင္းျခားသတ္မွတ္ေရး

အခန္း (၃) တြင္

- သမၼတေလာင္းအျဖစ္ ေရြးခ်ယ္ခံရေရးအတြက္ ပုဒ္မ ၅၉ (စ) အတြက္ “ျခြင္းခ်က္” ထည့္သြင္းေရး

အခန္း (၅) တြင္

- သမၼတ သည္ ကာလံု၏ ေထာက္ခံခ်က္မလိုဘဲ။ “လြတ္ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းသာခြင့္” ေပးပုိင္ခြင့္ရွိေရး

- ျပည္နယ္လႊတ္ေတာ္တို႔မွ “ျပည္နယ္ဝန္ႀကီးခ်ဳပ္”ခန္႔အပ္ႏုိင္ေရး

အခန္း (၆) တြင္

- ျပည္ေထာင္စုတရားလႊတ္ေတာ္ခ်ဳပ္အား “ထပ္ျဖည့္အာဏာ”ေပးအပ္ေရး

အခန္း (၇) တြင္

- ဗုဒၶဘာသာႏွင့္အျခားဘာသာသာသနာမ်ားကို ခြဲျခားသည့္သေဘာျဖစ္သည့္ “ဂုဏ္ထူးဝိေသသႏွင့္ျပည့္စံုသည့္” စကားရပ္ အား ပယ္ဖ်က္ေရး

အခန္း (၁၂) တြင္

- ပုဒ္မ ၄၃၆ (က) အေျခခံဥပေဒျပင္ဆင္ရာတြင္ လြတ္ေတာ္ကိုယ္စားလွယ္အမ်ားစုေထာက္ခံမဲ ၇၅%ျဖင့္ဆံုးျဖတ္ေရး၊ “ျပည္သူ႔ဆႏၵခံယူပြဲက်င္းပရန္”ဟူသည့္အခ်က္ကို ပယ္ဖ်က္ရန္ ႏွင့္

- ပုဒ္မ ၄၃၆ (ခ) တြင္ လည္း “လြတ္ေတာ္ကိုယ္စားလွယ္မ်ား၏ သံုးပံုႏွစ္ပံုေထာက္ခံမဲအေရအတြက္ျဖင့္ျပင္ဆင္ေရး

အခန္း (၁၅) တြင္

- ျပည္နယ္မ်ားတြင္ “ရံုးသံုးစာျမန္မာစာ” ႏွင့္အတူ သက္ဆုိင္ရာလူမ်ိဳးႀကီး၏ ဘာသာစာေပကို ရံုးသံုးစာအျဖစ္ပူးတြဲ အသံုး ျပဳေရး

ၿခံဳ၍တင္ျပရသံုးသပ္ရလွ်င္ ျပင္ေရး/မျပင္ေရး၊ မည္သည့္အခ်က္ ျပင္မည္/မျပင္မည္ဆိုသည့္ ကိစၥအားလံုးအတြက္ အဆံုးအျဖတ္ သည္ (ကာလံု) ႏွင့္ႀကံ့ဖြံ႔ပါတီ၏ လက္ထဲ တစ္နည္းအားျဖင့္ စတုတၱမ်ိဳးဆက္ စစ္အုပ္စုလက္ထဲတြင္ရွိေနေသာ အရာသာျဖစ္သည္။

“၁၉၄၇ အေျခခံဥပေဒ” ကို “စစ္မွန္ေသာ ျပည္ေထာင္စုဖြဲ႔စည္းပံုအေျခခံဥပေဒျဖစ္လာေစေရး၊ နစ္နာေနခဲ့ရေသာ တုိင္းရင္း သားလူမ်ိဳးမ်ား၊ ျပည္နယ္မ်ားအတြက္ တန္းတူေရးႏွင့္ ကိုယ္ပုိင္ျပ႒ာန္းခြင့္ရရွိေရးအတြက္ “၁၉၄၇အေျခခံဥပေဒေဘာင္အတြင္းမွ ”ျပင္ဆင္ရန္ ႀကိဳးပမ္းခဲ့ဖူးသည့္ သမုိင္းအေတြ႔အႀကံဳရွိခဲ့ပါသည္။ ၁၉၆၂ ခုႏွစ္၊ မတ္လ ၂ ရက္ေန႔တြင္ ဗိုလ္ေနဝင္း စစ္အုပ္စု၏ အာဏာသိမ္း ျခင္းျဖင့္ တစ္စခန္းရပ္ခဲ့ရပါသည္။

