The following abuses of the election polling station rules fall in to several categories that are briefly detailed below. Predominately all abuse of election and polling rules came from either government staff or pro-government USDP members. Government staff included polling station employees, soldiers, administrative staff and members of the election commission (EC) that have dictated rules throughout the entire period of this election.

Abuses ranged through 5 predominant categories, all resulting in either a vote for the pro-government party, a loss of a vote for the opposition, or failure to address in anyway blatant violations of election and polling station rules. Cases of intimidation of opposition voters were mostly carried out by USDP members with large numbers of members grouped in key areas, or though intimidating language or action. Similarly in cases of partial security and staff, polling station staff, guards, and USDP members would openly pressure voters to support the USDP by, or attempt to drive opposition voters away. In cases of ballot manipulation polling both staff or USDP members either pressured voters to support the USDP, or they actively filled in ballots for voters with votes for the USDP despite a voters possible preference for another party. In cases of voting record manipulation polling station staff and possibly members of the election commission appeared to have lost crucial lists of valid voters who were subsequently unable to vote when they arrived, or voters found they have been listed as advanced voters and denied a ballot as votes had been cast in their name by unidentified person. In the same category civilians reported cases where large numbers of ‘advanced votes’ appeared at the beginning of the day, or the end, that overwhelmingly favored the USDP. Lastly, in cases where polling staff or USDP members were either intimidating voters or using voters ballots to cast votes for the USDP, no serious effort was made or action was taken by area election commission to stop abuses of election rules and the manipulation of votes.

All off the accounts were gathered on November 7^th as polling events unfolded, or the day after when victims of abuse were able to speak with HURFOM’s field reporters. The interviews were collected in 5 townships in Mon State– Mudon, Kyaikmayaw, Thanbyuzayart, Ye and Chaung Zone over two days. Given the widespread and fractured nature of reporting on the November 7^th election in the sever security conditions set by SPDC, these accounts provide a strong clear sampling of abuses more widely practiced throughout Burma.

November 7

7:00 AM – Wattae village, Mudon Township, Mon State

Min Thet Naung (not real name), 30, a resident Wattae village, Mudon Township, Mon State resident and a workshop worker described witnessing USDP violations of poling station rules through and intimidation of voters:

Since 7:00 am, the USDP (members) were active at the No. 1 polling station wearing diaq pouns with green longis[1] or ordinary clothes.  Around 7:30 am, I don’t know whether (they) got the poll station officer’s permission or not; U Cho, a member of Wattae VPDC, and 3 members were found entering the poll station wearing USDA diaq pouns.  In reality, no one is supposed to interfere without permission, except poll station workers and voters.  What happened next is those persons began shouting ‘The right mark is beside the Lion.  Support the Lion.  The Lion!  The Lion Logo!’ , which was intended to pressure the prominent persons and locals who came to vote.  The other party members were unhappy with what happened.  Especially, [the members of] the All Mon Region Democracy Party, who reported [the event] to the polling station officer.  However, the poll station officer passed [the case] to the Township Commission.  These cases continued up until 9:00 am.  After analyzing, it was found that the USDP members were very afraid of their rivals, the AMRDP[2].  Since 7:00 am, the locals had predominantly voted for the Mon party.  It seemed that their [USDP] informants [likely poling staff] in the poll station informed some USDP members and the VPDC authorities of [the AMRDP success].  As I guess, up to two weeks prior to the election, Mon citizens had already proclaimed that any party except the Mon party would not win.  It was not a surprise that the locals had mostly voted for the Mon party on the voting day of [November] 7.  At that time, it was possible that the USDP [members] entered the poll station and pressured the citizens because they knew that they were in a bad situation.  Anyhow, based on the fact that they conducted the campaigns with government support, [they collected] the early votes, and that they had the right to interfere at the polling station manipulate the votes on the last day…no one could deny that they are not the government party.  The advanced vote collecting was not include in the aforementioned interference and election manipulation.  Everybody knows that according to the votes the USDP got on the 7th, they would lose to the Mon party by a landslide if the advanced votes were not included.

7:45 AM – Kaw-Kha-Loe village, Mudon Township

A local election monitor who visited poling stations in several villages in Mudown Township, Mon State, described situations in which there had been cases of ballot manipulation and intimidation by the USDP members and polling station staff at the poll stations:

As I knew, at the Kaw-Kha-Loe polling station of Mudon Township, the members of the USDP robbed the ballot paper from the voters and made marks in the USDP’s places.  They stayed in front of the poll stations.  Even some of them were going into and out of the poll stations [without IDs][3].  It could not be differentiated clearly between [who were] USDP members and poll station workers.  The way [of election abuse] I encountered was ballot manipulation.  [This case] occurred at 7:40 am.  Daw Htay Hla of Nyaung Gone polling station No. 2, who was responsible for checking [the voters' list and delivering the ballot papers, urged the voters to vote for the USDP. I definitely heard [her say this].  Some voters made their marks in the Lion’s square with fear[4], and some had to reluctantly make their marks in the square she [Daw Htay Hla] pointed at, without getting [to go to a] voting room.  It is not acceptable that the poll station workers themselves said to vote for the USDP.  It is significant that some of the poll station workers had already pressured by the USDP members.”

8:00 AM – Kamawet village, Mudon Township

Several residents of Kamawet village reported to a HURFOM field reporter a case of ballot manipulation and voting record manipulation that led to 64% of the villages eligible voters being unable to vote. Prior to the election, Kamawet village had 2500 eligible voters listed on election documents, according to residents. On election day only 900 of the valid voters were able to collect their ballot papers to fill out at the poling booths. It is unclear where the remaining ballots went, though reporters were able to confirm that 1200 of those ballots had mean transformed into advanced votes with out the voters knowledge or consent, and had already been cast by unknown people.

A Mudon town resident who wished to remain anonymous, describes the case of voting record manipulation and ballot manipulation he encountered committed by members of the USDP:

As I know, the particular poll station authorities did not deliver the ballot papers for all the voters.  According to Min Oo, a USDP member, these [advanced] ballot papers were already put in on the list of advanced votes during the previous days [before the election].  As I noticed, most of the marks on the advanced votes ballots were made by themselves [the USDP][5].  Moreover, there was a lot of evidence that the USDP was using [the power of] the authorities; their party [USDP] forced the locals to mark in the Lion’s squares in front of them…I want to say that it will not be a surprise on me if they win.  What I said now exactly represents what has happened in our region.

8:00 AM – Nyaung Gone village, Mudon Township

A resident named Daw Khin San May describes how she witnessed two teachers who were working as polling station staff at the No. 2 poll station of Nyaung Gone village, Mudon Township, tried to pressure voters to support the pro-government USDP.  Seeing this effort at election manipulation, AMRDP observers attempted to contact the local EC which resulted in the two staff leaving before possible action could be taken against them:

On the morning of that day the time was about 8 o’clock.  Two school teachers – Ma Htay Hlaing and Daw Swae who are USDP members – pressured the students’ parents who came to vote in the poll station saying, ‘Vote for the USDP.  Tick the right marks.’  That’s my own experience.  They are schoolteachers, so no one replied.  I am not sure whether some students’ parents voted [for the USDP] because of their children’s teachers’ campaign.  I didn’t vote for them.  I mean that unlike other party members, they [the teachers] could interfere as they wanted in the voting processes since they [had the duties of] polling station workers.  It was unfair.  And then they left the poll station because the AMRDP members immediately informed the Township [Election] Commission [about those efforts].  In conclusion, I don’t feel surprised that they won the votes in this region.  People said that they won the vote with the early votes which they got unjustly.

9:00 AM – Juin Pan, Wad Tal, Winn Dar villages, Mudon Township

The AMRDP’s secretary Dr. Min Nwe Soe, who is competing for a seat in the State Hluw Htaw at polling booths in three villages in Mudon Township, described cases of ballot manipulation that he witnessed by USDP candidates and poling station staff when he visited several polling stations in Mudon Township:

This morning at 9 AM or so, when I came to the polling station where I am competing for State Hluw Htaw candidate, I saw the USDP candidates were [committing] electoral fraud in the station, especially it [was] happening in Juin Pan village. At the polling station, three USDP candidates are casting the voters [ballots] in the station. When I become angry with that, they stopped casting the votes. They are casting [other peoples] votes as they think it is legal. Besides casting the votes illegally at the polling stations in Juin Pan village, the members of Village Peace and Development Council (VPDC) are casting the votes for the USDP at polling station No.2 in Wad Tal village [and Winn Dar village]. The polling station officer did not say anything even though he saw that the VPDC members are casting the ballots for the USDP. However, because of this, we went to the Mudon Township Election Commission to file a case with them about that. They only said they would pass the word on to the right people. And in Nyaung Kon village, Daw Htay Htay Hlaing, who is a Health Department servant and who was giving the ballots to voters, aged 32, checked the ballots on behalf of voters even though that is not her responsibility. Yet despite this, when we told the polling booth officers, they ignored those [abuses]. That is how they are cheating at the polling stations.

10:00 AM – Wattae village, Mudon Township

Ma San San Aye, 29, who is a tutor, described to HURFOM her experience encountering USDP members who were posted at polling station No. 1 of Wattae village, Mudon Township and engaged in ballot manipulation:

At that day, I and my mother went to [the poll station to] cast our votes.  We brought our national ID cards.  My mother is over 60 and needs help to walk because she has arthritis in legs.  So I and my uncle had to accompany her.  When we reached near the polling station, it was impossible to vote simultaneously.  My mother needed my help, so I cast my vote first.  While I was voting, all the persons I met were government supporters except the poll station workers, other party representatives and sub-poll station officers.  I [also] saw some familiar USDP members.  They were sitting in the registration-seats [waiting] to vote [on other peoples ballots][6].  In fact, they [USDP members] should not have been there. The place is only for the responsible polling station workers.  After voting, I accompanied my mother, but the USDP members forcibly pushed me and my uncle saying ‘You don’t enter.  We will accompany this aunt’ and escorted her to go vote.  After she came out, I asked my mother whom she voted for.  She said she did nothing.  The person who escorted her did the registration by themselves, ticked the mark, and cast her vote.  After that I clearly understood that to get a vote for them [USDP] from my mother, they behaved in that way.  I found that when the old men and women were voting, they [USDP members] continuously accompanied them to ‘help’. What bad men!

11:00 AM – Kankalay, Kangyi, and Kyone Phite villages, Mudon Township

In another instances reported by a Mudon township resident, members of the USDP were engaged in intimidation of voters and ballot manipulation. Mi Than Htay, a resident, reported by phone that most of the poll stations in Kankalay, Kangyi, and Kyone Phite villages, all of which are situated in southern Mudon Township, were occupied by USDP members.  She described seeing USDP members gathered in along the road to the poll stations and inside polling stations, in mass. She also witnessed a USDP member taking her aunts ballot and filling it out as a vote for the USDP party despite the Aunt’s wishes:

They are USDP’s members.  Up to forty or fifty members were active around each polling station to show their strength.  In our Kankalay region, over 60 [members] was standing up at the entrance [of the] road of the poll station and outside the poll station.  And then, in a poll station of Nyaung Gone where they [were] found; I think they felt awkward seeing Mon citizens were voting for the Mon party[7], so two or three of them came to the voters pretending to help, and made the marks on their [USDP party] spaces. A woman in our ward described this type of event.  She had a surgery on one side of her eye, and a USDP [member] accompanied her [to the voting room].  After that, saying ‘Please give me [your ballot], Aunt’, he made a mark [for her].  That aunt retold me that she went [to the polling station] to vote for the AMRDP but her vote was transformed into the other [parties] vote after her arrival [at the poll station].

11:00 AM – Lamine sub-township, Ye Township, Mon State

Villagers from 12 villages in Lamine sub-township, Ye Township, Mon State, were ordered by Burmese Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) No. 106 Captain Khin Maung Cho to go to polling stations to cast votes. In this case the direct involvement of the local battalion was related to the previous anti-election protests the villages had participated in on October 25^th and the 31^st [8]. At the time local residents conducted protests that promoted boycotting the election due to the absence of fair representation and election standards. Here a resident who wished to remain anonymous, described to a HURFOM field reporter, this direct pressure by the local Burmese LIB was blatant effort at election manipulation.  These villagers are the villagers who are from the villages involved in Junta-led election protest on Oct.25^th and 31^st:

Captain Khin Maung Cho ordered village headmen to gather the villagers in their respective villages and to go to the polling stations to vote. The reason why the order was given is that on Nov.7^th, until 11 AM, no one came to the polling stations to cast the votes; therefore, they [USDP] become worried about the turnout, and they the USDP asked the LIB No.106 Captain Khin Maung Cho to give order. And there come an order from Captain Khin Maung Cho.

Those villages ordered by Captain Khin Maung Cho to come to polling station are predominantly Karen. Despite the orders residents from 9 of the villages continued to refuse participation and no villagers were known to have traveled to polling stations[9].

2:00 PM – Mudon Township

According to member of the AMRDP who wished to remain anonymous, after cases of ballot manipulation and intimidation against voters by USDP members was witnessed in Mudon Township, representatives from the AMRDP tried to report the violation of election rules to the township Election Commission. However, the complain was effectively ignored as the AMRDP members were told by the EC officers that their party should try to negotiate with the offending USDP members to reach some sort of agreement or settlement.

2:00 PM – Mudoon village, Chaung Zone Township

Another instance of election fraud though the manipulation of election lists and ballot manipulation was reported In Chaung Zone Township. There a list of legitimate voters was collected by the government and initially shown to Chaung Zone parties. But on election day close to 500 names on the initial list had been removed. It is not entirely clear why or when the names were removed, but the absence is believed to have a significant impact on electing representatives for three Hluttaws(Houses).

A representative from the AMRDP who coordinated reporting on election abuses described how in key villages such as Mudoon village in Chaung Zone Township, only 10 miles from Moulmein, the Capital of Mon State, hundreds of votes from authorized voters mysteriously disappeared from voter lists at polling stations on November 7^th.

Those cases had occurred at the big villages of our Chaung Zon Township.  I first had known about [these cases] only after 9:00 am.  Especially, it was found that the number of Mon voters, who voted for us, in Mudoon village constituency significantly decreased.  Therefore, what is the outcome?  If the number of voters who registered for our ethnic group has decreased, it will be unfair in competing against the rivals.  According to an estimated list, about 500 ballot papers were lost.  We must report this case to the Township and State Election Commissions.  After that, we will also discuss about rejected ballot papers.  Our informants have themselves told us [about this].  It is no doubt that some rejected ballot papers were intentionally removed because we knew after inquiries that most of Mon ballots which voted for us were rejected by the poll station workers [who] gave no reason.  That was the case at around 2:00 pm.”

2:30 PM – Kamawet village, Mudon Township

In southern Mudon Township cases of ballot manipulation and intimidation were reported. A resident who wished to remain anonymous noted that the identical dress of polling staff to USDP members significantly intimidated voters who were concerned about retribution by the USDP or government forces for voting against the USDP. Additionally the resident noted the comparatives lack of intimidation by the older NUP and AMRDP:

There was a load of ballot manipulation at Kamawet village [Seintaung quarter].  The main problem is that we cannot differentiate between the polling station workers and the USDP’s members.  Especially [because] the school teachers who work in the polling stations are dressed like the USDP’s members.  Originally, the citizens see the USDP’s members as problem-makers[10], so they are worried when they could not determine whether the people in the polling stations were USDP members or poll station workers.  Because [of this] some [voters] are stressed that if they did not vote for the USDP, they will face problems as a consequence.  Today there is no problem to [be] discussed regarding the National Unity Party (NUP).  They acted with great care.  The Mon party group has stayed clear [of ballot manipulation]… The busy persons were the USDP members with the white Diaq Poun and were noisy and found everywhere.

Between 1:00 and 3:00 PM – Thanpyuzayat town, Thanpyuzayat Township

A Thanpyuzayat resident, who lives in Kyaung Paen quarter in Thanpyuzayat Town, describes how he witnessed intimidation and ballot manipulation by members of the USDP, who acted with impunity, at polling stations:

Now we are talking about the ballot manipulation that is happening on this [November] 7^th election day but not about the unfair advance votes obtained by junta-backed political parties. It happened like that [ballot manipulation, intimidation] at almost every polling station, [with] the members of USDP waiting at the entrance of polling booths and frightening voters to vote for it [the USDP]. By acting like [they are] helping voters on how to vote and list their names on the voting-registration document, the USDP members make the voter [ticks in] their vote box [USDP’s vote box] and by saying, ‘Just check here [indicating the USDP’s vote box].’  Also by driving away other political parties’ members outside of the polling booths; so, here, when they [other political parties’ members] are outside, they [USDP members and assistants of USDP members] can do whatever they want to. Despite [the efforts] to do things illegally like this, we Mon people still prefer to vote for the AMRDP rather than other political parties.

