Burma: Land grabbing not "in accordance with law"

AHRC-STM-243-2013
December 17, 2013

Over the course of
2013 the Asian Human Rights Commission has followed reports
of a larger number of conflicts over land grabs and
attempted grabs in Burma, or Myanmar. Some of the conflicts
are over recently taken land, and others are reinitiating
struggles begun many years ago. These land grabs include the
well-known expansion of the Letpadaung Hills copper mine in
Salingyi Township, Sagaing Region, under a joint project of
the armed forces' holding company and a Chinese partner; the
conflict between farmers and police in Ma-Ubin, in the
delta, over the taking of land by a private firm with
backing of local officials; and, a land grab by the police
force itself in Nattalin Township, Bago Region.

Most
recently, news reports and online sites have detailed how
villagers in Migyaunggan, Mandalay Region, have begun
protesting to reclaim land taken from them by an army
detachment. The local administration and cantonment board
have issued warnings to protestors to desist with their
actions. Meantime, senior officials have come to investigate
the complaints about the land and learned that the army has
no documentation to show that it is entitled to occupy the
contested area.

Under noxious laws passed in 2010, prior
to the transfer of power to the current semi-elected
government in Burma, the army retains authority to designate
and use land for a variety of purposes. In the case of the
Cantonment Municipalities Law, No. 32/2010, the armed forces
can establish bodies for the management of land designated
as being part of cantonment towns. Under the Facilities and
Operations for National Defence Law of the same year, the
armed forces can issue designations concerning land under or
adjacent to their facilities.

Such laws were passed with a
view to ensuring the continued control by the military of
large areas of land in Burma. But even with such laws and
such intentions, as in earlier years, authorities have shown
themselves incapable of acting "in accordance with law",
irrespective of whether the law has been passed in the
interests of the military or not. The authorities in
Migyaunggan issued warnings supposedly in accordance with
the former law; however, they have no authority to do so,
since the concerned land is not part of a cantonment. An
order under the latter law requires the order of a
department of defence director general to have effect and so
far as the AHRC is aware no such order has yet been
issued.

Meanwhile, participants in protests against land
grabbing who are unable or who decline to obtain
authorisation for their assemblies under the Peaceful
Assembly and Marching Law, No. 15/2011, end up in a
revolving door situation, being charged, prosecuted and
imprisoned for offences under that law and the Penal Code,
released on orders from the president or other senior
figures, again demonstrating and repeating the process all
over. Out of 41 political prisoners released a few days ago,
fully half were people detained in the period of political
reform, most of them for participating in demonstrations, or
organising events.

Together, these events indicate that
despite the extensive political changes taking place in
Burma, many old habits are continuing under new guises.
While the government increasingly insists that things be
done according to law, the facts suggest otherwise.
Administrators and other officials are on the one hand
working harder to give an impression that they have the
legal authority to continue with the practices of the past,
but on the other hand they are continuing to fail to come up
to even the minimal domestic standards required of them.
Laws on the books offer extensive opportunities for the
military to protect its interests; notwithstanding, military
and civilian personnel alike struggle to conform to even
with the minimal standards of such odious
legislation.

Little in any of this suggests a capacity or
even willingness on behalf of the army in Burma and its
collaborators to start doing things "in accordance with law"
during the new democratic period, despite the many claims we
hear to the contrary, including those professing a newfound
concern for the rule of law from among persons and
institutions who hitherto had demonstrated no such concern.
None of it is to say that conditions have not changed over
the last couple of years. Indeed, it is no longer possible
for the army in most parts of Burma simply to go and seize
land and use it however it likes. But nor is it yet possible
to talk of people being able to resist the incursion and
domination of the army and other state institutions in
matters of land and livelihood. For so long as the voices of
people in places like Salingyi, Nattalin, Ma-Ubin and
Migyaunggan continue to be ignored, or muffled under
procedures, regulations and injunctions issued to give a
false impression of legality in the continued grabbing of
land, it will not be possible to talk meaningfully about
democracy and the rule of law in
Burma.

ENDS

© Scoop Media

http://www.information.myanmaronlinecentre.com/burma-land-grabbing-not-in-accordance-with-law-2/