ထုိ႔အျပင္ “ေနာက္ေၾကာင္းျပန္လွည့္မည္” တနည္း “အာဏာသိမ္းမည္” ဟူေသာ တေစၦကလည္း ေျခာက္ေနဆဲျဖစ္ပါသည္။

“၂၀၀၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒ” ကို “၂၀၀၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒေဘာင္တြင္းမွ” ေန၍ ဒီမုိကေရစီျပည့္ဝၿပီး တန္းတူေရးႏွင့္ကိုယ္ပုိင္ျပ႒ာန္း ခြင့္ကိုတိက်စြာအာမခံႏုိင္မည့္ အေျခခံဥပေဒတစ္ရပ္အျဖစ္ သို႔မဟုတ္ ဒီမုိကေရစီစံခ်ိန္စံႏႈန္းမ်ားႏွင့္ တကယ္တန္းကုိက္ညီသည့္ အေျခခံ ဥပေဒ တစ္ရပ္သို႔ ေျပာင္းလဲျပင္ဆင္ေရး ဆုိသည္မွာ အပ္ဖ်ားေပၚ မုန္ညင္းေစ့တင္ရသည္ထက္ခက္ခဲသည့္ ကိစၥမ်ိဳးျဖစ္ေနပါသည္။

ၫြန္း

- အမ်ိဳးသားဒီမိုကေရစီအင္အားစုပါတီ (NDF) ၂၀၀၈ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပံု အေျခခံဥပေဒျပင္ဆင္ေရးႏွင့္ စပ္လ်ဥ္းသည့္သေဘာထား သေဘာထားေၾကညာခ်က္ အမွတ္ (၇/၂၀၁၃) ၊ ၂၀၁၃ ခုႏွစ္၊ ေမလ (၂၃) ရက္။

ကြ်န္မမွာ ခ်စ္သူ၀ိုင္း၀ိုင္းလည္

ကြ်န္မမွာ ခ်စ္သူ၀ိုင္း၀ိုင္းလည္
================

1999 ခုႏွစ္တုန္းက ဆရာၾကီး ဦးေစာဆိုင္မြန္သာက ေျပာျပခဲ့တာ။ ကုလားေတြဟာ တရုတ္ကိုေၾကာက္တယ္တဲ့။ တရုတ္ေတြကေတာ့ ဂ်ပန္ကိုေၾကာက္ပါတယ္တဲ့။ ဘာလို႔လဲဆရာလို႔ ေမးေတာ့ ကုလားေတြ ရပ္ကြက္ထဲ တရုတ္၀င္လာရင္ ရွိသမွ်စီးပြားေရး သိမ္းသြားတာပဲတဲ့။ အဲဒီလိုပဲ ဂ်ပန္၀င္လာရင္ တရုတ္ေတြ ေျပးရတာပဲတဲ့။ ဘာနဲ႔ ဆိုင္သလဲဆိုေတာ့ Neuro surgeon (ဦးေဏွာက္ႏွင့္ အာရုံေၾကာဆိုင္ရာ ခြဲစိတ္အထူး…ကုဆရာ၀န္) ပီပီ ေျဖပါတယ္။ Frontal Lobe ( ဦးေဏွာက္ေရွ့ဆံုးပိုင္း ဧရိယာ) အၾကီး အေသးနဲ႔ ဆိုင္ပါတယ္တဲ့။ အဲဒီတုန္းက ကိုယ့္ေခါင္းကို အသာျပန္စမ္းမိေသးတယ္။ အခုေတာ့လဲ သိေနျပီမို႔ မလိုေတာ့ပါဘူး။