Between 1:00 and 3:00 PM – Kyaik Paran village, Mudon Township

A resident from Kyaik Paran village, Mudon township, who wished to remain anonymous, describes cases of partial guards in front of polling booths banning members of the AMRDP from entering polling stations:

That village is the Kyeik Paran village where AMRDP candidates are not allowed to enter the polling stations. The polling station guards said to AMRDP members that ‘you are not allowed to go into because the logo stamped by Township election commission is not inked clearly.’ That is the guard who is waiting at the entrance of Kyeik Paran polling station and who does not allow the AMRDP members get into the station. Well, here apparently that guard is a proxy of the USDP. And in order to do whatever they [USDP] want to do in the polling station, they drive the opposition members out.

Between 1:00 and 3:00 PM - Kyone Phite village, Mudon Township

Ko Nai Linn Aung, 36, a Kyone Phite resident, who runs a battery charging business, describes his frustration at encountering efforts by members of the USDP to intimidate voters and manipulate ballots:

Everywhere there were mostly USDP members.  The other parties did nothing.  They stayed calmly at their specified places.  Only they [the USDP members] and VPDC members were in a rush.  They were entering and leaving the poll station as they liked.  I was going to vote on that day. My name was on [the list of people who can vote] but I did not vote.  I didn’t thoroughly know about ballot manipulation.  One unjust thing that I encountered was that at the poll station No. 2 of Kyone Phite village, USDP member U Soe Thein and his village organizing groups entered the poll station and closely told the voters to tick the right mark at their Lion image.  I heard about that from my friend who casted his vote in person.  There is no one in this Kyone Phite village who does not know USDP member Ko Soe Thein.  [He is] he not popular [and does not have] a good reputation.  And then, I could see from the tea shop that there were the USDP members – Ma Moe Khine and Ko Soe Aung outside the poll station, and those youths [that tired to] coerce the people at the entrance of the poll station.  Why I said that was unfair, is that even the similar party derived from the government, the National Unity Party [NUP], had no right to do so.  I heard that in some places, the Mon party had no right to enter the poll station.  There was no equal rights.

3:30 PM – Mudoon village, Chaung Zone Township

Indicating the widespread knowledge of this particular event, HURFOM received another account relating to the loss of 500 ballots in Chaung Zone Township. The resident from the western portion of the township, 35, described how hundreds of eligible voters’ ballots that had been mostly cast for the AMRDP had been lost. Notes that those involved in the loss should be held responsible as a loss of votes like this will cause longer term problems:

Yes, that is right about the lost votes. When we talk about the lost votes we mean that the AMRDP lost numerous votes that it could have gained. That happened in Mudoon village… In Mudoon village, Chaung Zone Township, there are over 500 eligible voters. And over 500 ballots have been lost. The reason why over 500 ballots have been lost is, I think, because of how the people who are in charge of polling stations, have done. I think, they should be [held] responsible for that [loss] for the upcoming [election related] problems.

4:00 PM – Mudon Township

While monks were banned by election laws from participating in the voting, in certain cases voters reported election related abuses to local monks. In this case a HURFOM reporter spoke with a 34-year-old monk living in Mudon Township who described cases of intimidation and ballot manipulation by members of the USDP:

As I knew from my monastery supporters, who went [to the poll stations] to cast their votes, the USDP’s members did a ton of ballot manipulation on that day….If the voters seemed [to] know-nothing and [were] afraid, they [USDP members] would themselves make the marks on the ballot papers.  And then [there were] ways in which they mentally pressured the voters.  They indirectly said, coerced and even intimidated [voters] – inside the compound of poll stations – saying that if you did not support them [the USDP], you will likely be in trouble.  My supporters told me that this sort of indirect intimidation has occurred very frequently.  Therefore, if they [USDP] win in the end, we needn’t feel surprised.

November 8^th

Kyaikmayaw Township

According to a member of the AMRDP who wished to remain anonymous, from Kyaikmayaw Township, he and other observers saw many bags of the advanced votes which they estimated contained around 5,000 votes per bag from unknown places during the vote counting at the Election Commission Office in Kyaikmayaw Township after all polling stations closed:

By checking closely, I found that all votes have been marked by similar ink color and suspected that they might marked by the same person. Of course, the ballot papers were marked only in the box for the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) candidate…Many candidates from AMRDP and NUP asked the Election Commission in Mon State to investigate the advance ballots issue. However, it [EC] took no action to investigate accusations of election fraud according to a supporter of AMRDP in Moulmein City, Mon State. The candidates from those two parties [AMRDP and NUP] in Mon State sent the letter requesting an investigation and action regarding voting advances on November 8^th morning. However, all requested letters had been rejected by the Mon State EC.

Kyaikmayaw Township

Nai Ngwe Thein, the chairman of the AMRDP, who was expected to prevail with the majority of the votes in his constituency in Kyaikmayaw Township, Mon State, describes how he lost the seat he contested for. His appeal to the EC for an investigation into the suspect advanced votes was refused:

Yes. I lost the seat after the Election Commission (EC) brought in illegal advance votes. I know that I got the majority of the votes from my [Mon] people but later, we [AMRDP] discovered that I had lost…after they added a bag of at least 5,000 advanced votes from an unknown place. The Kyaikmayaw election commission office informed me already about that. As soon as I got the results, I required them to count and investigate the advanced vote issue; however, they refused to do that. I think the SPDC military commander based at the Southeast Command, Moulmein has power more than the Mon State EC. The Mon State EC members did not dare to hold an investigation into false advanced votes at our request.

Kamawet village, Mudon Township

Nai Htit, 38, who lives in Harat quarter of Kamawet village, describes a case of voting record manipulation in which valid voters were denied ballots after an unidentified person removed lists validating the voters ballots. In this case the list, which did not preserve voter anonymity due to the presence of individual ID numbers, contained mostly names of AMRDP supporters:

In this Kamawet village, some people cast their votes, but most people did not go to the polling station.  Some people wanted to vote for the party they supported, but had no right to vote.  Those people are Mon from Harat quarter.  They were already on the list of people who can vote.  They already knew their list numbers.  However, the list was lost on the voting day.  They had to return without voting [after] being informed [they had] no right to vote.  It was later known that [the lost list] was due to that the USDP, as they [USDP] knew they are the supporters of the AMRDP and did not allow them to vote.  According to the news from internal sources, the VPDC authorities had torn up the list of the people who can vote.  As a proverb says “Throw sand on the meat if its not for you.”  The votes which would not become theirs were lost from the list.  The right to vote was denied by showing there was no list.  The Mon party lost (the election) in Kamawet.  The whole village knew that the loss was due to the cheating of the USDP and the VPDC.  The Mon party has suffered [for it].

The above map notes the number and area in which HURFOM documented election abuses in Mon State.

Conclusion

These accounts collected as the election was occurring or the day after, highlight points at which the regime was able to either actively or through ignorance and confusion, able to manipulate the election in its favor. Strait forward intimidation and ballot manipulation was the most common abuse practiced by government polling both staff and members of the USDP, in the absence of international observers. This was aided by the bias USDP, government administration, polling staff, and soldiers, actively implemented in their jobs throughout election. In cases of voting record manipulation significant swaths of valid voters were denied the opportunity to cast ballots, after either being told they were not on lists, lists had been lost and the ballots were thus invalid, or being told they had in fact already voted in ‘advanced’ despite their not having cast any ballot. In all these cases the failure of the election commission to take action to resolve or curtail these ongoing abuses directly allowed the manipulation of ballots and intimidation of voters to continue with impunity.

Having banned international observers and placed strict controls on media during the election, the value of direct accounts of November 7^th from eyewitness participants is significant. These accounts highlight the direct evidence of efforts by the regime to manipulate the first poles in 20 years in favor of a party intended since its formation, to perpetuate the rule of the SPDC through a new pro-regime manifestation. Crucially, these accounts also highlight the ways in which the heavy manipulation of the tentative democratic process occurred on the day of the election. With the next election 5 years away, such observations could be crucial in assisting communities to increase awareness of democratic rights and processes’, and how to curtail future abuses of the election system.

[2] The All Mon Region Democratic Party (AMRDP).

[3] Poling station rules required people entering poling stations to present their ID to identify who they were, before entering poling stations. In this case USDP were making no effort to present ID or follow the other requirement.

[4] Ballots were marked with icon representing each party. In this case the speaker is referring to the USDP’s icon of a lion adjacent to the spot for a tick mark.

[5] In this case the villager was present a the beginning of the day during voting when advanced ballots were brought in to include with other ballots that would be cast during the day.  At that time no security was taken to conceal the advanced vote ballots that were brought in.

[6] In polling stations throughout Burma, rooms were divided to separate voters from outside influence. Only voters were allowed to pass three check in desks before reaching voting booths. These desks check IDs, distributed ballots, and checked that the ballot was valid and signed. Under election rules these tables were only supposed to be attend by election commission poling station staff. A places for polling station observers from different parties were separated on the other side of the room in a quartered of area.  However, in this case the speaker is indicating that the USDP members were sitting with poling station staff behind the 3 check in desks.

[7] The speaker is refereeing to the AMRDP, which was the only ethnic Mon party to run in the election.

[8] For further information on the anti-election protests that occurred prior to the November 7^th polling date, please see HURFOMs article, “1700 villagers join anti-election protests in Karen and Mon state”

[9] Due to security concerns the names of these villages have been withheld. For further information, please contact HURFOM directly.

[10] The USDP was created as a pro-government party from the now defunct Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA). The USDA which was a government run NGO ostensibly used for civil development, has been widely criticized as a directly involved in government directed violence against democracy supporters and political activists including Aung San Su Kyi.

Beginning on October 26^th, residents in Mon State and Karen state have described to HURFOM field reporters, efforts by senior leaders at administrative and civil servants offices to pressure staff into casting advanced votes. With this pressure has come an open effort to push the staff into casting votes in favor of the USDP. Such an effort violates Burma’s own election law, in article 66, chapter 14, of the Pyithu Hluttaw Electoral Law. Though the accounts bellow only detail the experiences of civil servants in Mon and Karen State, this effort is believed to have occurred throughout Burma.

Government staff have described to HURFOM three methods of advanced vote collection that have been undertaken. In one instances office staff have been called into see the department head, and told to fill out the ballot there so that it could be returned early.  In such cases the staff member voting is forced to respond to often times open pressure to vote for the pro-government USDP, or risk retribution for casting their votes for another party. In the second instance of manipulation, government staff were visited at their homes by advanced voting staff who were going door to door asking for their advanced votes. In the third instance, government staff were told ballots had arrived for their advance votes at the office.  However rather then received the ballot, the received the bottom portion for registration, requiring the voters signature and ID number, while the vote casting portion of the ballot was taken to the department head. This third method has been the most frequently described in the data collected by HURFOM.

On October 27^th in eastern Ye Township, Mon State, civil servants who work as Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation staff, Land Surveying Department staff, and educational staff (school teachers and support staff), have reported being denied the opportunity to complete advanced vote ballots. Instead department directors or supervisors have used staff ballots to cast votes, leaving staff to fill out the signature portion.

U Mya Swe [ not real name ], 45, is currently serving as a group manager of the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation staff in Ye township but is originally from Paung Town. He described his experience trying to fill out his advanced vote:

Since last Oct.26, the ballot and advance-voting registration document for us (I and my 12 colleagues) have arrived here. However, after we had just registered on the ballot[1], our director general of the district voted for us instead. We thought that we were going to be given the ballots that we can vote for any candidate we want to, but in fact the ballots were not given to us and the director general of district took the ballots and will [tick them] for us by himself. Well… here… we are also educated people, so why did they do like that? If it is the order given by Sen-generals – and it is a absolute order –, they can tell us this straight. Actually, this kind of stuff has been done since we had to support the 2008  [constitutional] referendum in 2008.

Ko Mann Tin [not real name], 38, from Karen State, is serving in the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation staff, with his colleague called U Mya Swe in Ye Township:

Like what U Mya Swe has just said, since we are working at the same place, my advance-vote was ticked on the same day. Even though this is an advance-vote and [we are] said to vote individually with our attitudes, in reality it is not and the ballots are taken [from us], with the order of the directors of our district [offices], …and they vote for us instead. Our votes are probably going to be ticked for the USDP. It [the USDP] is the [pro-government] party which is the most powerful and the most general-candidate presented in the election. I become disappointed with this because I cannot vote for our Karen political party even though I really want to. I can do nothing. Even though I know that I am one of the civic servants who have been working as a government pet – raising our hands and nodding our heads, saying YES – for a long time. This time, I, by myself, really want to vote for the candidate who is representing our Karen people. Again, this time, the same as what Ko Mya Swe’s just mentioned – we had to support the 2008 referendum even though we were not aware of it. I, therefore, am really disappointed with this as our ballots are ticked by our supervisors but not by ourselves.

U Nyi Aung [not real name], a middle school teacher in a Mon village in northern Ye township, who also gave advance-vote:

We civil servants think that, as planed by Nay Pyi Taw, our ballots are ticked by our supervisors, for the USDP. We though that can be – though we do not know precisely yet. Besides this USDP, the NUP is also the party supported by the government, and in order to get more votes, the government will probably help it out. But as it [election results] is not seen as real yet, I cannot say. To tell our reality, because of this advance-ballots we lost our votes. Our education administrator did not give us our ballots, but he only gave us the document to register it in order to prove that we have already voted. That happened on October 27. Then we were told by the administrator that we do not need to vote this November 7^th because we have already voted [in the] the advanced vote.

According to one observe, it is believed that besides the opportunity to cast government staff votes for the USDP, the advanced vote kept numbers of possible voters low. Rather then having government staff mingling with civilians at the poles, the two voting populations were kept separate. According to a member of a township Election Commission, who wished to remain anonymous, the reason given to government staff for the advanced vote was both a logistical problem and an effort to separate civil servants from the general voting population:

Because of this advanced vote system, civil servants are facing difficulty in taking trips from the place where they are currently serving to the polling booths, and they have to sort out this problem first. [Also] on this election day, November 7th, [staff] are not [supposed] to be mixed up with citizens, this [is why] the pre-vote voting is planed for the civil servants.

A civil servant who is serving in Aen Kae village, and ask to remain as anonymous, described his frustration at the overt effort to cast early ballots in favor of the USDP:

Not going to the polling station to vote by ourselves is considered against the election laws. It is called vote cheating. It [the SPDC] has been doing like this – cheating – since drawing the 2008 constitution. So now, it [vote cheating] has happened two times. They authorities know that as usual, the civil servants [will] say nothing against it. It is 90% sure that it [vote cheating] is done for the USDP. Who would it be besides the USDP? The USDP is the one preparing to be supreme. I also have some friends who are working for the USDP as members of it. They often said that ‘without competing, we USDP can still win with a landslide victory’. But if they say like that, why are they cheating like this?

One Kaw-kareik town resident, 55, said from what he has witnessed, since the advance-vote system has been legalized by the government, he estimates 80% of the early votes are cast in favor of the USDP, in his town. He also noted that registered members of civil society groups such as the Health department, the fire brigade, the Maternal and Child Welfare Association (MCWA), and other government social work and civil society groups, all will face the same pressure to cast votes for the USDP.

The polling system seems to be a bit [of a] difficulty since it takes time for those who live far from the polling booth, so that is why [they say] the advance-voting system is planed. And since they the government passed the laws that they will vote on behalf of those who live far away and cannot come to polling station, I have thought that the government is cheating. Now that is obviously the case – cheating. Respective regional authorities are voting on behalf of civil servants. These votes are for the USDP. No political party will be given the votes besides the USDP. Now as no political party can compete with the USDP nationwide, the USDP has already got 52 seats. But as the USDP is worried that it is not going to be able to compete with the Mon political party and Karen political party in Mon and Karen regions…It is definitely cheating and we have to do [something so that] it [vote-cheating]must be known nationwide and worldwide. So that when it [USDP] wins the election and takes power, we can prove that they won the election by cheating.

Additionally, from family lists that the regime has collected since late 2009, SPDC forces and village headmen have collected the names and IDs of civilians who are absent or working aboard in near by Thailand and other countries. As a result, officials and staff form the Village Peace and Development Councils (VPDCs) and local militias filled out these advanced votes in the names of absent residents with forged signatures and ID numbers collected from the lists. The addition of forged ballots for Burmese citizens abroad would add an estimated 1.5 to 2 million more advanced votes cast in favor of the USDP.

A Kawkareik town resident, 55, expressed his concern over the government’s process of manipulating the votes of migrant workers and citizens abroad:

In our region, they [USDP] have been cheating…[because they] got the list of people who are in Thailand and other neighboring countries. For the votes of those who are aboard, the authorities by themselves have voted on behalf of [family members] in Kaw-ka-reik town since last Oct. In these cases, the other political party will be affected and loose a lot of votes. I will say that now the political parties which are working for our county [will] really lose votes and a chance to run the country.

