‘Non-CDM civil servants are citizens too’: Student union spokesperson

A new law enacted by the Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (CRPH) in mid-June has drawn criticism from student unions and civil society groups in Myanmar. The new “Civil Service Law on the Civil Disobedience Movement” was approved on June 13 by the CRPH, a legislative body formed and endorsed by civilian members of parliament ousted by the Myanmar military in February 2021. It honours and pledges support to civil servants who went out on strike against military rule in the months after the coup. These civil servants joined the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) by leaving their positions in protest, showing solidarity with Myanmar’s people against the newly installed junta. The law authorises legal and material assistance to CDM participants, especially those who have incurred losses or suffered violations of their rights. However, according to the new legislation’s detractors, it also includes provisions that may lead to unjust blacklisting, retaliation, or legal action targeting civil servants who remained in their positions and chose not to join the CDM. Myanmar Now spoke with Ma Khin Ni, an official serving on the information and public relations committee of the All Burma Federation of Student Unions (ABFSU), about her organisation’s critical view of the new law. MN: What do you think of the CRPH’s Civil Service Law on Civil Disobedience Movement? KN (ABSFU): Regarding this Civil Service Law recently enacted by the CRPH, there are things we in the All Burma Federation of Student Unions [ABFSU] welcome as well as things we oppose. MN: Before detailing where you differ, please tell us about the points in this law that you accept and support. KN (ABSFU): We welcome the recognition and honours granted to CDM administrators in some articles of this law, and the remedial measures addressing the hardship and oppression that CDM participants face, as well as the pursuit of justice for the hardships and abuses they have endured. CDM participants are heroes who played a prominent role during the revolutionary period. They participated and stood for the public interest with dedication. We recognise this. Not only must we honour them as the law does, but we must also help resolve the difficulties they currently face, their problems securing a livelihood. And we need to help organise the scattered movements so they can stand as a more systematic, strong, and solid force on the revolutionary side. We agree with, accept, and welcome the remedial measures and justice-seeking included in this law. MN: Regarding the non-CDM accountability measures in that law, we see opposition and criticism. Why do you oppose them, and what specific points do you oppose? KN (ABSFU): What we cannot accept in this law, what we must oppose, starts from the Chapter 4 section on “taking action” against non-participants in the CDM, which includes provisions invalidating the results of exams taken by non-CDM staff—not acknowledging them as legitimate. And then we have the National Unity Government (NUG) not recognising civilian staff currently appointed by the military council. We oppose these provisions of the law. Current working staff can be held accountable for injustice, crimes committed, and violations of professional ethics, but we say they should not be held accountable just for being non-CDM. We oppose placing the non-CDM label on them like this. Moreover, beyond just professional misconduct and criminal acts, there may be some civil servants participating in much greater crimes, people involved in the army’s killing machine, or in procedures that oppress CDM participants, or serving as informants for the authorities. We believe these people should be held accountable for their actual crimes, not simply because of their non-CDM status. We’re not saying that crimes shouldn’t be prosecuted. What we disagree with is the approach of using the non-CDM label as the primary means of pursuing accountability. Protest encouraging civil servants to strike (Photo - Myanmar Now) We also see provisions in the first paragraph of Chapter 7 that non-CDMers (referred to as non-striking civil servants) must apologise and confess regarding their choice to remain in their positions under the military council in accordance with NUG directives. We also oppose this point. We absolutely cannot accept provisions that legally mandate, in accordance with government directives, treating those with different positions and beliefs from us as enemies, or as obstructing the revolution. Non-participation in the revolution is not a crime, and that’s why we’re opposed to this. Our revolutionary organisations must be based on the people. Only when based on the people and supported by the people can our revolutionary organisations survive in the long term. So, whether they support us or not, if they’re not directly contributing to this army’s killing machine, the enemy’s killing machine, that’s enough. We must base ourselves on the support of all the people and continue the revolution. We strongly oppose and criticise a law that treats non-CDMers as obstructing and impeding the revolution. MN: There are criticisms