Examination of Witnesses (Questins 180-191)
MR MAUNG
MAUNG
21 JUNE 2007
Q180 Mr Singh: Have the sanctions
so far helped in any way in terms of promoting this dialogue?
Mr Maung: I have to correct the
question because there are no trade sanctions on Burma from the
EU. The visa ban is only a visa ban. Britain alone has more than
40 million net imports from Burma on a yearly basis. France, Germany
and Italy have more than that. There are more imports coming from
Burma to Europe. If these things are taken up by the government,
just like America has done, because America has an executive position
where there is no business with Burma, it covers especially the
financial area where the regime does not have the excuse to use
dollars in the exchange, which stops them from having money. That
is used as a cover by the regime when they use narcotics money
and all the other money that comes from other areas. This is what
they are using to build up the nuclear plant and build a new capital
without increasing the health or education budget. That is why
we are saying that we have to put up the pressure and sanctions
on the regime.
Q181 John Bercow: So far as the sanctions
are concerned, am I not right in thinking that the pressure that
is coming from supporters of sanctions is really for sanctions
in respect of gems and timber? There is a discontent with existing
EU sanctions which, apart from the visa ban, I think if memory
serves me correctly, have affected only a very small joint venture
in the pineapple juice sector and a tailor's shop somewhere in
Rangoon which does not of itself seem likely to bring the regime
to a situation where it is quaking in its boots. Presumably what
you are arguing for—tell me if I am wrong—is sanctions
targeted on sectors that are sources of funds for the military?
Mr Maung: Yes. We have a timber
enterprise that exports to Britain. If you look, you will see
that the majority of those timber exports came from just one company,
called Timber Enterprise, which happens to be owned by the son-in-law
of General Than Shwe. You have to go a bit lower down the ladder
to see who is really controlling these exports. If you look at
livestock being imported to Britain, you will find this is being
done by a holding company called Burma Economic Holdings. It cannot
be understood if it is taken as a holding company in the common
sense. Burma Economic Holdings was set up by the military, 100
per cent owned and operated by the military. That has to be stopped
from getting any money for the regime.
Q182 John Bercow: What in your judgment
can exile groups do to assist both IDPs and refugees on the borders?
Why do they deserve donor funding, if they do? What is your assessment
of the United Nations operation? Do you believe that the UN at
the moment, in respect of Burma, is an effective donor coordinator?
Have you been consulted by Charles Petrie[2]
or others?
Mr Maung: The refugee programmes
are being supported by this thing called the Thai-Burma Border
Consortium, which is doing a fine job. On the cross-border support
for the IDPs, we have registered with us over 1,500 teachers who
are working in those areas through teaching programmes where there
are up to 300 people being taught by the teachers. This is what
we are doing at the moment. These are not funded. Then we have
over 3,000 medics who have been trained by international NGOs
like MSF or ICRC[3]
on the border. These are people who have been providing health
assistance to the IDPs inside Burma. We are asking that this be
done from outside. Especially for the medics, there is an argument
about the accountability. I have asked people to please come and
look at that because those are being funded by the Norwegian Government.
These are Norwegian audits. There is no problem with accountability
or the technical capability because they have been trained by
international NGOs and doctors. We can do this programme. We have
been doing it. We can multiply it more. We would like to be funded.
On the UN agencies, the NLD in Burma has sent out two people before
I came here. I came here from Geneva and I asked them what they
wanted to have. They sent out two people on 2 May and I was briefed
that Rurik[4]
is doing a good job. He has professionalism. He has complained
about the monitoring activities that have been given to the township
education officers and he is having a problem with monitoring
there. That is what I was told. The other thing is about the UN
programmes. We have a personal problem with Charles Petrie. We
do not want him there any more. He is now in America. He is trying
to work like an advocate for the regime. He was trying to tell
the regime how to deal with the ILO[5].
That is not his job. He is now trying to tell the world that the
regime can be driven to dialogue by working with them. That is
not his task. His task is in Burma, coordinating UN agencies and
that is what he should be told to do. We believe that he should
do his job. Donor governments need to tell him to stay put in
his place and do his job and not do the political lobbying.
