Let Pa Daung Update 24-Dec-14

Top of Form

Share Mercy

လက္ပံေတာင္းေတာင္ အဓိကရုဏ္းျဖစ္စဥ္နဲ႔ပတ္သက္လို႔ စစ္ကိုင္းတိုင္းေဒသႀကီး အစိုးရအဖြဲ႔၀န္ႀကီးခ်ဳပ္ ဦးသာေအးနဲ႔ စစ္ကိုင္းတိုင္းေဒသႀကီးက အမ်ဳိးသားဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္၀င္ေတြနဲ႔ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကိုယ္စားလွယ္ေတြပါတဲ့ အဖြဲ႔တဖြဲ႔ တိုင္းေဒသၾကီးလြႊတ္ေတာ္မွာ ဒီကေန႔ ေဆြးေႏြးၾကၿပီး အဓိကရုဏ္းနဲ႔ပတ္သက္လို႔ စုံစမ္းေရးေကာ္မရွင္ ဖြဲ႔စည္းေဆာင္ရြက္ေနၿပီလို႔ ၀န္ႀကီးခ်ဳပ္က ကတိျပဳခဲ့ပါတယ္။

ဓာတ္ပံု – ကိုဟန္၀င္းေအာင္

အမ်ဳိးသားဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္ကိုယ္စားျပဳသြာေးရာက္ေဆြးေႏြးတဲ့ အဖြဲ႔ထဲမွာပါတဲ့  လႊတ္ေတာ္ကိုယ္စားလွယ္ ေဒါက္တာျမင့္ႏုိင္ကို ေမးျမန္းထားပါတယ္။

ေဒါက္တာျမင့္ႏိုင္တို႔ စစ္ကိုင္းတိုင္းအစိုးရအဖြဲ႔က တာ၀န္ရွိသူေတြနဲ႔သြားေတြ႔ၾကတာ ဘာေတြ ေျပာဆုိေဆြးေႏြးၾကလဲခင္ဗ်။

“ဟုတ္ကဲ့ ေန႔ခင္း ၂ နာရီ သုံးနာရီမတ္တင္းေလာက္က ေတြ႔ပါတယ္။ အခု ၂၂ ရက္ေန႔ကျဖစ္သြားတဲ့ မိုးႀကိဳးျပင္အလယ္ရြာက ေဒၚခင္၀င္းေသသြားတဲ့ကိစၥနဲ႔ပတ္သက္ၿပီးေတာ့ အဓိကရုဏ္းႏွိမ္နင္းတာနဲ႔ပတ္သက္ၿပီးေတာ့ ၀န္ႀကီးခ်ဳပ္ဦးသာေအးနဲ႔ သြားေတြ႔တာပါ။

“က်ေနာ္တို႔အေနနဲ႔ကေတာ့ ဒီ ျခံစည္းရိုးခတ္ေနတဲ့ကိစၥက ဆက္ခတ္ဦးမလား၊ ဆက္ခတ္ရင္ ျပႆ      နာေတြ အမ်ားႀကီးျဖစ္ႏိုင္ပါတယ္လို႔ ေျပာပါတယ္။ သူက ျခံစည္းရုိးခတ္တာ ၿပီးသြားပါၿပီတဲ့ ဆက္ခတ္စရာမလိုေတာ့ပါဘူးတဲ့။ ေနာက္တခါ ဆည္ရြာမွာ ရဲမွဴးႀကီးက မီးရႈိ႕မယ္ဆိုၿပီး ႀကိမ္းသြားတာ ဟုတ္ပါသလားဆိုေတာ့ မဟုတ္ပါဘူးတဲ့။ ေနာက္ အခုကိစၥမွာ ဘယ္သူက တာ၀န္ရွိၿပီး ဘယ္လိုေျဖရွင္းၾကမွာလဲလို႔ ေမးေတာ့ သူတို႔ ေကာ္မရွင္ဖြဲ႔ထားပါတယ္တဲ့။ ေျပာၾကားလိုက္ပါတယ္။  စစ္ကိုင္းတိုင္းေဒသႀကီးအစိုးရရုံး ညႊန္ၾကားေရးမွဴး ဦးေက်ာ္သူေအာင္၊ ခရိုင္ဥပေဒအရာရွိနဲ႔ ဒုရဲမွဴးႀကီးတဦး အဲဒီသုံးဦးနဲ႔ သူတို႔ ေကာ္မရွင္ဖြဲ႔ထားပါတယ္တဲ့။ ဒီကိစၥကို ဘယ္လိုတာ၀န္ယူေျဖရွင္းမလဲဆိုေတာ့ အဲဒီေကာ္မရွင္ အစီရင္ခံစာထြက္လာၿပီးမွ အျမန္ဆုံးေျဖရွင္းပါ့မယ္တဲ့။ ႏွစ္ပတ္အတြင္း ေျဖရွင္းပါ့မယ္တဲ့။

“က်ေနာ္က ေျပာတယ္ ရဲေတြက ဒီလိုေျဖရွင္းနည္းဟာ က်ေနာ္တို႔ အေနနဲ႔ လုံး၀လက္သင့္မခံပါဘူးလို႔ ေျပာလိုက္တယ္ေလ။ အဲဒီက်ေတာ့ သူတို႔ ေနာက္ေနာင္ ဒါလိုမ်ဳိးမျဖစ္ေအာင္ သူတို႔လုပ္ေဆာင္ဖို႔၊ လယ္ယာေျမ ေျမကိတ္စေတြအားလုံးကုိ ေလ်ာ္ေၾကးေပးႏိုင္ရင္ ထပ္ေပးဖို႔၊ အားလုံးညိႇႏႈိင္းဖို႔ က်ေနာ္တို႔ ေျပာခဲ့ၾကတာပါ။”

ျခံစည္းရိုးခတ္တဲ့လုပ္ငန္းက ၿပီးသြားၿပီေပါ့ ဟုတ္လား။

“ဒီအပတ္ေတာ့ ၿပီးသြားၿပီတဲ့ ။ ေနာက္တခါေတာ့ မသိဘူးတဲ့။ အဲဒီကိစၥအတြက္ အ ခုပါသြားတဲ့ လယ္ယာေျမေတြကိစၥအတြက္ တႏွစ္စာ သီးႏွံေလ်ာ္ေၾကးေပးမယ္တဲ့၊ ေနာက္ အရင္က ေျမယာေလ်ာ္ေၾကးေပးထားတဲ့အတိုင္းပဲ မည္သူမဆို  အခ်ိန္မေရြးလာထုတ္လို႔ရပါတယ္တဲ့။ ေလ်ာ္ေၾကးလည္း တိုးေပးထားပါတယ္လို႔ ေျပာတယ္ဗ်။”

အသက္ေသဆုံးမႈတြ ထိခိုက္ဒဏ္ရာရခဲ့သူေတြအတြက္ နစ္နာေၾကး ေပးေရးကိစၥေရာ။

“ထိခုိက္ဒဏ္ရာရေသဆုံးတဲ့ ေဒၚခင္၀င္းကိတ္စကိုေတာ့ သူတို႔ ၾကားကေန ၀င္ေနပါတယ္။ အခုေန ၀င္သြားရင္ တမ်ဳိးျဖစ္မွာစိုးလို႔။ သူတို႔ေတာ့ ေလ်ာ္ေၾကးေပးဖို႔ေတာ့ အစီအစဥ္ရွိတယ္လို႔ ေျပာတယ္။ ဒဏ္ရာရသူေတြ ေဆးရုံတက္သူေတြအတြက္လည္း သူတို႔ေျပာပါတယ္။”

ေဒသခံေတြရဲ႔ အမ်က္ေဒါသ ေျပေလ်ာ့ေအာင္ ၀န္ႀကီးခ်ဳပ္ဦးသာေအးက ဘာေတြထပ္ေျပာလိုက္ေသးလဲခင္ဗ်။

“အဲဒါ ေဒၚခင္စန္းလႈိင္ (ေတြ႔ဆုံပြဲမွာပါတဲ့ ပုလဲၿမိဳ႕နယ္အမတ္) နဲ႔ညိႇၿပီးေတာ့ ေနာက္ေနာင္ သူတို႔ဆက္လုပ္မယ့္ဟာေတြကို ေဒသခံေတာင္သူနဲ႔ ညိႇႏႈိင္းၿပီးေတာ့ သပ္သပ္ ေျဖရွင္းေအာင္္လုပ္ပါ့မယ္တဲ့။ သူတို႔ေျပာတာ ေျခာက္ဆယ္ရာခို္င္ႏႈန္း လက္သင့္ခံထားတဲ့အတြက္ ဆက္လုပ္ရတာပါလို႔ ေျပာတယ္ဗ်။ သူတို႔ တတ္ႏိုင္သမွ်ညိႇပါ။ ဒီလိုမ်ဳိးျပႆ     နာမျဖစ္ေအာင္လုပ္ပါ၊ တိုင္းအေနနဲ႔လည္း ဒီကိစၥကို လက္သင့္မခံဘူးဆိုတာ ေၾကညာခ်က္တေစာင္ (စစ္ကိုင္းတိုင္းေဒသၾကီးအမ်ဳိးသားဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္ရဲ႔ေၾကညာခ်က္) ထြက္ပါတယ္။”

ဒီကေန႔ေတြ႔ဆုံမႈနဲ႔ပတ္သက္လို႔ ေက်နပ္အားရမႈရွိလား။

“အင္း၊ ဒါ သူတို႔ေျပာတဲ့ကိစၥကို ေစာင့္ၾကည့္ရဦးမွာေပါ့ဗ်ာ။ သူတို႔အေျပာနဲ႔ အလုပ္နဲ႔ ညီမညီ။ ႏွစ္ပတ္အတြင္း စုံစမ္းေရးေကာ္မရွင္ဖြဲ႔ၿပီးေတာ့ ဘယ္လို လုပ္မလဲဆိုတာ က်ေနာ္တို႔ ေစာင့္ၾကည့္ရဦးမွာေပါ့။ ႏွစ္ပတ္အတြင္းလုပ္မယ္လို႔ေတာ့ ေျပာတာပဲ။”

(မွတ္ခ်က္။ ။ စစ္ကိုင္းတိုင္းေဒသႀကီး အမ်ဳိးသားဒီမုိကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္ရဲ့ ဒီကေန႔ ထုတ္ျပန္ ေၾကညာခ်က္မွာ အာဏာပိုင္နဲ႔ ျပည္သူေတြရဲ့ ပဋိပကၡေတြမွာ လက္နက္နဲ႔ အၾကမ္းဖက္ႏွိမ္နင္းမႈေတြကို  ကန္႔ကြက္ရႈတ္ခ်ထားၿပီး အဓိကရုဏ္းျဖစ္စဥ္ကို စုံစမ္းေဖာ္ထုတ္ေပးဖို႔နဲ႔ လက္ပံေတာင္းေတာင္စုံစမ္းစစ္ေဆးေရးေကာ္မရွင္ အစီရင္ခံစာပါအခ်က္ေတြကို ေလးစာလိုက္နာ အေကာင္အထည္ေဖာ္ေပးဖို႔ တိုက္တြန္းထားပါတယ္။)

ဆရာ ေမာင္စိန္၀င္း ( ပုတီးကုန္း ) ယေန ့ ေရးတဲ့ကဗ်ာ
=========================================
လက္ပံေတာင္းက်ိန္စာ
————————-
လက္ပံေတာင္း
အသက္ေပါင္းမ်ားစြာစေတး
ေသြးနဲ႔ေမာ္ကြန္းတင္
ရာဇဝင္သမိုင္းအသစ္
အရုိင္းတစ္ေခတ္ကိုကဗ်ည္းထိုးျပီ။

ဒါဒို႔ေရ ဒါဒို႔ေျမ
ငါတို႔တေတြပိုင္တဲ႔ေတာင္ေတြကိုဖ်က္
လယ္ကြက္ေျမကြက္အဓမၼလု
မမ်ွမတတဲ႔ လူ႕အခြင္႕အေရး
အသက္ကိုပါေပးရတဲ႕အျဖစ္
လက္ပံေတာင္းေတာင္စစ္တလင္း
ေသြးခ်င္းခ်င္းနီ
ျပည္သူကိုသတ္တဲ႕က်ည္ဆံ
သမိုင္းကိုမွန္ျပီးက်န္ခဲ႕။

ေတာေပ်ာက္ေတာင္ေပ်ာက္
လယ္ေပ်ာက္ယာေပ်ာက္
ရြာေပ်ာက္လူေပ်ာက္
ေဖ်ာက္ခ်င္တာေဖ်ာက္
ေပ်ာက္ခ်င္တာေပ်ာက္
ေဖ်ာက္တိုင္းမပ်က္
ဖ်က္တိုင္းမစင္
ရာဇဝင္ရိုင္း
ေသြးသမိုင္းကို
ျပည္သူေတြ ေတြးတိုင္းေတြးတိုင္း
နာက်ည္းေစ။

ေမာင္စိန္ဝင္း ( ပုတီးကုန္း )
၂၃ -၁၂ -၂၀၁၄

ကို tun wai မွ ကူးယူတင္ျပသည္။

Top of Form

Like · · Share

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Let Pa Daung Copper Mine Update 24-Dec-2014

လက္ပံေတာင္းနယ္ေျမအတြင္း ျခံစည္းရိုးတိုးခ်ဲ႕ခတ္ျခင္းကို ၀မ္ေပါင္ကုမၸဏီက တရုတ္ႏိုင္ငံသားမ်ားျဖင့္ ဆက္လက္လုပ္ေဆာင္ေနကာ ဟန္႔တားသူေဒသခံမ်ားကို ျမန္မာ၀မ္ေပါင္ႏွင့္ ရဲတပ္ဖြဲ႕၀င္မ်ားက ၿဖိဳခြင္းရာ ေဒသခံႏွစ္ဦး ဒဏ္ရာရ

လက္ပံေတာင္းနယ္ေျမအတြင္း ျခံစည္းရိုးတိုးခ်ဲ႕ ခတ္ျခင္းကို ဒီဇင္ဘာ ၂၃ ရက္တြင္ ၀မ္ေပါင္ကုမၸဏီက တရုတ္ႏိုင္ငံသားမ်ားျဖင့္ ဆက္လက္လုပ္ေဆာင္ေနကာ ဟန္႔တားသူ ေဒသခံမ်ားကို ရဲတပ္ဖြဲ႕၀င္မ်ားက ပစ္ခတ္ခဲ့ၿပီး တရုတ္၀န္ထမ္းမ်ားကလည္း အၾကမ္းဖက္ ၿဖိဳခြင္းခဲ့ေၾကာင္း သတင္းရရွိသည္။

ဒီဇင္ဘာ ၂၂ ရက္က လက္ပံေတာင္းေတာင္ ေၾကးနီစီမံကိန္းအား သတၳဳတူးေဖာ္ခြင့္ ရရွိထားသည့္ ၀မ္ေပါင္ကုမၸဏီ၏ စီမံကိန္းနယ္ေျမအျဖစ္ ၿခံစည္းရိုးမ်ား တိုးခ်ဲ႕ခတ္ေနမႈအေပၚ ေဒသခံမ်ားက ဟန္႔တားရာမွ ႏွစ္ဖက္ထိပ္တိုက္ေတြ႕ဆံုမႈ ျဖစ္ပြားခဲ့ရာ မိုးႀကိဳးျပင္ အလယ္ရြာမွ အသက္ ၅၀ ေက်ာ္အရြယ္ အမ်ဳိးသမီးတစ္ဦး ရဲတပ္ဖြဲ႕၏ ပစ္ခတ္ႏွိမ္နင္းမႈေၾကာင့္ ေသဆံုးခဲ့ၿပီးေနာက္ ဒီဇင္ဘာ ၂၃ ရက္တြင္လည္း ထိပ္တိုက္ေတြ႕ဆံုမႈမ်ား ဆက္လက္ျဖစ္ေပၚေနျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။

လက္ပံေတာင္းေတာင္ ေၾကးနီစီမံကိန္း ၿခံစည္း႐ိုး တိုးခ်ဲ႕ခတ္ျခင္းမ်ားအား ဒီဇင္ဘာ ၂၃ ရက္ နံနက္အေစာပိုင္းမွ စတင္ကာ ဆည္တည္း၊ တံု၊ ေရႊေလွ အစရွိသည့္ ေက်းရြာမ်ားအနီးတြင္ ျပဳလုပ္ခဲ့ၿပီး ဆည္တည္းရြာ အေနာက္ဖက္တစ္ေလ်ာက္ႏွင့္ ရြာေျမာက္ဘက္တြင္ ဒီဇင္ဘာ ၂၃ ရက္ နံနက္ ၆ နာရီမွစတင္၍ ျခံစည္းရိုးခတ္ရာ၌ ရြာသားမ်ားတားဆီးၾကရာ လုံျခဳံေရးရဲတပ္ဖြဲ႕၀င္မ်ားက ရာဘာက်ည္ႏွင့္ ပစ္ခတ္ လူစုခြဲျခင္းေၾကာင့္ ရြာသားသံုးဦး ထိခိုက္ဒဏ္ရာ ရခဲ့ေၾကာင္း သိရသည္။

ျခံစည္း႐ိုး တိုးခ်ဲ႕ခတ္ရာတြင္ ေဒသခံမ်ားႏွင့္ ပဋိပကၡမ်ား ျဖစ္ပြားခဲ့ရာ မြန္းလြဲ ၃ နာရီ အခ်ိန္ခန္႔တြင္ တံုေက်းရြာအနီး၌ ေဒသခံမ်ားႏွင့္ ရဲတပ္ဖြဲ႕ဝင္မ်ားအၾကား ႏွစ္ဖက္ထိပ္တိုက္ ေတြ႕ဆံုမႈမ်ား ရွိခဲ့ေသာ္လည္း ေရႊညဝါဆရာေတာ္ အပါအဝင္ ဆရာေတာ္အခ်ိဳ႕မွ တားဆီးမႈမ်ား ျပဳလုပ္ခဲ့ျခင္းေၾကာင့္ ပဋိပကၡမ်ား ျဖစ္ပြားမႈ မရွိခဲ့ေၾကာင္း သိရသည္။ ၿခံစည္း႐ိုး တိုးခ်ဲ႕ခတ္မႈအား ညေနပိုင္းအခ်ိန္ထိ လံုၿခံဳေရးရဲတပ္ဖြဲ႕ဝင္ ၁၀ဝ ဝန္းက်င္ခန္႔ႏွင့္အတူ ျပဳလုပ္ခဲ့ေၾကာင္း သိရသည္။

အဆိုပါ စီမံကိန္းအနီးရွိ ဇီးေတာရြာ စန္းျမ၀တီေက်ာင္းတိုက္ ဆရာေတာ္ ဦးအာေလာကမွ “လူေတြ မ်က္ႏွာမသစ္ရေသးခင္ အခ်ိန္မွာ ၀မ္ေပါင္ကုမၸဏီနဲ႔ ရဲလုံျခဳံေရးေတြ ေရာက္လာၿပီး ရြာသားေတြရဲ႕ ရိတ္သိမ္းခါနီး အသီးအပင္ေတြကို ဘူဒိုဇာေတြနဲ႔ အတင္းထိုးဖ်က္ၿပီး ျခံစည္းရိုး အတင္းခတ္တယ္။ တားဆီးဖို႔ ႀကိဳးစားတဲ့ ရြာသားေတြကို ရဲေတြက ေသနတ္္နဲ႔ ပစ္တားတယ္၊ ရြာသားေတြက ဘာလက္နက္မွ မပါဘူး၊ အနားကပ္လို႔ မရေအာင္ အခ်က္ေပါင္းမ်ားစြာ ပစ္တယ္။ ရာဘာက်ည္ဆံ မ်က္ႏွာမွန္သူတစ္ေယာက္ အပါအ၀င္ သုံးေယာက္ ထိခိုက္ဒဏ္ရာ ရတယ္။ အရင္ရက္က တရုတ္အလုပ္သမားေတြနဲ႔ ရြာက အမ်ိဳးသမီးေတြ လုံးေထြးသတ္ပုတ္တဲ့အထိ ပဋိပကၡ ျဖစ္ခဲ့တာ တရုတ္ေတြကိုင္တဲ့တူနဲ႔ အထုခံရလို႔ မိန္းကေလးႏွစ္ဦးမွာ တစ္ဦးက အသက္ရႈရခက္ခဲၿပီး ေနာက္တစ္ဦးက လမ္းေကာင္းေကာင္း မေလွ်ာက္နိုင္ဘူးဟု မိန္႔ၾကားသည္။

ဆည္တည္းရြာ၏ အေနာက္ဖက္ မိုးႀကိဳးျပင္ရြာ ထြက္လမ္းႏွင့္ ရြာအေရွ႕ဖက္ တုံရြာသို႔ အထြက္လမ္းကို သံဇကာျဖင့္ ၿခံစည္းရိုးခတ္ရာတြင္ စက္ႀကီးမ်ား၊ လုပ္ငန္းသုံးယာဥ္ႏွင့္ တရုတ္အလုပ္သမား မ်ားစြာကို အသုံးျပဳခဲ့ၿပီး ရြာ၀င္ေပါက္လမ္းမ်ားကို ပိတ္ဆို႔ထားျခင္းေၾကာင့္ ရြာေတာင္ဖက္ရွိ ဇီးေတာ၊ ေက်ာက္ျဖဴတိုင္ရြာဖက္မွသာ ဆည္တည္းရြာသို႔ ၀င္ထြက္နိုင္ေတာ့ေၾကာင္းလည္း သိရသည္။