that taking measures like these for accountability bears a resemblance to oppression practised by the military council against CDM participants, and that there could be negative consequences. What comments do you have on this? What negative consequences could there be? KN (ABSFU): The junta and the fascist military treat anyone who doesn’t support them, and even dissenters among their supporters, as enemies. They arrest and punish all such people. Participating in the CDM is just participating in one aspect of the revolution. Whether they’re not participating in one aspect of the revolution or not participating in the revolution as a whole, if they’re not a direct part of the military’s killing machine and not supporting it, we have no reason to hold them accountable. Enacting laws and taking measures for accountability would be like following the military council’s example. We can’t do that, we’re not fascists. We must nip this thinking in the bud now, while we’re part of this revolutionary struggle. That is how to uproot military rule. Currently, we all see and hear that some armed revolutionary forces are arresting and torturing people. Under such circumstances, how can non-CDMers be held accountable? Even if they say they won’t take action against non-CDMers but will take action against those who commit crimes, the armed revolutionary forces may publicise someone’s crimes together with their non-CDM status. This is essentially encouraging and promoting the message that these people can be tortured and killed. It would be like opening a path to punishing people just for choosing not to join the CDM. Anti-junta protesters call for participation in the CDM movement in Yangon in February 2021 (Photo: Myanmar Now) We’re trying to prevent that kind of situation. Not only in this revolutionary period but also in future, to quell hatred among people and to prevent them from going down paths of revenge later. After Operation 1027, revolutionary forces gained control of new territories. In that kind of situation, they will encounter non-CDMers in their areas. If they are treated as criminals, as guilty of some offence, or simply as people obligated to apologise before their rights are recognised, it will only sow hatred among the people in those areas. Then citizens won’t be able to fully rely on and trust the revolutionary forces, leading them to behave in ways that hinder and undermine the revolution. Revolutionary forces have to rely on the people’s will for their foundation, have to survive and subsist on the people’s support, so they have to persuade the people. Non-CDMers are also a part of the people, so persuasive approaches are necessary, and we oppose and criticise these laws that would lead to negative consequences instead. MN: How should accountability be pursued against those who oppressed CDM participants and civilians through various means, whether they are non-participating civil servants or people working in the military council’s administrative apparatus? KN (ABSFU): Those who harm CDM participants, those who make it difficult for CDM participants to secure a livelihood and survive, those who give CDM participants’ information to the military council, those who aid in their arrests; these people should be punished and held accountable. We completely agree with this. This is what should be done. But it is missing the point to label all these offenders simply as non-CDMers. Nor are all non-CDMers the same as these people abetting the regime. If we are to hold people accountable for crimes like these, we believe it should be done distinctly and without the blanket, non-specific label or classification of “non-CDMer”. Among the actual perpetrators of these crimes abetting the regime, there could be CDM participants, members of the revolutionary forces, ordinary citizens… anyone can and should be included in laws that apply generally to everyone. Criminal behaviour must not be lumped together with non-participation in the CDM. This current law treats non-CDMers as disrupters and wreckers of the revolution, we feel, and we can see that this law is interpreted the same way by the general public. So, we want separate laws to hold accountable the willing participants in the army’s killing machine, its abetters, those who are harming people, rather than laws broadly applying the same label to every non-participant in the CDM, as if that were an effective way to pursue accountability. MN: In Chapter 4 on Taking Action, the law appears to authorise the blacklisting of non-CDMers, and Article 16 provides for department-level accountability, punishment, and legal action. Articles 18 and 19 specify what cases involve non-CDMers and how they’ll be held accountable. Article 21 includes amnesty and leniency provisions. How and why does the law differ from what the ABFSU advocates? KN (ABSFU): We want crimes of non-CDMers or anyone to be determined in accordance with their individual criminal acts, not based on the non-CDM label. But CRPH’s CDM Civil Servant Law from Chapter 4 onwards completely differs from our positions. Whether we accept it or not, everyone has the full right not to participate in this revolution. We need to reconsider why we’re doing