While a overall count of government staff is difficult to judge, HURFOM field reporters have confirmed that there are over 2000 civil servants who are currently carrying out their duties in each of the townships of Ye, Ye Pyu, some parts of Mudon, and eastern Kyaik-ma-yaw. Similarly a HURFOM researcher estimated that in TPP Town alone there are 120 soldiers for the local battalion, 50 police officers, 50 teachers and educational staff, and small numbers of staff from at least 20 governmental offices. One local school teacher estimates that there are at least 300 civil servants in Three Pagoda Pass (TPP) Town.

With the election only a day old, and fighting erupting on the border, the widespread  implementation of a policy of forced voting amongst government administration, and other election manipulation, appears to be the largest lingering question that will determine the election impacts.

While the SPDC banned international observers for nearly all poling stations, the regime did allow party observers. However, with the extremely low voter turn out, and reports that some of those who did attend voided their ballots, the question of what impact these pre-election ballots will have remains high. As noted in the accounts above, civil servants who were forced into pre-voting situations were certain that their ballot had been cast in favor of the USDP.  It is likely that with current regime employing at least 10% of the national population (civil servants and military personnel) the impact these manipulated ballots will have on the election will high.

On October 23^rd residents from surroundings villages arrived at 6AM in P— Village, in Kyainnseikyi Towship, Karen State. There, participants, who were predominately Karen but also included some Mon and Loa-Shan community members, held large red banners bearing anti election slogans while a protest organizer spoke and lead them in anti-election chants. The protest, conducted in a guerilla style which community members arriving quickly and dispersed before any reprisal action was taken, was conducted within two miles of an SPDC Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) base. The nearly 600 participants all came from areas banned from participating in the November 7^th election by a directive from the Burmese State Election Commission in September, citing section 8 (f) of the Union Election Laws, that supposed security risks were to great for the election to occur in that area.

The protest was conducted as a result of this ban, and residents’ resulting concerns that the communities had no fair or genuine opportunity for representation in the upcoming election. According to the protest organizer, the location was chosen because of the presence of the near-by battalion; the open protest was meant to send a message to the local battalion and to Napiydaw. Yet despite the brazenness of the 5 hour rally, the near-by battalion has not yet taken any retributive measures or reacted in any way.

A Karen youth, from Kyainnseikyi Township, who wished to remain anonymous as he helped organize the protest, described the rally:

The slogans that protesters chanted over and over again when they were marching were for people to pull down the dictatorship system, to set up tripartite dialog, and to become a real democratic country. Most of the protesters also chanted this “We want NO 2010 Election”. At this protest [we] cared whether it was secure or safe to protest in advance.

One participant, Saw Ah Wong, described how he was motivated to attend the protest because of anger over the Union Solidarity and Development Party’s (USDP) active voter manipulation through the collection of advanced votes and the USDP’s use of names of citizens working abroad from government family lists being automatically cast in favor of the USDP.

For me… I come to protest because I am not allowed to vote in this Junta-led election. I cannot say whether my vote will be the vote for the Junta-backed political party or if I am not allowed to vote for anyone. But I feel like this – as the candidate who is presenting for his ethnic or his people is not allowed to contest for the vote, his ethnicity is like an ethnicity unrecognized by the country’s government. I am not satisfied with that. Also, we know that since the end of December [2009] and beginning of October [2010], the Township Peaceful and Development Council headmen, the civilian militia, and other authorities in Karen villages and Mon villages near Kyainnseikyi Town, have organized villagers to vote in advance.  Even though Kyainnseikyi is a town, in reality it a rural town [implying that it is not watched for election abuses]. But the residents in the town have to give a check for the USDP candidate without their desire. And most of regions have become the places where the USDP forces villagers to vote for it…. Here, we want to let everyone know instead of letting no one know. This is only able to be revealed by protesting it, and people learning about it and also the world.

Two days later on October 25^th two more protests occurred, in M— village, Kyainnseikyi Township, and in eastern Ye Township, Mon State. Both protests occurred in a similar fashion, with nearby communities turning out early in the morning and dispersing before noon. The protests in M—village drew almost 500 participants and the rally in eastern Ye Township drew over 600 participants from 28 surrounding villages. The rally in eastern Ye township, which was also conducted close to a Burmese army LIB, No. 591, has previously been documented experiencing frequent election related abuses[1]. Like the October 23^rd protest, witnesses have reported USDP efforts to collect advanced votes, and violations of election law by the pro-government party such as casting absentee votes automatically in their favor, are major points of anger for protest participants.

Another significant cause in all three election protest was the perceived absence of vocal anti-election sentiment, according to several organizers. These communities, despite often times sever security restrictions by local SPDC battalions, are aware of the evolution of the current political situation. As noted by the Karen Human Rights Group’s (KHRG) 2008 report Village Agency, this is opposed to the confused perception that only urban centers, like Rangoon, are sites for political action or resistance. Being aware of the political climate at the local level, these protest indicate recognition by villagers, that other communities are also actively tuned into the current political situation, also despite SPDC efforts to restrict dissenting information, and could be inspired to voice their political discontent. By staging protests in close relation to local battalions, these communities have shown that the target of protests is still the regime, and by so visibly conducting a demonstration, is most likely to draw attention from Naypidaw, and international observers.

Witnesses have indicated that in all three cases protests went off smoothly with out security disruptions or a crackdown by local battalions. According to one participant from eastern Ye Township, where the protest was held close to a Burmese battalions, “Until now we have heard that no one [no protest participants] has been arrested by the Southeast commander-led battalion and regional authorities yet. But the persons who led the protest have to hide for their security.” The success of these protests has been attributed to the strong local connections and community amongst villages and an awareness of the security threat from possible outside sources and local battalions.

According to a local source from eastern Ye Township, who wished to remain anonymous, the protest was created as an opportunity to voice the communities opinions to other communities and to the regime, and demonstrate the communities commitment to rights they believe they should have:

This protest has started since this morning at 7 AM, and it is a guerilla protest …. to gather quickly and to separate quickly.. that is because of the security awareness. And the protest was over at 11 AM.  The 2008 constitution was drawn only for one side – the SPDC’s side. Since then, we have been protesting. Not that we have just started to protest now though. We protest because we want to get rights: ethnic rights, and rights to self-expression. Why do we have to support this predictable the-Junta-is-going-to-win election since it does not grant all rights for everyone? We also want to let the Burmese people who are in other villages, other townships, and other states and divisions know that we are totally against this unfair Junta-led election. We also do not want to keep listening to the military regime – [we want to] stop doing what the Junta wants and stop shutting up our mouths to whether we can speak up [or not] – we want [for] all [of us] to come together and protest together. We all will face with any upcoming danger, and as we work together, we will face [the danger] together. And that is the reason why we protest.

The occurrence of protests of over 1700 villagers in rural eastern Burma is a strong indicator that despite pressure on local communities by the SPDC to support the pro-government parties, and active attempts to suppress dissent, communities retain a sense of political activism and agency that they choose to express in appropriate settings.  In these cases, protest organizers have been able to asses the risks of conducting large scale protests within their communities, recognized which areas would be best able to attract attention for the protest, and as indicated by accounts above, used tactics that would best ensure the security of the participants.  HURFOM hopes that these accounts will indicate that local communities in eastern Burma are actively aware of the political climate of the country, their region, and see themselves as potential agents in sharing knowledge and awareness within the community.

Within communities in Mudon township, USDP offices have worked with assistance from Village Peace and Development Council (VPDC) heads in the organization of USDP campaign rallies, distributed snacks and food, and targeted local businesses with the promise of economic concessions in exchange for their support. At meetings organized by the USDP and VPDC heads, several local residents have reported being afraid of the consequences of not voting, either in protest of the election, or from being unable to go and vote during the crucial harvest time that coincides with the election date. Residents are afraid their absence – whatever the cause – will be noted on the polling attendance record, which by default has the names of every household in the village. Villagers that attend are marked on the list, and given a ballot with their name and ID card number on it. Bellow are the personal accounts of residents from the area reacting to this USDP campaign activity in northern Mudon Township starting on October 10^th.

The USDP has actively engaged in attempting to win the support of local residents through distributing snack and food in order bring people to the campaign polling meetings. While not overtly illegal, the USDP is the only party to extensively offer gifts in exchange for support, an act many residents have connected to the party’s inheritance of the budget of the now defunct government backed and financed, Unions Solidarity and Development Association (USDA).

Mg Htat Naing, from Kwage One village, describes the local USDP campaign in detail, and how and how residents who do not attend poling meetings are documented with the assistance of the VPDC headman:

Since Oct.10.2010, the USDP has started, with numerous people, holding polling meetings in southern Mudon Township, where Mon people live. With the help of headmen from respective regions, the USDP is organizing for [getting] advance vote [garuntees]. In addition, on October 13^th, the USDP was organizing residents from four villages: Kwage One village, Kaw Khait village, Thar Pa Thon village, and Thar Yar Kon village, which are in southern Mudon township, to vote for it [USDP] after giving out fresh snack packages to them [residents]. In that polling meeting, the USDP announced that its party could complete a project [of putting] every region or village and ward must on the pathway to progress and development – [they say] unlike other political parties which ignore [this sort of] project, it would work hard to get that project to succeed, so vote for their party…They say that is their party is the Mudon USDP party led by Pyu Htu Hlaw Htaw candidate U Mya Thein, and carry snacks, cold drinks or other kinds of drinks, and noodle packages with their truck; the members of the Mudon-USDP party give [these items] out to every Kwage One villager whom they meet on the way they are heading. Especially, they give them out to the children.  With the support of the village secretary, the meeting is arranged and every one from each household is invited to attend. In the document list of meeting attendance, they list not only the number of people who attend the meeting but also the number of people who does not show up. (Interview conducted on 13 October 2010)

Ko Aye, a Kwage One villager, who graduated from the Government Technology College (GTC), voiced his frustration with USDP campaign claims of community development:

In my views, it seems to be childish since they said that ‘Our party is good, but other parties are not’. The USDP does not seem to be aware that the audiences who are at the meeting listening to them are not either children or the people who are foolish and always say “Yes”. “Because of the USDP, the old or damaged roads are repaired or re-constructed as new ones, and there will be more schools built” – They said they will re-construct new roads and build more schools, but where does the money to build and re-construct come from? Is not that the money is from us? And we by ourselves repaired or built the schools and set up the schools’ signboards’ with our names? But the USDP comes and says that those are the schools built by it and the signboards named after it, and praise that those all are repaired or built by it – though it is obvious that the schools are repaired and built by us, the people. So, now the roads are the ones re-constructed and the schools are the ones built by the USDP; indeed, that is not true.  As it will win the election with a landslide victory [regardless], it does not need to say or be proud like that, so here, why does it set up signboards and announce  [itself] as donors of building schools and repairing the roads [when it has not]? For me, I do not want to go to the poll, but if they list my name and come to house, I will vote – though I vote without my beliefs. (Interview conducted on 14 October 2010)

Mi Khin San Htay (not a real name), an Economic graduate, who attended a USDP polling meeting describes the rhetoric a USDP candidate used, and the reactions from local community members:

In southern Mudon Township, in the Tha Kon Thaing village, on October 10^th, the Mudon-based USDP members – 13 members together with the village headmen and regional militia leaders – they called one person from every household for a meeting. At the meeting, they talked about how to vote for them, and they also said that the meeting was organized not for the people who work for the All Mon Region Democracy Party but for them [USDP]. Since they said like that, people were not happy or satisfied. At the meeting  a 45 year old USDP candidate, said that ‘what can AMRDP do for you? It can do nothing.’ He asked by himself and answered his question by himself. ‘These people [members of AMRDP] come and work after seeing what USDP has done for village and ward development and social welfare. Currently, it is obvious that you all can not afford to repair the roads and repair or re-build the school by your selves. So come to vote for us, we will make rather better development.’ Because of giving speech like that, as the residents prefer voting for AMRDP and accept the idea of AMRDP, they are not really happy to hear his speech.

Attempting to win the support of local business has also been a key campaign tactic of the USDP.  That has included promises of economic concessions, immunity from heavy local taxation, and assorted other privileges.  This technique has bothered a variety of community members who see the sudden easy business access through a pro-regime party as dangerous to community at large.  By only targeting the local business, residents have claimed, the USDP demonstrates its overall interest in retaining power and wining the election, rather then improving the plight of local communities.

A Mon textile trader, who preferred to remain anonymous, from Mudon Township, noted how the USDP has worked to win the support of local businessmen:

The USDP also said that they would give more opportunities for the import and export product traders, commodity brokers, owners of busses that run express-busses, and other business men to run their businesses, if it [USDP] wins the election in a landslide victory and has the power of running the place government. This is [how they] organized among the business people.

A resident from Mudown Township, 68, who preferred to remain anonymous, noted the dependence USDP funding and pressure is creating within local business communities:

Two months ago, the USDP organized the people and said that if they were able to run the office and rule the country, they would give many opportunities for the businessmen, so vote for them and donate for them. There are no more people who work as independent businessmen. My nephew was told this by them. There are a lot of people who are going to vote for it  [USDP] and support for it. These people are the ones who will die without getting cared for by it [USDP]. (Interview conducted on 15 October 2010)

These options from local residents in Mudon highlight key concerns that could impact local communities after the election. With the support of the current regime, the aggressive campaigning of the USDP though distribution of snacks, is seen by many residents as unfair. Additionally, the use of local government administration to organize and recruit villagers, and the implicit threat of not attending party events, could undermine trust in the possibility of a democratic process in the future.  The development of dependence on the USDP for financial or business concessions could potentially undermine local economies by stymieing financial independence.

On October 10^th a special meeting regarding, “security and regional influence”, was called in Hnee Hnuu village by the local strategy officer of Burmese army Infantry Battalion (IB) No. 61. The meeting was attended by heads of the Ye Township Peace and Development Council (TPDC), leaders of local village militia units and Village Peace and Development Council (VPDC). VPDC headmen were instructed to reinforce the militia membership and to collect the money from local residents to fund the expansion.

Villages that will be included in the expansion already provide for local militias, each already containing approximately 10 members. These militias are funded by local taxes each month of between 1500 and 3000 kyat per household.

Nai Maung Sein, 48, worked as a teacher at a New Mon State Party (NMSP) Mon national school, before becoming a plantation worker and living in Andinn village-track, Southern Ye Township, Mon State. Nai Maung Sein believes that the increased taxation for the expanded militia will be devastating, and that the presence of militias is only a means by which the regime can exert is influence over the community and create divisions:

To increase the militia forces, they [IB No. 61 officials] have ordered [us] to send more from our little hard-earned income…Before the occurrence of this order, there are always 10 militia members [in our village].  For them, I have to pay at least 1500 kyat, sometimes over 3000 kyat, monthly… In some villages, even the houses of widows – which are very poor and need pity – were also collected from.  [The collected fee] can very more or less.  The fee has been collected since 10 years ago after the formation of the militia in the village.  Now IB No. 61 ordered [that the collected fee] be increased, so you [speaking to interviewer] can guess, using your brain, whether [this order] is fair or not for us – the needy.  If we don’t pay the fee, they [the battalion leader and the village headmen] will really get us into trouble…In reality, the increase of them [militia] is not good for our village.  The militia, the village authorities and the [governmental] staff are assumed to be higher class in the village.  They can live easily.  They needn’t pay [the fees] like us…The state needn’t pay the cost and yet gets a staff [for the militia].  So only we will die of starvation, being the downtrodden.  Now we have to vote.  In the VPDC office, it is posted [on a sign] in big size that the USDP must win.  I think [this poster] was put up to show to whom they want us to vote for.  It is sure that the ghost who is worse than the tiger will appear. I think nothing will be different.

The current expansion of local militias extends to the villages of Andinn, Hnee Hnuu, Gu Hataw, Hnin Tayoke and Thar Garan villages, all of which are in Andinn village-track. Each village contains approximately 300 to 500 households.  These homes will fund the expected cost of 700,000 for each village, resulting in an increase of 10 to 15 more militia members per village. These cost include money for weapons, uniforms, food, a daily stipend and possibly housing. Doubling the size of the militia will double the overall monthly tax for local residents. Such heavy taxation will significantly impact local residents, whose average daily income is only 3,000 kyat per person, and already pay an average food cost of 5,000 kyat a day for a family 5.

According to residents in these 5 villages, these new members have not been recruited locally. The newer recruits, often older, or suffering from debilitating wounds, appear to be retired veterans from the Burmese army.  It is likely that the addition of retired soldier is intended to place already loyal Burmese in predominantly ethnic communities, and provide soldiers with additional power despite retirement.