လက္ရွိ ၿခံစည္း႐ိုး တိုးခ်ဲ႕ခတ္ေနသည့္ ေျမေနရာမ်ားမွာ ေဒသခံ ေတာင္သူမ်ားအေနျဖင့္ ေျမယာႏွင့္ သီးႏွံေလ်ာ္ေၾကးမ်ားအား တစ္စံုတစ္ရာ ရယူထားျခင္း မရွိေသးသည့္အတြက္ ယခုကဲ့သို႔ ေဒသခံမ်ားဘက္မွ တားဆီးေနျခင္းျဖစ္ၿပီး ေဒသအာဏာပိုင္မ်ားႏွင့္ ကုမၸဏီဘက္မွ လက္ခံျခင္းမရွိဘဲ စိုက္ပ်ိဳးထားသည့္ သီးႏွံခင္းမ်ားအတြင္း ဇြတ္အတင္း ဝင္ေရာက္ကာ ေဆာင္ရြက္ေနေၾကာင္း ေဒသခံေတာင္သူမ်ားက ေျပာၾကားသည္။ ယင္းသို႔ ၿခံစည္း႐ိုး တိုးခ်ဲ႕ခတ္ထားရာတြင္ ေဒသခံေတာင္သူမ်ား စိုက္ပ်ိဳးထားသည့္ သီးႏွံခင္းမ်ားအတြင္းမွ ျဖတ္သန္းျပဳလုပ္ျခင္း သီးႏွံခင္းမ်ားအား စက္ယႏၱယားမ်ားျဖင့္ ထိုးေခ်ဖ်က္ဆီး၍ ၿခံစည္း႐ိုး တိုးခ်ဲ႕ခတ္ျခင္း ယာခင္းမ်ားအား အတင္းအဓမၼ သိမ္းယူလုပ္ေဆာင္ခဲ့ေၾကာင္း ေဒသခံမ်ားက ေျပာၾကားသည္။

“မနက္ ၁၁ နာရီေလာက္မွာ ရြာအေရွ႕ထိပ္ကို ပိတ္ခတ္လိုက္တဲ့အတြက္ ရြာအ၀င္အထြက္ကို ေက်ာက္ျဖဴ တိုင္ဘက္ကသာ သြားနိုင္ေတာ့မယ္။ ရဲေတြသာကမဘူး ၀မ္ေပါင္လုံျခဳံေရးေတြကပါ နံပါတ္တုတ္ေတြ သုံးတယ္။ ရြာသားေတြတင္ မကဘူး ဦးဇင္းကိုပါ လိုက္ရုိက္လို႔ လြတ္ေအာင္ေရွာင္ၿပီး ေလးဘက္ကုန္း ထြက္ေျပးရတယ္” ဟု ဦးဇင္းစႏၵာသီရိက မိန္႔ၾကားသည္။

ေဒသခံ ေတာင္သူမ်ားႏွင့္ ရဲတပ္ဖြဲ႕ဝင္မ်ားအၾကား ႏွစ္ဖက္ပဋိပကၡမ်ား ျဖစ္ပြားခဲ့ၿပီးေနာက္ ဆည္တည္းေက်းရြာမွ ေဒသခံမ်ားမွ ေက်းရြာအတြင္း မေနထိုင္ရဲေသာေၾကာင့္ နီးစပ္ရာ ေဆြမ်ိဳးမ်ားထံသို႔ ေျပာင္းေရႊ႕ေနထိုင္ရမႈမ်ား ရွိေနေၾကာင္း ေဒသခံမ်ား၏ ေျပာျပခ်က္အရ သိရသည္။ ယင္းအျပင္ ေက်းရြာအား မီး႐ိႈ႕ဖ်က္ဆီးမည္ဟု သက္ဆိုင္ရာမွ ေျပာဆိုခဲ့ျခင္းေၾကာင့္ ေဒသခံမ်ားမွ ေၾကာက္လန္႔၍ နီးစပ္ရာ ေဆြမ်ိဳးမ်ားထံသို႔ ေျပာင္းေရႊ႕ေနထိုင္ေနရေၾကာင္း ေဒသခံမ်ား၏ ေျပာဆိုခ်က္မ်ားအရ သိရသည္။

“ကၽြန္မတို႔ ဆည္တည္းရြာကို တရုတ္ေတြက မျမင္ခ်င္ဘူး။ လုံျခဳံေရးေတြက မီးနဲ႔ရိႈ႕မယ္ သတင္းရလို႔ ညကလည္း တစ္ညလုံး မအိပ္ရဘူး။ ရြာမွာ သီးႏွံတင္း (၁၀၀)(၂၀၀)ထြက္တဲ့သူေတြ ရွိေတာ့ မီးရႈိ႕ခံရရင္ေတာင္ စားစရာက်န္ေအာင္ မေန႔ကတည္းက အသီးအႏွံေတြကို ပြဲရုံပို႔သူပို႔၊ နီးစပ္ရာရြာေတြဆီ ပို႔သူ ပို႔ၾကရတယ္။ ရြာမွာ ဂ်ပန္ေခတ္ ျပန္ေရာက္သလို ျဖစ္ေနတယ္။ ဂ်ပန္မေၾကာက္ရ ကိုယ့္လူမ်ိဳးကို ျပန္ေၾကာက္ေနရတယ္။ လက္နက္အားကိုးနဲ႔ ျပည္သူေတြရဲ႕ လယ္ယာေျမေတြကို ဓါးျပတိုက္ယူေနတယ္။ ရြာသားေတြက နည္းနည္းေလးရွိတာ။ အကူအညီေပးမဲ့သူ မရွိဘူး။ ရဲေတြ တရုတ္ေတြက အလုံးအရင္းနဲ႔ သိမ္းခါနီး သီးႏွံေတြကို ဖ်က္ဆီးပစ္တယ္။ ပါးစပ္ေပါက္ ေရာက္ခါနီးမွ ပုတ္ခ်တယ္။ ပဲစဥ္းငုံ၊ ႏြားစာေျပာင္း၊ ေနၾကာခင္းေတြကုိ ဒိုဇာေတြနဲ႔ ထိုးဖ်က္တယ္။ လူစာမရွိ ႏြားစာမရွိ ျဖစ္ကုန္ၿပီ” ဟု ဆည္းတည္းရြာသူတစ္ဦးက ေျပာၾကားသည္။

ေဒသခံေတာင္သူမ်ားႏွင့္ ရဲတပ္ဖြဲ႕ ပဋိပကၡ ျဖစ္ပြားရာသို႔ ေရာက္ရွိလာသည့္ ေရႊညဝါဆရာေတာ္မွ “ဒီလို အၾကမ္းဖက္ ေျဖရွင္းလိုက္တာဟာ ၂၀၁၅ ကိုသြားေနတဲ့ လမ္းခရီးမွာ ျပည္သူေတြေရာ ရဟန္းရွင္လူေတြေရာကို ၿခိမ္းေျခာက္လိုက္တာ ျဖစ္တယ္။ ၿခိမ္းေျခာက္႐ံုတင္ မကဘဲ ၂၀၁၅ အခင္းအက်င္းမွာ ဒီလို သတ္ျပမယ္ ဖမ္းျပမယ္၊ ဒဏ္ရာေတြရေအာင္ လုပ္ျပမယ္ဆိုၿပီး ျပည္သူေတြနဲ႔ ရဟန္းရွင္လူေတြကို အေၾကာက္တရားေတြနဲ႔ ဆက္ၿပီးသြားဖို႔၊ လႊမ္းမိုးၿပီး အႏိုင္က်င့္ ဗိုလ္က်ခ်င္တဲ့ စနစ္နဲ႔ အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ခ်င္လို႔ ဒါမ်ိဳး ရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္ရွိရွိ လုပ္တယ္လို႔ ထင္တယ္။ အဲဒီလို ပံုစံေတြလည္း ေတြ႕ျမင္ေနရတယ္” ဟု မိန္႔ၾကားသည္။

ဒီဇင္ဘာ ၂၂ ရက္ မြန္းလြဲပိုင္းက မိုးႀကိဳးျပင္ အလယ္ရြာမွ အသက္ ၅၆ ႏွစ္အရြယ္ ေဒၚခင္၀င္းအား လုံျခဳံေရးရဲတပ္ဖြဲ႕မွ ပစ္ခတ္မႈေၾကာင့္ ေသဆုံးခဲ့ၿပီးေနာက္တြင္ မိုးႀကိဳးျပင္ေက်းရြာမွ ၀မ္ေပါင္ကုမၸဏီ၏ လုပ္ငန္းခြင္မ်ားတြင္ အလုပ္လုပ္ကိုင္ေနသူမ်ား အလုပ္ဆင္းျခင္း မရွိေတာ့ေၾကာင္း သိရၿပီး ကုမၸဏီဘက္မွလည္း ျမန္မာအလုပ္သမားမ်ားကို ၀င္ခြင့္မေပးေၾကာင္း သိရသည္။

“ေသဆုံးသူ ေဒၚခင္ဝင္းရဲ႕ နာေရးကို မနက္ျဖန္ ဒီဇင္ဘာ ၂၄ ရက္မွာ ျပဳလုပ္သြားမွာပါ။ မုံရြာျပည္သူ႔ေဆးရုံႀကီးမွာ တက္ေရာက္ကုသခံေနရတဲ့ လူနာကိုးေယာက္မွာ ႏွစ္ေယာက္က ခြဲစိတ္ကုသမႈ ျပဳလုပ္ခဲ့ရၿပီး အားလုံး ေဆးရုံက ဆင္းလာပါၿပီ” ဟု မိုးႀကိဳးျပင္ေက်းရြာ ေဒသခံတစ္ဦးက ေျပာျပသည္။

“အေမ့ကို မႏၱေလးမွာရွိတဲ့ သမီးေတြနဲ႔ လာေနဖို ့ကၽြန္မတို႔ ညီအမက ေခၚတယ္။ အေမက သူ႔ေဒသမွာ သူေပ်ာ္တယ္။ အေမပိုင္တဲ့ယာ ခုနစ္ဧကေလာက္ အသိမ္းခံရတယ္။ မိုးႀကိဳးျပင္ရြာက သူ႕အိမ္ေလးမွာ တစ္ေယာက္ထဲ ေနတယ္။ သူ႕ေမာင္ရယ္ တူမေတြရယ္က လာေစာင့္ေရွာက္တယ္။ အရင္က ျပႆနာျဖစ္တဲ့ ေနရာေတြကို မလိုက္ဖူးဘူး။ အခု ေသနတ္နဲ႔ အပစ္ခံရမယ့္ အေခါက္မွ သူ႔ယာခင္းေလးဘက္ သြားၾကည့္ရင္း အပစ္ခံရတာ။ အေမက ခါးနာေနေတာ့ ဘယ္မွ သိပ္မထြက္ဘူး။ အခုေတာ့ အေမ ေသနတ္ဒဏ္ရာနဲ႔ ေသခဲ့ၿပီ။ ေန႔လည္ ၂ နာရီေက်ာ္ေက်ာ္ေလာက္မွာ ျဖစ္တယ္လို႔သိရၿပီး ဖုန္းနဲ႔ အေၾကာင္းၾကားေတာ့ မုံရြာေဆးရုံမွာလိုလုိ ေျပာၿပီး ေရာက္ေတာ့မွ ေနရာတင္ ေသနတ္နဲ ့အပစ္ခံရတာလို႔ သိရတာ” ဟု ေသဆုံးသူ၏သမီး မဝင္းခိုင္က ေျပာၾကားသည္။

ေတာင္သူ ေဒၚခင္ဝင္း ေသဆံုးခဲ့မႈႏွင့္ ပတ္သက္၍ ၎၏ညီမျဖစ္သူ ေဒၚသန္းႏုက “ကြ်န္မတို႔ မတရား အလုပ္ခံခဲ့ရတာပါ။ ဥပေဒအရ ျပန္ၿပီး တရားစြဲခ်င္ပါတယ္။ ကြ်န္မတို႔မွာ ဘာမွမလုပ္ရပဲ ခံစားရတယ္။ သက္ဆိုင္ရာ တာဝန္ရွိသူေတြ အေနနဲ႔ လာေရာက္တာလည္း မရွိေသးပါဘူး။ အစ္မက မိသားစုဝင္ထဲမွာ အႀကီးဆံုးပါ။ သူက ခါးနာေနတာေၾကာင့္ ေကာင္းေကာင္းမသြားႏိုင္ပါဘူး။ အိမ္မွာပဲ တစ္ေယာက္ထဲ အေနမ်ားပါတယ္။ အဲဒီေန႔က သူက ေဘးကေန ထိုင္ေနခဲ့တာ။ မတရား လုပ္ခံလိုက္ရတာပါ” ဟု ေျပာၾကားသည္။

လက္ပံေတာင္းနယ္ေျမအတြင္း ျခံစည္းရိုးခတ္သျဖင့္ ရြာသားမ်ားတားဆီးၾကရာ လုံျခဳံေရးရဲတပ္ဖြဲ႕၀င္မ်ားႏွင့္ ရြာသူ ရြာသားမ်ား ဒုတိယေန႔ ပဋိပကၡထပ္မံျဖစ္ပြားေနစဥ္
လက္ပံေတာင္းနယ္ေျမအတြင္း ျခံစည္းရိုးခတ္သျဖင့္ ရြာသားမ်ားတားဆီးၾကရာ လုံျခဳံေရးရဲတပ္ဖြဲ႕၀င္မ်ားႏွင့္ ရြာသူ ရြာသားမ်ား ဒုတိယေန႔ ပဋိပကၡထပ္မံျဖစ္ပြားေနစဥ္
လက္ပံေတာင္းနယ္ေျမအတြင္း ျခံစည္းရိုးခတ္သျဖင့္ ရြာသားမ်ားတားဆီးၾကရာ လုံျခဳံေရးရဲတပ္ဖြဲ႕၀င္မ်ားႏွင့္ ရြာသူ ရြာသားမ်ား ဒုတိယေန႔ ပဋိပကၡထပ္မံျဖစ္ပြားေနစဥ္
လက္ပံေတာင္းနယ္ေျမအတြင္း ျခံစည္းရိုးခတ္သျဖင့္ ရြာသားမ်ားတားဆီးၾကရာ လုံျခဳံေရးရဲတပ္ဖြဲ႕၀င္မ်ားႏွင့္ ရြာသူ ရြာသားမ်ား ဒုတိယေန႔ ပဋိပကၡထပ္မံျဖစ္ပြားေနစဥ္

Land Grabbing by War War Win Company Ltd Vs 3000 Families Migrants Workers

Land Grabbing by War War Win Company Ltd Vs 3000 Families Migrants Workers.

Land Grabbing by War War Win Company Ltd Vs 3000 Families Migrants Workers

After Demolishing the temporary shelters, more thanဆင္းရဲမြဲေတ ထမင္းနပ္မမွန္မႈေၾကာင့္ ေရႊ႕ေျပာင္းလုပ္သား အျဖစ္အလုပ္လုပ္ေနၾကသူမ်ားအား မည္သူမဆုိအျမန္ဆုံး ကူညီနုိင္ပါသည္။
ဒဂုန္္္္ဧရာ အေ၀းေျပးေရွ. ၀င္းအတြင္းယာယီေနထုိင္သူ စုစုေပါင္း အိမ္ေထာင္စု (၃၀၀၀)ေက်ာ္တုိ႕အား ညအခ်ိန္မေတာ္ အၾကမ္းဖက္မႈမ်ား ခံေနၾကသည္ကုိ သိရွိခဲ့ရပါသည္။ ျဖစ္ပုံမွာ ၁၅-၁၆ ဒီဇင္ဘာ ၂၀၁၄ တြင္ ၄င္းေနရာတြင္ ယာယီ ေနထုိင္ၾကသူမ်ားအား အၾကမ္းဖက္သူ တစ္ရာေက်ာ္က ဒါးမ်ား၊ တုတ္မ်ား၊ ေလာက္ေလးခြမ်ား၊ ဌက္ၾကီးေတာင္ဒါးမ်ား ျဖင့္ ၀င္ေရာက္လာၾကကာ လူမ်ားကုိ ရန္ျပဳျခင္း ေနအိမ္တဲမ်ားကုိ ဖ်က္ဆီးျပစ္ျခင္းတုိ႕ကုိ လုပ္ကုိင္ခဲ့ပါသည္။ ၄င္းအေတြ႕အၾကဳံဆုိးမ်ားေၾကာင့္ လူႏွစ္ေယာက္ေသဆုံး၊ ေနအိမ္တဲ ႏွစ္ေထာင္ေက်ာ္ ဖ်က္ဆီးခံရ၊ က်ိဳးပဲ့မႈမ်ားစြာျဖစ္သည္ ဟု ၄င္းတုိ႕က ဆုိပါသည္။
ထုိသုိ႕ အၾကမ္းဖက္ခံရသူတုိ႕သည္ ေလာေလာဆယ္တြင္ လႈိင္သာယာျမိဳ႕ကုိ အေျချပဳျပီး ေနထုိင္အသက္ရွင္ၾကရသည့္ တစ္ေန႕လုပ္တစ္ေန႕စားမ်ားျဖစ္သည္။ မူလက ၄င္းတုိ႕အမ်ားစု မွာ ဧရာ၀တီတုိင္းေဒသၾကီးရွိ ျမိဳ႕နယ္ေပါင္းစုံမွျဖစ္သည္။ လယ္ယာေျမ အသိမ္းခံရျခင္း၊ လယ္ယာလုပ္ငန္းတြင္ အထြက္နွႈန္းက်ျခင္း၊ လယ္အေပၚ အားထားျပီး လုပ္ကုိင္စားေသာက္မႈ မွာ ေန႕တဓူ၀ ရပ္တည္မႈပင္ မရေတာ့သည့္အတြက္၊ အထူးသျဖင့္ စား၀တ္ေနေရး က်ပ္တည္း လြန္းလွသျဖင့္ လႈိင္သာယာျမိဳ႕သုိ႕ ေျပာင္းေရႊ႕ျပီး ရရာ က်ပန္း လုပ္ငန္းမ်ားကုိ လုပ္ကုိင္ေနၾကရပါသည္။

Figure 1 After Demolishing by War War Win Company’s Force, 3000 Families of Migrants Don’t Know What but Worries Heighten Like Tides, on 15.Dec.2014, (Front Compund) Hlaing Thar Yar Hig Way Gate, Myanmar
လွႈုိင္သာယာတြင္ တစ္လေနထုိင္စရိတ္အတြက္ ဌားရမ္းခမွာ ၄၅၀၀၀ က်ပ္ရွိျပီး ကေလးသူငယ္ပါ၀င္ပါက ဌား၍ မရပါ။ သုိ႕ပါ၍ လႈိင္သာယာ အေ၀းေျပး၀င္းေရွ႕ လစ္လပ္ေနသည့္ ၀င္းၾကီးထဲတြင္ ခဏတာ ယာယီတဲေဆာက္ျပီး မိမိတုိ႕မိသားစုမ်ား ေနေရးကုိ ေျဖရွင္းေနၾကရပါသည္။ ယခုဆုိလွ်င္ ထုိေနရာတြင္ ေနထုိင္သည္မွာ ၁၅-၂၀ ရက္ခန္႕ရွိျပီ ျဖစ္ပါသည္။
စတင္ေနထုိင္သည္မွ ယေန႕ ၁၅-ဒီဇင္ဘာ-၂၀၁၄ အထိ မည္သူမွ လာေရာက္တားဆီးျခင္း၊ ကန္႕ကြက္ျခင္းမရွိဘဲ၊ မေန႕ည (၁၅.ဒီဇင္ဘာ.၂၀၁၄) ညေန ၆း၀၀ နာရီတြင္မွ လက္နက္မ်ား (တုတ္၊ဓါး၊ ဌက္ၾကီးေတာင္၊ ေလးခြ၊ ခဲ) ကုိင္ေဆာင္လာသည့္ လူမုိက္ပုံေပါက္ ေနသူမ်ားတုိ႕သည္ ၀င္းအတြင္းသုိ႕ ၀င္ေရာက္လာကာ ခဲမုိးမ်ား ဆက္တုိက္ရြာျခင္း၊ အိမ္မ်ားျဖိဳဖ်က္ျခင္း၊ ေတာင္းပန္ တုိးလွ်ဳိးေနသည့္ ၾကားမွ ေတြ႕ရာလူအားလုံးတုိ႕အား ရုိက္နွက္ျခင္းတုိ႕ကုိ လုပ္ေဆာင္ကာ တဲအလုံး ၂၀၀၀ ေက်ာ္ကုိ ဖ်က္ဆီးခဲ့ၾကပါသည္။ မည္သည့္ရဲတပ္ဖြဲ႕၀င္မ်ားမွ ကာကြယ္ေပးျခင္း မရွိခဲ့ပါ။
အၾကမ္းဖက္ဖ်က္ဆီးသူတုိ႕သည္ ယခုကဲ့သုိ႕ အၾကမ္းဖက္မႈကို ညစဥ္ညတုိင္း (ရ) ရက္တိတိ ဆက္တုိက္ျပဳလုပ္မည္ဟု ၾကိမ္း၀ါးထားပါသည္။ သုိ႕ပါသျဖင့္ လူသားခ်င္းစာနာစြာျဖင့္ အၾကမ္းဖက္မႈမ်ား မွ ကင္းေ၀းေစရန္ အကူအညီေပးနုိင္ျခင္း အလုိ႕ဌာ ယခုသီတင္းကုိ ေရးသားရပါသည္။ လုိအပ္သလုိ ညွိ ႏိုႈ္င္း ေပးပါရန္ အကူအညီေတာင္းခံအပ္ပါသည္။ ယခုအခ်ိန္အထိ (၂ ဦးေသ၊ မ်ားစြာေသာသူမ်ား က်ဳိးပဲ့ ဒါဏ္ရာရ၊ မီးမ်ားလည္း ရႈို႕ေနပါသည္။)
၁၅-ဒီဇင္ဘာလ-၂၀၁၄ (ပထမအၾကိမ္ ဖ်က္ဆီးျပီး ေျမျပင္ပုံမ်ားကုိ ပူးတြဲတင္ျပပါသည္။)

Figure 2 Signing the Appeal Letter to Highest Position of Yangon Government on 15.Dec.2014, Hlaing Thar Yar High Way Gate, Yangon, Myanmar
ယခုသတင္းႏွင့္ ပတ္သက္ျပီး ထပ္မံသိရွိလုိပါက ေအာက္ပါတုိ႕ကုိ ဆက္သြယ္နုိင္ပါသည္။
၁။ ကုိ၀င္းေဇာ္ဦး ၀၉-၃၁၇၉-၇၂၆၅
၂။ ကုိေ၀လင္းထြန္း ၀၉-၃၁၈၀-၁၂၅၁
၃။ဦးရန္လင္းေအာင္ ၀၉-၂၅၀-၈၂၆-၂၃၈ ၄။ေဒၚႏြဲ႕ႏြဲ႕ေအး ၀၉-၃၂-၁၈၀၀-၁၅