Q183 Sir Robert Smith: You mention the
ILO. One of the big concerns behind internal displacement is forced
labour. A report in 2006 suggested one-third of the IDPs surveyed
had experienced forced labour. I understand that the ILO have
entered into a trial agreement this year to have a method of dealing
with forced labour with the regime. Have you had any feedback
on how that trial is going?
Mr Maung: We have been involved
with the ILO since 1992. The last supplementary agreement that
was signed on 26 February is just a supplementary agreement. The
reason is that the regime still has to carry out the four recommendations
given by the ILO Commission of Inquiry and Commission of Experts,
which are to eradicate forced labour, to take action against those
who use forced labour, to have proper media advertisement in the
country and to change the law that allows forced labour. The regime
still has to carry out these requirements set by the ILO in 2000.
We are happy that there are 25 cases that were reported to the
ILO Office and those people were not arrested. This means that
at least the ILO is here. The regime has not kicked them out and,
because of the pressure from the ILO, the regime is stepping back
and allowing the people to come and do the reporting. This year
we gave them over 3,100 forced labour cases. It is a big difference
from 25 cases to 3,000 but from our side we are happy that the
international organisation is there and is able to take in complaints.
We are pushing our people in the country to start more interaction
with the ILO. We are trying to talk to the ILO, for the ILO to
tell the UN agencies, because the ILO is only in Rangoon. The
other UN agencies are all over Burma. Being part of the UN system,
all the UN agencies like the UNDP or Unicef or the FAO[6]
who have offices in the field take responsibility as part of the
UN and this is how we are trying to drive the ILO also.
Q184 Sir Robert Smith: Is there anything
DFID could do to support the work of the ILO?
Mr Maung: Of course. We would
be really happy if DFID said they were going to invest in the
field. If they were just to take letters and just be the postmen,
that would be really effective and helpful for the people.
Q185 Ann McKechin: Your own Federation[7]
has had to go underground because it is a banned organisation
in Burma. The Burmese Government are still to have a legislative
framework prepared allowing free trade unions which is one of
the key ILO principles. I wonder to what extent donors such as
DFID support the process in terms of trying to encourage dialogue
with the Burmese authorities about this or working together with
the ILO to put additional pressure on. How do you think donors
can best help you?
Mr Maung: Donors can help us by
helping us extend the programmes that we are doing across the
country. I have been physically or legally outside the country
for 18 years. I am a terrorist according to the regime. I am not
allowed to go back into Burma. My wife and son are still back
in Burma. I do cross the border to give training on programmes
around what a trade union is, how to organise trade unions, what
are the rules of a trade union, what are the rules of the members
of the trade union and trade union financing. This is what we
have done since 1992. We can do more of that. If this can be supported
from Thailand so that we can do it across the border, we would
be really happy. It would be good if DFID takes up the challenge
of asking the regime, "What is the problem with having a
trade union in Burma?" I do not know how the regime will
respond because they still have this law, 6/88, where it denies
any kind of trade union or workers' association or even if you
are thinking of having a trade union you can be sent to jail for
three years. We still have members who have spent 27 years in
jail. It would be good if we were helped on the border so that
we can extend the programme.
Q186 Ann McKechin: There is clearly
evidence of child labour and poor working conditions. IDPs and
ethnic minorities have been very vulnerable in the work situation.
Everyone that we have interviewed in the course of the inquiry
has pointed to the lack of firm data. Is there any attempt being
made by the ILO in some way to try and map out what the current
situation is with regard to the world of work within Burma and
which industries or which areas of the country are where the most
vulnerable workers are likely to be located?
Mr Maung: The ILO has not done
that. We have our own report on the situation of Burma which we
gave to the ICFTU.[8]
We have an annual report that goes to the ITUC[9]
on workers' rights and workplace conditions and health and safety
standards. In Thailand, where there are about two million migrants
from Burma, we are working with our trade union to map out the
situation of migrants, especially the child migrant workers. We
already have a report that we have done with the ILO on child
migrant workers in the garment and textile factories. These are
the kinds of things that we can do. One of the things that we
are looking at is working with the ILO to have a programme within
the refugee camps so that those between the ages of 18 to 35 can
be given vocational training and then work it out with the Thai
Government to help them to work in Thailand.