The According to Mehm Tun, 25, who knows about the recent order given to expand the militia at the Hnee Hnuu village meeting, the introduction of outsiders into a local militia is preparation to manipulate the election, and create, as he describes, a long term problem:

Now, unlike the old village militia, the militia they expand does not include Mon.  In the past, there were 8 Mon militia members in our Hnee Hnuu village.  For them, each house had to pay from 1500 to 2000 kyat as a monthly fee.  If they demanded more, sometimes [we had to] pay about 3000 kyat.  Now the [new members] of the militia expanded by IB No. 61 are not from these Mon villages.  [We] don’t know where they are from.  Their appearances are like those of thieves or vagabonds.  Some of them are persons retired from the army because of injuries during battle…Normally, if different communities live together, there must be equality.  I want to say that there is no problem if Mon, Burmese, or Karen get equal rights together.  Now they [Burmese army] are the governors and we can’t work at the same level, so I think this will become a long-term problem.  I don’t think the cost of the militia is a good thing.  It is possible there will be more oppression and abuse….the cost of the militia might be directly related to the security for the coming election.  The army or the powerful party of the ruling government may not manage to force the voters to cast their votes in the poll-boxes as they want.  I think [therefore] the newly formed pocket militia will be instructed to force the civilians to vote for the party they [the government] wants.  Therefore, I perceive [this election] is not honest.  We have to monitor whether it will be or not.

According to Mi Ei Be, 40, an ex-NMSP teacher, from Andinn village-track, the costs for local militia will be larger then average local salaries, and be entirely covered by local residents:

These new members of the militia are persons who retired from the army.  According to my brother who has a close relationship with our headman, [we] have to pay fifty thousand kyat [foundation cost] per member [of the expanded militia].  And then, as they serve for the village security, the village has to take responsibility in every case for them.  Even for our abbot, we needn’t donate as much as this amount.

Since November 2009, when HURFOM first documented the practice, local commanders and members of the Mon State PDC have continued the recruitment of non-official pro-regime squads (known as Swan Arshin in Burmese). These non-militia civilian groups are composed of volunteers and members of local civic development organizations in exchange for gifts, privileges, or other benefits. In exchange, these civilian groups are given weapons and are trained to assist the local militia in its possible duties. HURFOM has documented such trainings including crowed breaking tactics, and through education in the current regime’s policy[1].

The area in which the orders have been given, in northern Ye Township, is relatively more stable then areas to the south in Yebyu Township, Tennaserim Division, and Khaw Zar sub-township, Mon State, which are considered open conflict zones, or “black” areas. Northern Ye Township, however, retains a strong presence of the NMSP. At least 2 villages that are subject to the militia expansion order were included in the NMSP controlled area during the 1995 cease-fire with the SPDC. The NMSP, which ahs refused to participate in the November 7^th election, and has openly urged members to boycott, has also continued to resist pressure by the regime to reform its armed win to the standards of the regime proposed border guard force (BGF).  Some local residents, who are currently members of the NMSP, have voiced concerns that post election, these militias and civilian groups, will be used to apply pressure against the NMSP, with out making an incident official.

Moreover, an former member of the NMSP who is part of the Ye township administration group, and who has been studying the Burma election and the political situation, believe these smaller unofficial units will be positioned in advance to pressure the NMSP over its refusal to participate in the BGF program:

I assumed the expense of the militia-forces will be for the election.  It means that they will disguise the cocks of the same house to fight each other…I want to say that they [the government body or the USDP] themselves will not pressure [civilians].  If they did like this, this will make the news.  Therefore, they indirectly ordered the privileged groups – the Swan Arshin – the Fire Brigade, the governmental staff who agree with them, [pro government civilians] and the armed militia [to pressure civilians].  In this way, they will get the votes and can be victorious without losing their reputation.  I have already guessed the election will run in this way…The international [communities], the ambassadors who are base in Rangoon and Nay Pyi Daw, and the persons who monitor the election, can’t reach out up to these regions…Another point I guessed is that they are afraid of the NMSP.  Because [the NMSP] has decisively refused every demand, they [SPDC] need to manage step by step for the possibility of armed [conflict].  Therefore, to guard the local situation, increased numbers of militia and village-security forces are needed.  According to the situation, they [SPDC] needn’t pay the cost [for the militia], so the more persons who will work for or protect them, the better for them.  But what benefits do the civilians get back?  It is sure that paying various taxes, oppression, and ethnic conflicts will occur again in the village.

The expansion of militias at the village level will place a significant economic burden on local communities that already struggle for survival daily. Such a financial burden could lead to an increase in displaced families looking for better financial opportunities along the Thai-Burma border. While the area is somewhat more stable then more heavily contested black areas, the addition of new outside pro-regime militia members has the potential to cause tension among local groups or lead to further human rights violations.  Similarly, the continued intentional use of civilian and civic development departments as pro-regime strike groups will significantly divide local communities prior to and during the election, as well as likely cause increased tension long term. Though these changes may help secure the election of a pro-regime party, they are not sustainable for ether the communities’ economic survival or long-term security.

Moreover communities in more rural ethnic regions of Burma have not benefited from the nominally more transparent setting that campaigning in Rangoon has given some parties. Areas of Mon and Karen state not banned from participation, have experienced frequent and widespread instances of election fraud, manipulation and coercion by regime forces as well as members of the pro-regime parties, the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) and the National Unity Party (NUP).
Download report as PDF [303KB]

This report will be the fifth by HURFOM providing information and personal accounts from residents detailing abuses that have targeted the predominantly ethnic and more rural regions of eastern Burma. Information documenting abuses is divided in two categories of election abuse currently employed by the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) in targeting ethnic and independent parties.  The first method is comprised of general election abuses that revolve around the use of state resources and employees to strengthen support for the USDP through manipulation of election data, bribery, and threats. The second focuses is on regional area restrictions; specifically the impact of the recent exclusion of nearly 164 predominantly ethnic village tracts from voting constituencies. Residents living in these regions have expressed widespread dissatisfaction citing government manipulation efforts, exclusion from voting, and general disinterest for the sake of security. None the less, villagers have remained agents of activity in their community, carrying out a variety of non-compliance or deflection methods to avoid or negate government or party threats that insist on subservience.

The data and accounts included below were collected in late August and thought September in 2010 by 3 field reporters.  This data was specifically gathered from central and north and eastern Mon State, and central and southern Karen State. Researched under significant security concerns, the scope of information obtained is representative and embodies a sample of the wider election abuses that have continued since 2009.

Background

During the 1990 election, 67 representatives from 19 ethnic political parties won approximately 16 percent of the available parliamentary seats, and formed a united body known at the United Nations League for Democracy (UNLD)[2]. These parties represented, Karen, Shan, Mon, Rakhine, Kachin Chin, Pao, Kayan, Naga, Mro (Khami) and Ta-ang (Palaung) ethnicities.   While the results of the 1990 election had been officially annulled after the then ruling regime refused to acknowledge the election, the then victorious National League for Democracy had supported the UNLD’s call for the ethnic rights of ‘self-determination’ and ‘self-administration[3].

Since, ethnic political parties, the ceasefire parties of the late 80’s and early 90’s, and active insurgent groups have faced increasing pressure to submit to unified regime domination. Most recent manifestations have been pressure to submit and restructure armed wings into either border guard forces or peoples’ militia forces[4]. It is not yet clear if or how the ceasefire parties themselves will be transformed after the election.

Over the last year as election deadlines, rules and regulations became clear, ethnic communities and democracy activists were forced to face the question of whether to participate in another election, despite the annulment by the regime of the democratic victory in the 1990’s, or to boycott, instead taking a stand to maintain the legitimacy to the previous election results. While several key parties have chosen not to participate, most notably the National League for Democracy, the Mon National Democratic Front (MNDF), and leadership from several ethnic ceasefire parties including the New Mon State Party (NMSP), a significant number of ethnic parties have registered for the 2010 election. As Richard Horsey notes, this seems to indicate that the issue of ethnic identity in a democratic process is still a significant driving force for ethnic communities[5]. As a result the lack of appeal by pro-SPDC parties to an ethnically interested voting population appear to be a cause for concern for the regime’s election campaign.

Since November 2009, HURFOM research has indicated that the current regime has actively pursued a campaign of preparing predominantly ethnic regions of Karen and Mon state for the larger election campaigns of the pro-government parties. This has included the formation of local militias and thug groups,  trainings of police and fire brigade units in weapons use, crowd control, intimidation, and surveillance; use of arbitrary taxation to fund these groups, and at the same time undermine the financial stability of local communities; census gathering to maintain accurate lists of possible voters 18 and up, determine which residents are government employees, and retired government employees; issuing ID cards to residents, often which label the bearer as ‘Burman’ or combination of Burmese and their ethnic identity travel restrictions; and special election related trainings for members of the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) that has since become the premier government party, the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP)[6].

Election Abuses

The following election abuses represent the final stages of this long running effort by the current regime to solidify and attempt to guarantee the primacy of its pro-government parties before the election date in the areas of Karen and Mon State[7].  Frequently towns and villages in Karen and Mon State have seen multiple visits by regime representatives or the now defunct USDA, for ostensibly civic purposes, that instead have pressured community members to support the regime and whatever political party it would field. The cases of voter data manipulation; coercion through bribery, threats, or force; and direct involvement of government employees appears to embodies the matured aim of electoral domination by the USDP.

Manipulation – Family Lists and ID Cards

Local Township and Village Peace and Development Council (T & VPDC) representatives were first documented collecting family lists by HURFOM in November 2009.  Ostensibly to keep track of population via a census, the effort has continued, with some communities being visited in upwards of 15 times. This practice continues now as the lists have been used extensively in pro-government campaign efforts. These lists have been used to bolster the membership of the pro-government USDP, give the party exclusive access to an accurate number of eligible voters, and serve as a clear indication of family members that are abroad and can have ballots cast in their name by either family members or proxy representatives that are members of the VPDC, fire brigade, Maternal and Child Welfare Association, or the healthcare department.

Nai Nyan, Maw Kanin village, Ye Township, demonstrates the means by which the SPDC administration gathers lists of eligible voters:

As far as I know, U Thein Zaw, the chairman of Ye Township Peace and Development Council (TPDC), ordered U Aye Sein, a chairman in MawKanin village, to collect [the] numbers of young people from 18 years old through over 18 within one day (that day was on a 10 Sept, 2010). However, as there are over 3,000 [also estimated to be 4,000 to 5,000] households in Mawkanin, U Aye Sein could not complete [the] collecting of numbers in one day. U Aye Sein also told me that he had to collect the numbers [of voteing age residents] … otherwise he would be punished.

On September 12^th the Burmese election commission announced a rule allowing family members or members of the VPDC to cast votes for the absent eligible voter.  This raises the obvious concern that of Burma’s estimated 2 million migrant workers will not participate in the election, and instead have votes cast in their name by other persons – an situation that leaves ample opportunity for vote buying or coercion.

A Mon youth, age 28, from Chaung Sone Town, who graduated with a Law degree, describes how votes can be cast for citizens abroad:

In Chaung Sone Township, the heads of the Village Peace and Development Council … have gathered lists of people who are abroad in other countries, [migrants working in bordering countries]. On behalf of those people, the village headmen and the VPDC can vote for USDP in advance….In our Chaung Sone Township, the registration of citizens, who are eligible voters but abroad, has been collected by local [SPDC] authorities. By the time of going to poll, on behalf of these citizens, the proxies representatives [VPDC, fire brigade, Maternal and Child Welfare Association, healthcare department] will vote for USDP.

The above anonymous Mon law graduate also noted to HURFOM’s field reporter, that this September 11^th ruling will significantly disadvantage the local Mon party the AMRDP.  Large numbers of migrant workers from Karen and Mon state annually travel to Thailand to take advantage of the more prosperous economy, to find work and send remittances home to supplement family incomes. Due to this proximity, 600,000 Mon work in Thailand according to a minimum estimate by the Thai Labor Bureau and will be excluded form the election.

The collection of family registration lists has frequently been connected with the issuing of identification (ID) cards.  On multiple occasions ethnic residents, who also or only speak Burmese, receive cards marking their ethnicity as Burman or Burman as well as their own ethnicity.  This method of re-designating the official ethnicity of residents has been used to keep some large pockets of ethnic communities from contesting for ethnically designated seats in the region state assemblies[8].

Mehm Tala Sorn, 26, a resident of Baylamine village, Northern Ye, Mon State, describes how ID cards and family lists are connected to pro USDP pressure:

Lately, it [the SPDC] announced [it will] issue the ID cards for the people from Baylamine village-tract, [for] ages 18 and over…, who do not have ID cards yet. Issuing ID cards [is] led by Lamine Sub-township La Wa Ka[9] secretary Saw Nay Htuu. Each person has to pay 15,000 Kyat or 20,000 Kyat in order get an ID card. If we do not want to get ID card, they members of La Wa Ka will issue temporary cards that [are supposed] to be used to support [the USDP] for this upcoming election. Once they also issued Family Registration Lists for families in Baylamine village with a seal stamp [belonging to the SPDC]. However, this time, they [from the VPDC] said that that seal stamp is not legal and it is not a USDP seal stamp, so people have to come and get Family Registration List issued again.

Saw Pa Kar, 40, from Baylamine village, Northern Ye, Mon State, highlights the fees that are charged to register for a new ID card:

Everyone who wants to get ID card issued has to get new Family Registration List with new union seal stamp…One ID card costs 15,000 kyat and 20,000 kyat. If you do not understand [them] or cannot complain about how expensive the ID card is, [the person] has to pay 20,000 kyat, whereas some who understand and can complain about it [only] have to pay 10,000 kyat.

Coercion – Bribery

In multiple instances gift giving and financial support was first donated by the state to pro-government parties. Most notably, the pro-government USDP has frequently used gifts, the promise of business concessions or contracts, and giving mosquito nets to court the support of powerful political or administrative figures, wealthy business leaders, and area residents.  It is likely that a significant portion of the USDP’s capacity to fund these activities, as well as other development projects, comes from money provided by the state and the now defunct predecessor to the USDP, the USDA. Though vote buying does not appear to be directly illegal in campaign laws, this practice of apparently using state funds has received significant criticism as it violate the regimes own election laws:

Nai Nyan, 55, used to be a employed as a member of a local village security unit in Mawkanin village, Ye township, from 2007 to 2010. Here he describes the current activities of the USDP in attempting to gather the support of village headmen:

I also witnessed that the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) officers [were] provided [with] satellite televisions ( TV set + a 18 inches satellite dishes) for village-tract [leadership] in Baylamine village as the USPD wanted people from there to vote for them and organize people voting for them. The USDP only provided the satellite televisions for the village chiefs as they are considered important individuals who would help [the] USDP get more votes or work for the USDP to win in the election in this village tract.

U Myo Naing, 45, a dry fish merchant, originally from northern Ye township, Mon State talks about USDP efforts to recruit community members:

In Ye township, the USDP members cooperated with the rich people in order to organize people for voting for it [USDP]. It provides something needed or can be helpful for people in giving a loan, providing mosquito nets, and doing clean-up[10]. They also said that they will make change or develop [the] living standards for people if they [USDP] win the election.  However, as people know that this party supports the government, the SPDC, they are not interested in what they are promising or saying and they do not want to support the USDP either. Also, if possible, they will complain or argue not to vote for it [USDP] even though they are forced with guns to vote.

Nai Jein, Ayutaung village, northern Ye Township, Mon State, sees the limited donation of mosquito nets as a half hearted effort illustrating the USDP’s desire to buy votes rather then rally aid the welfare of the community:

For the mosquito net distribution, they [TPDC and USDP members] did not provide [nets] for people from every village-tract. They only provide [nets to] the villages where they can organize to vote for them. Some villages have 300 to 500 households and they provided 100 to 200 bed nets for people in those villages, having 300 to 500 households. [In other areas] some villages do not want to accept the bed nets as they only distribute about 5 – 10 bed nets. Distributing only 5-10 bed net is not enough for them [residents of a village]. But some villages accept the bed nets – although [there are] only 5-10 bed nets – because they do not understand that the bed nets are provided for what they [will] have to do after accepting the bed nets.

Daw Ma Tin, 47, from Ye town, Ye Township, Mon State, is a local store owner and a merchant. She describes how the USDP recruits candidates, not on goals for the community, but on existing personal wealth:

In Ye Township, in Shwe Taung Kyar quarter, the quarter candidates [are] U Htun Myint , a businessman, and another, U Htun Myint, from Ye Township too [both candidates have the same name]. They both will cooperate with government to run their business in order to get a profit. These two men are not running as individual candidates, [though] they are rich enough, but for the USDP to get any support from the USDP, like getting loans from it and [benefits in] running their businesses. These two men – businessmen – have never carried out any duties of civil service personal, but they are rich and the USDP came to organize them to present as candidates for it [USDP]. They accepted to do what the USDP wanted them to do because they can have a good chance to [improve] their business. These two men have never done anything that [is] good for people in Ye Township, they only know how they can make profit for their businesses or do businesses.