European ေတြရဲ့ အေျပာတခုလည္း ဖတ္ဖူးေသးတယ္။ ငါတို႔က မ်ဳိးဆက္တဆက္စာပဲ စဥ္းစားတာ၊ ဂ်ပန္ေတြကေတာ့ မ်ဳိးဆက္ ၃ ဆက္စာစဥ္းစားတာ။ ဒါေၾကာင့္လဲ ငါတို႔ကိုေက်ာ္ျပီး နံပါတ္ ၃ ေနရာကို မ်ဳိးဆက္တခုအတြင္းမွာ ရသြားတာေပါ့တဲ့။

ရွာမွရွားတဲ့ စူပါဘရိန္း လီကြမ္ယုကလည္း ကုမၸဏီတခုတည္းေအာက္က စက္ရုံႏွစ္ရုံမွာေတာင္ ဂ်ပန္မန္ေနဂ်ာရွိတဲ့ စက္ရုံကထုတ္လုပ္မွဳသာတဲ့အေၾကာင္းေရးထားေသးတယ္။ ဂ်ပန္မန္ေနဂ်ာေတြက ေအာက္သက္ေၾကျပီး စက္ဆီေပမွာ မေၾကာက္ပဲ ေအာက္ေျခအလုပ္သမားေတြနဲ႔အတူ၀င္လုပ္ႏိုင္ လုိအပ္ခ်က္ကိုျဖည့္ဆည္းႏိုင္လို႔တဲ့။

မရုိးႏိုင္တဲ့ ဗမာဆံုးမစကားတခြန္းလဲ ရွိပါေသးတယ္။ တရုတ္လိုရွာ ကုလားလိုစု ဗမာလို မျဖဳန္းနဲ႔တဲ့။ တရုတ္ရယ္ ဗမာရယ္ ကုလားရယ္ စကၤာပူရယ္ ဂ်ပန္ရယ္ European ရယ္ ကိုမ်ား နံပါတ္စီလိုက္ၾကမယ္ဆိုရင္ —- ဒါေၾကာင့္ေျပာတာေပါ့။ သိျပီးသားမို႔ ေခါင္းကို စမ္းစရာ မလိုေတာ့ပါဘူးလို႔။

ၾကားဖူးနား၀ကို လက္ေတြ႔သိရတဲ့အခ်ိန္က်ေတာ့ သူတို႔ေျပာတာ အပိုမဟုတ္ဘူးဆိုတာ ျမင္လာပါတယ္။ ဆင္တေကာင္လံုးေတြ႔လို႔ ဆင္ေျခရာခံမိတာေပါ့ေလ။ JICA ဆိုတာ အရင္က NGO အဖြဲ႔အစည္းတခုလို႔ပဲ နားလည္ခဲ့တာ။ ဂ်ပန္ေဆးရုံသစ္ၾကီးေဆာက္ေပးတဲ့အဖြဲ႔ေပါ့။ သူတို႔ေပးခဲ့တဲ့ ေရခဲေသတၱာေတြ ေနာက္တႏွစ္လာစစ္ေတာ့ ေဆးရုံထဲမွာမရွိဘဲ ေဆးရုံလူၾကီးအိမ္ေရာက္ေနတဲ့အေၾကာင္း၊ သူတို႔ေပးခဲ့တဲ့ ကုတင္ေပၚမွာ ေပ်ာ္ေပ်ာ္ပါးပါးအိပ္ရင္းနဲ႔ အလုပ္သင္ ညဂ်ဳတီအတူဆင္းခဲ့တဲ့ သူငယ္ခ်င္းေတြေတာင္ လြမ္းမိပါေသး။ ေနာက္တခါ ၾကားရျပန္တာက JICA က ကုသိုလ္ျဖစ္ေဆးခန္းေတြကို ေဆးလွဴမွာတဲ့။ သာဓုပါရွင္။ ဟုိတေန႔ကမွ သိတယ္။ ၁၅ ႏွစ္လံုးလံုး JICA တကယ္လုပ္ေနတဲ့အလုပ္က တေန႔မွာ ဖြ႔ံျဖိဳးလာမယ့္ျမန္မာျပည္မွာ ရင္းႏွီးျမဳပ္ႏွံႏိုင္မယ့္ ေနရာေတြ၊ သတင္းေတြ၊ စီးပြားကြက္ေတြနဲ႔ စီးပြားဖက္ေတြကို ရွာေဖြစုေဆာင္းထားဖို႔တဲ့။ ျမတ္စြာဘုရား။ တို႔မ်ားျမန္မာျပည္ကို ဖြံ႔ျဖိဳးဖို႔ ေမွ်ာ္လင့္ေနတာ တို႔ေတြခ်ည္းပဲမွတ္ေနတာ။ အင္းေလ –နံပါတ္စဥ္ထဲမွာ ဘိတ္ခ်ီးဆိုေတာ့လဲ ထိပ္ဆံုးကေကာင္ ဘာလုပ္လဲ မသိႏိုင္တာ မထူးဆန္းပါ။