ႏွစ္ေယာက္ေသ၊ မီးရွိဳ႕၊ က်ိဳးပဲ့ကုန္၊

Picture2

1384382_10204488088015443_7483996467880422355_n

Image

Michaung Kan

10636330_576473712483394_1750985038396540708_n

Image

Michaung Kan People Demonstration on 13-Dec-14

ျမန္မာ ျပည္သူ႔ဖိုရမ္

ျမန္မာျပည္သူ႔ဖိုရမ္၂၀၁၄ ၏ ထုတ္ျပန္ေၾကညာခ်က္
ဒီဇင္ဘာလ (၁၄) ရက္ ၂၀၁၄ခုႏွစ္
ျမန္မာနိင္ငံ၏ ႏိုင္ငံေရး၊ စီးပြားေရး၊ လူမႈေရး ျပဳျပင္ေျပာင္းလဲမႈ လုပ္ငန္းစဥ္မ်ားတြင္အရပ္ဘက္လူမႈအဖဲြ႔အစည္းမ်ား၏ အသံမ်ားကိုစုစည္းေဖာ္ထုတ္ရန္ ရည္ရြယ္၍ ျမန္မာျပည္သူ႔ဖုိရမ္ကိုဒီဇင္ဘာလ (၁၂) ရက္မွ (၁၄) ရက္အတြင္း ရန္ကုန္ၿမိဳ႕ရွိ တကၠသိုလ္မ်ား စိန္ရတုခန္းမတြင္က်င္းပခဲ့သည္။ ထိုဖိုရမ္သို႔ အရပ္ဘက္လူမႈအဖဲြ႔အစည္းမ်ား၊ ႏိုင္ငံေရးပါတီမ်ားစုစုေပါင္း (၁၂၆)ဖဲြ႔ႏွင့္ တစ္သီးပုဂၢလမ်ားအပါအဝင္စုစုေပါင္း (၅၅၄) ဦးတက္ေရာက္ခဲ့သည္။
သံုးရက္တာက်င္းပခဲ့ေသာထိုဖိုရမ္အတြင္းတြင္ ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရး၊ ဖြံ႕ၿဖိဳးေရး၊ တရားမွ်တမႈႏွင့္ လူ႔အခြင့္အေရး၊ ဒီမိုကေရစီျပဳျပင္ေျပာင္းလဲေရးဆိုင္ရာေခါင္းစဥ္ ေလးခုျဖင့္ အလုပ္ရံုေဆြးေႏြးပြဲစုစုေပါင္း (၁၅) ခုက်င္းပ ျပဳလုပ္ခဲ့ပါသည္။ ထိုအလုပ္ရံုေဆြးႏြးပြဲမ်ားမွအၾကံျပဳတင္ျပခ်က္မ်ားကိုေအာက္ပါအတိုင္းရရိွခဲ့သည္။
ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရးႏွင့္ပတ္သက္၍
၁။ ျပည္သူမ်ား၏ပါဝင္မႈသည္ အေရးႀကီးသည့္ အားေလ်ာ္စြာ၊ပါဝင္မႈ အားေကာင္းလာေစရန္ နည္းလမ္းမ်ားခ်မွတ္၍ လမ္းဖြင့္ေပးရန္၊ ျပည္သူမ်ားပါဝင္ႏိုင္မည့္ နည္းစနစ္၊ ေနရာ၊ အခြင့္အေရးမ်ားကိုစနစ္တက် ေဖာ္ထုတ္ေပးရန္ႏွင့္ ျပည္သူ႕အသံမ်ားကိုေလးစားစြာနားေထာင္၊ ျဖည့္ဆည္းေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးရန္။
၂။ ျပည္ေထာင္စုအဆင့္ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရးေဆြးေႏြးပြဲမ်ားအတြက္ မူေဘာင္မ်ားေရးဆြဲရာတြင္ တံခါးပိတ္ေဆြးေႏြးမႈမ်ားအဆံုးသတ္ႏိုင္ရန္ ျပည္သူမ်ား၏အသံကိုမွန္ကန္စြာကိုယ္စားျပဳ ေဆြးေႏြး ေပးႏိုင္မည့္ ဘာသာစံု၊ လူမ်ိဳးစံု၊ အလႊာစံုမွ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္မ်ား၊ လူမႈအသင္းအဖြဲ႕မ်ားမွ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္မ်ား၊ အလုပ္သမား၊ ေတာင္သူလယ္သမား၊ အမ်ိဳးသမီး၊ ကေလးသူငယ္မ်ား၊ လူငယ္မ်ား၊ မသန္စြမ္းသူမ်ား၊ တကၠသိုလ္ေက်ာင္းသားေက်ာင္းသူမ်ား၊ ႏိုင္ငံေရးပါတီမ်ား၊ လႊတ္ေတာ္ျပင္ပမွ ပုဂၢဳိလ္မ်ား၊ ျပည္တြင္းျပည္ပမွ အသိပညာရွင္အတတ္ပညာရွင္မ်ားအစရွိသည့္ က႑အသီးသီးမွ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္မ်ား စသည္ျဖင့္ က်ယ္က်ယ္ျပန္႕ျပန္႕ပါဝင္ေသာ အားလံုး လက္ခံသည့္ မူေဘာင္မ်ားျဖင့္ ေရရွည္တည္တံ့ႏိုင္ေသာ ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရးကို တည္ေဆာက္ရန္ အၾကံျပဳတိုက္တြန္းအပ္သည္။
၃။ ျပည္သူမ်ားပါဝင္ၿပီး ပြင့္လင္း၍ အာမခံမႈရွိသည့္ ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရးေဆြးေႏြးပြဲမ်ား ျဖစ္ေပၚလာေစရန္ ေဆြးေႏြးပြဲ မတိုင္ခင္ ျပည္သူမ်ားထံမွ တိုက္ရိုက္အၾကံျပဳ ရယူျခင္း၊ ၄င္းအၾကံျပဳခ်က္မ်ားကို အသိအမွတ္ျပဳ ထည့္သြင္းေဆြးေႏြးေပးျခင္း၊ ေဆြးေႏြးပြဲၿပီးေနာက္ ျပည္သူမ်ားထံ တိုက္ရိုက္ရွင္းလင္းတင္ျပျခင္းမ်ား ႏွစ္ဖက္အဖြဲ႕ (အစိုးရႏွင့္ တိုင္းရင္းသားလက္နက္ကိုင္) မွ ျပဳလုပ္ေပးရန္။
၄။ ျပည္သူမ်ားပါဝင္ႏိုင္မႈ အားေလ်ာ့သြားေစႏိုင္ေသာ ကိစၥရပ္မ်ားျဖစ္ေသာတရားဥပေဒစိုးမိုးမႈ အားနည္းျခင္း၊ အလုပ္အကိုင္အခြင့္အလမ္းနည္းပါးျခင္း၊ မူးယစ္ေဆးဝါးကိစၥမ်ားထူေျပာလာျခင္း၊ ပဋိပကၡေဒသတြင္ လူ႕အခြင့္အေရးခ်ိဳးေဖာက္ခံရမႈမ်ား ဖံုးကြယ္ထားခံရျခင္း၊ ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရး ေဆြးေႏြးပြဲ အေျခအေနမ်ား၊ သေဘာတူညီခ်က္မ်ား၊ ရလာဒ္မ်ားကို ပြင့္လင္းျမင္သာစြာ ခ်ျပမႈအားနည္းျခင္း စသည့္ ကိစၥရပ္မ်ား ကို အသိအမွတ္ျပဳကိုင္တြယ္ေျဖရွင္းေပးျခင္းအားျဖင့္ ျပည္သူမ်ားပါဝင္လာႏိုင္မႈကို ျမွင့္တင္ရန္။
၅။ စစ္မွန္ၿပီး ေရရွည္တည္တံ့ေသာ ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရး ရရွိရန္ ေဒသခံတိုင္းရင္းသားမ်ား၊ လူမ်ိဳးအရ၊ ကိုးကြယ္ရာဘာသာအရ လူနည္းစုျဖစ္ေသာ ျပည္သူမ်ား၏ အခြင့္အေရးမ်ား၊ အမ်ိဳးသမီးႏွင့္ ကေလးသူငယ္မ်ားကို ကာကြယ္ေပးမႈမ်ား လက္ေတြ႕လိုက္နာျခင္း၊ အမ်ိဳးသားတန္းတူေရးကို အေျခခံသည့္ ဖြဲ႕စည္းပံုအေျခခံဥပေဒ၊ ဖက္ဒရယ္ျပည္ေထာင္စု စသည့္ အခ်က္မ်ားကိုအေျခခံသည့္ ေဆြးေႏြးပြဲမ်ား လုပ္ေဆာင္ရန္။
၆။ ပုဒ္မ ၁၇/၁ ကိုဖ်က္သိမ္းရန္ႏွင့္ ပုဒ္မ ၃၆၄ ကို ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရး ျဖစ္စဥ္တြင္ ထည့္သြင္းၿပီးတုိင္းရင္းသား ျပည္သူအားလံုးအတြက္ အာမခံခ်က္ရရွိရန္ လုပ္ေဆာင္ေပးရန္။
၇။ ျပည္တြင္းစစ္ရပ္စဲေရး၊ အမ်ိဳးသား ျပန္လည္သင့္ျမတ္ေရးသည္ တစ္မ်ိဳးသားလံုး၏ ဘံုသေဘာတူညီခ်က္ျဖစ္သည္ႏွင့္အညီအစိုးရအေနျဖင့္တစ္ႏိုင္ငံလံုးအပစ္အခတ္ရပ္စဲေရးႏွင့္ ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရးျဖစ္စဥ္ကိုေအာင္ျမင္ေအာင္လုပ္ေဆာင္ေပးရန္။
၈။ ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရးျဖစ္စဥ္ကိုဦးေဆာင္ေနသည့္ အစိုးရႏွင့္ပါဝင္ပတ္သက္သူမ်ားအားလံုး အေနျဖင့္ ေအာက္ပါသတ္မွတ္ခ်က္မ်ား၊ စံခ်ိန္စံညႊန္းမ်ားႏွင့္ အညီေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးရန္။
(က) မွန္ကန္သည့္ ရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္မ်ား၊ပြင့္လင္းျမင္သာသည့္ သေဘာထားမ်ားျဖင့္ ကိုင္တြယ္ေျဖရွင္းရန္။
(ခ) အဓိကက်သည့္ေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားမျဖစ္မေနပါဝင္ခြင့္ရရွိေရး။
(ဂ) ေဆြးေႏြးရာတြင္အေရးႀကီးေသာ ျပႆနာမ်ားကိုအျပဳသေဘာႏွင့္ ေဆြးေႏြးရန္။
(ဃ) ပါဝင္ပတ္သက္သူမ်ားအေနျဖင့္ ရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္မ်ားအတြက္ဖိအားေပးအက်ပ္ကိုင္ျခင္း၊ အင္အားသံုးျခင္းမျပဳလုပ္ရန္။
(င) ပါဝင္ပတ္သက္သူမ်ားအေနျဖင့္ စစ္မွန္ေသာၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရးရသည္ထိၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရးစားပြဲဝိုင္းမွ ထြက္မသြားဘဲေအာင္ျမင္သည္ထိမဆုတ္မနစ္လုပ္ေဆာင္ေပးရန္။
၉။ တတိယအင္အားစု (Third Force) ကိုႏွစ္ဦးႏွစ္ဘက္မွ လက္ခံထားေသာ အရပ္ဖက္လူမႈအဖြဲ႕အစည္းမ်ားႏွင့္ လူပုဂၢိဳလ္မ်ားျဖင့္ဖြဲ႕စည္းၿပီး ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရးျဖစ္စဥ္တြင္ ပါဝင္ေဆာင္ရြက္ခြင့္ျပဳရန္။
၁၀။ ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရး ျဖစ္စဥ္တြင္ အားလံုးပါဝင္ေရး (All Inclusive)၊ ပြင့္လင္းျမင္သာမႈရွိေရး (Transparency)၊ ရွင္းလင္းေသာပူးေပါင္းပါဝင္မႈ လုပ္ငန္းစဥ္ (Clear Participatory Process) ျဖစ္ေအာင္ေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးရန္ႏွင့္တာဝန္ခံမႈ(Accountability)၊ တာဝန္ယူမႈ(Responsibility) ရွိေစရန္ ေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးပါရန္ အၾကံျပဳတင္ျပအပ္ပါသည္။

ဖံြ႔ၿဖိဳးေရးႏွင့္ပတ္သက္၍
၁။ စားနပ္ရိကၡာဖူလံုေရးႏွင့္ လယ္ယာေျမလုပ္ပိုင္ခြင့္အတြက္ အမွန္တကယ္လုပ္ကိုင္သည့္ လုပ္ကြက္ငယ္ေတာင္သူလယ္သမားမ်ားႏွင့္သက္ဆိုင္သူအားလံုးပါဝင္သည့္ ေဆြးေႏြးပြဲမ်ား (Multi-stakeholder Forum) ကိုစဥ္ဆက္မျပတ္ လုပ္ေဆာင္၍ လႊတ္ေတာ္အရပ္ရပ္ႏွင့္ သက္ဆိုင္ရာတာဝန္ရွိသူမ်ားထံတင္ျပတိုင္ၾကားထားေသာလယ္ယာေျမျပႆနာမ်ားကို ထိထိေရာက္ေရာက္ ပြင့္လင္းျမင္သာစြာေျဖရွင္းေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုသည္။
၂။ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္တစ္ဝွမ္းေျမယာသိမ္းဆည္းမႈကိစၥရပ္မ်ားေနရာအႏွံ႕အျပားတြင္ ျဖစ္ေပၚ ေနမႈမ်ားကို လယ္သမား ေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားမွ သက္ဆိုင္ရာဝန္ႀကီးခ်ဳပ္မ်ားကိုတင္ျပ ေဆာင္ရြက္ခဲ့ေသာ္လည္း အေရးယူေဆာင္ရြက္မႈမ်ားမရွိပါသျဖင့္ေျဖရွင္းေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုသည္။
၃။ လယ္ယာေျမဥပေဒ၊ ေတာင္သူငယ္မ်ားႏွင့္ သက္ဆိုင္ေသာဥပေဒမ်ားကို ေရးဆြဲျပင္ဆင္ရာတြင္ အေျခအေနမွန္မ်ားကိုစနစ္တက်ေလ့လာသံုးသပ္ၿပီးမွ က်ယ္ျပန္႔စြာ ေဆြးေႏြးေဖာ္ထုတ္ရန္ ႏွင့္ေနာက္ကြယ္မွႀကိဳးကိုင္သူမ်ားကိုထိေရာက္စြာ ေဖာ္ထုတ္ အေရးယူပါရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုသည္။
၄။ လယ္ယာေျမမူဝါဒမ်ားႏွင့္ ေတာင္သူလယ္သမားအခြင့္အေရးကာကြယ္ေရးဆိုင္ရာ မူဝါဒမ်ား၊ စားနပ္ရိကၡာဆိုင္ရာမူဝါဒမ်ားအားလံုးတြင္အမ်ိဳးသမီးမ်ား၏ ပိုင္ဆိုင္မႈ၊ ပါဝင္ေဆြးေႏြး ဆံုးျဖတ္ခြင့္မ်ားတိုးျမွင့္ပါဝင္လာေစရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုသည္။
၅။ ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံတြင္ အေသးစား ႏွင့္ အလတ္စားစီးပြားေရးလုပ္ငန္းမ်ား(SMEs) ဖြံ႕ျဖိဳးတိုးတက္ရန္အတြက္မတည္ရင္းႏွီးေငြ (Investment)၊ နည္းပညာ(Technology)၊ ျပည္တြင္းျပည္ပေစ်းကြက္ရရွိေရး (Market Access) ႏွင့္ေစ်းကြက္လက္ဝါးႀကီးအုပ္မႈ ပေပ်ာက္သြားေအာင္ ေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုသည္။
၆။ စီမံကိန္းမ်ားအစီအစဥ္ေရးဆြဲျခင္း၊ အေကာင္အထည္ေဖာ္ျခင္းႏွင့္ ေစာင့္ၾကည့္ ေလ့လာျခင္းစေသာစီမံကိန္းအဆင့္တိုင္းတြင္ ေဒသခံမ်ားပါဝင္ခြင့္ရရွိေအာင္ အာမခံခ်က္ေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုသည္။
၇။ ေျမယာေလ်ာ္ေၾကးေပးေဆာင္ရာတြင္ ေဒသကာလေပါက္ေစ်းအတိုင္းတရားမ်ွတျပီး ပြင့္လင္းျမင္သာစြာဥပေဒႏွင့္ အညီေပးေဆာင္ရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုသည္။
၈။ သဘာဝပတ္ဝန္းက်င္ထိခိုက္မႈ၊ လူမႈဘဝထိခိုက္မႈ၊က်န္းမာေရးထိခိုက္မႈစေသာ ေလ့လာ ဆန္းစစ္မႈစစ္တမ္းမ်ားကိုစီမံကိန္းမစတင္မီ၊ စီမံကိန္းကာလအတြင္းႏွင့္ စီမံကိန္းၿပီးဆံုးသည့္ ကာလမ်ားတြင္ လုပ္ေဆာင္ရန္ႏွင့္ ေတြ႔ရွိခ်က္မ်ားကိုုေဒသခံလူမႈအဖြဲ႕အစည္းမ်ားႏွင့္ ပူးေပါင္းေဆာင္ရြက္ရန္ႏွင့္ ပညာရွင္မ်ားမွ ေထာက္ျပသည့္အတိုင္းအခ်ိန္မီလုပ္ေဆာင္ရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုသည္။
၉။ စီမံကိန္းအတြက္ေျပာင္းေရႊ႕ရန္ ျငင္းဆန္ေနေသာေဒသခံမ်ားအားတရားစြဲျခင္း၊ ဖမ္းဆီးခ်ဳပ္ေႏွာင္ျခင္းမ်ားမျပဳလုပ္ရန္ႏွင့္ ေျပာင္းေရႊ႔ရန္လိုအပ္ေသာ ျပည္သူမ်ားအား ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္မွ လိုအပ္သည့္ ေနရာခ်ထားမႈမ်ားကိုသင့္ေတာ္သလိုေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုသည္။
၁၀။ အထိခိုက္ခံရေသာလူ႕အခြင့္အေရးခ်ိဳးေဖာက္ခံရသူေဒသခံမ်ားအား ဥပေဒေၾကာင္းအရ ေသာ္လည္းေကာင္း၊ လူမႈေရးအရေသာ္လည္းေကာင္း ျပန္လည္ကုစားေပးေရးအတြက္ ေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုသည္။
၁၁။ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ဘတ္ဂ်က္ႏွင့္ ပတ္သက္၍ လမ္းညႊန္ခ်က္မ်ားကို ျပည္သူမ်ားနားလည္ႏိုင္သည့္ ရိုးရွင္းလြယ္ကူေသာနည္းလမ္းမ်ား၊ ရုပ္ျမင္သံၾကားအစီအစဥ္မ်ား၊ေရဒီယို၊ သတင္းစာ၊ အင္တာနက္၊ ပိုစတာ၊ ကာတြန္းႏွင့္ မွတ္တမ္းရုပ္ရွင္မ်ား၊ ေဟာေျပာပြဲမ်ားျဖင့္ ျပဳလုပ္ေပးရန္၊ ယင္းဘတ္ဂ်က္စာေစာင္တြင္ ဘတ္ဂ်က္အခ်ိန္ျပဇယားမ်ား၊ စီမံကိန္းမ်ား (Planning)၊ ျပည္နယ္ႏွင့္ တိုင္းအလိုက္ ဘတ္ဂ်က္ခြဲေဝမႈမ်ားရရွိလာသည့္ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ ဝင္ေငြမ်ားအားမည့္သည့္ ေနရာမ်ားတြင္ ျပန္လည္အသံုးခ်သည့္ ရွင္းလင္းခ်က္မ်ား၊ ၿမိဳ႕နယ္အဆင့္ ဘတ္ဂ်က္ ခ်ေပးထားမႈမ်ား၊ ေခ်းေငြမူဝါဒမ်ား၊ ေခ်းေငြမ်ားအားမည္သည့္ေနရာမ်ားမွ ရရွိသည္ႏွင့္ မည္သို႔ ျပန္လည္ေပးဆပ္မည္ဆိုသည့္ အစီအစဥ္မ်ားအားထည့္သြင္းေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုသည္။
၁၂။ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ ဘတ္ဂ်က္အေကာင္အထည္ေဖာ္မည့္ လုပ္ငန္းစဥ္မ်ားတြင္ ျပည္သူမ်ား ပါဝင္ေသာလုပ္ငန္းစိစစ္ေရးေကာ္မတီမ်ားဖြဲ႕စည္းထားရွိခြင့္ ျပဳရန္။
၁၃။ ႏိိုင္ငံေတာ္ ဘတ္ဂ်တ္ေရးဆြဲရာတြင္ ျပည္သူမ်ား၏ လိုအပ္ခ်က္မ်ားအလိုက္ ျပည္သူမ်ားကိုယ္တိုင္ ေအာက္ေျခအဆင့္မ်ားမွ ေဆြးေႏြးတင္ျပခြင့္၊ ပူးေပါင္းပါဝင္ခြင့္ျပဳရန္၊ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္၏ သယံဇာတဝင္ေငြအားအေျခခံလူတန္းစား၊ ေတာင္သူလယ္သမားမ်ားအေသးစားႏွင့္ အလတ္စားစီးပြားေရးလုပ္ငန္းမ်ား (SMEs) အားသင့္တင့္ေသာအခ်ိဳးက် ကူညီေထာက္ပံ့ေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုသည္။
၁၄။ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ ဘတ္ဂ်က္ႏွင့္ သက္ဆိုင္သည့္ ဥပေဒမ်ားေရးဆြဲထုတ္ျပန္ရာတြင္ သက္ဆိုင္သည့္ (Multi-stakeholder) မ်ားပူးေပါင္းပါဝင္ခြင့္ျပဳရန္ ႏွင့္ လူငယ္မ်ားအား ဘတ္ဂ်က္ႏွင့္ ပတ္သက္ၿပီးအသိပညာေပးအစီအစဥ္မ်ားကိုအေျခခံေက်ာင္းမ်ားမွစ၍ ထည့္သြင္းေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၁၅။ (၁၉၉၃)ခုႏွစ္မူးယစ္ေဆးဝါးႏွင့္ စိတ္ကိုေျပာင္းလဲေစတတ္ေသာေဆးဝါးမ်ား ဥပေဒအရ သံုးစြဲသူမ်ားကို ရာဇဝတ္သားတစ္ဦး ကဲ့သို႕မဟုတ္ဘဲနာတာရွည္ေရာဂါသည္ (လူနာ)တစ္ဦး အေနျဖင့္ လူ႕အခြင့္အေရးရႈေထာင့္မွၾကည့္ၿပီးဥပေဒကိုျပန္လည္ျပင္ဆင္ေရးဆြဲရန္ ေတာင္းဆို ပါသည္။
၁၆။ သက္ဆိုင္ရာတာဝန္ရွိသူမ်ားမွ မူးယစ္ေဆးဝါးစိုက္ပ်ိဳး၊ ထုတ္လုပ္၊ သယ္ယူ၊ ျဖန္႕ျဖဴး၊ ေရာင္းခ်သူမ်ားကိုဥပေဒနည္းအရထိေရာက္စြာအေရးယူေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးရန္ႏွင့္ အဂတိ လိုက္စားမႈမ်ားအားအေရးယူသြားရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၁၇။ ႏိုင္ငံလံုးဆိုင္ရာ ၿငိ္မ္းခ်မ္းေရးျဖစ္စဥ္ကို ျမန္ဆန္ထိေရာက္စြာအေကာင္အထည္ေဖာ္ ေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၁၈။ တစ္ႏိုင္ငံလံုးဘိန္းစိုက္ပ်ိဳးထုတ္လုပ္မႈ၊ ေရာင္းဝယ္ေဖာက္ကားမႈကိုလံုးဝရပ္ဆိုင္းရန္ ႏွင့္ ေစ်းကြက္အာမခံခ်က္ရွိေသာဘိန္းအစားထိုးသီးႏွံမ်ားစိုက္ပ်ိဳးႏိုင္ေရးအတြက္ေဆာင္ရြက္သြားရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၁၉။ မူးယစ္ေဆးဝါး အႏၱရာယ္ေလ်ွာ့ခ်ေရးႏွင့္ ျပန္လည္ထူေထာင္ေရး လုပ္ငန္းမ်ားကို ထိေရာက္စြာလုပ္ေဆာင္ႏိုင္ေရးအတြက္ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္မွ ဘတ္ဂ်က္ရံပံုေငြတစ္ရပ္ သတ္မွတ္ေပးရန္ ႏွင့္ ျပည္သူတစ္ရပ္လံုးပါဝင္ေစေရးအတြက္ ပူးေပါင္းၿပီးထိေရာက္စြာေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆို ပါသည္။
၂၀။ အစိုးရအေနျဖင့္ ေရႊ႔ေျပာင္းျမန္မာအလုပ္သမားအဖြဲ႕မ်ားႏွင့္ ခ်ိတ္ဆက္ၿပီးပညာေပး လုပ္ငန္းႏွင့္ ကာကြယ္ေရးလုပ္ငန္းမ်ားတြင္ ထိထိေရာက္ေရာက္ပ့ံပိုးကူညီရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၂၁။ ႏိုင္ငံသားမ်ား၏ အလုပ္အကိုင္၊ စီးပြားေရးအခြင့္အလမ္းမ်ားေဖာ္ေဆာင္ေပးရန္ ႏွင့္ ေခတ္ႏွင့္ေလ်ာ္ညီေသာလစာႏွင့္ ရပိုင္ခြင့္မ်ားကိုေဖာ္ေဆာင္ေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၂၂။ ေရႊ႕ေျပာင္းလုပ္သားမ်ားကိုအျပည့္အဝအကာအကြယ္ေပးေသာဥပေဒ (Migration Law) ကို အျမန္ဆံုးေဖာ္ထုတ္ အေကာင္အထည္ေဖာ္ေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၂၃။ ေဒသတြင္းလုပ္ကိုင္ေသာစီးပြားေရးလုပ္ငန္းမ်ားမွရရွိလာေသာအက်ိဳးအျမတ္မ်ားကို ေဒသခံျပည္သူမ်ား၏လူမႈစီးပြားအတြက္ ျပည္သူမ်ားပါဝင္စီမံခန္႔ခြဲေသာစနစ္ျဖင့္ ျဖည့္ဆည္း ေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၂၄။ ေဒသခံ ျပည္သူမ်ား၏ စိုးရိမ္မႈႏွင့္ ဆံုးရံႈးနစ္နာခ်က္မ်ားအားတိုင္ၾကားႏိုင္သည့္ စနစ္ကို အမ်ားျပည္သူမ်ား လက္လွမ္းမီေအာင္ ေဆာင္ရြက္ၿပီး ျမန္ျမန္ဆန္ဆန္ တံု႕ျပန္ေျဖရွင္းေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၂၅။ ESIA(ပတ္၀န္းက်င္ႏွင့္ လူမႈထိခိုက္မႈစစ္တမ္း) ႏွင့္ ပတ္သက္၍ ကုမၸဏီမ်ားမွေဆာင္ရြက္မႈမ်ားရွိေစရန္ အစိုးရမွ စနစ္တက်ၾကပ္မတ္ေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးရန္ႏွင့္ ေဘးအႏၱရာယ္မ်ားအား ႀကိဳတင္ကာကြယ္သည့္ စနစ္ထားရွိၿပီးအမ်ားျပည္သူမ်ားသိရွိေအာင္ ေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၂၆။ ရင္းႏွီးျမွပ္ႏွံမႈလုပ္ငန္းဆိုင္ရာစီမံကိန္းမ်ားႏွင့္ပတ္သက္သည္႔ စာခ်ဳပ္စာတမ္းႏွင့္ ဘ႑ာေငြ သတင္းအခ်က္အလက္မ်ားကိုအမ်ားျပည္သူသိရွိေအာင္ ထုတ္ျပန္ေျဖၾကားေပးႏိုင္ေသာ စနစ္တစ္ခုထားရွိရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၂၇။ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္မွ ခ်မွတ္ျပဌာန္းထားေသာ ဥပေဒလုပ္ထံုးလုပ္နည္းနွင့္အညီ ေဒသခံ အလုပ္သမားမ်ားအားအလုပ္အကိုင္ အခြင့္အလမ္းႏွင့္အခြင့္အေရးမ်ားဖန္တီးေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆို ပါသည္။
၂၈။ ျပည္သူကိုထိခိုက္ျပီးအမွန္တကယ္ဖြံ႕ၿဖိဳးမႈကိုမစြမ္းေဆာင္ႏိုင္ေသာ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ စီမံကိန္းမ်ားကိုခ်က္ခ်င္းရပ္ဆိုင္းေပးရန္ႏွင့္ ျပည္သူကိုထိခိုက္ႏိုင္သည္႔ ျပည္သူကလက္မခံေသာ စီမံကိန္းမ်ားခြင့္မျပဳရန္ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၂၉။ ေက်ာက္မီးေသြးမွ လွ်ပ္စစ္ဓါတ္အားထုတ္လုပ္မႈကိုဖ်က္သိမ္းေပးရန္ႏွင့္ ျပန္လည္ ျပည့္ၿဖိဳးျမဲ စြမ္းအင္ ကဲ့သို႕ေသာ အျခားေသာ စြမ္းအင္အရင္းအျမစ္မ်ား၊ သန္႕ရွင္းေသာ အရင္းအျမစ္မ်ားကိုအသံုးျပဳရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၃၀။ စီမံကိန္းအဆင့္တိုင္းတြင္ ျပည္သူမွ ပါဝင္ဆံုး ျဖတ္ခြင့္ေပးရန္ႏွင့္ ၿခိမ္းေျခာက္ဖိအားေပးမႈမ်ားမွကာကြယ္ေပးရန္ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။