Coercion – Threats, Force, and Use of State Employees

As a military regime, the use of threats and force are not uncommon within the political sphere.  In the case of this election, multiple accounts have indicated the use of either direct pressure from military forces, civilian militias and thug groups, or the use of government civil servants in support of the pro-government USDP party.

Since November 2009, the regime has developed a network of local militias and civilian thug groups; and trained fire brigades, medical staff, and police forces in weapons use, crowd braking, surveillance, and intimidation under the premise of civil development and security.  These groups, financially supported, and set apart from other community members with special privileges and the ability to tax locally, have formed a base from which the regime can exert control over local voters.  In addition, the documented frequent use of administrators and education staff in preparing communities for the election under the apparent supervision of members of the USDP appears to violate the regimes own election laws, which prohibits the use of government servants and civil staff by political parties

Mi Sandar, 29, from Thanbyuzayat Township, Mon State, is a schoolteacher. She describes how government staff have been used by the USDP to staff polling booths:

The education service [and teachers] are organized by USDP. The civil servants [and] teachers are appointed to organize for polling booths and organize as polling booth team officers or members [to operate the polling booths] but not as [authorities] of it. They, as polling booth team officers or team members, carry out their duties to register voters and organize for the poll. They teachers work as teachers, but because they are concerned about their livelihood and fear the orders from the government. Even though they are not interested in polling or serving as polling booth officers or team members, they have to do or serve like that. They do know that this upcoming election will be held unfairly and if this government keeps running the country, we the people will keep suffering. They the teachers have to do or serve like that, even though they know that election will be held unfairly and people [will] keep suffering, because they are worried about their living [situation] and fear the government. So, obviously, the teachers are carrying out their assigned duties with no interest or will.

In early September, members of the USDP and soldiers from the Burmese Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) No. 106, visited Mawkanin village tract, in northern Ye Township, Mon State, to gather election support. Nai Nyan, 55, who worked in a village security organization from 2007 to 2010, explained how LIB No. 106 forces were directly involved in campaign efforts for the USDP:

In early September, 2010, the commander of Light Infantry Battalion LIB No. 106 which is based at Mawkanin village, called an emergency meeting with all village chiefs from Mawkanin, Lamine, and Kawdot village tracts. An approximated 40 villages’ chiefs and some village security troops attended the meeting. In the meeting the commander of LIB No. 106 Lieutenant Colonel Khin Maung Cho instructed all villages’ chiefs about the upcoming election preparation in detail. What I know is, in that meeting, Lt. Col. Khin Maung Cho ordered that every villages’ chief has to take responsibility for the tasks of organizing villagers going to the poll for this upcoming 2010 election. In his orders he seriously urged all attendees to organize the local people to vote for the USDP. The second thing he mentioned [was] the area security issues. All villages’ chiefs and village security troops must take responsibility of the security during the pre, during, and after election periods. He wanted nothing to happen during these periods[11]. Moreover, all village chiefs and villages security troops have to form a special secret informant group and monitor closely how the members of [the] NMSP and other political parties move and their activities. Then, Lt. Col. Khin Maung Cho ordered [them] to report back weekly on the mentioned group activities during this pre-election [period]. Village heads or chiefs, who failed to organize or report the activities of the ceasefire and political parties’ members, would be punished.

Nai Kom Myint, Ngyan Tay quarter, Moulmein Township, Mon State, who has a son in the USDP, describes how the party ahs worked to ensure its election on November 7^th:

For example, the USDP is, as everybody knows, the party which was founded after being transformed from the civil society USDA group – monitored and supported by military. Also it is the party organized [by the] military, civic servants [fire brigade, members of the Maternal and Child Welfare Association, healthcare department,] and education staff and formed with help from educated people [people who have graduated with degrees]. So if we speak of it, it is the party founded with volunteers …according to what my son, who was forced to become a member of it [USDP], said every member of USDP has already voted for [the USDP] it in advance. Additionally, they, the members of USDP, also have collected the numbers of 18 year and over boys and girls in every village-tract with assistance of the government. By the time of going to the poll, with assistance of each village’s headman, they [USDP] will get numerous votes from those 18-year-old boys and girls. The USDP members also have organized a lot of lu yen gah[12] in every quarter in order to [cause] fear in people, fight against when other political parties [gather], and [force voters] not to boycott the USDP…As these lu yen gah are also the ones to oversee or organize at polling booths for this 2010 election, on this November 7^th, they are together with education staff [in a] training given by senior members of the USDP.  To go for polling, the citizens who do not know about polling will be organized and vote for what the lu yen gah say. In this cases – because of these unfair strategies used by USDP and organizing the proxies – the USDP will contest throughout the Mon region and it can outcompete [other] political parties.

Beginning on September 6^th, two military columns from Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) No. 242 began patrols to at least 4 villages, including Mar Taw Koo, Hi Phoe Dae, Part Tala, Taw Kho, and Pa Aww Taw villages in Naung Lay Bin Township. The villages, located south of Nyaung Lay Bin town, are with in approximately 5 miles of the LIB, and often subject to frequent travel restrictions, due to the SPDC’s perceived threat of Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA) Brigade No.3 operating in the area.

The two columns from LIB No. 242, comprised of 30 members each, arrived and gathered villagers to make threats of travel restrictions outside the village if security worsened, and to give an election presentation describing how to vote and that villagers should vote for the pro-government parties.  The commander of LIB No. 242, who operates under Military Operations Management Command (MOMC) No. 16 issued the orders for these activities.

During the presentation, the unit commander for the LIB No. 242 column insisted that villagers cast their votes on November 7^th. According to villagers who attend one of the presentations, the commander did not state the name of the party to vote for, but stated that they should vote for “the party that stands for the State’s benefit”, leaving the interpretation of the phrase open to attendees.  According to one resident who has knowledge of the political situation with in the area, and the situation in Burma, highlighted that the party implied by the description of, ‘stand for the state’s benefit’ was likely that of the government supported Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP).  Saw Kyi Sein, 43, who is a cultivator of tobacco, hillside rice paddy, and corn, describes the meeting, and his prediction for election day:

The name of the commander of the Burmese army was unknown.  He is tall and strapping.  He and over 30 privates assembled the headmen and the prominent persons of our village …In the meeting, the local security issue was discussed first.  If the security is very bad, a curfew will be imposed. They said bluntly that if you go outside village during [the] curfew, you will be shot dead.  Next, [they] talked about the vote.  They said that [we] have to vote only for the party that stands for the State benefits.  I think they mean [the] “USDP”.  In desolate areas like this village, the army will put in the polling-box in due course and force us to vote [by] pointing [at us] with the guns.  We can do nothing but follow as we are instructed.  Even [if they lose the vote] they will win [the election].

An anonymous resident of the area, aged 30, who is close to a local VPDC headman, described to HURFOM’s field reporter how later on September 16^th, most of the village headmen in the township were forced by the commander of LIB No. 242m based at Htet Htu, to sign a document saying that they would guarantee all the voters in their particular villages would vote for the State backed parties:

The army forced them [8 village headmen total from Nyaung Lay Bin Township, all of whom are Karen] to sign an agreement letter that they will organize the villagers to cast their votes as they are instructed.  That happened on September 16^th.  The village headmen and secretaries have to take the risk that all [villagers] will vote for them [government supported parties].

An anonymous Mon resident, in Mudon Township, who is currently a member of the USDP, describes how the USDP campaign uses local village administration to attempt to secure votes for the party:

Organized by Township Peace and Development Council since Sept 5^th – almost every week – the local level [USDP] campaigning members come to organize people to vote for the USDP in 19 villages, in Mudon Township – Pian Ka Mar, Wad Tal, Joil Pyak, Kyiek kar Naing Sjan , Winn Ta Maw, Kyiek Sol, Taw Kuu, Ta Kon Tain, Ah Kon, Lat Tat, Kong Nyin Tan, Ka Mar Wad, Pal Tow, Ka Law Taw, Tow Mar, Sat Dow, Kom Ka Wee, and Taung Pa –  by threats [reported to the speaker by sources from those villages]. Every one from each household is ordered by Village Peace and Development Council heads to attend meetings at state-run schools, monasteries, etc. At that meeting, the respective representatives talked about the organizing for the poll. Also, heads of the Village Peace and Development Councils and Secretaries have been given responsibility for the task of making sure that every vote given … must be a vote for the USDP in their respective villages.

Election Restricted Village Tracts

By controlling where the election can be held, and how election or party information can be distributed, the regime has severely hampered the opportunity for thousands of voters to participate in the election. In particular, this has been frequently documented by HUFOM in more contested “black areas” or free fire zones in which SPDC battalions have actively restricted travel outside villages, barring opportunities for villagers to meet with or attend campaign activities of independent and ethnic parties[13].

As an alternative to the regional travel restrictions in each village, HURFOM has documented the impact of the recent restriction ruling by the Burmese Election Commission. On September 16^th the Burmese Election Commission banned 164 village tracts in Karen and Mon States, from participating in the electron. While the election committee has evoked the electoral law section 8 (F), banning constituencies that appear unable to guarantee ‘free and fair’ election process due to security concerns, it has in fact not targeted the country’s most fractious or violent regions. Instead, communities targeted tend to be predominantly either Karen or Mon and are home to strong competitive ethnic parties such as the All Mon Region Democratic Party (AMRDP) and the Phalon Sawaw Democratic Party. As a result, ethnic parties that were legally approved to participate, and have successfully approved candidate lists, now face significantly reduced prospects for electoral success.  It appears that regions where the election is banned will be designated ‘Union Territory’ under the 2008 Constitutions article 50 (b), meaning that these regions will me directly administered by the president and have no regional representation until the next election[14][15].

Saw Nyo Lwin, Wae Kha Mi village-tract, Thanbyuzayat Township, Mon State has studies politics and the political situation within the region, and commented on the recent election commission declaration:

In my opinion, that the Pyidaungsu Election Commission specified ethnic tribes’ territories as the areas that do not favor “free and fair election” by the section 8 (F) is not an honest deed.  As I know, the USDP is not a favorite to win the election in those areas.  Moreover, the 2008 referendum got a lot of ‘crosses’ from those regions[16].  In detail, the big villages in which many Karen people live such as Taung Swun, Win Kanar, Kha Lae Takhon Tai, Law Shan, Kamoke, Azin, Ko Du Kwe Kyake, and Taung Kalay of Kyarinnseikyi Township, are targeted [for the election] to be canceled.  It is very important to elect Pyithu Hluttaw representatives or Amyotha Hluttaw representatives who benefit your ethnic groups in Hluttaw.  Now they won’t get that opportunity.  I speak frankly; the deed of the SPDC military government is absolutely not honest.  I dare say that [they] annulled [the ethnic territories] intentionally.

Saw Mann, from the Irrawady delta area and currently lives in Kyarinnseikyi Township which has been banned from participating in the election:

Most of Mon and Karen villages they annulled [are justified by the] reason of “not suitable to vote in” – they are the village-tracts [that gave] a lot of ‘crosses’ during the referendum of the 2008 constitution.  If it is not allowed to vote in those areas, the crosses will disappear [stated as a joke].  Another point is that the announced areas are the village-tracts which are quite far from the urban areas, and are the areas in which Karen parties got support after they had zealously met with the civilians many times.  I speak that in those areas, the USDP absolutely can’t [spread] any propaganda.  The difficulty is that no one can know how they [the SPDC] work, so the ethnic parties have mainly campaigned in the areas that they expected to get more supporters [in].  Another point is that they gave a reason that those areas are insecure, but all canceled 166 Karen village-tracts are not black areas[17].  They intentionally schemed to make a cheat.  In conclusion, the areas that they will hold the elections are townships, sub-townships and village-tracts in which their backbone supporters have already been raised [support] systematically by giving a variety of opportunities for many years.  Backbone supporters maybe exist in various sorts [such as villagers, military forces, and education and administrative staff].  Therefore, they announced the people can cast their votes in that area they suppose they will definitely win the election [in].  They are arrogant in the areas they get favor.  If you think this is justifiable or fair, you can cast your vote.

U Pan Ngwe, from Kyarinnseikyi Township, and who works as a political observer, commented on the recent restriction of election participation, and how in Kyarinnseikyi Township significant infrastructure exists, rather then fighting or security threats:

That the Commission did not allow [the people in] the ethnic territories to vote makes the dishonesty of the military government more apparent.  The whole Karen people will suffer a lot.  It is not reasonable to restrict election [areas by] giving security reasons.  In both Mon and Karen States, 166 village-tracts are banned.  If we count by village, there will be a lot [banned from the election].  Some village-tracts have 10 villages. There are approximately three hundred thousand Karen people [excluded] Mon and Mon who can’t speak Mon language are one hundred thousand in numbers [excluded].  So you can guess how much they [will] suffer because of having no rights to elect their representatives independently.  One point I can’t understand is that amongst the village-tracts which is announced as “areas not suitable to hold the elections”, some village-tracts have police stations and also high schools.  I can’t really understand why [the people in] such situations[18] are not allowed to vote.  It is very obvious that they canceled [the election] because they can’t win [in those areas].  The suffering of the Karen people is really too much.

A Mon youth who refused to give his name, from Kyeik Hto Township, complains about the registration costs, election manipulation, and recent election commission ban all of which have led to the AMRDP not being able to field candidates in his region:

Because of restrictions from various sides, we’ll not have any candidates present. One thing that I am totally sure is that the All Mon Region Democracy Party (AMRDP) cannot come to contest for its candidates in my Township. Because of that, I am really unhappy….At the moment, there are only two political parties – the USDP and the NUP – competing with each other in this region – [the western] side of Salween River. In my opinion, however, the NUP cannot compete [with] the USDP.  But the NUP still announces that it will work hard in order to succeed in competing with the USDP. Because of [only USDP or NUP parties] campaigning like that [with out a Mon or Karen party] it does not seem to be really fair.

Personal Resistance

While resistance to the current election period has thus far not been manifested through the eye-catching turnout of the protests in 1988 and 2007, individuals have been able to retain a degree of personal resistance through defiant acts of non-compliance as well as mitigate negative impacts of ongoing election repression. HURFOM hopes to highlight that these actions illustrate an ownership that individuals still have over their own agency when relating to the larger issues of political and election repression in the area.

On September 4^th U Mya Thein, USDP Pyithu Hluttaw Township representative running for Mudon Township, organized a meeting intended to draw attention to the USDP’s funding for the construction of a tower next to the religiously significant Kang Kyi lake in Mudon Town.  With the assistance of the TPDC chairman, U Mya THein send sent invitations to households from Nyaung Kom village and Wad Dal village.  While an estimated 2,000 households were invited, only 50 households of people attend the meeting.

Nai Thein Lwin, 45, from Nyaung Kom village, describes the reaction of the local community to the USDP invitation:

When everybody knows that the meeting is conducted by [the] USDP, no one wants to show up at that meeting. You can assume whether villagers wanted to attend the meeting or not by observing that there were only about 50 households [that] attend the meeting while there are 2,000 households [total] in those two villages. I did not attend the meeting. But, I know about it as I was told by my neighbors who attended the meeting. My neighbors said that to build a tower at Kam Kyi, a historical site in Mudon, the USDP members pointed out that they offered some packages of cements and provided social welfare , and they stated that they will do everything that can benefit villagers. In that meeting, U Mya Thein, a Pyithu Hluttaw representative, said that if they USDP members were elected as representatives for this Mudon Township, they would take responsibility for the tasks of providing education, health care, and social welfare for everyone in this Mudon town and make Mudon town [into] a fully developed town. However, it is obvious that they only could talk about it with their USDP members as other people did not attend the meeting. They USDP members [must] also have known that people are very reluctant to believe in what they [USDP]  had been saying. Because [they are] not getting any support from people, I think, the USDP members will ask the government to assist them in order to get people [to] vote for them. For me, honestly, I will never vote from them, but I will vote for our Mon party, the AMRDP.

Ko Aung Nyain, 27, a Mudon resident who earned a History degree, and is waiting for work permit in order to work in abroad, describes how residents refused to attended the meeting due to their dislike of the USDP, but would to protect themselves from threats:

Frankly, a signboard saying who is a donor can be lined up as they want everyone to know that they are the donors. Typically, it is still considered fair when organizing [a] campaign. However, besides the pets of USDP, no one will stay, if [the] USDP comes, and spend their time listening the unworthy speech given by USDP members. Also, the USDP proudly announced that they will win a landslide victory in this election. Therefore, the meeting conducted by them became the meeting that no one wanted to attend. However, I am sure that there be some pressure put on us if we do not want to attend the meeting in subsequent times. And at that time, we should attend the meeting [to avoid the pressure].

