Category Archives: Burma

So, Myanmar’s Constitutional Tribunal has been impeached. Despite this, it’s still not entirely clear why the legislature was so adamant in pursuing impeachment. Why did it matter so much that legislative committees be considered “union-level organizations”?

Aung Htoo, a human rights lawyer affiliated with the Burma Lawyer’s Council, argues in a DVB op-ed that:

… MPs would like to earn allowances on par with union ministers. They would achieve this if the affairs committees of the Hluttaws were recognised as constitutional institutions on the union level in accordance with a new law. If this were to happen, then the state would have to cover the enormous expenditure incurred by the operations of the 30 affairs committees. 

Another concern that people have is that these committees include not only MPs, but also non-MPs as members – for example, Toe Naing Mahn (Shwe Mann’s son). As a result, the number of affairs committee members is influx [sic]. Thus, the state would be forced to cover all the expenses and allowances for those members on the same level as government ministers.

In some ways, this fits what one might expect in a transitioning political system coming out of the shadows of a corrupt military regime. However, I don’t buy the expectation quite yet. First, the petition for impeachment received the support of almost all non-military MPs, including the NLD and ethnic minority parties. Thus, each of those groups must have had some motivation to support impeachment, even though not all MPs serve on committees.

Second, it is a bit hard for me to imagine Aung San Suu Kyi and the opposition joining the USDP going along with a money grab. This most recent crisis was reignited when Daw Suu beam chairperson of the rule of law committee. Other people I’ve talked to have said MPs thought the tribunal decision would have weakened the ability of committees to subpoena ministers.

Even though the justices have been removed, we’re only just beginning to understand what happened. I hope one day somebody writes a definitive history on this.

Some analysts belief the Constitutional Tribunal is striking back in a deeper way. A former European diplomat quoted in The Financial Times noted that the tribunal’s ruling was “clearly designed to protect the executive against the emerging will of the people represented in parliament. . . What it really says is that ‘the old guard is trying to strike back’.” Unfortunately, the diplomat isn’t quite clear in why he came to this conclusion, but I suspect it’s because the tribunal’s “union-level organizations” decision would reduce the Hluttaw’s ability to subpoena ministries to testify before committee hearings..

Here is the Constitutional Tribunal’s announcement of its complaint against the Hluttaw from The New Light of Myanmar:

1. It is reported that 301 Pyithu Hluttaw representatives at first have signed a proposal and sent it to the Speaker of Pyithu Hluttaw to impeach Chairman of the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union and members. Those representatives are adverse parties in this case.

2. They have no right to be as a chairman and members of the Investigation Board formed by Pyithu Hluttaw. This concept can be seen at Penal Code Section No.556 and paragraph 41 of Services Regulations Manual Book issued by the former State Council Office.

3. PREM’s Law of Habeas Corpus, Certiorari, Mandamus and Emergency Legislation says that “Nobody has the right to make decision in the case in which they get engaged”. This law principle is the prime of fair judiciary in the world.

4. Thus, according to the investigation ways and practices, as those 301 representatives who proposed to impeach the Chairman of Constitutional Tribunal of the Union and members, have no rights to participate in Pyithu Hluttaw Investigation Board, they are objected.

Thus far, the Pyithu Hluttaw has received the most attention for its push to impeach the members of Myanmar’s Constitutional Tribunal. However, there is just as much support for impeachment in Amyotha Hluttaw. In a recent vote, 163 MPs supported impeachment while 53 did not. The vote split directly along civilian-military lines, with the 53 military MPs opposing the measure. According to The Myanmar Times, military MPs have actually taken the lead in defending the court:

“The ruling of the constitutional tribunal is final. Not following [the ruling] is the same as not following the constitution. It’s as if the legislature is trying to position itself above the judiciary,” Lt Col Zaw Moe said.

The irony!

The votes in both Hluttaws have been open votes, meaning MPs must publicly stand up and state their position. However, according to The Myanmar Times, a few MPs in the Amyotha Hluttaw proposed using a secret ballot. Speaker Khin Aung Myint rejected the proposal. Nonetheless, the proposal itself is interesting in that it might indicate dissension within the ranks. It does seem a bit suspicious after all that all civilian MPs support impeachment. It might suggest that the speaker is putting pressure on backbenchers to vote for impeachment.

Finally, The Myanmar Times published another op-ed in which I was interviewed.