ဒီမိုကေရစီျပဳျပင္ေျပာင္းလဲေရးႏွင့္ပတ္သက္၍
၁။ ျပည္နယ္ႏွင့္တိုင္းေဒသၾကီးအသီးသီးမွအမ်ဳိးသမီးမ်ားတန္းတူႏိုင္ငံသားအခြင့္အေရး အျပည္႔အ၀ရရွိျပီး အသက္ေမြး၀မ္းေက်ာင္းပညာရပ္မ်ားကို တကၠသိုလ္ ပညာမ်ားတြင္ တန္းတူေလ့လာဆည္းပူႏိုင္ခြင့္ရရွိေစရန္ႏွင့္အလုပ္အကိုင္အခြင့္အလမ္းရရွိရန္ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္မွစီစဥ္ေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၂။ CEDAW ကိုအေျချပဳ၍ ေရးဆြဲထားေသာဥပေဒမူၾကမ္းအားအျမန္ဆံုး အေကာင္အထည္ေဖာ္ျပီး၊ DEVAW ကိုလက္မွတ္ေရးထုိးအေကာင္အထည္ေဖာ္ရန္ ေတာင္းဆို ပါသည္။
၃။ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပံုအေျခခံဥပေဒတြင္ျပဌာန္းထားေသာက်ား၊မတန္းတူအခြင့္အေရး ဆိုင္ရာ ျပဌာန္းခ်က္မ်ားတြင္ပါရွိေသာ အမ်ဳိးသမီးမ်ား၏ အခန္းက႑ကို ဦးစားေပးေဆာင္ရြက္ရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၄။ အမ်ဳိးသမီးမ်ား၏ ဘ၀လံုျခံဳမႈကို ကာကြယ္ေစာင့္ေရွာက္ေပးႏိုင္ရန္ ရပ္/ေက်း၊ ျမိဳ႕ျပ အေျချပဳေသာအမ်ဳိးသမီးေရးရာအဖြဲ႔မ်ား၏ထိေရာက္မႈအခန္းက႑မ်ားကိုတိုးျမွင့္ေပးရန္ေတာင္း ဆိုပါသည္။
၅။ ဆင္းရဲမြဲေတမႈပေပ်ာက္ေစရန္ အမ်ဳိးသမီးမ်ားအတြက္ အေသးစား၊ အလတ္စား၊ အၾကီးစားအသက္ေမြး၀မ္းေက်ာင္းလုပ္ငန္းဆိုင္ရာ အခြင့္အလမ္းမ်ားဖန္တီးျပဳလုပ္ေပးရန္ႏွင့္ လုပ္ငန္းခြင္ေဘးကင္းလံုျခံဳမႈရွိေစရန္ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။

လူ႔အခြင့္အေရး၊ တရားမွ်တမႈႏွင့္ပတ္သက္၍
၁။ ကေလးသူငယ္မ်ား၏ အနာဂတ္ အက်ိဳးစီးပြားကိုေမ်ွာ္မွန္းလ်က္ ေရရွည္တည္တံ့ခိုင္ျမဲေသာ ျငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရးလုပ္ငန္းစဥ္ကုိ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ႏွင့္ သက္ဆိုင္ရာလက္နက္ကိုင္ အဖြဲ႕အစည္းမ်ားမွ ခိုင္မာေသာမူေဘာင္တစ္ခုခ်မွတ္၍ အေကာင္အထည္ေဖာ္ေဆာင္ရြက္ရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၂။ ကေလးသူငယ္အခြင့္အေရးဆိုင္ရာကိစၥရပ္မ်ားကိုအေကာင္အထည္ေဖာ္ေဆာင္ရြက္ႏိုင္ရန္ အတြက္ အမ်ိဳးသားအဆင့္ မဟာဗ်ဴဟာစီမံကိန္းကုိသက္ဆိုင္ရာအရပ္ဖက္ အဖြဲ႕အစည္းမ်ား၊ ပညာရွင္မ်ားႏွင့္အတူပူးေပါင္း၍ အျမန္ဆံုးေရးဆြဲေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၃။ ကေလးသူငယ္ဥပေဒကို ျပဳျပင္ေျပာင္းလဲရာတြင္ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္မွ ဦးေဆာင္၍ ကိုယ္စားျပဳႏိုင္ေသာအရပ္ဖက္အဖြဲ႕အစည္းမွ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္မ်ားပူးေပါင္းပါဝင္ ေဆာင္ရြက္ ခြင့္ျပဳရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၄။ ကေလးသူငယ္အခြင့္အေရးႏွင့္ သက္ဆိုင္ေသာသင္ရိုးညႊန္းတမ္းမ်ား ျပဌာန္း ႏိုင္ေရးအတြက္ သက္ဆိုင္ရာဝန္ႀကီးဌာနမ်ားႏွင့္ သက္ဆိုင္ရာအရပ္ဖက္အဖြဲ႕အစည္း ကိုယ္စားလွယ္မ်ားပူးေပါင္းေရးဆြဲႏိုင္ရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၅။ ကေလးသူငယ္အခြင့္အေရးဆိုင္ရာအမ်ိဳးသားအဆင့္ မဟာဗ်ဴဟာစီမံကိန္းကို အေကာင္ အထည္ေဖာ္လုပ္ေဆာင္ရာတြင္ လိုအပ္မည့္ ဘတ္ဂ်က္ေငြေၾကးမ်ားကို လႊတ္ေတာ္မွ တဆင့္ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္မွ သတ္မွတ္ခ်ထားေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၆။ မသန္စြမ္းသူမ်ားကိုမသန္စြမ္းဟူေသာအမည္ကိုဖယ္ရွားၿပီး ႏိုင္ငံ၏လူသားအရင္း အျမစ္တစ္ခုအျဖစ္ အသိအမွတ္ျပဳ၍ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္၏ က႑တိုင္းမွာပါဝင္ေဆာင္ရြက္ခြင့္ျပဳရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၇။ မသန္စြမ္းသူမ်ားလူ႔အခြင့္အေရးအျပည့္အဝရရွိေစရန္ႏွင့္ တိက်ခိုင္မာေသာ လုပ္ေဆာင္ခ်က္မ်ား ေဖာ္ေဆာင္ရန္အတြက္ မသန္စြမ္းသူမ်ားအခြင့္အေရးဆိုင္ရာ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္အဆင့္ေကာ္မတီ တစ္ရပ္ကို ႏိုင္ငံအႀကီးအကဲမွ ဦးေဆာင္၍ မသန္စြမ္းအမ်ားစု(မသန္စြမ္း အမ်ိဳးသမီးမ်ား) တန္းတူပါ ဝင္ႏိုင္ခြင့္ရွိေသာေကာ္မတီတစ္ရပ္ ဖြဲ႕စည္းလုပ္ေဆာင္ေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၈။ မသန္စြမ္းသူမ်ားအထူးသျဖင့္ မသန္စြမ္းအမ်ိဳးသမီးမ်ားႏွင့္ အမ်ိဳးသမီး ငယ္ရြယ္သူမ်ားအေပၚတြင္ နည္းမ်ိဳးစံုျဖင့္ အလြဲသံုးစားလုပ္မႈမ်ားအား ကာကြယ္ေပးေသာ ထိေရာက္ျပင္းထန္သည္႔ဥပေဒ၊ နည္းဥပေဒမ်ားထုတ္ျပန္ေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၉။ တရားဥပေဒစိုးမိုးေရးကိုအေထာက္အကူျဖစ္ေစေသာလူနည္းစုအခြင့္အေရး မ်ားကို ဖြဲ႕စည္းပံု အေျခခံဥပေဒ ပုဒ္မ(၃၆၄) အရ ျပဌာန္းေပးရန္ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၁၀။ တရားဥပေဒစိုးမိုးေရးအတြက္ ဖြဲ႕စည္းပံုအေျခခံဥပေဒ(၂၀၀၈)အား ျပန္လည္သံုးသပ္ ျပင္ဆင္ရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၁၁။ တရားဥပေဒစိုးမိုးေရးအတြက္တရားရံုးမ်ား၏တရားစီရင္ေဆာင္ရြက္မႈမ်ားကို ျပည္သူလူထု ကိုယ္တိုင္ေလ့လာေစာင့္ၾကည္႔ခြင့္ကိုအသိအမွတ္ျပဳရန္ႏွင့္ မေလ်ာ္ကန္ေသာစီရင္မႈမ်ားကို ျပည္သူက ေ၀ဖန္အေရးဆိုခြင့္ျပဳရန္ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၁၂။ စာခြ်န္ေတာ္အမိန္႔မ်ားႏွင့္ ပတ္သက္၍ ထိေရာက္မႈရွိစြာအေရးယူေပးပါရန္ ျပည္ေထာင္စု တရားလႊတ္ေတာ္ခ်ဳပ္အားတိုက္တြန္းေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၁၃။ တရားေရးအဖြဲ႕အစည္းမ်ား၏ အဂတိလိုက္စားမႈမ်ားကိုပိုမိုထိထိေရာက္ေရာက္ ျပင္းျပင္းထန္ထန္ကိုင္တြယ္ေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးပါရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၁၄။ ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံစားသံုးသူမ်ားအကာအကြယ္ေပးေရးဥပေဒကိုထုတ္ျပန္ျပီးျဖစ္ေသာ္လည္း ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္မွ နည္းဥပေဒကို ျပည္႔စံုစြာထုတ္ျပန္ေပးျခင္းမရွိေသးေသာေၾကာင့္ အေဆာတလ်င္ ထုတ္ျပန္ေပးရန္ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၁၅။ နည္းဥပေဒမ်ားေရးဆြဲရာတြင္ အေထာက္အကူျပဳေစရန္ အိမ္နီးခ်င္းႏိုင္ငံမ်ား ျဖစ္ေသာထိုင္း၊ မေလးရွား၊ စင္ကာပူႏိုင္ငံတို႔မွ ေအာင္ျမင္ေနေသာ စားသံုးသူအကာ အကြယ္ေပးေရးဥပေဒပါအခ်က္မ်ားကိုေလ့လာျပီးမိမိႏိုင္ငံႏွင့္ လိုက္ဖက္ေသာ ဥပေဒမ်ား ေရးဆြဲျခင္း၊ ကုန္ထုတ္စြမ္းအားႏွင့္ ကုန္ေစ်းႏႈန္းေျပာင္းျပန္အခ်ဳိးက်မႈေၾကာင့္ ကုန္ထုတ္စြမ္းအား ျမွင့္တင္ႏိုင္ေရးကိုထိေရာက္စြာအေကာင္အထည္ေဖာ္ႏိုင္ျခင္းအတြက္ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္မွ ပံ့ပိုးေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၁၆။ စားသံုးသူအခြင့္အေရးဆိုင္ရာပညာေပးလုပ္ငန္းမ်ားျပဳလုပ္ရာတြင္ အမ်ဳိးသားေရး အျမင္ကိုပါ ထည္႔သြင္းသင့္ပါသည္။စားသံုးသူဆိုသည္မွာေအာက္ေျခလူတန္းစားမွ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ သမၼတအထိပါ၀င္ေသာေၾကာင့္အလႊာအတန္းအစားမခြဲျခားဘဲအစိုးရဌာနမ်ား၊ CSO အဖြဲ႔အစည္းမ်ား၊ မီဒီယာမ်ားပါ၀င္သည္႔ Campaign မ်ားျပဳလုပ္ရာတြင္ ထိေရာက္ေအာင္ျမင္စြာ ေဆာင္ရြက္ႏိုင္ေရးအတြက္ သက္ဆိုင္ရာဌာနမ်ားပူးေပါင္းေဆာင္ရြက္ႏိုင္ရန္ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္အစိုးရက ပံ့ပိုးေပးရန္ေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၁၇။ တရားမ၀င္တင္သြင္းလာေသာအစားအစာႏွင့္ ေဆး၀ါးမ်ားကိုလည္းေကာင္း၊ တရား၀င္ တင္သြင္းထားေသာ္လည္း က်န္းမာေရးႏွင့္မသင့္ေလ်ာ္ေသာ အစားအစာ ေဆး၀ါးမ်ားကို လည္းေကာင္း ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ကစနစ္တက်စစ္ေဆးျပီး တင္းတင္းၾကပ္ၾကပ္ အေရးယူေဆာင္ရြက္ရန္ အထူးလိုအပ္ပါသည္။အထူးသျဖင့္ နယ္စပ္ ကုန္သြယ္ေရးမွတရားမ၀င္တင္သြင္းလာေသာ အစားအစာႏွင့္ေဆး၀ါးမ်ားသည္ စားသံုးသူမ်ားကိုအလြန္ဆိုးရြားစြာ အႏၱရာယ္ေပးေနသျဖင့္ FDA ႏွင့္ ဌာနဆိုင္ရာမ်ားကစနစ္တက် အေရးတၾကီးစစ္ေဆးေဆာင္ရြက္ရန္၊ Food Safety Management System ကိုအျခားႏိုင္ငံမ်ားနည္းတူစနစ္က်ေသာ မူ၀ါဒခ်မွတ္ အေကာင္ အထည္ေဖာ္ရန္အထူးေတာင္းဆိုပါသည္။
၁၈။ တိုင္းျပည္၏အနာဂတ္ကိုေရွးရႈကာအေျခခံေက်ာင္းမ်ားမွစ၍ ေက်ာင္းသား လူငယ္မ်ား အတြက္ Food Safety ကိုတိက်မွန္ကန္ေသာ မူ၀ါဒစည္းမ်ဥ္းမ်ား ခ်မွတ္ျပီးဥပေဒဆိုင္ရာအေရးယူမႈမ်ားကိုပီပီျပင္ျပင္ေဆာင္ရြက္ရန္ႏွင့္ေဆးရံုေဆးခန္းမ်ားတြင္ ရွိေသာ မသင့္ေလ်ာ္ေသာေဆး၀ါးႏွင့္အစားအေသာက္ဆိုင္ရာကန္ထရိုက္အခ်ဳိ႕ကို က်န္းမာေရး ၀န္ၾကီးဌာနကျပန္လည္စီစစ္အေရးယူပါရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုိအပ္ပါသည္။

ယခုေထာက္ခံတင္ျပတိုက္တြန္းခ်က္မ်ားသည္ ျမန္မာနိုင္ငံတရားမွ်တမႈႏွင့္ လူ႔အခြင့္အေရး၊ ဖံြ႔ၿဖိဳးေရး၊ ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရး၊ ဒီမိုကေရစီျပဳျပင္ေျပာင္းလဲေရးအတြက္ ပိုမိုေကာင္းမြန္လာေစရန္ အၾကံျပဳခ်က္မ်ားျဖစ္သည္။ သို႔ျဖစ္ပါ၍ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္အစိုးရအေနျဖင့္ အထက္ပါေထာက္ခံ တင္ျပတိုက္တြန္းခ်က္မ်ားကို အေလးထားအေကာင္အထည္ေဖာ္ေဆာင္ရြက္ရန္ အေလးအနက္ တိုက္တြန္းအပ္ပါသည္။

အထက္ပါ ေထာက္ခံတင္ျပတိုက္တြန္းခ်က္မ်ားကို ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္အစုိးရက အေရးယူ ေဆာင္္ရြက္ ေပးသည္အထိ ဆက္လက္ႀကိဳးပမ္းေဆာင္ရြက္သြားမည္ျဖစ္သကဲ့သို႔ု အာဆီယံျပည္သူ႔ဖိုရမ္တြင္လည္း ဆက္လက္တင္ျပသြားမည္ ျဖစ္သည္။

ဒီဇင္ဘာလ (၁၄) ရက္ ၂၀၁၄ ခုႏွစ္

NINETEEN LAND GOVERNANCE WORKSHOPS IN FOUR DISTRICTS OF AYARWADDY REGION

HELPING HAND FOR LAND ISSUES REPORT

7/28/2014
NINETEEN Land Governance Workshops in FOUR Districts of Ayarwaddy Region

HELPING HAND FOR LAND ISSUES REPORT
NINETEEN LAND GOVERNANCE WORKSHOPS IN FOUR DISTRICTS OF AYARWADDY REGION
This is the report of Share Mercy implementing Land and Land Related Laws and Land Rights in Hinthada and Pathein Districts, Ayarwaddy Region with the fund support of Land Core Group and Myinttar Development Foundation from May to July 2014. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgement 3
List of Acronyms 4
Executive Summary 5
Introduction 12
Methodology 12
Coverage and Limitation 12
1. Narrative Overview 13
2. Achievements 19
3. Communication, Networking and Advocacy 20
4. Gaps, Issues, Lessons Learnt and Support Needed 21
5. Voices of Peasants 22
6. Voices of Peasants facing Land Concessions or Disputes 37
7. Findings, Analysis and Recommendations Concerning Land 48
Concessions
8. General Recommendations 58
9. Annex
i. List of Attendees 63
ii. Case Studies 64
iii. Pictures 70
iv. Land Utilization Management Central Committee Meeting Note 81

Acknowledgement
It is to thank LCG and MRF had funded to Share Mercy. Share Mercy and her alliances _ Peasant and Land Worker Union (Ayarwaddy), Peasant and Fishermen Union, Farmer Honorary Network (Ayarwaddy) has cooperated in the implementation of this project in their respective area and time availability. Share Mercy cannot forget the gratitude of host farmers and their society despite short notice and calling on workshop with little facility. Personally, we have to appreciate U. ShweThein and Glenn from LCG for knowledge and experience about report writing.