In another instance Kyaikmayaw Township community members were intimidated by police forces to vote for members of the AMRDP. On September 18^th, members of the AMRDP, and party chairman Nai Ngwe Thein, visited parts of Kyaikmayaw Township, Mon State for their canvassing activities. On multiple occasions during speeches the local township Police intimidated them by following them wherever they made the public speech with the local Mon residents, according to Nai Hla Khine, a representative from the AMRDP. After meetings residents who had attended were approached by police and questioned as to why they had attended the meeting, and made to promise they would vote for the USDP.  Below are accounts of villagers who were harassed by police, but to avoid further threats, promised they would vote for the USDP.

Nai Hla Khine, who worked with the AMRDP while campaigning in Kyaikmayaw  Township, described how police attempted to intimidate party supporters. Noting that such intimidation is illegal by election rules, he describes how party members worked to ensure intimidation would not happen again, by complaining to election officials:

On that day, the township police [from Kyaikmayaw Township police authority] showed off their forces, approximated 7 to 8 privates on each team [during meetings]. I notice that there were at least 4 teams [that] tried to follow us. But we did not care and we tried to accomplish all of our activities on that day. However, later, we heard that after we left from the township territory [Kyaikmayaw Township], some police officers and their troops questioned local residents who we met with. From our side, we were permitted to meet with the people, however, they tried to threaten our supporters. We feel that such kinds of police activities are unacceptable and now we have reported these cases to the Mon State Election Commission. We got a reply from the Commission and they promised that they will take action on the cases.

One resident, 58, who wished to remain anonymous, and whose son is in his 3^rd year of studying at the government medical school, explained how he was interrogated by a Police Captain from Kyaikmayaw Township’s Police Station on September 18^th. In order to satisfy the captain, and protect his son’s position in the school, he promised he would vote for the USDP:

He [the Police Captain] asked me and some of my neighbors like this, ‘Why are you guys paying attention to the speech of the Chairman in the AMRDP’s campaign?’ He asked us like that. And I replied that for me, I wanted to observe them [the AMRDP] because we are the ones who have to vote [for] a political party and we have to be clear on all registered political parties, otherwise, we [will] have no idea who they are. And it is also difficult supporting an unknown political party without knowing what they are standing for. I explained to him like that. Then he bullied me like this, ‘I know that one of your sons are in the medical school and do you want him to face problems for his studies?’ I said, ‘no, I don’t want [that] sir’. Then he forced me to only think about the ‘smart and perfect political party like the USDP.’ I had to promise him that I will vote for that party [to protect myself].

Opinions

As part of understanding the impact of election abuses and peoples reactions amongst communities in Mon and Karent States, HURFOM has included opinions on the election have been included. These provide some illustration of the motivating factors for people’s reactions, the impact of ongoing abuse of election laws, and how people increase their awareness of the situation in the current election period.

Nai Kom Myint, from Ngyan Tay quarter, Moulmein Township, Mon State, has a son who was pressured to join the USDP in high school. Here he notes the difference between the election situation on the ground and that promoted by regime run media:

Firstly, what I want to point out is that in order to get more votes or win in contesting throughout Mon region, the USDP has used unfair strategies. Even though the state-run media (TV and Radio) and state-run newspaper have announced that the Election Commission will monitor the election fairly and has given freedom for voting – everyone can vote with their attitudes – in practice, here in Moulmein township it is totally different from what it is said in the media and in newspapers.

Nai Nyan, 55, who used to serve as a village security member at Mawkanin village, Ye township, Mon State, states:

This USDP will win in the election as it’s already gotten 24 million votes [official nationwide membership of defunct USDA party] even though it is not voted by anyone yet, I predict. It wins as it has organized respective local levels, but it will obviously be unfair because people are forced to vote for it. As the election is going to be held unfairly, it will be unfair election and the government will not run the country democratically. For us, in our humble opinions, we, friends of mine and I, from our nearby villages, do not want to vote for it nor do we want to support for it and approve it is fair election.

Saw Pa Kar, 40, from Kyainnseikyi Township, describes the election as unfair due to the elections basis on the 2008 constitution.  He also highlights alternative radio as a source of information regarding the election:

The last thing what I want to say is that this SPDC government is running the country unfairly and they are an unfair government. They SPDC are the ones who, with their power, have treated the people cruelly about 48 years. This forthcoming election is also made by them [to go from] unfair to fair and they will rule the country with the 2008 constitution. However, this 2008 constitution also does not seem to be granting any change for the country but only change for them, the government.  Because of this unfair constitution, what I want to say is that let’s fight against the government together with the real nationality democratic parties by not voting for it, not supporting for it, and not approving the election is a fair election or boycotting the election. …What media I read or listen to are FM radio, DVB, RFA, BBC, and VOA. As I am very interested in being aware of what the SPDC is doing daily and wanting to criticize the SPDC, I will always keep criticizing.

According to a Mon woman, from Pian Ka Mar village, Mudon Township, Mon State, describes her reaction to USDP campaigning efforts:

The USDP village-tract team members came to organize everyone in the quarter by going house by house….The USDP village-tract organizing team members have come to our quarter about 2 months ago by now. Their 5 member group came to our quarter and organized people in our quarter by going door to door. While organizing, they said in Mon language, awkwardly, that USDP is the only party that can win in the election competition with landslide victory. [They said] if the USDP won the polls, we USDP members would make the living standards here rather improved. So, instead of supporting or voting for other political parties, support and vote for the USDP. We wanted to laugh at their Mon [and] make fun of their Mon, as they can not speak Mon very well. As can we [could] hardly comprehend their Mon, we asked them to talk in Burmese and then they started talking in Burmese. They gave us the USDP member forms and cards. They also said that in order to get a member card, for the people who already passed Grade 10, [there would be] no need to pay for the fee of the party member registration and photos.

A retired middle school teacher, over 60, who currently lives in Nyan Lay Bin Township, Pague Division and actively participated in the 1990 election, also noted the dissolution felt around the current election process:

As it was expected, the condition do not favor to monitoring the election.  In the desolate Karen villages that you mentioned[19], the condition will be worse.  I am not even surprised [if] the soldiers forced [the villagers] to vote pointing [at them] with the guns.  The words “free” and “justice” are copied from the other countries and used in propaganda in order to get a nice sound.  Not only in the desolate villages, even in the township I live, it is possible to lie openly.  To cheat, everything has been already prepared in every step.  It is totally certain that the election held by the military government will become an unjust election.

Conclusion

This report is the fifth released by HUFOM documenting the ongoing abuses of the election period that the SDPC has used to ensure its succession to a nominal civilian government. With only a little over a month until the November 7^th election, these abuses appear to be the final stages of collective efforts by the regime to build support for the USDP and limit the capacity of opposition parties to reach potential voters. This support for the USDP has come through the use of voter eligibility lists and newly created ID’s; and the use of government officials, programs, soldiers, and funding to entice or threaten support from local leaders and villagers. In a sweeping measure 164 village tracts have been banned from the election on the pretense of security, denying an estimated 400,000 residents in predominately ethnic regions the right to vote for what had been strong ethnic opposition parties. However, despite these continuing oppressive measures, there are cases in which individuals continue to find ways to voice their dismay over election abuses, and protect the security of themselves and their families.

Given the breadth of resources the regime has spent on carefully shaping the election and the perception of the democratic process to its own needs, it seems likely that there will be longer term impacts on the potential for democracy in the region. So long as legitimate and alternative voices on the role and function of democracy are repressed, it is evident that little improvement in the democratic process will be made before future elections. For this reason HURFOM hopes that with a clearer picture both of how the regime operates its election strategy, and how communities are still able to reach their own conclusions based on their experiences, appropriate support can be provided for democracy education and dialog; a necessary alternative to the process this election has embodied.

[2] Chao-Tzang Yawnghwe and Lian Sakhong (editors). “Federalism, State constitutions and self-determination in Burma [Report on state constitutions Drafting process],” UNLD Press, Chiang Mai, Thailand 2003.

[3] Martin Smith, Burma: Insurgency and the Politics of Ethnicity (Bangkok, Thailand: White Lotus, 1999), 439.

[4] “Largest Mon ceasefire group holds emergency meeting over fate of ‘border guard’ force story on BGF requirements,” The Independent Mon News Agency (IMNA), July 14, 2009.

[5] Richard Horsey. “Overview of Registered Political Parties in Myanmar,” Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum, June 15, 2010.
[6] These abuses are detailed in 4 previous reports produced HURFOM, documenting election related abuses in eastern Burma.  Please see, Burmese government pressure on communities for support in 2010 election, HURFOM, December 2009; Election preparations round off a year of abuses against farmers in Mon territory, HURFOM, January 2010; “We have to try”: Mounting pressure in election preparations and responses from the Mon State community, HURFOM, February 2010; Watering the Poison-Tree: The ongoing systemic erosion of democratic process, HURFOM, August 2010.
[7] Ibid.

[8] “Mon Party Barred from Minority Constituencies,” IMNA, September 13, 2010.

[9] La Wa Ka is the Burmese acronym use to describe the administration equivalent of an immigration bureau. Either La Wa Ka or Immigration Bureau will be used depending on speakers use of the word.

[10] Referring to village clean up, often conducted prior to the arrival of government VIP’s but also to disperse standing water to reduce the presence of mosquitoes, to improve health in the community.

[11] The speaker is implying the possibilities of disruption previously mentioned by the Lt. Col. Khin Maung Cho, of bombings, attacks from insurgent groups, challenges from the political parties, or efforts to boycott the election, in the northern Ye Township areas.

[12] Lu Yen Gah in Burmese translates most closely to proxy gangs or thug groups – often youth –  that form non-official bodies used to intimidate opponents.
[13] Watering the Poison-Tree: The ongoing systemic erosion of democratic process, HURFOM, August 2010.
[14] Richard Horsey. “Countdown to the Myanmar Elections,” Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum August 25^th, 2010.

[15] “Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar,” Printing & Publishing Enterprise, Ministry of Information, 2008.

[16] Specifically, during the 2008 referendum period for the Constitution, rejection of the proposed referendum was marked with an ‘X’.

[17] ‘Black areas’, or ‘free fire zones’ are terms used do describe areas of eastern Burma still contested by SDPC soldiers, against insurgent forces.  These areas see the most frequent and widespread human rights abuses committed by SPDC soldiers, including land and property theft, torture, imprisonment, rape and summery execution. For examples, see HUFOM’s report, Laid Waste: Human Rights along the Kanbauk to Myaing Kalay Gas Pipeline.

[18] The speaker is specifically referring to places where there is community infrastructure and very little security concern, yet were still banned from participation in the election.

[19] HURFOM interviews are translated directly in order to preserve accuracy.  Here the retired teacher responds to the interviewer regarding the villages of Mar Taw Koo, Hi Phoe Dae, Part Tala, Taw Kho, and Pa Aww Taw.

Beginning on September 6^th, two military columns from Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) No. 242 began patrols to at least 4 villages, including Mar Taw Koo, Hi Phoe Dae, Part Tala, Taw Kho, and Pa Aww Taw villages in Naung Lay Bin Township. The villages, located south of Nyaung Lay Bin town, are with in approximately 5 miles of the LIB, and often subject to frequent travel restrictions, due to the SPDC’s perceived threat of Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA) Brigade No.3 operating in the area.

The two columns from LIB No. 242, comprised of 30 members each, arrived and gathered villagers to make threats of travel restrictions outside the village if security worsened, and an election presentation describing how to vote and that villagers should vote for the pro-government parties.  The commander of LIB No. 242, who operates under Military Operations Management Command (MOMC) No. 16 issued these orders.

During the presentation, the unit commander for the LIB No. 242 column insisted that villagers cast their votes on November 7^th. According to villagers who attend one of the presentations, the commander did not state the name of the party to vote for, but stated that they should vote for “the party that stands for the State’s benefit”, leaving the interpretation of the phrase open to attendees.  According to one resident who has knowledge of the political situation with in the area, and the situation in Burma, highlighted that the party implied by the description of, ‘stand for the state’s benefit’ was likely that of the government supported Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP).  Saw Kyi Sein, 43, who is a cultivator of tobacco, hillside rice paddy, and corn, describes the meeting, and his prediction for election day:

The name of the commander of the Burmese army was unknown.  He is tall and strapping.  He and over 30 privates assembled the headmen and the prominent persons of our village …In the meeting, the local security issue was discussed first.  If the security is very bad, a curfew will be imposed. They said bluntly that if you go outside village during [the] curfew, you will be shot dead.  Next, [they] talked about the vote.  They said that [we] have to vote only for the party that stands for the State benefits.  I think they mean [the] “USDP”.  In desolate areas like this village, the army will put in the polling-box in due course and force us to vote [by] pointing [at us] with the guns.  We can do nothing but follow as we are instructed.  Even [if they lose the vote] they will win [the election].

A retired middle school teacher, over 60, who currently lives in Nyan Lay Bin Township, Pague Division and actively participated in the 1990 election, also noted the dissolution felt around the current election process:

As it was expected, the condition do not favor to monitoring the election.  In the desolate Karen villages that you mentioned[1], the condition will be worse.  I am not even surprised [if] the soldiers forced [the villagers] to vote pointing [at them] with the guns.  The words “free” and “justice” are copied from the other countries and used in propaganda in order to get a nice sound.  Not only in the desolate villages, even in the township I live, it is possible to lie openly.  To cheat, everything has been already prepared in every step.  It is totally certain that the election held by the military government will become an unjust election.

An anonymous resident of the area, 30, who is close to a local VPDC headman, described to HURFOM’s field reporter how later on September 16^th, most of the village headmen in the township were forced by the commander of LIB No. 242m based at Htet Htu, to sign a document saying that they would guarantee all the voters in their particular villages would vote for the State backed parties:

The army forced them [8 village headmen total from Nyaung Lay Bin Township, all of whom are Karen] to sign an agreement letter that they will organize the villagers to cast their votes as they are instructed.  That happened on September 16^th.  The village headmen and secretaries have to take the risk that all [villagers] will vote for them [government supported parties].

The orders issued by LIB No. 242 indicate an ongoing campaign by the regime that operates directly in opposition to its previously stated aim of holding “free and fair” elections.  Within these and possibly other villages in Nyaung Lay Bin Township, researchers indicate that most villagers’ knowledge of the larger political climate, the 2010 election, or the voting process itself, is extremely low. This is most likely attributed to the strict control local battalions have placed over the permeability of outside information, though, as threatened, frequent restrictions on travel and other security measures.

These communities also face the possible threat to their own safety and livelihood by being trapped between the two opposing forces of the SPDC and the KNLA Brigade No. 3, which still operates in parts of the area. In this case, headmen and villagers face the possibility of threats and punishment by SPDC forces if they choose to ignore the order to vote for the regime, or by the KNLA if they go ahead with the demand and do cast their votes.

Beginning during the 1^st week of August, education staff from schools in Thaton district, Beelin Township, were ordered to participate in trainings to organize and operate polling booths for the upcoming election on November 7^th. According to school staff interviewed, the orders have been issued by the Beelin Township Education Department secretary U Myo Winn. The training has so far been conducted by senior regional members of the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), the predominant government backed party contesting the election[1]. Participating teachers expressed a desire to not participate in training, and a general disappointment, frustration, and residing lack of interest in the election as a result of the perceived close relationship between a contesting party and the current regime

The goal of the polling training is to train three Mae Yone Hmue (section/booth officers) and polling team members, for each polling booth. According to one a middle school teacher who participated in the training on during the 3^rd week of August, the training focuses on forming teams to take responsibility for respective regional polling booths, assist voters who are unfamiliar with election, and assist those unable to read or write in filing out their ballot. The middle school teacher, 38, from Beelin Township, was highlighted that he was forced to participate, but that none the less people may still ostracize him:

[After] being ordered by Township education secretary, although we do not want to attend the training, we could not complaint about it and we have to attend. So, obviously we are kind of forced to attend the training. Honestly, I do not want to participate in any political activities. Also I do not understand about the forthcoming election completely. I am not interested in it either. However, as I am kind of forced to attend the training, it is certain that I [will] have to take responsibility for this upcoming election as [a] polling booth team co-officer/sub-officer or a member of polling booth supervision team. As I cannot reject taking this kind of responsibility, I will be hated by everyone. But I am not willing to do like that nor am I interested since the beginning.