သြားရင္းလာရင္းနဲ႔ ကမၻာေအးဘုရားလမ္းေပၚမွာ ဂ်ပန္ဘဏ္ခြဲတခု ဖြင့္လွစ္တာကို သတိထားမိပါတယ္။ သတင္းစာထဲမွာလည္း ဆီဒိုးနားဟုိတယ္မွာ ဂ်ပန္စီးပြားေရးရုးံခြဲတခု ဖြင့္လွစ္ေၾကာင္းနဲ႔ အကူအညီ အၾကံဥာဏ္လိုအပ္တဲ့ ဂ်ပန္စီးပြားေရးသမားမ်ားကို ကူညီမယ့္အျပင္ ရုံးခန္းတလခြဲဖြင့္ခြင့္ကိုေတာင္ အလကားေပးဦးမယ္တဲ့။

သံလ်င္တံတားအဆင္းက Star City စီမံကိန္းေနရာကို လြန္ခဲ့တဲ့လက မိတ္ေဆြတေယာက္နဲ႔ ေရာက္သြားပါတယ္။ တကယ္ေဆာက္ေနတဲ့ ကြန္ဒို အေဆာက္အဦးက ၂ ခုထဲပဲရွိေသးတာပါ။ အေရာင္းျပခန္းကေတာ့ န၀ေဒးအိမ္ယာ ျပခန္းထက္ေတာင္ အပံုၾကီးသာပါတယ္။ အခန္းေတြ နမူနာဖြဲ႔ျပထားျပီး ထိုင္းဒီဇိုင္နာက ဆင္ေပးထားေတာ့ ျမင္တာနဲ႔တင္ လိုခ်င္စရာ။ အရစ္က် ေငြေခ်စနစ္ကို အံုနဲ႔က်င္းနဲ႔ ၀ိုင္း၀ယ္ေနတဲ့လူေတြကေတာ့ ဂ်ပန္ေတြပါ။ ကြ်န္မတို႔လို ျမန္မာေတြကေတာ့ သြားေရက်ရုံထက္ မပိုပါဘူး။ ဘယ့္ႏွယ္ ဒီေလာက္က်ဥ္းတဲ့ စတုရန္း ေပ ၉၀၀ အခန္းေလးကို သိန္း ၈၀၀ တဲ့။ ရန္ကုန္ျမိဳ႔ထဲကအခန္းေတြ ေစ်းထက္မ်ားေနျပီ။ ပတ္၀န္းက်င္လမ္းေတြ ေရကန္ေတြ ပန္းျခံေတြကေတာ့ အျပတ္အသတ္သာတာေပါ့ေလ။ ဟုိဘက္က သီလ၀ါစီမံကိန္းကို ၁၅ မိနစ္ေလာက္သာ သြားရေတာ့မွာမို႔ အလုပ္လာလုပ္ၾကမယ့္ ဂ်ပန္မ်ားေနဖို႔ ရည္ရြယ္ေဆာက္လုပ္ပါတယ္တဲ့။ ေဆာက္လုပ္ေရးက တာ၀န္ခံမန္ေနဂ်ာက စကၤာပူလူမ်ဳိးပါ။ လိုခ်င္လွခ်ည္ တကဲကဲျဖစ္ေနတဲ့ ေမေမ့ကို အေ၀းၾကီးပါေမေမရယ္၊ ေနႏိုင္မွာမဟုတ္ပါဘူးလို႔ ညာတာပါေတးေခ်ာ့ေခၚလာခဲ့တယ္။ အဲဒီအထိလဲ ေလာကၾကီးဘာျဖစ္ေနမွန္း မသိေသးပါဘူး။