List of Acronyms
Ac. – Acre
CBO – Community based Organization
D-day – a day targeted something to do
DPDC – District Peace and Development Council
FSWG – Food Security Working Group
GAD – General Administration Department
GAO – General Administration Officer
Gen. – General
Ks. – Myanmar Kyats
Infra – Infrastructure
LCG – Land Core Group
LLRDIC – Land and Land Related Disputes Investigation Commission
Maj. – Major
MOHA – Ministry of Home Affairs
MP – Member of Parliament
MRF – Myinttar Resource Foundation
NLD – National League for Democracy
FHN – Farmer Honorary Network
PM – Prime Minister
SLORC – State Law and Order Restoration Council
SLRD – Settlement and Land Record Department
SM – Share Mercy
SPDC – State Peace and Development Council
VTLMC – Village Tract Land Management Committee


Executive Summary

This is the report of Share Mercy humanitarian and development organization done on 19 Workshops on Land Acquisition Laws, 1963 Farmers Interests Protecting Law, Farmland Law, Vacant, Fallow, and Virgin Land Law. This funding was jointly supported by Land Core Group and Myinttar Development Foundation for 19 rural communities in Pathein and Hinthada, Myaungmya and Pyapon districts. The action was started on 7th May to 19th July 2014. In the first month, eight workshops, five in June and six in July has finished. It was the joint efforts among Ayarwaddy Peasant and Land Worker Union, Peasant and Fishermen Union, and Farmer Honorary Network (Ayarwaddy).
Apart from the workshops, we did one hundred and ninety nine cases of land disputes and concession information was assessed for further advocacy. Three hundred and six assessments on Peasants Voices Concerning Agricultural Policy and Practices, communal interests and supports needed were done and the report shall be inputted for amending Farmer Interests Protection and Promoting Law and drafting its by-laws.
The discussed topics were ‘Networking and Defining Farmers in Local Context’, Learning today farmland concessions, Learning Current Land and Land Related Laws, Strengths and Weaknesses Analysis of Farmers, Way forward to tackle the current issues. The experiences explored in each township can be summarized as follows:
Ngwesaung Beach, formerly was known as Nga Saw village has a number of farmland confiscations by twenty one companies in Myanmar. Only Max Company has paid “compassionate tips” in the place of paying ‘Compensation’ by 1894 Land Acquisition Act. Residents in Rakhine Ethnic, however, lasting years and having been exhausted for almost twenty years, due to no positive turning out, they are ready to accept some satisfactory compensation which will enable them to have their normal lives from currently hand to mouth situations. Still they do not see any individuals or groups or organizations which will do so to help out the difficulties. While expecting for the fair solutions, the local community is feeling heart-felt sorrow as they lack the right to go to sea and enjoy the “Fish-Paste” that they traditionally consuming generations after generations. Some peasants were also sued by article 427, 447 for example Daw Ni, 60 Years of Age, Ngwesaung. There is a group headed by U Aung Myint (60) years which is trying to get the compensation.

Chaungthar, Shwethaungyan Township project began earlier than that of Ngwesaung. The types of land confiscation are as not as many as Ngwesaung but there are still three types of land concession _ by the troop, individual and company _ 625.75 acres of land and SM has gathered 23 land disputes information as objective of the workshop is not about studying the cases we did not gather detail information. Like Ngwesaung, it has local group to follow up for compensation.

Ngayokekaung Township has land concessions for which community is eager to have the functional solutions, more than that community was extraordinarily worried and busy with the potential program to be implemented very soon for “Coal” Production nearby highly valued and very scare every green forest. Extractive Industry Transparency Industry (EITI) group based in Pathein usually goes down to Ngayokekaung for Coal programme and work with the community. There is a community group working for land concession as well.

Similarly, Hainggyi locals are feeling perplexed, worried and at a loss. It was because in Zee Chaing Township, the businessmen and companies they purchased the Beach-like areas as it has very beautiful and exciting sceneries. Local peoples are worried that small fishermen can lose their livelihoods if beach area became the complete possession of the businessmen now almost every beautiful area were bought by the rich persons and only inside the beach are still in the possession of the local people. All four beaches like areas namely Ngwe Saung, Chaung Tha, Ngayokekaung, and Hainggyi were with the Rakhine ethnic people and they lost their land ownerships due to mostly authority and often by poverty with the support of bad governance and poor rule of law in time of military regime. Comparatively, among all four areas, Zee Chaint, Hainggyi Island’s locals are more vulnerable than that of the other areas due to very low education, little job opportunities, being remote areas to the big town like Pathein, divisional city.

Zalon, Thetkal Island and Hinthada, Kyauk Ye have similar problems. Both the areas do not have much plot for agriculture but the alluvial being islands. In Hinthada, community received the right to access the alluvial till 2006 regularly but starting 2006, Township Administrative Officer let the right to grow on the alluvia to the other village tract’s habitants though they were not entitled by law. As per 2012 law, it said lease hold right is in the hand of the residents who is closely situated than the other residents, by Chapter Three, Rights of the Peasants and Farmers, Article Nine, Paragraph, A, B, C and Chapter (12), allocation of Alluvial, Article 105, Paragraph A and B. Likewise, in Zalon, residents lost their rights to access the alluvial to Yangon Region. Zalon, Thetkal Island residents explained that formerly alluvial was Zalon’s access but in time of General Soe Naing when he was commanding as Divisional Commander in Ayeyawaddy Commander, he made a deal with Yangon Commander and let the alluvial access for Yangon regions habitants. Ever since then, original residents could no longer have the right to access it at all. Locals wanted to have the lease hold rights or right to access as it is will alleviate their intensity of poverty. Since then both communities have been putting attempts by any possible means as it is their only source of livelihoods, while they were expecting to have the leasehold right on the alluvial they became the fishermen and do the fishing, but as many of the locals change their livelihood from agriculture on the alluvial to fishing, they found difficult for their survival due to limited resource from the water. Currently both the communities in Zalon and Hinthada were expecting to have the lease hold right of alluvial and wanting to overcome survivals issues on daily basis.

Einme workshop is the substitute for Kyonpyaw one. In Kyon Pyaw SM and alliance found extremely very difficult, and finally unable to organize at all. After much effort for organizing the workshop, due to very poor cooperation by the side of local authorities, political parties, Civil Society organizations, team decided to do it in Einme where CSOs in the name of Peasants Union are stronger comparatively. In Einme, just like the other town, there are cases of land concessions; most of them are arisen out of abuse of power by the local authority that backed the money lender and finally they became the land owner in the local community. Among them, one case was with Ministry of Education. MOE concessed the land for school construction project and education personnel took local’s land access with no proper information, no compensation, no consultation, nothing. After the school construction, there was some plots of land but school authority let it access to other peasants and receiving the crop on year basis in return. Original land access right holder is following up for getting her plot of land but she was never successful though it takes for years. Thought there are Peasants Union members in the region but Union members are also working just like activist and lacking legal knowledge that community members could not get much assistance yet.

In Ingapu, significantly there was a case between the army officer and peasants. However, In Myanaung (Oakpon village) and Myanaung (Kanaung) and, Ingapu townships, Kyankhin townships, there were concerns raised by the local community because of the business which consumed a lot of firewood for crude oil making business. Businessmen there bring the crude oil from upper Myanmar like Meikhtilar, Magwe to Myanaung nearby Okapon village and they made them to be the oil. During three months period, half of the very thick forests were already gone, if this business is keeping on-going, forest will be disappeared in a short while local voiced out shockingly. Worse than that, waste of this business were gone to the farmland, in time of rainy seasons and this waste severely damaged the farmland around 30000 acres. Locals are doing everything possible but nothing can stop it up to date. Local felt hotter season than ever and they are feeling hopeless regarding the issues as nobody is really taking care of this though they have been addressing for long in various media and channels including addressing it to Prime Minister, Ayeyawaddy. There is a Union working on those affairs, but no success. In Kyankhin Township, lema villge, peasants in the community were very much disappointed with Asia World Company Ltd. In that area, that company is extracting the rock from the mountain by the stream. By consequences, all the deposit form that operation were pile up in the stream and finally local found very much problematic to do the agricultural works for their major livelihoods. Local do not know what to do, and how to tackle the problems being Chin Ethnic Speaking people and difficult to access area.

Laymyinthnar case is the most painful event among (19) workshops cases in one way, we could highlight, at Laymyinthnar where the ex-army Maj. Sann Lin from Myo Kyaw Lin Company has taken holds the forest lands together with rural roads which have been officially listed in Dept. of General Administration. Another company has also taken forests and pasture lands. The first issue for land concessions is relating to four village tracts; covering 3,000 acres of forest, graze, farmland and communal infrastructure. This is significant as community can no longer bear this and counter-sue the ex-Maj Sann Lin. Commoner side was weak financially and physically still it is beyond their tolerance that they counter-sue. Peasants are worried that their inexperience lawyers were shot by the “Soft Bullet: Dollars from the Maj. Sann Lin and made the peasants into trouble. Ex-major called for public share though he grabbed the land from the community.

Ngapudaw Township, Konekalay village is the remote area, it has Ever Green Forest. Residents there are Kayin ethnic people, who speak ethnic dialect and cannot understand much Myanmar language, least educated among 19 towns. There were intra-communal issues; land grabbing there. Money lenders made alliance with the officials and transformed their land into money lenders’.

Pathein has no land concessions; they have no idea of land concessions and laws related to the peasants and farmers. They are struggling with daily livelihood problems and survival; they seem to be staying outer part of the world, having no information and knowledge about the land concessions experiencing in Pathein.

Yegyi town, Bwet Gnu Village Tract, Bwet Gnu village has no land concession but many villagers were well informed about the land concessions being faced in Yegyi Town especially with Ayeyashwewar Company. Bwet Ngu, Yegyi has Union and Pathein has not. As a result, Yegyi community knows about the updates though they are far from Big City like Pathein.

Pyapon is significant as they have more than 257 cases and many peasants are also sued and having to appear at the court for more than a year already as they did the “ploughing strike” to have access to their previous farmland. All of the articles being sued are 427, 447 only. There are peasants who have to appear at the court and defend by themselves as they could not afford for “Legal Expenses”. Currently, they want to finish the cases as soon as possible.

In Kanggyidaunt, Kyaunggon, Tharboung and Yegyi, there were 41,200 areas of land acreages taken capture by Ayarshwewah Company. By 26-July-2014 date issue, it announced they will abandon all the farmlands for which they wanted to form a cooperative society and carry on the collaborative business with the local peasants who signed the contracts for mutual interests farming. In addition to this, U Chit Lwin, the people’s representative for Regional Parliament for Kangyidaunt’s constituency, has also made the bad image, occupying more than 100 acres of land from 7-8 peasants. He also sued one peasant for illegal trespassing and damage of property by Penal Code 427 and 447. In Kyaunggon, there were intra-communal land concessions.

SM and her alliance yet to have the positive cooperation especially from the local authorities, in Ingapu, Hinthada district, Ingapu Township upon arrival, team was observed by Military Intelligence team, they also informed Myanaung Special Branch, Myanmar Police Force also took special care for SM and her partners throughout Ingapu, Myanaung, Hinthada trip. In Kyonpyon, and Hainggyi, team was asked to submit the permission letter to Township Administration Office. Therefore, the team moved to choose another town where Peasant Union exist and active _ Ein Me. For Ngayokekaung administrator, he was, formerly, the chairman of NLD in his village tract, helped holding the event. The team did not find the problem in Pyapon and Ein Me as there were local active people is present.

As the achievement of the Workshops, some villages in river bank of Ayarwaddy under Hinthada Township had long lasting headache about riverbank collapse; community has been moving always. We were able to link them Riverbank protection committee directed by Dept. of Forestry and Environment, Naypyidaw.

Land concessions were not done by 1894 Land Acquisition Act. In addition to that it also did not go by Central Land Committee Order. It was issued by the Revolution Council on 23-May-1968, number 958 Ba La Ka (9) Na -67 (281), the lands must be issued to Landless as first priority, then peasants who have few farmlands, and then peasants who had 20 acres of farmland, finally farmer who have above 20 acres of farmland, respectively. It said NOT to prioritize the outsiders and large scale or commercial plantations. On the contrary, after the military coup, the Regime had changed the direction to go the Market Economy. By this purpose, they formed Central Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Land Management Committee on 13-Nov-1991 date and the committee issued Orders and changed the past Orders for Large Scale and Commercial Farming from pro-poor peasant policies. The sub-committees acted this Right to issue rights to the cronies and big business men to access the lands and farmlands instead poor peasants. In this time onward, there had been conflict of interests and land disputes between the cronies and the rural peasants. It means practically peasants were accessing the farmlands but it had legitimated for the cronies. This must be addressed when the Government formulates the National Central Land Policy.

Taking Workshop events as opportunities, SM also did the small scale assessment called “Peasants Voices”. Saying on the whole, more than sixty percent of people think poor peasants have nearly five acres of farmland. In clause 2.e, no special protection or welfare measures did not include on 2013 Farmers Interests Protection and Welfare Enhancing Law, peasants commented simply during the workshop that 2013 Farmers Interests Protection and Welfare Enhancing Law was simply thinking how to protect the big farmers interest only.

In 2013 Farmers Interests Protection and Welfare Enhancing (FIPWE) Law, there are six types of people who are defined as farmer. This definition is too broad, making everyone to be the peasants in the country if they are doing business affiliated to agriculture. SM would like to highlight 1963 Farmers Interests Protection Law in which people, who grow paddy; who do farming; who supervise farming all the time as well as being his major livelihood are farmers. Peasants agreed to have solid definition unlike current one. To respond this, the workshop assessed the farmers in Ayarwaddy and identified that the majority of people have not agreed with it. See in Figure five and seven. The respondents expressed the small farmers meant people who work in the farm, who has farmland and they employ themselves on farmland and whose livelihood is farming as well as supervising farming.
Concerning the agricultural inputs for peasants, the ministry lends Ks. 100,000 (one lakh) per acreage for ten acres for monsoon paddy each year. Informally, most farmers have expressed this is not enough for growing an acre. Acreage cost goes between 100,000 and 150,000 retold by experience of farmers in Yangon and Ayarwaddy. For a half or more coverage of farming expense, farmers take this loan adding own and local money lenders. During the discussion, they expressed that when receiving the loan they received late after the ploughing period when having to return they had to go quick sometime even no yield or soon after the paddy has been harvested. They wanted the ministry to pay early in order for them to do the proper preparation and give more time to have the better price. In addition to that peasants voiced out that they had to go to bank more than three times waited there for many hours. 75 percents of respondents on average in every district said getting the government loan for ten acres of farmland is sufficient. By the whole region, seventy five said it is not secure.

In one question, farmers were asked to choose three critical needs that help reduction of their poverty. They identified cash, technique and technology, tools and machines and market guarantee. When explored for the whole region, they chose cash for agricultural inputs, technical and market guarantee. As per them, they explained during the workshops, whenever peasants have paddy in hand, paddy prices go down to the floor, when they lack the paddy, it goes up that peasants themselves have to pay for high price for their daily food, in poor peasants families they have to have the broken rice as well.

Above eighty percent of the respondents in Pathein and Hinthada, and hundred percent in Myaungmya and Pyapon described ‘No belief in Village Tract Land Management Committee’. It was because, VTLMC are led by Village Tract Administrator, his clerk and land record area officer, as the secretary of the committee. The said bodies more or less have been suspected that they committed bribery and corruptions in the past land concessions and disputes by the peasants society, CBOs, CSOs, campaigners and activists and thus, they are not paid due regard and trust in land disputes resolving contexts.

Peasants rather believe in establishing Unions to protect and bring hope for their welfare and interests. Respondents have given above seventy percent credits over ‘Peasants Union’. Confidence level goes their exposure with the Peasant Union. In Myaungmya district, both Myaungmya and Ein Me have Peasant Union is living and has activities.

Regarding “Debts”, there are five categories grouped: no debt, 100,000, and 100,000 to 200,000, 200,000 to 400,000 and 400,000 and above. Among them, the most populated group is having debts over Ks. 400,000 and debt clear group is the second most. People in Pyapon and Myaungmya have more debts than people in Hinthada and Pathein. There are four major drivers that farmers were indebted. They are lack of capital or capital market, paddy price and monopoly of paddy market follows capital. The third is land and land related policies are not favored for peasants. Besides them, Pathein and Pyapon farmers voiced affect of land concession is also cause of poverty and debts.
With regards to future land concession risk, seventy percent of participants from Hinthada, Myaungmya and Pyapon assumed there will be further risks of land concessions. It is because exiting Laws, By-laws, Procedures and Orders are not favoured to the side of farmers.
To tackle the peasants related issues throughout Myanmar, for the whole region, there are five key needs rose: 1) Constitution amendment; 2) Amend all lands and land related laws in line with farmers actual voices and genuine interests; 3) Undertake free and fair election in coming terms; 4) Strengthening farmers institutions and organizations; 5) Reduction of market monopoly by the rice traders and balance weigh up to the hands of farmers.
All in all, on the ground, referring to 1894 Land Acquisition Act any Land Concessions made through Government Dept. does not meet the directive of the Act.
Together with the small scale “Peasants’ Voices” assessment, SM also did study on “Land Concessions and Disputes”. Findings are shown as below details.
Regarding the farmland ownership, it was found that 90 percent were by parental heritage and 10 percent by mean of self clearance on the vacant, virgin and fallow land. Concerning the type of crop, major crop is paddy; taking 80 percent and 11 percent is for gardening. With regards to acreage of farmland by peasants, peasants of 33 percent belonged to less than five acre of land, 26 percent have access right for less than ten acre of land, and only 7 percent have more than 20 acre of farmland though, 2012 Farmland Law stated that Peasants can have leasehold rights for 50 acre of land for maximum and 50,000 acre for businessmen. In this regard, inequality is there in the Farmland Law 2012 conflicting with 2008 Constitution; article 25 said there is equality in all the citizens.
In five types of Land Concessions, intra-communal land concession (41 Percent) were mostly found and followed by land concessions for company businesses establishment (40 percent) and troops’ land concession is 12 percent and the least of 7 percent by National Program. None of these paid compensation shown by 1894 Land Acquisition Act. As exception case, only Max Myanmar paid “Compassionate Tips” one acre for 30 USD equal amount of Myanmar Kyat in Ngwe Saung Beach, Pathein. In all the cases, peasants wanted to get back their land as land is their lives if the concessed land is not unitized yet. If the projects were already developed then locals wanted to get back suitable amount of money for their livelihoods and resettlement.
In four townships that we assessed, it was obviously found that local authority abused the power and involved in land concessions. Mostly authority who involved in the land concessions were mostly by District Chairman (83) percent, State Land Registration and Land Record Department who abused the power and work for the money lenders (60 percent) and Village Tract Chairman by (39) percents. Thus, we can say that majority of the land concessions were by authority from the village level to district level.
After land concessions, peasants became landless, faced difficulties in daily food intake, discontinue children’ education, and hand to mouth.
Peasants attempted to get back the land ownership but none of them could communicate effectively and efficiently with the proper and designated officers. There were no significant positive results yet. Then they ended up with “Ploughing Strikes” and they were sued at article 447, 427 especially in Pyapon where more than 257 cases were found and many peasants were sued only in one village, Pyapon, Taman village. Regarding the land concessions, peasants submitted the complaints letters to Central Level Commissions (87 Percent) in Pathein, and in Pyapon for 15 percent. Significantly, (8 percent) of peasants who participated in the “Ploughing Strike” as they could no longer bear injustice and poverty in Pyapon.
When asked about expected result from the land concessions, it was found that 16 percent of peasants did not know what to expect whereas more than 80 percents of the peasants expect to re-own their farmland.
In Today Ayarwaddy Regional Government had granted farmland holder right to household who had taken held the farmland for five years and above referring to 1/64 Instruction in Central Land Management Committee’s Procedures without careful consideration of the procedure has said. It had said only those who really do the farming, he or she will have the right to do the farming. In article 6, ‘…the current lessee who had been in the farmland for five years shall be considered prior to the previous lessee. But is guided to have disputes not only the current lease but many other factors expressed in article 5 are to be considered. In many of the cases, peasants highlighted that land grabbers were turned out to be the authority who decided their cases as Land Management Committee Chairman or Members and community leaders. Peasants quoted the saying “I grabbed, I allocate, I take and now I decide on the land disputes”.
To solve the land concession, The President formed Central Land Utilization Committee delegation to Vice-president U. Nyan Tun on 8-March-2014. It is because the performances of all levels of Land Management Committees were not accountable and efficient. The new Committee will closely work with the MP representing LLRDIC for a particular State/ Region. In its Term of Reference, it is said the troop cannot hold extra land or farmlands beyond the essential needs for Security of the Troop, Infrastructural, Physical exercising grounds and measures and the remainders shall be returned to the peasant through the Central Land Management Committee. However, troops rarely listen to the Directive of the CLMC by the troops, Line Departments and the companies were observed through these Nineteen Workshops. In Hainggyi, Village General Administration Officer clearly said that he does not care MP, U Aye Myint (USDP) party, who is of no importance but he just have to listen to Township General Administration Officer just like Kyon Pyaw Village General Administration Officer. In Htantapin, Yangon Division, township general administration officer U Mya Win, stated that he only care for District General Administration Officer as they have particular instructions to follow though it was already more than two years time under new democratic government. With these experiences, we could conclude for sure that Village Land Utilization Committee cannot be the answer to the arising issues in Myanmar.