According a Shwe Yaung Pya village middle school teacher, because of the order letter sent from Beelin Township education secretary U Myo Winn, the teachers from Shwe Yaung Pya village-tract, Htal Yar village-tract, Ka Dee Buu village-tract, and Kow Tha Nay village-tract, in Beelin township, will be required to attend the polling booth training. According to teachers who will be required to attend, they have expressed disappointment at being order to attend the training rather then perform their normal jobs.  One teacher also commented on the sense of frustration felt by some of the area teachers due to the training being given by USDP permanent members to government staff:

According to the order of [the] education secretary, we have to attend the training at Beelin High school and arrive there at 8 AM on, Sept. 18^th, 2010. I do not want to either attend the training or participate in it. I work as a teacher because I have sympathy for the lives of kids in my village. For me, I have never wanted to [be] involved in anything that  [is] conducted by the government. Even though they [the government ] firstly said no service personal will be assigned to participate in political activities, they now force us to attend. Also for me, I have already decided that if possible, I will not vote. Now, however, we are forced to attend the polling booth team training, and I am getting really disappointed with it. Also what I am getting more frustrated is that the training is led by leaders of [the] USDP, and I have no idea why they the leaders of USDP come to give the training by themselves, as they are also contesting for their individual candidates [seats]. I have to participate in that training otherwise I will be fired and there will be a big problem, due to [this] township education order.

Sources from Beelin Township have noted that the two strongest political parties are both government back parties, the USDP and the National Unity Party (NUP), and have appeared to dominate campaigning at the local level in Beelin Township[2]. Only one other political party in Beelin Towsnhip, the Phalon-Sawaw Democratic Party (PSDP), has been able to successfully register, submit a candidate list, and campaign.

These accounts highlight the regimes ongoing campaign to ensure that at least one government party will dominate the November 7^th poling date. By using government employees whose jobs, and thus livelihoods, are dependent on retaining their positions, the government aims to force compliance of stuff to oversee polling stations.  By using USDP party members to conduct training, the regime is likely attempting to pressure the work and votes of polling staff at the stations, though HURFOM has yet been unable to confirm the details of what specifically polling teams are trained in, or to what degree they will be active in the process of civilians submitting votes.

The responses of disappointment and frustration indicate teachers are aware of the negative implication of this close government/party relationship. The resulting general disinterest in political activity in the current election climate also seem to indicate that teachers forced to participate see not voting as the safest option between supporting the regime with a vote, and being targeted by regime forces for casting a ballot for the independent party. 

The responses of disappoint, frustration, and disinterest in participation are indicative reactions to the regimes campaign to ensure the success of a regime backed party. Disregarding the previously touted qualities of a “free and fair” election, the regime’s use of USDP party members to train polling staff when they will later contest the election, is not lost on local teachers or, likely, other community members.

Faced with the difficult choice of assenting to participate in the regimes polling staff, or likely face harsh repercussions through loss of job and livelihood if they refuse, teachers are choosing to participate. However, these staff retain their active political role by choosing to not participate in the election itself, as they are expected to vote for the regime, and to vote against the regime would likely result in the same loss of job, likelihood, and other threats.

[2] For further information detailing the ongoing campaigns of the USDP and NUP see, “NUP campaign promises immunity from regime abuses,” HURFOM, September, 2010; “Watering the Poison-Tree: The ongoing systemic erosion of democratic process,” HURFOM, September, 2010.

Download report as PDF [1,735KB]

These efforts have targeted democratic and opposition forces through a variety of approaches designed to effectively overwhelm any opportunity for political engagement before the campaign period even began officially on August 31st. They include re-writing the constitution to bind the junta to the political system; legal entanglement and restriction; censorship; and the formation of government militias and thug groups1; the use of existing government funding, administration, police, military, and civilian action groups to campaign for government parties2; using state money to fund pro-government civilian parties; using coercion through rewards and threats in order to secure votes; While portions of these activities are actually written in to the legal framework for the lection, others violate the election laws written by the current ruling junta, technically requiring that the subsidiary pro-government parties involved be deregistered and disband.

The two largest parties campaigning in the coming election share strong ties with the current regime. The Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) and in part, the NUP (National Unity Party), directly violate the rules of the current election through their efforts to buy votes, intimidate rival parties, use of state assets to undermine the democratic process, all underlining their connections with the current regime, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). This report will detail the methods of these election abuses committed by the USDP and NUP, and subsequently the SPDC, throughout southern Burma. Accounts from politicians and civilians, and data gathered by HURFOM’s researches, illustrate the severity with which these parties have undermined the democratic process with the consent of the SPDC, and abused the legal structure of the current election period. Due to heightened security during this period, these accounts and data gathered by HURFOM’s field reporters is a sample of events and experiences that occur more widely throughout the region.

Background on Manipulation of Election Structure

The current efforts by the SPDC evolved from the failure of the government’s civilian parties in the 1989-1990 election period. Beginning as early as 2003 the SPDC government announced its plan to revisit the democratic process. Lt. General Khin Nyunt announced the “7 step road map to a disciplined democracy”, which, though containing no timeline, proposed several key steps of reconvening the national convention, drafting a new constitution, and holding elections for seats in the national legislature. In an effort to ensure regime’s future success, this map put in motion a process to significantly alter the conditions under which future elections would be held.

The foundation for much of the widespread election criticism has resulted from the passage of the 2008 constitutional referendum. The text of the new constitution lays down rules that have had significant effects on the outcome and structure of the current election period.  Elements of the document ban participants who are married to foreigners, and ban citizens who have committed crimes, both of which bar the head of the now disband National League for Democracy, Aung San Su Kyi. Additionally, 25% of all legislative seats for the upper and lower houses are given automatically to members of the military, and no part of the document guarantees the rights of ethnic minorities in Burma.

Over the last year election laws have been announced that further solidify the governments control on the climate in which the election has unfolded. First announced in March the SPDC created the Union Election Commission that has since had a crucial hand in regulating party registration. Election law No.2/2010 requires all parties to register 1,000 members within 90 days of their formation, and has multiple lines banning anyone serving a prison term, anyone affiliated with a religious order, members of insurgent groups, foreigners, and current civil service personnel are banned from joining or funding a political party. On June 21st a 14 point directive was announce further restricting the capacity of fledgling parties from nearly all aspects of traditional campaigning, including bans on marching in groups, waving flags, chanting slogans or making negative comments about the current regime3. A the time of this reports writing, the last date for candidacy registration passed on August 30th, culling the final number of parties able to participate in the election to 42.

Of the 42 parties that have registered and successfully submitted candidate lists for the election, the two with the largest number of candidates are the pro-government USDP and NUP. At the top of the list, the USDP and NUP are set to contest all seats – 1,139 – and nearly all seats – 800 – respectively. While candidates have only 2 months to officially campaign4, the manipulation and abuses of the election law practiced by USDP, NUP, and SPDC forces have already significantly undermined the efforts of every independent party.  The accounts and data collected below evince the activity and connection between the USDP, NUP, and the SPDC through their use of state resources, intimidation of rival parties, rhetoric, vote buying, and manipulation, in the name of perpetuating the current regime’s rule.

Independent Parties

While in the past HURFOM’s reports have highlighted specific cases of government involvement in repeated census taking, intimidation, local militia creation, and extortion and bribery, the USDP and NUP party now play the most prominent role in election manipulation. Two of the independent ethnic parties registered in southern Burma noted here are the All Mon Region Democratic Party (AMRDP) and the Phalon-Sawaw Democratic Party (PSDP). Accounts from members of these independent parties have provided on-the-ground detail of their experiences in the campaign process, and indicate the sweeping disparity between the USDP, NUP, and their own independent parities both in resources and legal restrictions.

Members of the AMRDP hold one of their regular meetings in Mon State, in June, 2010.

The AMRDP plans to contest an estimated 33 parliamentary seats amongst the lower house, upper house, and state representatives for Mon state. However members of the AMRDP have still faced legal restrictions, intimidation, and under election laws, illegal competition from government parties. A Mon man from Thanphyuzayat town who is currently supporting the AMRDP described his experiences connected with his participation in the election thus far, by phone:

The government chose November 7th [as the election day].  There are no problems for the party they support, the Union Solidarity and Development Party [USDP], but for the ethnic political parties, the non-ethnic political parties and the private political representatives, three months is a very small [time] to campaign in5. Besides campaigning, they are in a rush to prepare for the election.  Moreover, I think the laws or orders which constrain the political parties should not exist during the election campaign.  For instance, the party we support has to first inform the State Election Commission where they will go [to campaign]; when they will go [to campaign]; and how many people they will meet if they campaign.  They have to ask permission one week in advance.  Moreover, there are disappointing rules which never exist in the other countries such as ‘you cannot marching and campaign in the streets; you cannot assemble [publicly] in groups; you cannot use loudspeakers; you cannot print posters or pamphlets.  If these actions are not allowed to be done at this time, is impossible for the election to be a free and fair…Not only the citizens who cast their votes but, like us, also party-members who want to run in the election will have been abused.  Therefore, [the election] is not free and fair.  The international communities who monitor the Burma’s affairs should know [about the current situation] and should stop [them].

A member of the AMRDP, Dr. Banyar Aung Moe, 64, who currently lives in Three Pagodas sub-township, Kawkarike District, explained to HURFOM’s reporter that within the current condition, citizens of Burma need more electoral knowledge, skills in political analysis, and “brave decisiveness”, to make the political parties able to compete against the USDP.  He added that the other political parties do not get the rights to collect party-members and to campaign as the USDP does, (with independent parties being held to the 14 point directive, while USDP and NUP campaign action indicating they are not) a legal imbalance and violation that has become a growing weak point for these independent parties.  He noted in an August 18th interview that the AMRDP has to inform the State Election Commission one week in advance when they want to conduct campaign activities in different regions, a restriction that significantly disadvantages the party in their campaign efforts.

The PSDP plans to contest an estimated 30 parliamentary seats amongst the lower house, upper house, and state representatives for Karen State. Besides the USDP and the NUP locally, the PSDP has to compete with a second ethnic party, a proxy started by the current regime, called the Karen State Democracy and Development Party (KSDDP). A member of the PSDP, described her party’s difficulties so far as they campaign for support against the three pro-government parties:

Now, the government has specified the election day, so [we] have clearly know what to do first.  In my opinion, the hardship that every political party meets is that the Election Commission demanded the list of the names of 1,000 party-members which is due at the end of this month [September].  In this time, some parties have just been established.  And then, [they] could face a lot of hardship because they are not like the Union Solidarity and Development Party [USDP] which is helped by the government in collecting members and have gotten support from the government.  Another difficulty is time.  The parties have very little time to organize the people in their particular constituency.  Moreover, there are limitations, so [we] cannot do all of our work within two months.  I don’t understand why [we] have only two weeks to choose Hluttaw representatives when free campaigning is banned.  Another big hardship is that Hluttaw representatives have to guarantee [contesting the seat] with five hundred thousand [kyat].  Then there’s financial hardship.  If we requested the money from the communities, we have to do it a lot [more then we want to].  Moreover, in my opinion, the civilians do not want to deal with politicians like us.  I have been aware of [this situation] for a long time.  I realize that is because fear dominates them.  We shouldn’t blame them because they are taught by their experience to be afraid of (dealing with politicians) for twenty years.  According to the situation, it is sure that we can’t do as we want.  We have no alternative but to exploit the chance we got [through this election].

Civilian Observations of Abuses

The ethnic civilian population, though the target of campaign efforts, has in many cases experienced the election period as one inundated with tactics of division by SPDC administrative and military personnel. Legally, areas have faced a multiplicity of parties, both secular and ethnic, that support the current regime, while few represent independent democratic or ethnic interests. Government administrators have frequently conducted censuses of the voting population of each household, data that has been documented to inform USDP activities. In addition, villagers have faced travel restrictions, motorbike seizers, spying, and arrests by military units in an apparent effort to keep village populations from being able to participate in election activities. Civilian responses have differed widely, though 80% of interviewees, by HURFOM’s estimate, see the election process as unfair due to the strong connection these pro-government parties exhibit with the ruling regime.

Government election organizers are seen meeting with residents in Ye Township, in January, 2010

Civilians interviewed by HURFOM have voiced concerns over the differentiation between independent parties and pro-government parties. In Karen State where four parties are registered to campaign, people voiced doubts over three parties that are closely related to the government. The four parties are the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), the National Unity Party (NUP), Karen State Democracy and Development Party (KSDDP), and the Phalon-Sawaw Democratic Party (PSDP).

Saw Myint Naing, 35, a Phann resident, works closely with the PSDP ethnic political party and to meet the communities in their constituencies. He explains his mistrust and concern for the current political climate, and explains why he will only support the PSDP:

I speak frankly that the coming election is surely just a ceremony for them [SPDC].  The election is for the Union Solidarity and Development Party [USDP] which is controlled by the government.  As I studied, there are seven constituencies [now officially twelve per State and Division] in our Karen State.  Representatives from the four parties will be elected in these seven [twelve] areas.  The difficulty is that three of the four parties are led by the persons who are close to the ruling government and have good relationship with them.  In detail, the Karen State Democracy and Development Party [KSDDP] is formed by General Kyaw San who is from the ruling government.  Next, there is Union Solidarity and Development Party.  It is clear

that Union Solidarity and Development Party is the party of the ruling government which is [already] predicted as the winner of the election… The next one is National Unity Party which is led by a retired military staff member.  As a retired military staff, he would not be free from the influence of them [SPDC].  The last one, the Phalon-Sawaw Democratic Party [PSDP], can be described as not related to the government.  As a Karen national, it is compulsory to vote, [but] I don’t want to water the poison-tree.  I will choose the party which is clear of them [SPDC influences].  Anyhow, I have studied [about the election] a little, so I can speak what I think.  I dare say that 70% of the people in our Karen State know nothing about the coming election.  When it is about time to vote, they(the government) will manage the know-nothing people as they like.  The circumstance is very worrying.  Therefore, the specific [independent] ethnic political parties needs to meet with [their] communities.

Saw Htay Aung, 38, from Kawkarike, Karen State describes the connections between the USDP and NUP with the SPDC, as well as how he believes the election day will unfold:

In Karen State, we only like the Phalon-Sawaw Democratic Party [PSDP] because they have a clear background.  [But] we don’t expect they will win [the election].  Because, as most people think, this election tends to continue their [SPDC] power, as they have already prepared to win [the election] thoroughly in all constituencies.  The Union Solidarity and Development Party [USDP] has not only been strong in members and finance but also gotten favors [from the government] in the election campaign.  The TaSaNya [National Unity Party, NUP] is directly related with Saw Aung Pwint, the president of Karen State Election Commission.  He is a retired military staff member.  We vote for the party we like but no one can guarantee that our votes won’t change into theirs [SPDC].  No one can monitor the situation.  While the internationally [observers] will monitor [the election], [but] who will monitor the pole stations in the rural areas – our region. You can imagine.  According to my friend who is working on pole station construction, there will be many pole stations.  It is instructed to construct one pole station for every 300 voters.  If it happened as we said, it is sure that the government will have managed [to ensure that] no one can monitor the pole stations.  Therefore, as most people have said they [SDPC supported parties] will win [the election] any way.

SPDC forces continue their direct involvement in preparations for the election through the collection of family lists and use of travel restrictions to undermine communication between villages and towns. The collection of family lists, particularly of residents over the voting age of 18, has continued for months prior to and even during the current campaign period6.  These lists collected by government administration from the Village Peace and Development Councils (VPDCs) are later used by pro-government parties in targeting families to join parties and support their campaign, or to automatically enter eligible names to the party’s membership list. In addition, abuses that target villagers’ abilities to travel have also increased, with villagers being threatened with confiscation of motor bikes as well as increased travel restrictions outside of villages and around townships. It is likely that these seizers and restrictions are intended to limit the flow of information and the ability of opposition groups to campaign, as pro-government parties are able to by pass the restrictions by showing their party ID cards.

Nai Mon Dein, 35, from eastern Thanbyuzayat, Mon State, described the frequency with which government administration has conducted census lists, and the increase of abuses by government agents:

In my area, many villagers have been giving their updated numbers of family members to the village headmen. I heard that the villages’ headmen were also receiving threats or pressure from the upper level7 officers and township authorities [locally known as Ma.Ya.Ka in Burmese]. I have memorized that there have been at least 15 times [when the] census was taken by village chiefs in the village. I think the updating of these censuses will be directly linked with the election. They are going to identify how many voters for their government’s party are in this area. My relatives living near Thanbyuzayat told me that over the last 3 days the local authorities also have been trying to collect family lists and census in the areas again and again.  They started threatening the local residents, such as seizing their motorbikes in the area. More travel restrictions have been occurring in my area.

Kyaw Moe 26, Aung Thar Ya, northern Ye Township, commented on the census taking and the efforts of the current regime to stay in power:

The situation is becoming worse now. The local authorities are trying to collect family lists and census in the areas.  [Also] they started threaten the local resident with arresting motorbike drivers in the area [and seizing the bikes].  As I know, this constitution has not got much real support from the residents. But the government will certainly try to win in coming election. I think, finally if they can’t get the residents involved in the election, they will point their guns [at us] to get votes from us.