this revolution. Revolution is meant to achieve certain benefits. We can’t say that those who don’t participate, for whatever reason, shouldn’t benefit from the fruits of revolution. We’re revolting to liberate everyone—both participants and non-participants—from military dictatorship. Participants and non-participants alike have been victims of military dictatorship and oppression. We’re working for everyone’s liberation from this situation, we feel that’s the revolution’s essence and the belief at its core. So, even if we have grievances against non-CDMers or those not participating in the revolution, their right to work in positions for which they’re qualified—to teach if they’re teaching—these are human rights that cannot be restricted or withheld in any way. We at the ABFSU must stand up for these rights. Ministerial staff protesting against the military coup in Yangon in the second week of February 2021 (Photo: EPA) MN: The CRPH provides for legal action against non-participants rather than persuasion. What effects could this have? KN (ABSFU): We still persuade soldiers in the army’s killing machine, even paying money in some cases to persuade them to defect. Considering that, why can’t we also persuade civilian staff members who haven’t oppressed or tortured any of Myanmar’s citizens; non-CDMers who are not part of this army’s killing machine? Why can’t we keep our doors open to them? As it stands, the law includes a threshold date for having joined the CDM, and anyone choosing to participate after that deadline would be considered a non-participant. Instead of adopting this kind of restriction, we should accept anyone willing to join at any time, allow anyone to cross over to the revolutionary side whenever they can. We must consolidate our existing forces, persuade those who have not yet taken a side, and isolate the common enemy. This law turns that strategy on its head. This law will not only exist on paper. Its effects will be felt on the ground. Even if we set aside the post-revolutionary period, there will be many negative effects felt on the ground almost immediately. Revolutionary forces won’t be able to persuade or incentivise people to trust or join them if they prioritise discrimination against non-CDMers, constantly thinking of ways to constrain and punish them and not treating people as people. MN: The military junta has also publicised the killings of non-CDMers and civilians by anti-junta forces. The CRPH law lacks provisions for preventing illegal arrests and killings. How could this worsen the situation? KN (ABSFU): This is the right question to ask. Currently, CRPH should draft and enact laws on how to address illegal detentions and killings by our revolutionary forces. This is what is most needed under current circumstances. Along with considering how to support CDM participants, it is our most urgent need at present. But no such laws exist. Instead, they’ve enacted a law that seems to allow for more oppression of non-CDMers, more arrests and torture of non-striking civil servants. Even if it was not enacted with that intention, conditions on the ground could grow worse because of this law. On the revolutionary side, we’re not currently even in a position to control each other. Enacting laws to hold non-CDMers accountable in such times will only make things worse. Knowing the military can exploit revolutionaries’ indiscretions and crimes for propaganda purposes, we must uphold discipline on our own side. Non-CDM civil servants are citizens too. We must treat citizens right, and we must bear this in mind in persuading them. The current law will do the opposite, that’s what we’re worried about. MN: If you have anything to add, please do.KN (ABSFU): We in the ABSFU stand for the rights of students and civil servants who participated in the CDM as well as those who did not go out on strike. Both are subject to oppression under the military dictatorship. The ABSFU will fight alongside CDM participants on one hand. On the other, rather than discriminate against those not participating in the CDM or the revolution in general, we will persuade as many of them as possible to join us and work to isolate our common enemy: the military dictatorship.

‘Non-CDM civil servants are citizens too’: Student union spokesperson

Myanmar Now interviewed an All Burma Federation of Student Unions (ABSFU) official about the anti-junta opposition’s new law on civil servants, which the group has criticised as draconian and discriminatory towards Myanmar citizens who opted out of striking against the 2021 coup

Subscribe for full access

Is Myanmar’s military junta losing patience with China?

For Myanmar’s Buddhists, the pursuit of inner peace turns deadly as military targets monasteries

‘Be back by 7’: For Yangon’s young, a life ruled by a self-enforced curfew

Myanmar’s military is regaining ground, costing the resistance key connections

Subscribe for full access

Related Articles

Myanmar junta airstrike kills two university students in historic Rakhine town

Bangkok says ASEAN should accept Myanmar back at diplomat level

Is Myanmar’s military junta losing patience with China?

Myanmar junta tells country that reliable electricity still 20 years away