Introduction
This is the report of Share Mercy humanitarian and development organization done on 19 Workshops on Land Acquisition Laws, 1963 Land Farmers Interests Protecting Law, Farmland Law, Vacant, Fallow, and Virgin Land Law Programme. This funding was jointly supported by Land Core Group and Myinttar Development Foundation for 19 rural communities in Pathein and Hinthada districts. The action was started on 7th May to 19th July 2014. In the first month, 8 workshops, five in June and six in July has finished.
It was the joint efforts among Ayarwaddy Peasant and Land Worker Union, Peasant and Fishermen Union, Farmer Honorary Network (Ayarwaddy).

Methodology
Though it has named ‘workshop’, it is rather like sharing, discussions, brainstorming, questions and answers and networking information communication due to difficult to organize farmers, time limitation, costs and available resources. When all the sessions are done, there came law booklets distributions and assessments on farmer voices and farmers who are faced land concessions. Sessions details will include in ‘Narrative Overview’.

Coverage and Limitation
On average there are forty attendees by short information and calling on. In most villages ‘Workshops’ were done at convenient place and convenient time (sometimes start late in the night). In some townships, travelling is very difficult and used two to three modes of transportation and sometimes, in midnight. Areas covered are upon the network of partners.
Due to unfavourable environment (lighting, quietness, electricity etc.,), all days were not perfectly well. It is also problematic to do farmer voices and land concessions studies. Wider explanation and time allowance were not given to the peasants and so they have some misunderstanding on some questions. Township like Ngaputaw, Tharbound and Kangyidaunt, the residents are Rakhine and Karen Ethnics and some attendees are not literate. Therefore, they were read to the questions by CBO volunteers and their suggestions would reflect on the answers.
Originally, the workshops are meant to do only in Pathein and Hinthada Districts. On the ground yet some village tract administrators asked to show the permission letter according to ‘Peaceful Organization and Demonstration’ by-laws. In some areas it has overcome by oral negotiations but Kyonpyaw and Yegyi Township, as the team did not want to spend time on permission request, those townships were replaced with Pyapon and Ein Me Townships. As no one could make engagement to people of Kanaun Town under Myanaung Township, another Village Tract was replaced with Kanaung. The coverage became six townships in Hinthada, 11 townships in Pathein, each one from Pyapon and Ein Me Townships. 
1. Narrative Overview
It was the joint operations done by SM and her partners: Peasant and Land Worker Union (Ayarwaddy), Peasant and Fishermen Union, Farmer Honorary Network (Ayarwaddy). One of these three partners, conveniently, accompanied SM to each nineteen workshop. The four sessions for sharing, discussions and brainstorming in one day workshop _ the first one is ice breaking, self introduction along with his total holding farmland, number of farmland or land lost and who grabbed it and how do they define ‘farmer’ in term of the community context; second is the discussion of types of land concessions; who were involved; role and responsibility of government organizations and their actions in the land disputes; the third discussion takes to whether the land concession is in line with legal framework in contract to how the laws said for land concession; the final discussion goes on 2012 Vacant, Fallow, Virgin Land Law, 2012 Farmland Law, 2013 Farmers Welfare Protection and Promoting Law together with pros and cons of these laws and by-laws and what shall lead to challenges and opportunities for the peasants; what are the strengths of peasants and how should peasants defend for their human rights. Share Mercy normally undertakes two sessions of facilitations and the partners take two. There are 824 people joined with 663 males (80.5%) and 161 females (19.5%). The total expenditure of the project is 3,985,417 (nearly four million) Myanmar Kyats.

FIGURE 1 WORKSHOP SESSIONS CLASSIFICATION
1894 Land Acquisition Act, 1953 Farmland Nationalization Act, 1954 Farmland Nationalization By-laws, 1963 Farmer Interest Protection Law, 1963 Farmland Leasehold Law
As well as we shared, discussed and brainstormed with the peasants, we distributed booklets of 2012 Vacant, Fallow, Virgin Land Law, 2012 Farmland Law, 2013 Farmers Welfare Protection and Promoting Law printed by LCG and some Case Book and Documentary published by Share Mercy to the attendees.
At the same time, we also did Land Concession Survey for the people who have lost their land and Peasant Voices Surveys to all attendees in every town.
The whole picture of the workshops goes here. We started our workshop in Ngwesaung Beach, formerly was known as Nga Saw village. During last two decades and Thura U.Shwe Mann was the commander of the South-West Regional Command, the locals said, he made their village into Ngwesaung Beach. From that time, a number of farmland confiscations came, including the farmland and horticultural land by twenty one companies. They had had taxation slips for some years holding the farmland but they were not communicated and negotiated properly for compensation and/or relocation. For the horticultural lands that were hills aside and they were never given rights to leasehold to the communities by SLRD and the area was known as Industrial or projected plantation zone captured to grow rubber or related trees. So, for the trees grown and nurtured the local landlords were paid about Ks. 30,000 for establishing the land by the following land holders. Out of 21 companies, only Max Myanmar had compensated to the peasants with fair rates in hotel zone in the names of ‘Compassion Tip’. Then, by the restless attempts of the residents, some companies negotiated starting 2-3 years ago. For the loss of land access more than a decade and being the price of an area of one acre of land rose up to 320 million kyat and many times lesser than the market rate of compensation offering was not the satisfactory dealing for them. So, it has been bottleneck since then. Residents in Rakhine Ethnic, however, lasting years and having been exhausted, due to no good hope turning out, they are ready to accept for some satisfactory compensation.
Our second workshop was at Kanggyidaung and Kyaunggon was the third in the same week. In Kanggyidaunt, Kyaunggon, Tharboung and Yegyi, there were 41,200 areas of land acreages taken capture by Ayarshwewah Company. By 26-July-2014 date issue, it announced they will abandon all the farmlands for which they wanted to form a cooperative society and carry on the collaborative business. See the Figure labeled 50 on page 54. U Chit Lwin, the people’s representative for Regional Parliament for Kangyidaunt’s constituency, has also made the bad image, occupying more than 100 acres of land from 7-8 peasants. He also sued one peasant for illegal trespassing and damage of property by Penal Code 427 and 447. In fact that peasant has held many tax receipts. In Kyaunggon, intra-communal land disputes are very common and by the village tract chairman for not paying the full tax paddy.
Ngaputaw and Tharbound were fourth and fifth visits. As sixth, seventh and eighth visits we went to Ingapu, Myanaung-1 and Hinthada in Hinthada Districts. Laymyinthnar and Pathein followed, then. After that, Shwethaungyan, Kyangin and Myanaung-2 had been held. Ngayokekaung, Hainggyi, Yegyi, Zalun, Ein Me and Pyapon were held as the three last visits.
In summary, only towns nearby Patheinhad easy to access and conduct the mass events. In Hinthada district, IngapuTownship has confrontation between the troop and the peasant. Therefore, just as the CBO arranged the event than the Military Intelligence sent for their staff to observe the workshop and note down for it.The same action was done by Police Outpost Station in Myanaung. Both towns the monitors were pleased with us as the team did not worry them. In Kyonpyon, it was asked to submit the permission letter to Township Administration Office. Therefore, the team moved to choose another town where Peasant Union exists and active _ Ein Me. In Hainegyi Township, the village tract administrator also asked the permission letter but upon being the registered organization, it was approved. On the contrary, Ngayokekaungadministrator, he was, formerly, the chairman of NLD in his village tract, helped holding the event. The team did not find the problem in Pyapon and Ein Me as there were local active people is present.
Pathein District
Town Types of Land Concession Case/ Acre Remark
Ngwesaung Hotel zone (21 unit, see in below table)
Sr. Name Sr. Name
1 BoB 12 Emprise
2 Orion (former Ayarshwewah + Htoo) 13 PalaeNgwesaung
3 Sony 14 Yuzana
4 NgweZin Yaw 15 Silver View
5 Myanmar Treasure 16 YamonarOo
6 Rainbow View 17 ShweKa Yu
7 AMBO 18 ShweHinthar
8 Asia World 19 Chaung Thar Oo
9 Panbi 20 ACE Hotel
10 ShweThaZin 21 Central
11 ZabuLwan 22
248 Source: U. MyoMyint (Ngwesaung)
2 Urbanization 67 Source: U. Aung Myint
3 Offices (Departments) 6
4 Prawn culture & rubber plantation 307 Source: U. Chit Yoan
5 Sea Game’s facility 10
6 Raider Camp 14 25 HH have been compensated
7 13 miles Village land 3
(Total HH and acres) 655
12598.5 acres
Kangyidaunt U. Chit Lwin, Regional MP 1/100 7-8 affected farmers
Kangyidaunt Ayarshwewah Company 1/41200 Farmers from four township
Kyaunggon
Tharboung
Yegyi
Ngaputaw Intra communal, Village Land Committee 27+
Ngayokekaung VTLMC does not permit land registration Residents are worried about the coal plant construction
Shwethaungyan Companies for beach resort project 23 No compensation has paid yet

FIGURE 2DISTINCT LAND DISPUTE/ CONFISCATION TABLE
In Hinthada, there are two Peasants Unions; one is formed by ILO assistance that is found in Ingapu. Another is the Peasant Union Federation mobilized by Daw. Su SuNgwe, Human Rights Activist, and former NLD member. She helped Hinthada establishing the office and provide about Ks. 50,000 per month for administration cost. The challenge in Hinthada is alluvial lands utilization rights among intra-township and inter-region against Bago Region. Through long years, the primary communities had right to access these lands. But starting from last year it became twisted of conflicts with neighbouring villages lying the next bank. Last year, the people were able to cope with it in case the right to access lands was granted to them. This year they applied for the lands of access but the department has not granted to them according with 2012 Farmland Laws and Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Land Laws.
If there is Peasant Union locally based, the communication is very good as well as the workshop is busy with mass attendees, for instance, in Ingapu, Myanaung and Hinthada we had mass people attended in the events.
The critical issue found is at Laymyinthnarwhere the ex-army Maj. Sann Lin by the name MyoKyaw Lin Company has taken holds the forest lands together with rural roads whichhave been official listed in Dept. of General Administration for rubber plantation. Another company has also taken forests and pasturelands. The issue of MyoKyaw Lin Company is also big relating four village tracts took use of 3,000 acres of forest, graze, farmland and communal infrastructure. It became more complicated for calling inter-sue at courts. There would be about four cases the Maj. Has sued at Township Court. By the side of residents who were sued, everything is weak and they can hire only young local lawyers and are worried about the lawyer violates the service. However, the community also has linked with Purple Equity Law Firm to sue back against the Maj. by three cases. Taking this example, another lawyer from Pathein also sued for CBO leader, U. Win Kyi against the Maj. Prior to that, the Maj. first sued U. Win Kyi.
Chaungthar _of Shwethaungyan Townshipproject began earlier long than that of Ngwesaung. The types of land confiscation as not as many as Ngwesaung but there are still three types of land concession _ by the troop, individual and company _ 625.75 acres of land and SM has gathered 23 land disputes information.
In Kyangin, among the attendees it was found only one land dispute. The only problem there is Stone mining that many fields (farmlands) were piled up with by-products.
We also have another workshop in Myanaung Township in Nyaungtonele Village Tract, as it is very big by villages included 519 and wider geographical area. The majority of people are Karin ethnic.
Twenty Peasants as well as Peasants Union Members from Peasants and Laborers Union Registered No.139/2014 joined one day workshop in Yegyi Township, Bwet Gnu Village Tract, Bwet Gnu Village, Ayeyawaddy Region. There is a Peasant and Labourer Union, U Min Aung (Chairperson) and members are meeting together in consultation with the NLD for the welfare of the community on regular basis as it is the traditional village where not many people migrated to other towns, or working abroad and almost all of them came back, everyone is very familiar or one way or another they are relatives. All participated in the workshop and working as a team. During and after the workshop, they strongly linked to the Peasants Union (Delta), and Peasants Union and Fishermen Union and further collaborations in coping with the common problems being faced by the Peasants as a whole; one of them, agricultural inputs especially credits with low interest. Their main livelihood activities are farming and gardening only. The village is very peaceful and still maintaining customary Myanmar village value with full of big trees and lovely atmosphere.
Thetkal Island is situated in Zalon Township, Hinthada District. The Team took one hour and forty five minutes’ drive by mother bike from Zalon, the town. The road to this island is extremely very bad as it is rocky and slippery in time of rainy season whereas neighborhood village road is very good thanks to Gen. Tin Htut (former regime and currently he is taking the role of Chairperson for Land Investigation Committee, at Union Parliament) being the native of Zalon, he facilitated for having good road for his village as well as electricity. Thetkal Island Village itself is big with more than 1000 Households; they also have electricity by the gratitude of U Tin Htut. Main livelihoods of the residents are fishery and farming. They formed Alluvial Committee to get back their alluvial leasehold right as soon as possible. They do not have legal knowledge concerning Alluvial Leasehold Rights, though. Altogether 94 villagers participated in the workshop. As they have no more land to grow, or very little land to grow, they have to do the fisheries for day to day livelihood problems.
Distinct land disputes or confiscation
Township Types of Land Confiscation/ Disputes Case/Acre Remark
Laymyinthnar MyoKyaw Lin Company 3,000 Counter sue between company and community
(N/A) Company N/A Company seems back down by community’s confidence
Hinthada Alluvial Land Disputes Ayarwaddy River One is neighbouring village,
Another one is against Bago Region
Kyangin Stone Mine Extraction Project Affects farmland
Kyangyin Crude Oil Refinement Mills Affects farmland Deforestation, Environmental Degradation
Myananung Crude Oil Refinement Mills Affects farmland Deforestation, Environmental Degradation
Ingapu Crude Oil Refinement Mills Affects farmland Deforestation, Environmental Degradation
Ingapu Disputes against the troop 41 HH/ 202 ac. Troop sued farmers due to ploughing strike
Zalun Alluvial Land Disputes Disputes against AapyautTown, Yangon
Total
FIGURE 3HINTHADA TOWNSHIP
Pyapon is the district town in Delta Region, just two hours’ drive from Yangon by Special Service Car Line and it can be reached multi-model transportation; two- three hours drive from Yangon by private vehicle and public transportation by five hours whereas hovercraft will take about eight hours. It main livelihood activities are agriculture, fisheries and trading of marine produce and agricultural produce. In Pyapon, there are more than 100,000 acres of land were grabbed in the name of cooperative societies as per General Secretary of Peasants and Fishermen Union. At Five Mile, Pyapon Taman Village Tract, there are fifty Peasants in Pyapon Taman Village Tract being sued by the local companies, one of them is Zin Baung Company Limited. They have to go on trial for more than one year that they become very poor and could no longer concentrate on any livelihood activities.
Hainggyi Island is the farthest among 19 townships. The team went to the village where majority of the residents are doing farming. Their main livelihood is farming and fishery. It is a very difficult to access area. We had to go by three transit modes on road; vehicle, boat and motor-bike, walking to reach the workshop site. Most or all of them possess only 1to 2 acre the most in that area, they can do only one time, one crop for the whole year long. Few people are also landless. There are no big farmers who have large plot of land. It is near to Maw Tin Zoon, the pagoda, very famous and known to Buddhists. In time of season, many Buddhists visit that area for Paying Homage to Lord Buddha. It is also one of the tourist sites as it belongs to very beautiful sceneries and landscaping with sand, sea, river, very long coastal area, and rugged mountain roads, and mountain ranges, countless white tidy waves. It is highly likely that this community will be gone and they could be experiencing the problem like Chaungthar and Ngwesaung Beaches. Majority of them are Rakhine like Chaungthar and Ngwesaung Beaches.
Ein Me is the town with active Peasant Union Members that team decided to do the workshop there in the place of Kyonpyaw Township where local authorities failed to welcome but accepted only after having instruction to do the workshop by the District General Administration Office (Delta Regional Government). By organizing the workshop for Ein Me Peasants Union, we can also understand their activities and take necessary decision to help the peasants more effectively and efficiently.
Distinct land disputes or confiscation
Township Types of Land Confiscation/ Disputes Case/Acre Remark
Pyapon Zinboung Company
Pyapon Zinboung Cooperatives
Ein Me Intra communal disputes 2-3 cases
Total
Figure 4Pyapon and Myaungmya District

2. Achievements
Knowledge of land related laws, farmers related laws, and their advantages and disadvantages were communicated to 824 peasants with distribution of more than 2000 farmland and land related laws books.
One hundred and ninety nine cases of land disputes and concession information were assessed for further advocacy.
Three hundred and six assessments on Peasants Voices Concerning Agricultural Policy and Practices, communal interests and supports needed were done and the report shall be inputted for amending Farmer Interests Protection and Promoting Law and drafting its by-laws.
Communal peasant leader and Ayarwaddy Peasant and Land Worker Union to mobilize and form Township Level Peasant Union and by these networks, the Union has just started their Township Peasant Union mobilization tour taking Paung Ku assistance.
In Laymyintnhar, the workshop brought high confidence to the local people and they became full confidence to face next company besides MyoKyaw Lin’s, as the company had illegally trespass the resource of the area as well as the property’s of the State without unlawful access. Measures were taken by the community erecting signpost like ‘Community’s Property; don’t trespass’. From that time, it has been months, the company did not come to the area.

3. Communication, Networking and Advocacy
Share Mercy and its three partners had formed Land Campaign Task Force and called three meetings to initiate campaign strategy and methodology. The curse campaign was first proposed and it was conducted in Pyapon (two places) and Ngwesaung though it was coordinated to demonstrate in more than 10 places but it was suspended for the risk of cyclone in May 2014. In Thea Gon, Bago Region has started by the activists prematurely instead of showing it on D-Day and not following the rules set by Task Force and was, therefore, resulted in getting sued by the company.
Share Mercy has networked its partners to the LCG, FSWG for more collaboration. It is also linked and usual joining in the meetings of World Bank Groups for advocacy and talks on the interests of small holder farmers. We have also had some consideration according to strong highlighting on the poor farmers and all attendees have consensus on it later.
We can do easy access to, arrange and hold the event if there is the local Peasant group.
Some villages in river back of Ayarwaddy under Hinthada Township had headache about riverbank collapse. We were able to link them Riverbank protection committee directed by Dept. of Forestry and Environment.
We could create more meeting spaces among Peasant and Fishermen Union, Peasant and Land Worker Union and Farmer Honorary Network (Ayarwaddy). Besides, they extended their network in Ingapu, Hinthada and Laymyintnhar Township by different Union and Peasant Federation.


4. Gaps, Issues, Lessons Learnt and Support Needed
In Ayarwaddy, though there are four-five groups doing legal knowledge rising for the peasants, ground level coordination and collaboration to meet all areas and avoid duplication. It was worse some CSOs and activists came in and formed the peasant groups by different names and no follow up assistance on organization development, policy making and operations and institutionalization is rare. It is therefore, said ‘Once Appearance and Never Return’ action and peasants were not practically grouped and reformed. Nevertheless, a lot of individual activists and campaign groups were outreaching to the peasants lead them to their way of campaign mostly one mode of confrontation or another means alike while they were with the peasant and they did not bring the peasant to the end of this campaign. It lacks strategy, patients and continual efforts setting as well as making plan-do-review mapping together with host peasants or by single body in activism.
The workshops go in cultivation period and hence farmers were out staying in the farm and not recently coming back and difficult to gather, in some areas especially Hinthada District and there we cannot use good contacts rather than Pathein District which is very close to Farmer Honorary Network (Ayarwaddy) and the two Unions. It took, somewhere, us for days and weeks to hold a workshop. The culture of peasants is fur and remote from knowledge and civic sphere for minimum or more than half of the year. Therefore, we have to invent and create special techniques to lobby them and promote their political, legal and civic literacy.
In many areas, most village tract administrators were seemingly asked to see training/ workshop facilitators for seeking permission letter from Township Administrator ahead. This still is a barrier for any organization (registered or non-registered) to do awareness raising and knowledge sharing and this pauses human rights actors’ momentum.
In Laymyinthnar, too, like Kyonpyaw, and Hainegyi town, the village tract administrator asked for permission letter from Township Administration Office. The administrator did not give the people approval though he was being requested to hold the event in a certain monastery. The abbot approved it but on the time of holding session, the village tract administrator came to complain that the committee led the event did not consult him.
Some village tracts in Pathein, Myanaung and Kyanggin Townships, though there are a number of NGOs and CSOs reaching there, but Townships in Ayarwaddy have neighbouring 100 village tracts and each village tract is composed of 8-10 villages. Therefore, Legal training or workshops shall be done in every one village tract or two village tracts for a session for geographical coverage.
Most of the villagers have financial problem and could not meet the daily basic need. The villagers have little or no knowledge about the land grabbing issues still they are aware that many businessmen are purchasing their plot of land and many of them were already sold out at the very cheap price especially on the shore.