Ko Nyi told a HURFOM reporter that security has been tightened in villages from Ye to Tavoy and that SPDC soldiers from Light infantry Battalion (LIB) No.343, No. 586, and Infantry Battalion (IB) No. 61, have set up patrols in these areas:

The government set up more troops [and toll gates] along the highway road. But I don’t know what the reason is for. Sometimes the troops force me to buy dry cell battery. As I think, [this is] for the election. Even though we have our ethnic parties; ultimately those people must following the SPDC constitution and road map. The situation will not become better because everything is done by the Military government…Especially in a rural area like this, it is not like he urban area. Because in this area people have especially low education, so people may not know how to disagree with the government if they want to.  So even if people would like to boycott they have no idea how to boycott and also there is no leadership to make [for] them an open-minded chance. My opinion is then that people are losing their way [in what they want to do]. In this case people in rural areas really need education in how to participate in the elections. People seem to get involved if they have enough confidence, this is my opinion. To make sure how good or bad the government is, if [we] look back at their history in the country, if this government has been practicing self-interested work, these groups of people, we cannot call a good government – the same thing as [an] individual; we have to look back at his history.  If it is not as good as what we think or expect, he or she will not be a good representative. This is my view on the current government authorities.

A Karen man whose name is withheld for security purposes, works as a village headman at an unspecified village:

I have to attend meetings in LIB [Light Infantry Battalion] No. 106, especially with the tactical commander, every Friday, regarding local security, by myself. Asking about to make sure if the people have their ID card or not, updating the family lists very often and increasing the security of the villages – I have to report [this information] back to the local authorities every week – this is the activity they require of me. The government announced [they will] seize the motorbikes without licenses.  At the movement I don’t hear about the people who have been lost their motorbikes. But it is frequently happening and we must be careful when we drive our bikes. Now, I keep it in my house, I don’t let my children use it. I don’t think this coming election is fair. The government tries to place their people in to these positions [elected positions]. They do not really care if the residents agree with them. If they do not get [success in the election] by the soft tactics, they will use hard tactics. Our plight is constant suffering.

USDP and NUP Election Abuses

The success of the USDP and NUP in campaigning has been overwhelmingly contingent on the use of government support. Financial support is provided to open offices and bribe residents with gifts; the two parties are apparently granted the ability to exert direct control over local administrators, police, and military personal; the USDP retains its enmeshed relationship with the government run civilian action group, the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA); and the support of the government and use of coercion against opposition voters is considered tactical in USDP election documents. These abuses have demonstrated extensive links between the USDP and NUP, which under SPDC election law, should lead to the de-registration and abolition of these parties8.

USDP members are seen gathered for a meeting in Kyaik Mayaw Township, in late July, 2010

A stark violation of election law is the power the USDP and NUP holds over government administrators in village and township offices, as well as over soldiers in local battalions. USDP and NUP officials are able to arrange for VPDC and TPDC headmen to gather villagers for events and office openings, and force residents to join the parties to bolster their ranks. Additionally, though not yet elected, USDP and NUP campaigns guarantee party members that they will be exempt from all of the common harassments and abuses carried about by SPDC administrators and military personnel, a clear indicator of the sway parties have over the current regime’s personnel. Not only is this confirmed by accounts from residents and members, but also through official party documents obtained by HURFOM indicating support by the government for the USDP is officially acknowledged and sanctioned.

The USDP has also directly violated election rules by pressuring village headman who are administrators for the current regime, to gather residents to join their party. This violates not only laws concerning parties making use of current government administration in its campaigns, but also in coercing or manipulating residents into joining the party.

On August 20th, the USDP officially opened offices nation wide. In Ye Township the USDP held a celebration to mark the event.  Locals who had attended the opening ceremony said that 30 persons per village in 22 villages in rural areas (outside of Ye town) were forced to attend the ceremony by the heads of each village peace and development council (VPDC) by order of the chairman of the Ye Township peace and development council (TPDC).

Mi Yin San, a Koe Mile resident, who received an economics degree in 2008, explained how she was forced to attend the USDP office opening ceremony as a local representative:

We have to come [to Ye town] for two days in advance for their [USDP’s] Ye office opening ceremony.  Our village headman said that if we did not go, our village’s development would be delayed and we would lose our benefits, so we had to join.  The persons who have to attend the ceremony were selected.  The intellectual women and youths who have education were selected [to attend the ceremony].  And then, the persons who are already members of USDP were mainly collected.  As I know it, 30 persons per village were collected in order to make the ceremony splendid.  Anyhow, I lost my time.  We don’t want to deal with the political parties.  However, we know that in the current situation, USDP has a lot of members and power, and if they win in the coming election, they will become the new government.  Our village headman doesn’t want [our village] to be punished [by the new government] because of refusing their order.  Therefore, we were forced to go.  When we arrived there, their party office opened at 9 am on the 20th[of August] – we wore Mon dress, clapped our hands, were videoed and photographed and then went back.

Ko Zin (not real name), 24, from Lamine sub-township who is close to a member of the VPDC confirmed that the TPDC office in Ye town had instructed all local VPDC offices to send attendees to Ye on the 16th for the USDP township office opening ceremony scheduled for August 20th and they expected to have about 1,000 villagers in attendance:

According to my friend (currently a clerk at the VPDC), every village had to send 30 USDP members in order to get a show of strength (in the USDP office opening ceremony). The rural villagers were forced to attend [the ceremony] by the orders of  the TPDC.  I think our Lamine [area] had over 50 attendances. Their [USDP] members equaled over 30 persons [from the 50 Lamine area residents].  They were ordered to show their strength in bulk.  I think they want to depress their rivals – NMSP [New Mon State Party], and National Unity Party [NUP].  This is the way they usually use [members].  The winner will be them [the USDP].  On every issue, they can order the civilians [do what they want].  The civilians daren’t complaint.  The complainers will be jailed.

An election educator from the KNU leads a class on the 2010 election during June, in eastern Ye Township, Mon State.

According to information given to HURFOM’s field reporter, persons who are responsible for USDP activities in Ye town are: U Tun Myint (the owner of Shwe Taung Kyar restaurant), U Tun Myint, U Hla Win(Zee Phyu Taung village), U Maung Myint(Asin village headman) and U Mae Tone(Yan Kyi Aung Township, Ye).  These people compose a 5-member committee and lead the USDP’s office opening ceremony.  The ceremony agenda included declarations of the office opening by the committee leaders; and exhortations that party members must to strive to win in the 2010 election by the support of civilians. Notably the ceremony was closed with the proclamations of  “Three Statements of Our Duties” – a SPDC motto that urges citizens to protect the state, unite all ethnic minorities with country, and restore Law and order in the country.

Between August 8th and 11th, key members from Mudon Town USDP visited village headman from Mudon Township, requesting that they organize 40 to 50 villagers in each villages in the whole township, to join and support their USDP party.

Nai Thet, from Taung Pa, Mudon Township, Mon State, comments that the organizational efforts practiced by the USDP violate the idea of a free and fair election:

It seems to me that a very few numbers of the Mon populations will be interested and join this government supported party. My village chief is also confused about their [USDP] demands for organizing the Mon villagers in my [Taung Pa] village. Even though the state’s run television and radio are saying “to be free and fair upcoming election”, I would say since the beginning of these organizing periods, they have been breaking what they said was a ‘free and fair’ issues already.

According to the villager form Kamarwat village, Mudon Township, the village headman has been told he must organize 50 villagers for the USDP9. A local political observer based in Mudon town, estimated that during this forced membership campaign by the USDP, only one fourth of the people from the community that have been forced to join were actually interested in joining. Nai Win Mg (not real name), 55, a retired civil servant from Chaung Zone who is ethnically Mon expressed that:

I am not interested in the USDP because they were using the power of the current government to organize their supporters amongst the ethnic Mon and Karen communities. I don’t believe that this tactic is going to work and this action is totally against the election rules. Now we only think for the Mon party [AMRDP] to get more votes and for [them to] win in the election. So we will join the Mon party.

On the 17th and 18th of August, the National Unity Party (NUP), worked to organize 50 people from each Mon village in southern and northern Ye Township, Mon State, to cast votes in favor of NUP party candidates and issued permanent member cards to those people from each Mon village.

U Hla Maung, 45, who is chairperson of the NUP, has been organizing at the local level, with campaign messages highlighting the guaranteed changes the NUP can make, and that they want to support Mon ethnicity. At a community speech on August 17th, U Hla Maung was quoted by a HURFOM researcher who attended the event, as saying, “Our party will work hard for Mon people”. U Hla Maung is one of the 800 candidates fielded by the NUP.

Through its campaign in Ang Tan village, Hne Hnor village, Ah-Bal village, in northern Ye Township, the NUP has also issued permanent party member cards for 50 key members from each of those villages.  Nai Nyut, who has decided to become one of the 50 key members when the NUP issued party member cards on August 20th, explained what benefits he can get as a NUP party member:

According to what U Hla Maung said, as a holder of an NUP party member card, you will not be stopped by traffic police officers while travelling in Ye Township, none of your family member have to go for Loh Ah Pay [forced labor] while other people have to go for it, and you also do not need to worry about taxation charged by the army.

On August 19th and 20th, Ye Township NUP’s members also began organizeing the party’s campaign in Ka Law village and Han Kan village, in southern Ye Township. Ko Maung Nge, 29, who is working for a local NGO as an intern and was an eye-witness to the activities of NUP members campaigning in the area on August 22nd:

If the villagers from these villages become party members and vote for NUP, they do not need to worry about motorbike confiscation, taxation charges, and Loh Ah Pay work [forced labor], so said the key party members through their campaign activities. Through the campaign, the key party members have new members join, but I cannot estimate how many new members they get. I do know, however, that the NUP is the party at one time formed by General Ne Win. Because this party was once formed by Gen. Ne Win, even though [it says it will] give equal rights, for me, I do not believe in it. The people who do not think like what I think will regret it later on after becoming its [NUP] members. We are the ones who have to write our history. And although prisoners may escape from prisons, it is not considered that they are free. By thinking deeply, no one [should] want to vote in this forthcoming election.

An anonymous villager, from Ye township, who works as a merchant, highlighted why he had joined the NUP:

In my opinion, the citizens can vote for the party that they want to. No one can prevent them from [voting for] which party they want to vote. Persuading people to vote for the party is like how other military regime ruled countries held the election. Apparently, this is called vote-buying. We [our party members] will not do like that. We believe our people. We’ve already known what our people’s real attitude is, and then we will serve our duty for our people fairly.

A monk, 40, who preferred to remain anonymous, who lives in Ye Township and teaches Mon language, expressed his concern that the NUP’s campaign makes promises that only the government can keep:

There is no need to be doubtful [about that] the government supports this political party in many ways. We can know exactly whether it is right or not when we hear of what they [NUP party members] promise to do. Without any support from the government, they [NUP party members] can’t guarantee that there will be no more Lok Ah Pay [forced labor], motorbike confiscations, and taxation charges.

At an unnamed village, a military commander meets senior respected community members to urge them to vote for government parties in Kawkareik Township in late 2009

Besides direct pressure, the USDP has also tired to win support from local residents through bribery by gift giving. According to residents in Lamine sub-township USDP party members have been offering significant discounts on Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) phones. Ko Htein Linn, 26, a young man from Lamine Sub-Township, Mon State, states that people from Lamine Sub-Township became more interested in USDP when they heard the USDP was going to provide CDMA 450 MHz hand phones at affordable prices. HURFOM learnt that a normal market value CDMA 450 MHz phone is priced at 500,000 kyat, but the USDP promised that each key member could purchase a phone at the price of 200,000 kyat; Ko Htein Linn noted that the phone discount was part of a campaign to attract younger voters:

The USDP seriously wants members from the civilians who are over 18 because they cannot recruit the government employees as their party members according to the election rules. Currently they are still organizing in the rural areas in most part of the Mon State.

Central to the campaigning process of the USDP has been near indistinguishable link to its predecessor and parent organization, the USDA. The USDA, which holds Snr. General Than Swhe as its patron, has financial backing of the SPDC, and an estimated 30 million members, has appeared to put all of its resources behind campaigning for and raising the image of the USDP. This includes the significant funds the USDA posses being placed directly under the power of the USDP, to use for campaign financing and bribery of potential voters.

According to Nai Gyee, 46, a resident of Warkaru village, Thanbyuzayat, in the last week of May the USDP asked the village headman to gather 2 people from the community to join the party’s election committee. Nai Gyee explained that this request was the second time the USDP had requested members, the first time being on June 3rd at which time they asked for 2 members from every village to join the party at the USDP Thanbyuzayat Head Quarter. Nai Gyee, 46, explained:

I know that nearly 80% of the youth in my village have USDA members ID cards. No matter if the villagers are willing to join the USDA or not, the USDA township members put the villagers’ names in their members’ lists. This process has been implemented by the USDA members over the past 5 years already. Currently, they put the names of those USDA memberships into the USDP members [lists]. Thus, when they counted the USDP members in each township, the USDP has huge membership compared to other political parties like the NUP or AMRDP. However, currently, it seems to me that most villagers are not happy with the activities of USDP and not very interested in supporting the USDP.

In two official documents obtained by HURFOM, USDP officials clearly indicate their working relationship with the current regime and the USDA10.  Two USDP campaign tactics manuals for Jaygsachie an Myawaddie Townships, contain passages reading, “With the assistance of the state we believe that we are going to win in this election again [referring to victory in 2008 constitutional referendum].” And, “Most of the civil servants may follow the upper level instruction to vote for the USDP, however some civil servants may be influenced by the other opposition level parties if their education level is lower”. These documents, written only for USDP membership, illustrate that the support of the current regime is well known, and that pressure against opposition voters are elements of the party’s election campaign.

Additionally, minutes smuggled from a USDA meeting in Three Pagoda Pass town, clear evidence is given that the USDA is working directly with government secret police, army, and administration forces violating the governments own election laws11.  After opening offices on August 18th, local USDA members were ordered to carry out the following activities:

U Lwin Htay – Regional organizing officer –
U Cho Lay – Deputy regional organizing officer
Backbone members(Composing the Executive Council- over 30 members )

General goals:
Recruit 4 members per ward, in wards 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Three Pagodas town, and to organize civilians by intimidating them or giving them privileges in order reinforce and increase membership.

If the rival parties are encountered in their campaigns, disturb them various ways.

Polling stations are to be arranged in TP town in each ward in the following ways: 8 polling  stations in Ward 1, 8 polling  stations in Ward 2, 12 polling  stations in Ward 3, 8 polling stations in Ward 4.  8 polling station workers (with an officer) must be appointed per polling  station .  Workers and officer must be key USDP supporters.

Opening office and recruiting:
Village Peace and Development Council (who are also USDA members) must encourage close associates and family to join. Civilians and merchants should be given privileges or intimidated in to joining.

In particular, U Cho Lay, a USDA member in town, has been active in organizing amongst merchants in town.

Privileges granted for current members:
If you are a member of USDA, a member card is given to you. Those holding the USDA member card can pass the check points of the government without any checking.  Non- members will meet difficulties at the governmental checkpoints while traveling and trading commodity. This can be told to recruit [the civilians] by telling them the privilege and the threat together.

Intimidation:
The family and relatives of a governmental staff must support only the USDP.  If (they) supported the other parties, the particular staffs have to resign from his/her position and lose his/her benefits.

Conclusion

Despite 20 years in waiting, the current election appears to be little more democratic than if the regime had continued to remain in power as the SDPC junta. Opposition party members, observers, and civilians alike have experienced confusion, harassment, pressure, leading to their understanding that the current election is unfairly stacked in favor of the current regime. This belief is upheld by evidence indicating efforts by the regime and its two primary parties, the USDP and NUP, to pressure communities through giving benefits, and threatening opposition forces, to persevere.  The SPDC continues to actively conduct supposed census campaigns and pressure communities with movement restrictions even into the election when travel and the flow information is most crucial to the election process. The USDP and NUP election campaigns hold an indisputable link with the current regime through the demonstration of their control over regime resources and personnel as if they had already won the election, the USDP’s direct support from the government’s USDA, and even includes support from the government and USDA, and intimidation of opposition voters as elements of campaign tactics.

Apart from the immediate impact of a lack of democratic contest in the current election, longer-term threats exist in the form of institutionalized corruption of the democratic process.  By legitimizing a system in which people are inadvertently awarded as the democratic system is undermined, the possibility exists that without efforts to raise communities knowledge and vocabulary of democratic knowledge, a precedent could be set that even further roots corruption and manipulation into the next political contest 5 years12 from now.