Q187 John Bercow: Just to be absolutely
clear, the FTUB could do with a little bit of financial support
to extend its programmes, could it not?
Mr Maung: Yes.
Q188 John Bercow: At the risk of
being indelicate about it, may I ask you for the avoidance of
doubt what discussion, if any, have you had with DFID on this
point? Have they initiated any?
Mr Maung: No, we have not talked
about that. We talked last year with Martin Leach[10]
briefly on the need for funds.
Q189 Richard Burden: Could I ask you
something about your assessment of what the future holds? In some
of the evidence we have had so far, two messages have come over
from different people. On one level, there is the fact that the
humanitarian situation in many ways is getting worse, not better.
The regime is becoming more intolerant of opposing voices, not
less and the repression is in many ways getting worse. Alongside
that, there is an optimism that things are going to get better,
that the regime is vulnerable and that, if the international community
got its act together it could come about fairly quickly. What
is your view on that? Where do you see the future going?
Mr Maung: I am always optimistic.
That is why I have been able to work alone for the last 18 years.
We are working on the ground and we have seen improvements. If
you look at the newspapers, you can see that there have been protests
in Rangoon over the last 18 months. This is something that did
not come about by itself. People came to talk about international
aid and there was a unit that was talking about HIV. Then we had
a group of people protesting in Rangoon about general hardship.
They were putting up posters telling the regime, "We have
problems with the food." Then we had people asking for the
annual election results. Then we had people coming with dossiers,
photo prints with addresses coming to the pagodas and things like
that. These are activities that have emerged over the last six
months. The regime is intolerant but it is also in a very desperate
situation. They are supposed to be in the new capital technically.
Everything is supposed to be there technically but it does not
work because we do not have the kind of communication that is
here. We do not have a fax or the Internet so you can have answers
directly within 30 seconds. You have to go by train and people
still have to depend on the buses. Things do not work. Things
are falling apart within the bureaucratic system. On the ground,
people have been analysing these things also and people have found
out that if we talk about political issues, if we come out with
our own issues, talking about hardships, where farmers get together
and talk about not having rice to eat, where students are just
talking about the education system, where HIV patients just talk
about HIV issues, there is no way that the regime can crack down
and put everybody into jail. Su Su Nway, a young lady and a workers'
rights activist, has been released I think for the third time.
She was arrested. There was international awareness and she was
released. There is this kind of situation coming up in Burma.
People always used to say that there was no activity in Burma.
There is activity within Burma. If we look at the regional issues,
we see something called the ASEAN[11]
interparliamentary conference which is now getting the ASEAN governments
to talk strongly on Burma. If you look at the American Government
or the UN Security Council, Burma is present here so all these
things put together mean that there is something coming together.
Within the system where they talk about the national constitution
and national convention, the ethnic organisations have put out
a paper asking the regime to change certain things, to which the
regime has not responded. The ethnic nationalities are very disappointed.
A ceasefire group that attended the convention came up and we
are having this kind of situation. We have the ILO there so I
would say that I am optimistic. Change is coming and we just need
to get our act together and put in a concentrated effort.
Q190 Chairman: How do you respond to
the comment that if the international community imposed sanctions,
isolated the regime—they are still effectively supported
by China and India and Russia, who are building a nuclear power
station, and therefore you would not bring them down? Secondly,
the people inside—this is the role of the development agencies—are
simply in desperate straits and somehow or other you have to reach
them. How do you respond to that?