ပန္တင္းေခါင္းေလွ်ာ္ရည္ ေၾကာ္ျငာလိုပဲေျပာရေတာ့မယ္။ ခုေတာ့ ကြ်န္မသိျပီ။ ကိုကို ဂ်ပန္မ်ားသာ အလည္ဆံုး အေတာ္ဆံုးဆိုတာ။ အခုဘာသာျပန္မယ့္ ေဆာင္းပါးကို ဖတ္မိသြားတာမို႔ပါ။ သမၼတဦးသိန္းစိန္က လက္ယပ္ေခၚျပီး ၀ါတာနာဘဲစံ မင္းကိုေပးစရာတခုရွိသတဲ့။ ဒီတကြက္ထဲနဲ႔တင္ ၁၅ ႏွစ္ရင္းႏွီးခဲ့ရသမွ် တန္ပါေပ့လို႔ ဆိုရမွာပါပဲ။ အေၾကြးေတြမဆပ္နဲ႔ေတာ့လို႔ ျပံဳးျပံဳးကေလးေျပာသြားတာအျပင္ ေနာက္ထပ္လည္း ထပ္ေခ်းဦးမွာတဲ့။ ဟုတ္ကဲ့ ေက်းဇူးၾကီးလွပါေပရဲ့ရွင္။ အေပၚမွာ နိဒါန္းခ်ီထားသမွ် မွန္ မမွန္ေဆာင္းပါးေလးဖတ္ျပီး ေ၀ဖန္ၾကည့္ၾကပါဦး။ ( Reuters (အေမရိကန္သတင္းဌာန) မွာ ၂.၁၀.၁၂ ေန႔မွာ ေဖာ္ျပခဲ့တဲ့ ေဆာင္းပါးရွင္ အန္တိုနီ စလိုေကာ့စကီးရဲ့ လက္ရာျဖစ္ပါတယ္။)

ဂ်ပန္မ်ား၏ ျမန္မာျပည္သို႔ တိတ္တဆိတ္ ခ်ီတက္ျခင္း

So doing nothing is not an option. Where foreign governments cannot or will not effectively stop terrorism in their territory. (Obama on Terrorism)

So doing nothing is not an option. Where foreign governments cannot or will not effectively stop terrorism in their territory, the primary alternative to targeted lethal action would be the use of conventional military options. As I’ve already said, even small special operations carry enormous risks. Conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and are likely to cause more civilian casualties and more local outrage. And invasions of these territories lead us to be viewed as occupying armies, unleash a torrent of unintended consequences, are difficult to contain, result in large numbers of civilian casualties and ultimately empower those who thrive on violent conflict. http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2013/05/23/president-obama-speaks-us-counterterrorism-strategy#transcript

So it is false to assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to result in civilian deaths or less likely to create enemies in the Muslim world. The results would be more U.S. deaths, more Black Hawks down, more confrontations with local populations, and an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily escalate into new wars.

Yes, the conflict with al Qaeda, like all armed conflict, invites tragedy. But by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life.

Our efforts must be measured against the history of putting American troops in distant lands among hostile populations. In Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of civilians died in a war where the boundaries of battle were blurred. In Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the extraordinary courage and discipline of our troops, thousands of civilians have been killed. So neither conventional military action nor waiting for attacks to occur offers moral safe harbor, and neither does a sole reliance on law enforcement in territories that have no functioning police or security services — and indeed, have no functioning law.