5. Voices of Farmers
In these three months action, Share Mercy was able to do Peasant Voices Collection and 309 voices were gathered through four districts.
Sum of Pathein Sum of Hinthada Sum of Myaungmya Sum of Pyapon Sum of Region
143 102 45 19 309
46% 33% 15% 6% 100%
Farmers
In 2013 Farmers Interests Protection and Welfare Enhancing (FIPWE) Law, there are six types of people who are defined as farmer. This definition contradicted what the Civil Society beliefs because the range of meaning has grabbed all kinds of businessmen affiliated agriculture became farmers, automatically. SM would like to highlight 1963 Farmers Interests Protection Law in which people, who grow paddy; who do farming; who supervise farming all the time as well as being his major livelihood are farmers. To respond this, the workshop assessed the farmers in Ayarwaddy and identified that the majority of people have not agreed with it. See in Figure five and seven. The respondents expressed the small farmers meant people who work in the farm, who has farmland and they employ themselves on farmland and whose livelihood is farming as well as supervising farming. The majority do not support that other types of people are not regarded as farmers though their livelihood can be related with agriculture.

FIGURE 5 THE DEFINITION OF FARMERS

FIGURE 6 THE DEFINITION OF FARMERS 2
On the question of land leaseholder and land labourer should be counted as ‘Farmer’, sixty six percent of the whole region say ‘YES’.

FIGURE 7 SHOULD LAND LEASEHOLDER AND LAND LABOURERS BE CALLED ‘FARMER’
Acreage of Lands belong to small farmers
Most attendees think there are around five acres of farmlandthat poor households have and who do family farming. Less than half number of the first respondents supposed poor farmers work with ten acres of farmland.

FIGURE 8 & 9 SMALL FARMERS AND THEIR LANDS POSSESSION FIGURE 9
Saying on the whole, more than sixty percent of people think poor farmers have around five acres of farmland. On average, though above sixty percent of farmers are family farmers possessed equal or less than five acres of farmland, it has mere a definition in clause 2.e and special protection or welfare measures does not, over 2013 FIPWE Law.
The question of Land Labourer should be counted as Farmers was answered ‘yes’ by three quarters of the respondents. It was a little less response by Hinthada because it was supposed Northern district like Hinthada has less landless farmers compared to Southern districts.
One Acreage Costs
The ministry (Agriculture and Irrigation) lends Ks. 100,000 (one lakh) per acreage for ten acres for monsoon paddy each year. Informally, most farmers have expressed this is not enough for growing an acre. It has two cost categories: one is inputs (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides) and processing cost (ploughing by machine or buffaloes together with labourers, labour charges in sowing, transplanting (optional), harvesting, weeding, milling costs) and damaging and wasting due to bad weather and climate change. Acreage cost goes between 100,000 and 150,000 retold by experience of farmers in Yangon and Ayarwaddy. For a half or more coverage of farming expense, farmers take this loan adding own and local money lenders. Poor farmers mostly start with the remainder in their pocket, then the Government’s loan and end with the local money lenders whose interest rate goes in the range between sixty to hundred and twenty percentages per year.

FIGURE 10 ACREAGE INPUTS AND PROCESSING COST CHART
Average farmer owns ten acres of land and roughly, the yield does not exceed 500 baskets and neighbourhood. The income of selling rate per hundred baskets for fair variety rice in the market is only four hundred thousand kyats. Therefore, the farmer will have two million kyats income if he grows monsoon paddy. In compared to the market price, the same variety rice has paid kyats 16,000 for a basket and one million and six lakhs for hundred baskets. So, their selling price is merely one-fourth of the market price. The remaining profits go into the hands of rice miller, traders and end retailer. The issue has lived for years and the government has not resolved it for the farmers but rather the farmers become indebted and indebted and finally farmers pawned the farmlands despite prohibited by the laws. Years passed, the pawnbroker changed the landholder right at SLRD in bribery behind the scene of host farmers. This is one major cause of why intra communal land disputes have begun.

FIGURE 11 ACREAGE INPUT AND PROCESSING COST FOR WHOLE REGION
Giving Loan for Ten Acres of Farmland is Consistent or Not
Third quarters of the respondents on average in every district said getting the government loan for ten acres of farmland is sufficient. By the whole region, seventy five said it is not secure. In Pyapon, no one said it is secure while the other three districts, around twenty percent of people think it is secure. No matter how many people think it is secure, because of 75% of people argument is the majority voices, and the Ministry should propose to enhance the number of acreage loan against fixing ten acres.

FIGURE 12& 14 GETTING LOAN FOR 10 ACRES FOR FARMLAND IS SECURE OR NOT BY EACH REGION FIGURE 13
Loan rate the Government should Collect?
The farmers interviewed urged the government to take seven percent or the neighbourhood. Current loan rate can be eight and forty percent (8.40%). During the informal conversation, farmers did not think the interest rate is the issue but the short period of giving loan has been the primary matter. It used to give out only after the ploughing period but gather soon after the paddy has been harvested. Therefore, farmers have none other than selling the paddy with peels directly to the rice miller to pay the debts to the government and money lenders.

FIGURE 14 VIEW ON THE LOAN RATE COLLECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Sometimes, the money lenders asked paddy to exchange the debts. Anyhow, the loss is at farmer’s side. As a conclusion, the majority of farmers own ten acres of farmland and the dependent land labourers cannot step out from the poor status.

FIGURE 15 VIEW ON THE SHORT DURATION OF THE LOAN

Measuring Unit and Weighing System
Measurement and Weighing System in rice commerce does not save from poverty of peasants. Traditional measuring unit (basket) has varied from the sizes. The buyers used smaller basket while they purchase the paddy and used smaller one when they sell out. Some buyers come with the Metric Weighing System but they violate in weighing articles.

FIGURE 16 MEASURING BASKET CHOICES
Therefore, measuring system remains an issue for the farmers. Paddy brokers, rice miller, and pawn broker have come with the baskets of their likes which are a litter bigger and more consume than the standard measurement. Farmers do not have the choice but to be tolerant for the needs of money. Therefore, very few credited to deal with the trader’s standard measuring pattern. They rather like to deal with their choice or Government Standard or both parties agreed measurement.
Critical needs for Farmers
Farmers were asked to choose three critical needs that help reduction of their poverty. They identified cash, technique and technology, tools and machines and market guarantee. When explored for the whole region, they chose cash, technical and market guarantee.

FIGURE 17 CRITICAL NEEDS OF FARMERS
How do Farmers like the Village Tract Land Management Committee?

Figure 18 Do Farmers Support Current Village Tract Land Management Committee

Farmers View on VTLMC

FIGURE 19 FARMERS VIEW ON VTLMC
Above eighty percent of the respondents in Pathein and Hinthada, and hundred percent in Myaungmya and Pyapon described ‘No belief in Village Tract Land Management Committee’. The major factor is VTLMC are led by Village Tract Administrator and next his clerk and land record area officer, as the secretary of the committee. The said bodies more or less has been suspected they committed bribery and corruptions in the past land concessions and disputes by the peasants society, CBOs, CSOs, campaigners and activists and thus, they are not paid due regard and trust in land disputes resolving contexts.
Do Farmers think Land Management Committee should be reformed?

FIGURE 20 FARMERS OPINION UPON REFORMING VTLMC

FIGURE 21 OPINIONS ON THE CHOICE OF REPRESENTATION IN VTLMC
Share Mercy’s collaborative partner, FHN has previously collected thousands of farmer signatures in Ayarwaddy early in this year, to decompose and reform the VTLMC to the parliament; the parliament replied to them to take seventy-five percent of farmers’ signatures to do so.
Farmers absolutely supported to reform VTLMCs. The favourable members in these committees are peasants’ representative, representative from peasant union, CBO representative, community leader and Village Tract Administrator or a person sent from SLRD. The campaigners or activists did not propose Village Administrator should be part of it as he is playing and reporting to the GAD of MOHA and his presence cannot make this committee’s decision free and fair. Instead, his clerk, and area SLRD officer and three peasant representatives can be the better alternative for official operation. However, in the time of disputes between farmers or farmer against the company or department, appointing the jury system that is made up of equal representatives from both parties and one, as a chair or mediator, chosen by both parties agreement is suggested by U. Han Shin Win, Advocate, dealing with hundreds of land disputes as an honorary lawyer. He introduced this to Land Disputes Resolving Support Group (Ayarwaddy) as well as making some trials in upper Myanmar.
Who monopolize and play with the crop price?
The unstable crop price leaves the farmers indebted and deep in poverty rather than poor practice of financial management and wasting with gambling and drinking. Degrading the rice price when it harvests and upgrading when it is beginning for the next ploughing.

FIGURE 22 WHO IS MAKING RICE PRICE HIGH
To pay the debts, farmers have to sell out almost all the paddy to the traders. When the next monsoon in and investment is on-going, they do not have sufficient rice to feed the family and labourers. Then, they have to buy the rice from the village market with high price. Many Peasant Unions have addressed this issue and accused Myanmar Rice Federation and their affiliated business groups making the farmers deep down in poorness.
Figure 23 shows the results of the opinion to pick out who has monopolized the rice market _ this is none other than Myanmar Rice Federation.
If Government Sets Fixed Paddy Price
To cope with the problem, when questioning it can be solution if the government makes the fixed price, except for Myaungmya attendees, half of the farmers from different districts do not think it is the way out. It is because they are not confident in the Government.

FIGURE 23 FARMERS WILL WELCOME IF THE PADDY PRICE IS FIXED

FIGURE 24 POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES IF PADDY PRICE IS FIXED
Peasants dare not believe in Government, as it had troubled them for three to four decades since 1962. Farmers were asked to sell the paddy twelve baskets per acre in the low price. They really worried that retrospective ill-fortune comes to the date, again.
What if the Peasant Union is Formed and Worked for the interests of Peasants?
Peasants rather believe in establishing Unions to protect and bring hope for their welfare and interests. Respondents have given above seventy percent credits over ‘Peasants Union’. Confidence level goes their exposure with the Peasant Union. In Myaungmya district, both Myaungmya and Ein Me have Peasant Union is living withsome activities like holding regular meetings, going lobbying visits, holding forums, workshops with the support of aid organizations. In Pyapon, no active initiative is seen.

FIGURE 25 CAN THE RICE PEASANTS UNION WORK ON POVERTY REDUCTION
Debts Level and Causes of Debts by Farming Household
Figure 26 Debts Level by Each Household
There are five categories grouped: no debt, 100,000, and 100,000 to 200,000, 200,000 to 400,000 and 400,000 and above. Among them, the most populated group is having debts over Ks. 400,000 and debt clear group is the second most. People in Pyapon and Myaungmya have more debts than people in Hinthada and Pathein.
In table 1 below, one can learn there are four major drivers that farmers were indebted. They are lack of capital or capital market, paddy price and monopoly of paddy market follows capital. The third is land and land related policies are not favouredby the side of peasants. Besides them, Pathein and Pyapon farmers voiced affect of land concession is also cause of poverty and debts.

TABLE 1 WHAT MAKES PEASANTS INDEBTED
Reasons of Debts Whole Region Pathein Hinthada Myaungmya Pyapon
Agricultural Inputs 5% 1% 9% 2% 3%
Land and Agricultural Policy are
not favoured to Peasants 9% 7% 9% 14% 0%
Rule of Law 4% 3% 5% 2% 0%
Rice Market Monopoly 11% 10% 8% 19% 18%
Soil degradation 5% 4% 7% 1% 3%
Insecticides and Pesticides 6% 3% 8% 4% 0%
Price of Rice is not Hard 15% 16% 13% 19% 21%
Weak Knowledge and Awareness of Peasants 10% 14% 8% 8% 0%
Poor Capital 16% 18% 14% 12% 36%
Poor Technical Knowhow 8% 9% 8% 5% 0%
Fertilizer 4% 2% 5% 4% 0%
Land Concessions 7% 11% 2% 10% 18%
Agriculture is not a secure Business 2% 2% 3% 1% 0%
Other 1% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Sum for Each Township 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Expectation for Further Land Concession

FIGURE 27 OPINION UPON FURTHER LAND CONCESSIONS
Seventy percent of participants from Hinthada, Myaungmya and Pyapon assumed there will be further risks of land concessions. It is because exiting Laws, By-laws, Procedures and Orders are not favoured to the side of farmers. Extraordinary, only thirty percent of Pathein farmers think there will be further land confiscations. They think now it has adopted land laws and farmer interests protection laws and they are exercising and farmers become more united to struggle the future risks.

FIGURE 28 THE REASONS FOR OR NOT EXPECTING FURTHER LAND CONCESSIONS
Support Needed from Government

FIGURE 29 SUPPORT NEEDED FROM GOVERNMENT
For the whole region, there are five key needs rose: 1) Constitution amendment; 2) Amend all lands and land-related laws in line with farmers voices and interests; 3) Undertake free and fair election in coming terms; 4) Strengthening farmers institutions and organizations; 5) Reduction of market monopoly by the rice traders and balance weigh up to the hands of farmers.

6. Voices of Farmers Facing Land Concessions or Disputes
In the President Papers responding to the Union Parliament LLRDIC reports, there are collectively five drivers in Land Concessions:
1) Troop and Regiments;
2) National Programmes;
3) Urbanization and Industrialization;
4) Companies (Private/Public);
5) Concession by mismanagement of Village Tract Land Committees
Union Parliament has formed LLRIC to respond the land disputes and submitted four reports to the President. By summation of these four reports it can be browsed as:
TABLE 2 LAND CONCESSIONS COUNT BY UNION PARLIAMENT
Sr. Driver Compliant Letter # (round) Acres #
1 Troops & Regiments 570 247146.87
2.1 National (Motorway, waterway and airway) expansions 27 35663.09
2.2 National Owned Factories, Plants and Ministry Projects 80 39919.58
3 Urbanization and Industrialization 63 109634.15
4 Companies (Private/Public) 59 11824.8
5 Concessions by Mismanagement of Village Tract Land Committee 2 1600
Total 173 552188.49


In contrast to this, the President has issued three Papers to respond to Union Parliament like this:
TABLE 3 PRESIDENT PAPERS RESPONDING TO UNION PARLIAMENT REPORTS
Sr. Driver # Case To Resolve # Case Already Resolved # Acres Cleared
1 Troops & Regiments 565 332 191944.16
531 62 18605.67
2 National Programmes 26 4 571.64
26 14 5622.07
3 Urbanization & Industrialization 63 1 58.09
55 58 60303.17
4 Companies (Private/ Public) 91 36 36778.08
87 8 20563
5 Land Concession by Mismanagement of Land Committee Not Solved
0 New in-coming Cases 0 45 6290.82
New in-coming Cases 0 36 3883.19
Total (by third Paper) 699 178 108977.09
When one views these two tables (table 2 & 3), one will see the figures will not match because the two bodies have formulated the reports in their own way and did not sum total number of acres in each driver. The summation is done by Share Mercy and in some areas, looking at the context and number of acres has forecasted over the context as sometimes they do not come with exact figures. One thing that can aggregate is the Government has resolved only twenty percent (108,977.09) of (552188.49) acres expressed by Union Parliament. In other words, four-fifths of total land disputes have not resolved yet.
Share Mercy also did mini-survey on peasants whose lands were grabbed. In four districts of Ayawaddy, 199 question surveys were done and the findings can be summarized as follows:
Holding Acreages
In the peasants’ voices assessment done by Share Mercy, it was found that majority of peasants (around 80 percents) belong to less than fifteen acres of farmland whereas farmers belong to more than 20 acres.

FIGURE 30TOTAL ACRE OF LAND BELONGING TO PEASANTS FIGURE 31 LESS THAN 5 ACRES OF LAND OWNERSHIP BY PEASANTS

Types of Agriculture Grown by the Affected Peasants
Peasants used the farmland for growing paddy only; around 90 percent of peasant used the farmland for farming in the assessed areas.

FIGURE 3 TYPES OF CROPS GROWN BY AFFECTED PEASANTS

How Peasants Received the Farmland

FIGURE 4 HOW DID THE PEASANTS HAVE THE LAND OWNERSHIP BEFORE LAND CONCESSION?
In the whole region, peasants received the farmland ownership by parental heritage, on the other hand 10 percent self cleared the land to be arable.
Types of Land Concessions

FIGURE 5 TYPES OF LAND CONCESSIONS

As per the assessment, it was found that land concession (41 percent) were led by Intra-Communal, (40 percent) by Company, (12 percent) by Army and (7 percent by National Programme, Urban and Industrial Zone).
Concerning Intra-Communal Land Concession, to Share Mercy knowledge, due to family members’ illness, children education or financial problems out of bad weather and poor yield; then they lent the money or did mortgage and when adding the very high interest rate, a large number of the peasants could not get back their land and lost the land access right. In some cases, after lending the money, some peasants were not interested in taking back their farmland nor pay the debts as they did not see much profit in farming _for instance Ko Win Kyaing Case, Taxi Driver, Myaungmya, Ayawaddy. When peasants received the land holders right by 2012 Farmland Law, peasants tried to get back their land but some they could not afford to repay the debts. There are few exceptional cases, in which former peasants changed their careers and work as migrants and when they get sufficient amount to pay back, money lender failed to return the land, saying that he had to do the land upgrading during the period (Yegyi Township, Pathein Case, U Cho Case). Some also put effort to get back the land beyond agreed time by the contract that they did not get back their land holders’ rights. In our knowledge, major cause of intra-communal problems was owing to lacking official capital markets; in many cases peasants could not meet their daily needs and when it comes to having problems concerning basic needs or poor yield due to bad weather then they had to pawn the land and when adding up very high interest rate, majority of peasants could not get back their land lease holders’ rights and becoming migrants and suffer the other related consequences.
Second leading factor for land concession is establishment of the Business by the Company. Company did the farm establishment and did the farming and most of the cases in Share Mercy experiences, it was found that company did the farming for not more than two years (for company which did the farming for example: Steel Stone Company in Htantapin Township, Yangon Region; some other did not really do any farming (e.g. Dr. Than Htut V.S. 39 Peasants led Khin Maung Lwin Case, Nyaundon Township, Maubin District). Instead of doing it by the company, they signed the ‘Contract Farming’ with the local farmers and allowed the local farmers to do the farming or some other left the land as it was and waiting for good prices and they hand to another with higher rate. (For example : Daw Mya Thida, Top One Company to Dr.Than Htut, Nyaundon Township Maubin District), Chaungthar and Ngwesaung Beach, those made the land market prices sky-rocketing, one acre twenty thousand kyats to 300,000 dollars per acre in twenty years time in Ngwesaung, Chaungthar and Darka, Kangyidaunt township cases. There are many plots in Ngwesaung and Chaungthar, leaving these as it was becoming the wild land, making the local peasants landless and pushing into daily food problems and letting them running into other socio economic difficulties. Company land concession were just the loss for the Country Domestic Projects, country National income; reducing the yield making the land unreachably high price for any common Myanmar Citizens. By the 2012, Vacant, Virgin, and Fallow Land Laws to be followed by the land holders’ right recipients who cleared the vacant, fallow or virgin land stated that if the company failed to implement the business plan within four years, land ownership will automatically be the State own. Thought it said so, in almost every town, Land Management Committee makes the decision only for the businessmen, not considering the existing law being enacted.
Third factor to lose the land was by the Army. They took the land by giving reasons such as for income generation activity for the soldiers or practicing areas for the soldiers or giving excuses that farmland were near to their army living square. But just like the company, Army called for the applications for land access rights for the local peasants and in exchange for this right, they took crops from the peasants who really had to do the farming on their previously own land. In some case, for example, Ingapu Township, a few authorities in power abuse their power and fought for the land ownership, thus some peasants were sued for article 447, 427 from Penal Code and having to appear at the court for more than a year in most cases.
In National Programme, the land useslaid down to cronies for establishing housing, farming and plants were least beneficial to the residents, for example, in Ngwesaung Beach and Chaungthar Beach projects. Local expressed that they felt very much irritated as the commitment made by ThuraShwe Man did not reflect the actual situation now, they were greatly upset and lost confident in the governing body due to the mismanagement on their land concession. They submitted to the higher and upper level government still they were not responded at all. In many of the cases, peasants and local residents stated that there seemed to be lacking ‘Government’, missing ‘Rule of Law’ which can protect citizens properly.
All in all, residents wanted to get back their land access as land is their life and lifeblood, it is their livelihood. Many peasants said:”if the companies accessing to their land gave out reasonable amount of compensation,it will help them have their normal life in other part of the country. Mostly peasants did not get the compensation at all but forced to move out under the powerful command. There are cases with Ayeyashwewar Company; they merely gave 30 US dollars for one acre of land establishment.
Bodies Captured the Farmlands

FIGURE 32 GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO RESOLVED LAND CONFISCATION PER DISCTRICT

FIGURE 33 GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO RESOLVED LAND CONFISCATION IN FOUR DISCTRICTS
As per the assessment, peasants stated that they lost their land ownership to their money lenders, and majority of them mentioned that their lands were taken by Village, Township and District authority. Few percentages of peasants did not know who took their land away and now accessing on the farmland. Money lenders and Company abused land holder right in cooperation with SLRD against the local peasants that is one-third of all land concessions. Following it, it has twenty three percent of concessions by District Administrative Chairman. Village Tract Chairman, thirdly, followed the District Official corrupting his power during the era of exercising the order of ‘paddy purchase’ by the Government. When the peasant was not able to sell the default yield (12 baskets) per acre, the Village Tract Chairman captured the farmland and gave out to other peasants who had applied the land access right. Neither community leader nor farmer was not able say when the government asked farmers to sell twelve baskets of paddy per acre.
Impacts in Socio-economy due to the Farmland Losses

FIGURE 34 CHANGES IN LIFE DUE TO LAND CONCESSION
In every town, residents who lost their land ownership voiced out that after land concessions, they became landless, and found very much difficult to have daily food, children discontinued education, and finally they became hand to mouth, and labourers.
Attempts to get back Land User Right
As per the assessment result, it was found that Pathein peasants submitted the complaint letters to the Rule of Law Committee of the Parliament with the belief thechairman, Daw. Aung Sun Su Kyi can do something while Pyapon peasants addressed to Central Land Utilization Committee and participated in ‘Ploughing Strike’. It is likely that Pathein and Pyapon have more activists’ involvement than that of the other districts. For the rest of the areas, peasants could not do anything significantly.
After land concession, respondents said that their daily food became fromhand-to-mouth, and having difficulties in daily food intake and they were to discontinue children education. Those pains made them more upset, concern and distress but enjoying the long-lasting poverty.