Mr Maung: Korea is not helping
the regime with nuclear issues. We do not know about Russia. It
is too far away and we need governments to help with them. I have
been invited to go to Hunan Province and talk with China. They
are interested in us. We asked them to come to our headquarters
and two of them came from the Research Bureau. They spoke perfect
Burmese. They go in and out of Rangoon. They came to talk with
us. We talked about our programmes and they asked me to get a
visa in Washington and come to Hunan Province, so this is what
we will be doing. We believe that we are making inroads because
the Chinese are disappointed with the narcotics. Although the
trade is there, narcotics in Hunan Province are not stopped by
the regime. We understand when Than Shwe went to China that the
first thing he was told was about the narcotics issue on the China/Burma
border. Where you have narcotics you have HIV so this is a big
problem with Hunan Province and this is why China is starting
to interact with us a little bit. We are happy that this is taking
place. In the international arenas, the ILO is not speaking out
very much. It is quite surprising. Normally, they would stand
up and defend the regime. They did not, so we are seeing some
small changes with Thailand. In India, for information, we are
being hosted already by two people at a certain level, in a closed
door environment, so we are having discussions with them also.
We are improving with both China and India. Russia? I do not know
and not Korea. We need to have governments talking to North Korea
also.
Q191 Richard Burden: Could I ask
you to think about the possible problems if progress does start
to be being made and how yourselves, the rest of the opposition
and the international community respond to some progress? If you
are correct, there have been many examples of the Burmese people
asserting themselves in all sorts of different ways which is causing
the regime some problems. If one of the ways the regime responds
to that is, in a particular humanitarian area, to start talking,
to start cooperating whilst maintaining that repression in another
area, that does present some problems potentially to the opposition.
You have said that your demand is for dialogue. Let us say that
in a particular area the regime said, "Okay, we will talk
and we will talk about this particular issue" or they say
to another opposition group, "We will talk about this particular
issue." For good, pragmatic reasons of relieving a particular
problem or a particular humanitarian crisis in a particular part
of the country, that opposition group or maybe that international
agency does that. Is there not a real risk that that will then
cause, amongst other opposition groups, for the international
agency amongst the opposition, the allegation that they are going
soft on the regime, that they are not serious; they are letting
the regime off the hook, or perhaps that they are effectively
just doing what the regime wants? Do we not see some of those
things happening already? How do we get over that? A small amount
of progress is good but it brings problems with it.
Mr Maung: From what I understand,
as a trade union we have a very small example. That is the ILO.
The ILO has been interacting with us, talking with the regime,
causing it to have an office, causing it not to arrest people
and that is working. If international agencies were to do that,
I do not see any problem. This is progress from 1992 when they
were saying, "There is no forced labour. We will not accept
what you are doing", to having an office, having a dialogue.
I have been having meetings with the ILO Director-General and
they know that. I do not think there is any problem with that.
If we are transparent, we can have the process. We do not see
any problem with working with the regime. If somebody does it,
it has to be transparent. The ILO is transparent; it is a tripartite
dialogue; it is a transparent body. The UN has is its own particular
thing. We do not have any involvement on this issue but otherwise
if it is transparent I believe it can be done.
Chairman: Thank you very much. It has
been a very interesting session. As you will appreciate, we now
want to take evidence from ministers and you are of course welcome
to stay for that evidence. Thank you for what you have shared.
It has added another dimension to what we have heard. I am not
sure that we have any clearer answers but it is a very complicated
situation and it is really important that we hear from the widest
variety of people who are engaged. The personal cost to you to
be involved in it is something the Committee will definitely respect
because, to fight for your country in exile, separated from your
family, over the period of time you have had to do it, is obviously
no small personal sacrifice. Thank you for giving evidence.
2 UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator, Burma Back
3
Me«decins Sans Frontie"res; International Committee
of the Red Cross. Back
4
Rurik Marsden, First Secretary, DFID, British Embassy, Rangoon. Back
5
International Labour Organisation. Back
6
UN Development Programme; UN Children's Fund; UN Food and Agriculture
Organisation. Back
7
Federation of Trade Unions Burma. Back
8
International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. Back
9
International Trade Union Confederation. Back
10
Head of Director's Office, Europe, Middle East, Americas, Central
and East Asia Division (EMAAD), DFID. Back
11
Association of SouthEast Asian Nations. Back
| 