Now, this is not to say that the risks are not real. Any U.S. military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies and impacts public opinion overseas. Moreover, our laws constrain the power of the President even during wartime, and I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. The very precision of drone strikes and the necessary secrecy often involved in such actions can end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. It can also lead a President and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism.

And for this reason, I’ve insisted on strong oversight of all lethal action. After I took office, my administration began briefing all strikes outside of Iraq and Afghanistan to the appropriate committees of Congress. Let me repeat that: Not only did Congress authorize the use of force, it is briefed on every strike that America takes. Every strike. That includes the one instance when we targeted an American citizen — Anwar Awlaki, the chief of external operations for AQAP.

This week, I authorized the declassification of this action, and the deaths of three other Americans in drone strikes, to facilitate transparency and debate on this issue and to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims that have been made. For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen — with a drone, or with a shotgun — without due process, nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.

But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team.

That’s who Anwar Awlaki was — he was continuously trying to kill people. He helped oversee the 2010 plot to detonate explosive devices on two U.S.-bound cargo planes. He was involved in planning to blow up an airliner in 2009. When Farouk Abdulmutallab — the Christmas Day bomber — went to Yemen in 2009, Awlaki hosted him, approved his suicide operation, helped him tape a martyrdom video to be shown after the attack, and his last instructions were to blow up the airplane when it was over American soil. I would have detained and prosecuted Awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot, but we couldn’t. And as President, I would have been derelict in my duty had I not authorized the strike that took him out.

Of course, the targeting of any American raises constitutional issues that are not present in other strikes — which is why my administration submitted information about Awlaki to the Department of Justice months before Awlaki was killed, and briefed the Congress before this strike as well. But the high threshold that we’ve set for taking lethal action applies to all potential terrorist targets, regardless of whether or not they are American citizens. This threshold respects the inherent dignity of every human life. Alongside the decision to put our men and women in uniform in harm’s way, the decision to use force against individuals or groups — even against a sworn enemy of the United States — is the hardest thing I do as President. But these decisions must be made, given my responsibility to protect the American people.

Going forward, I’ve asked my administration to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones that go beyond our reporting to Congress. Each option has virtues in theory, but poses difficulties in practice. For example, the establishment of a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal action has the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process, but raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and judicial authority. Another idea that’s been suggested — the establishment of an independent oversight board in the executive branch — avoids those problems, but may introduce a layer of bureaucracy into national security decision-making, without inspiring additional public confidence in the process. But despite these challenges, I look forward to actively engaging Congress to explore these and other options for increased oversight.

I believe, however, that the use of force must be seen as part of a larger discussion we need to have about a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy — because for all the focus on the use of force, force alone cannot make us safe. We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the wellspring of extremism, a perpetual war — through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments — will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways.

So the next element of our strategy involves addressing the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism — from North Africa to South Asia. As we’ve learned this past decade, this is a vast and complex undertaking. We must be humble in our expectation that we can quickly resolve deep-rooted problems like poverty and sectarian hatred. Moreover, no two countries are alike, and some will undergo chaotic change before things get better. But our security and our values demand that we make the effort.

This means patiently supporting transitions to democracy in places like Egypt and Tunisia and Libya — because the peaceful realization of individual aspirations will serve as a rebuke to violent extremists. We must strengthen the opposition in Syria, while isolating extremist elements — because the end of a tyrant must not give way to the tyranny of terrorism. We are actively working to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians — because it is right and because such a peace could help reshape attitudes in the region. And we must help countries modernize economies, upgrade education, and encourage entrepreneurship — because American leadership has always been elevated by our ability to connect with people’s hopes, and not simply their fears.

And success on all these fronts requires sustained engagement, but it will also require resources. I know that foreign aid is one of the least popular expenditures that there is. That’s true for Democrats and Republicans