FIGURE 35 ATTEMPT TO HAVE LAND USER RIGHT
All four districts peasants have opened the ‘Case’ at the Land Management Committee in the respective levels. Some peasants from Pyapon district did the ploughing strike and suing for illegal trespass was resulted. One case in Pathein was counter sued to the opposition. A few peasants in Hinthada do not know what to do and a few submitted the compliant letter to the Regional Government. Government Official said when one peasant faced the land disputes or concession; he needs to open the ‘Case’ at Village Tract Land Management Committee in the beginning. By law (see in figure 36), the body has to investigate the case within one week and resolve and report to Township level in next one week. If the resolution does not please either side, this party can submit the appeal to one higher level. Farmland disputes will be ended and final at Regional Government’s Land Management Committee. All level of Land Management Committee will not consider the compliant letter as per the Township Administrators.

FIGURE 36 FARMLAND DISPUTES INVESTIAGTION MECHANISM (REF: FARMLAND BY-LAW ARTICLE 60 A, B, C, D

FIGURE 37 WISHES OUTCOMES FROM LAND RIGHTS DEFENDING
Pyapon peasants were in two different ideas; few of them would get back their land while another group of peasants have no idea to guess upon the conflict. However, in Pathein more than fifty percent of the interviewees wish that they get back their land holder right. In whole four areas, seventy two percent of farmers wanted to have their land holder right whilst twenty one do not guess any and only five percent would like compensation.

FIGURE 38 WISHING OUTCOMES FROM LAND RIGHTS ATTEMPTS
Probable Outcomes from Land Rights Attempts
Half of the peasants who participated in the study from Pathein thought that authority will be biased on real ground, few of them considered that they would lose farmland. However, few of the peasants from Pyapon guessed that their cases will be resolved fairly.

FIGURE 39 ACTUAL RESULTS FROM LAND CONCESSIONS
Lessons Learnt from Land Disputes

FIGURE 40 LESSONS LEARNED FROM LAND CONCESSIONS
All participants from Pathein and majority from Hinthada in the study got the lessons that they were bullied as they were weak, whereas the other from Pyapon thought that it was because of the bad governance, while some peasants from Pyapon did not express anything.


7. Findings, Analysis and Recommendations Concerning Land Concessions
First of all, let it begin with the general findings and it will be followed by the specific chapter in all townships.
It has to highlight peasant societies are very serious about their farmland losses and tend to follow any possible efforts led by the civil society organizations and activists. If the problem is persistent and suspended to resolve to proper and fair action by the authority, it may lead to a big unrest or confrontations against the government. Peasant and Fishermen Union have warned to the government to solve the land disputes in September 2014 latest and if not solved in due course, they will hold mass strikes like Thailand or by any means they can cooperation with Labour and Student Unions.
On the contrary, generally, peasants are not interested in politics. As a result, there are some villages in Pathein, Hainegyi and Myanaung Townships which were free from Land Concession and they are not aware of the risks of land concession and little knowledge on laws and rights.

Box 3: Why the conflicts were remained unsolved and unsatisfied?
It can be clearly addressed to the mismanagement of Land Management Committee of all levels. In their investigation and resolution notes, it will be found only three lines: 1) Land holder right is handed to Mr. A; 2) Mr. B shall not get Land Holder Right; 3) if the resolution does not satisfy Mr. B, he can submit appeal letter to the upper level within the deadline. No outside body has to right to copy or review the investigation notes of Land Management Committees. At this point, the members of Land Management Committee were the one who had had hands-in or intervened in the past land concession of the same farmland disputes. Therefore, their decision will not be much reliable and accountable as per the comment of Ayarwaddy Peasant Leaders.

The reason why the land disputes were not solved and lived draw can be clearly addressed to the mismanagement of Land Management Committee of all levels. Concerning the vacant, fallow and virgin land, supposing with the direction of changing for Market Economy, SLORC formed Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Land Central Committee by the notification 26-Sep-1991 and granted for ‘Roles and Responsibilities’ by 44/01 Order by SLORC. When someone came to apply for utilization of any type of the said lands, it must include application letter and two ground maps with ‘Plot Address’ if it were already established and unless the land is established, by two ordinary ‘ground maps’. In Case Filing Chapter (Chapter 4), to do Case Filing, the committee will hand over the Case to SLRD. The department has to operate the procedures described in Box 2, but they failed to do. Even if the Call of fear they had to commit corruptions for the above tasks, they should rather do ‘Notification Issue’, ‘Impact Assessments’ along with recommendations. But any such action has not seen done for the past ‘Vacant, Fallow and Virgin’ land allocation for the Companies. Local residents were using the land and were neglected and conflicts between the Companies and local people began.
Secondly, today the way Land Management Committees perform ‘Land Disputes Investigation’ is lacks efficiency, transparency and accountability.
‘In VTLMC’s investigation and resolution notes, it will be found, no ‘Legal and Social Analysis’, only three lines _ The Resolution of the Committee Goes Here: 1) Land holder right shall be handed to (or remained) in Mr. A; 2) Mr. B shall not hand (or remain) Land Holder Right; 3) if the resolution does not satisfy Mr. B, he can submit appeal letter to the upper level within the (xx) days. No outside body has to right to take copy or review the investigation notes of Land Management Committees.’
Referring the figure ‘Number 18, 19, and 20 of Chapter Five, at this point, the members of Land Management Committee were the one who had had hands-in or intervened in the past land concession of the same farmland disputes. Therefore, their decision will not be much reliable and accountable as per the comment of Ayarwaddy Peasant Leaders. The FHN (Ayarwaddy) has proposed to the Parliament to decompose VTMCs and recompose only with the Peasants and their representatives along with hundreds of thousands of signatures from Peasants in Ayarwaddy. The Parliament’s Commission agreed and asked to submit with the signatures of seventy five percent of farmers in the country.
In most land disputes, when the peasants were sued by the troops or rich man or the government department that reached the trial, the formers normally hired the local lawyer. The lawyer worked his service for a few trial calls. Later, he committed breaches his responsibility and cooperate with the side who sued the case. This instance was found commonly.
‘Legal support for the peasants by means of fair and justice lawyer is very rare and not available for the grass root people. In some areas, like U. Yin Oo, Pyapon and Htwe Htwe Aye who sued her opposition who was the village distinguished and rich in Kangyidaunt, they two rivaled and defended themselves without the assistance of lawyer because they do not have enough money to hire lawyer. Nor they trust the lawyer who will stand for the side of poor farmer.’

Here it will go to particular towns. In Ngwesaung, 655 households affected and they have formed ‘Access to Justice for Land Losers Group by 17 members and they defended the concessions. Ngwesaung people complained that land concessions were not met with ‘Land Acquisition Act’ adopted in 1894 (See in Box 4). The laws and acts it is prescribed to exercise and they do not practice it. They were legitimated as they have tax receipts by Farmland Law; in 2012 Farmland Law, if someone had tax receipt, he/she was assumed to have the right to access to the land and he/she had right to register, too. The person could take the registration Form-1 free. But when people went to ask the registration Form-1, the administrator were not paid for the forms by SLRD. Share Mercy had experienced this: heard the same remarks _ with Ne Tha Mein Village Tract Administrator, U Than Win, Htantapin Township.

Indeed, referring to 1894 Land Acquisition Act any Land Concessions made by Government Dept. does not meet the directive of the law.
In Ayarshwewah Case, the company gave up all the deep water farmlands of 41,200 ac. The General Manager, U. Maung Maung, said three are three groups of farmers: the first group established the lands; the second group rented and worked for several years for the company for some baskets of paddy per acre; the third group, currently working together with the company in a cooperative way. When the company wanted to return all the lands, to which group the company should give out the lands is not sure. He told that at DVB debate on ‘Land Concession’ conducted in April 2014, invited and attended by Share Mercy and some activists. Indeed, the company has not been the Line Organization to decide who shall get and who shall not and they have to return LUMCC or relevant Central Committee. It can be viewed what the law has said in Box 6. In real situation, GAO, Agricultural Minister and Line Departments are exercising this article without putting other factors into their consideration shown in exceptions but taken it alone as a straight arrow.

In Kangyidaunt, SLRD has issued Regional Parliamentarian, U. Chit Lwin for 150 acres of farmland for registration against seven local peasants though they have shown a number of tax receipts. As per the guidebook of Central Land Management Committee, the peasant who is currently leasing and holding the number of tax receipts shall be given priority. The department had betrayed the order.
Owing to local levels of Land Management Committee’s resolution were unclear and finished, the President formed LUMCC (Land Utilization Management Central Committee) chairing power delegating to Vice-president U. Nyan Tun on 8-March-2014. Please see detail in Annex IV. It is because the performances of all levels of Land Management Committees were not accountable and efficient. The new Committee will closely work with the MP representing LLRDIC for a particular State/ Region. In its Term of Reference, it is said the troop cannot hold extra land or farmlands beyond the essential needs for Security of the Troop, Infrastructural, Physical exercising grounds and measures and the remainders shall be returned back to the peasant through the CLUC. In Ingapu, Bwet and Nwar Chan Village Tracts, people, 41 households on 202 ac. of 40 villages established hillside lands, garden, lands of fish pools and keep possession through generations. The troop under South-west Command had occupied and lately they sued 23 peasants for invading in their lands. The lands they are renting out to peasants and not meant for military infra, security measures or physical exercises. This year again peasants made the plough strike but were cracked down by the troop. The troop, besides the first trial, sued 14 peasants who some are already included in the first trial. Now they are at facing double trail. In Ingapu case, the South-West Command had released the notice by occupation 12/14/AhKha (3) on 14-December-1995 and non-returnable by 1/10/SaMa-72/Htauk 1 and it was reported to the Commander-in-chief and President, the Command will not give up the lands.
People presented a lot of cases and shot a number of questions for land rights in Myanaung. The major problem in that area is crude oil refinement. It was brought from Magway Region. By cooperation with the Prime Minister, they are granted to refine not by firewood but by different means. But the company bought firewood to refine the oil and thus, many trees were chopped down and sold out to them. There are 19 small plants in Ingapu, Myanaung and Kyangyin Townships. As a result, thousands of farmlands were under by-products of the plant. U. Kyi Lwin, member of the team representing the FHN reported the case to U. Kyaw Myint, Myanaung Constituency MP who raised the question at the Public Parliament session during July 2014. The responsible person from Line Department came to clear but not answered the questions. He answered the company paid 10,000 kyats per drum to Regional Government for development fund.
In Laymyinthnar, residents were not satisfied with Myo Kyaw Lin Company belong to ex-Maj. Sann Lin and another Company because they have protected the Forest, Pastureland and Vacant and Virgin Lands but the departments gave the company access the lands for rubber plantation. They claimed it was the Protected Public Forest Lands they have protected the lands through generations. There are altogether over 3,000 acres of lands which are meant for rubber plantation for Myo Kyaw Lin Company. The owner used the National Flag erections, making vinyl of him and the Prime Minister of Ayarwaddy picture pressing on it, warning message to frighten the residents. Total four village tracts, 26 villages were affected from his investment.
When we look back the Legal backstopping, the applicants, according to Order of Central Land Committee of the Revolution Council issued on 23-May-1968 by the issue number 958 BaLaKa (9) Na -67 (281), the lands were issued to Landless as first priority, then peasants who have few farmlands, and then peasants who had 20 acres of farmland, finally farmer who have above 20 acres of farmland, respectively. It is not said to prioritize the outsiders _ no matter whether small or large scale planters, investors in fisheries or fish farming. But after the military coup, the Regime had changed the direction to go the Market Economy. They formed Central Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Land Management Committee on 13-Nov-1991 date and the committee issued Orders and changed the past Orders for Large Scale and Commercial Farming from pro-poor peasant policies. The sub-committees acted this Right to issue rights to the cronies and big business men to access the lands and farmlands instead poor peasants. In this time onward, there had been conflict of interests and land disputes between the rich and the rural poor. It means practically peasants were accessing the farmlands but it had legitimated for the rich possess the lands. That matter should be addressed when the Government formulates the National Land Policy.
In Kyangin, few land grabbing were found but the big issue there is Stone mining project. It was Khongyi, the whole village tract has been affected and round about 1,500 arable lands were under by-products by Asia World Company. The residents have though reported to the line departments, no inspection has seen yet. Even the brooks were dying.
Nyaung Tone Le Village Tract was our 13th workshop. It only had been experienced by the land grabbing by the troop but has returned back to the peasants that described in the President Paper I. The case is very rare in Ayarwaddy that returned land by the troop. On page 224 of the Paper, it expressed Township Land Management Committee cooperating with Infantry 51 representatives laid 7.26 ac. of arable land down to the original lease holder Daw. Thaung Nwet and Daw. Yin Hla and they will be given Land Use Testimony _ Form 7.
Zalun _ in that island, significant problem is “Land Leasehold Rights for Alluvial Land”. In 1997 Delta Region, Divisional Commander, Colonel Soe Naing agreed with neighbouring Divisional Commander to have “Land Leasehold Rights for Alluvial” for three years in time of military regime. However, even after three years, they have not received the leasehold rights. Locals did not have the other land to grow but the Aluvial Formation only that they had very little alternatives for livelihood problems.
As per 2012 Farmland Law Chapter 12 Article 103, Peasant will have the leasehold right one year after another annually only as it can be shifted by its nature. As per Article (105) A, Township Land Management Committee will grant the right to leasehold by the confirmation of District Land Management Committee in consultation with Ward or Village Tract Land Management Committee. The peasants who are landless, gardenless, agricultural labourers will be listed and give the right to leasehold as per Article (106.2). As this is the case happening between the regional level; Yangon Region and Delta Region, as per article (109) this case has to be submitted to the Central Land Management Committee for solving the problem. Alluvial Committee needed to develop their capacity or they should be working together in consultation with the Peasant Union which is working widely to get back their land or cope with the situations and other common problems in the areas.
Then, going down townships from the North, Ngaputaw Township which has Karin and Rakhine ethics living separately other than Shwethaungyan, Ngayoatkaung and Chaungthar Sub-Townships in which the majority are Rakhine are less educated and cannot communicate in Burmese. Mostly there have intra communal land grabbing during last two decades and peasants cannot pay the lease paddy, the farmlands were taken hold by the Chairman of the Village Tract. Not other driving factor of land concession in found.
Chaungthar in Shwethaungyan beach resort land concession was also done in early SPDC period. Now, the land holders are Dr. Nay Zin Latt, May Flower Company and Max Myanmar Company. But they are not directly grabbed and Maj. Yin Sein and Maj. Maung Pyone, who were the Secretary of District Peace and Development Council for Pathein District confiscated the lands and laid down to the said parties. It came along with the Instruction to start the infra. within six months and in the end of 12 months, the building should be emerged. To summarize that, only half of the lands were changed to infra. and half remained vacant and played selling and purchasing among the owners. In case of May Flower Company grabbing, it paid Kyats 40,000 for ploughing and growing compensation per acre of farmland with which the land holders had had tax receipts for land lease holding by generations. To be noted the Prime Minister said the businessmen holding mass lands and farmlands have got ‘Map 105 ‘ and testimony to access the farmland in other means as per Farmlands Nationalization Act made in 1953 betraying the Vice President quote in 8th March 2014 in Government Newspaper: ‘Even if anyone has either Map 105 or Testimony to access the farmland in other means as per Farmlands Nationalization Act and unless the acts were taken consensus with the leaseholders, it cannot be assumed one had the land holding right,’ Unquote. The case will be attached in Annex Session b) v. There are overall findings for the Chaungthar cases:
Like Ngwesaung, Chungthar people also wanted the Government intervened to set the standard rate of compensation that fits the current price of land. On the contrary, the current land holders wanted to pay five to ten million kyats for an acre.
In the report of Union Parliament LLRDIC-2, in clause 4 and 7 said, ‘Shwethaungyan Sub-township and Ngwesaung Sub-township urbanization, it was instructed to start the construction within six months, but the buyers did not construct until it lasts 18 years but the plots were on selling and buying, changing one hand to another. Therefore, it is recommended to act by laws accordingly. In clause 7, for the lands which has not constructed should be re-occupied by the government and allocated them to peasants who lost lands.
The major problem for Tharbound community is also with Ayarshwewah Company which grabbed 392.93 acres of lands in Kyar Ye Village Tract only where the workshop is done.
In Pathein Township, according to the President paper II and III responded to Union Parliament’s LLRDIC Reports, there are two confiscations by South-West Command _ 117.93 acres in Zin Pyone Kone, 38.64 acres in Ma Yan Chaung Village Tracts _ which were not returned said officially. But the village tract, Kyaukchaunggyi, where Share Mercy and her team held the workshop has no land disputes. Nor they had legal, political and civic awareness and knowledge. There, 66% of attendees are women as males were out in the farms. Their communities looked being isolated with the next door of mass land concessions. As they do not have any awareness or political outlook towards land disputes against the troop, National project, urbanization, Company, they will be vulnerable for Land monopolization. They even do not have the legal knowhow about the rights and laws for Land Acquisition Act, 2012 farmland law, 2012 vacant, fallow and virgin land laws and 2013 Farmers Interests Protection and Welfare Enhancing Laws. It is recommended either in-depth legal knowledge sessions or bearing Training for Trainer in Legal Knowledge should be conducted.
Yegyi _ in fact, there are no land concession nor disputes issue in that village and its environment (due to difficult access to town, they assumed but it can be the target as there are large field for paddy plantation in the near future as FDI is calling for businessmen) though they heard there are land concessions cases in Yegyi Town and the other part of Myanmar.
According to President Paper to Parliament Part II to the Land Investigation Commission Report, it stated that in Yegyi, there is Army Land Confiscation where (36) regiment grabbed the land from 26 peasants. Peasants filed the case and in response to this, the case is cleared and agreed by both sides to get back after harvest time. Similarly, in President Papers to Parliament Part III in response to Land Investigation Commission, one can find that there is a National Program where Agriculture and Irrigation Department made use of the peasants’ land of 87 acres, but yet it is not yet solved.
Thanks to Peasant Union (Yegyi, Bwet Gnu), they are aware of land concessions, still they had very little knowledge of Farm Land law 2012, Vacant land, Fallow, Virgin Land Law 2012, rules and regulations to be followed in time of land concession; 1894 Land Concession Act, 1963 Farmers Interest Law and 2013 Farmers Interest Promotion and Protection Law, the needs to be proactive for the Peasants’ future unlike with former regime to have collective voices in handling the peasants problems.
Ngayokekaung _ in this sub-township, people have accessed the lands by the hillside until 2012 Farmland Law came to exist. After 2012, they tried to register the farmlands but the land record department did not assist with them to register the lands on hillside. The department should communicate people with clear information whether the lands is in the forest or pasture and explain why they cannot register with the lands. One issue there is a company is trying to build the Coal Plant with the permission of the Regional Government.
Pyapon _ the main problems they are having are being sued by the companies in those areas, as they organized “Ploughing Strike” in order to get back their lost farmlands with their very limited legal knowledge; however, fifty peasants were sued with article 447, Penal Code for illegal trespassing, though many of the peasants did not physically enter into the farmland still they were sued with article 447. In many of the cases, peasants have to defend themselves as they were not able to afford for lawyer fees. In fifty peasants’ cases, they have to appear at the court for more than a year now.
In President Paper to Parliament Part II, there were cases filed; all of them are not cleared except two where Township Land Management Committee compromised for agreement and finally they agreed to get back 65 ac. out of original land size 79.30 ac. In another case, Township Land Management Committee returned the lands capture to existing leasehold rights recipient after checking. Report did not give any justification or clarification for all cases solved so far.
In Pyapon, those unsolved cases are taken hold by companies namely Zin Baung Company, Shwe War Tun Company, Myanma Aung Dagon Company for (482) ac., Ministry of Industry No.1 for 508.26 ac., National Programme by Village Tract Administration Office for 70 ac., and Regional Administration Department for (1934) ac., totaling 2994.26 ac. not solved as per official records.
Ein Me _ in few incidents, they have not had good relations with the authority at the village levels. There were land issues in this area. They are only small holders of land. They feel that this career is proven that they cannot be rich, every year, they get only about 30 percents of the produce for family consumption, but as they have done this professional for generation that they love to keep on farming.
To summarize the findings and collected information, land issues are long-standing unsolved problems but they have not filed the case that this does not include in President’s Papers. Intra communal land disputes are by 1) peasant who cannot sell default baskets of yield specified over the running acres and the Village Chairman took back the land and gave to another without giving any chance to peasants; 2) money lenders who took very high interest rates and finally he took hold the farmland by means of taking corrupted Staff of SLRD. Concerning money lending, it is needed to inspect whether the creditors are functioning as per 2013 Micro-Finance law, having license, lending in the limited or stated areas, amount set, the interest rate set or not to help alleviate the suffering of the peasants. As per existing law, they have to file the case so that proper action will be taken by basic level Village Land Use Committee, up to National Land Use Committee. But LLRDIC has proclaimed they will not observe intra communal land disputes nor recommend the Central Committee.
Though it was the month of July 2014 already, still we found that none of those peasants did not receive the Form (7) _ Land Use Certificates then. Peasants were highly expecting to have them in hand as soon as possible, upon receiving, they planned to mortgage Form (7) at the bank of the town for agricultural inputs as the interest rate out in the community is high; could be between 10-20 percentage, having to pay high interest rate, they did not have much profit left after paying back to the money lenders. Peasants are at high risks to lose the land if they mortgage from banks, provided that unusual weather: much, less, or late rain, storm risks the crops which are very common to Myanmar peasants. But being low educated or illiterates they did not really and practically aware of the risks of land losing. Peasants Union at the village level and state level and its leaders are taking very important roles for the peasants to give the necessary and proper guideline and solve their livelihood problems.
Besides, the intervention of Union Parliament LLRDIC is not much effective because the line departments, the rich men and company did not obey their recommendations. Share Mercy has experienced this in Htantapin Township (Yangon Region) at Steel Stone against Kywe Kor Peasants and Companies against the landlords in BOD, COD and BAOD compound in Botataung Township (Yangon Region).
Local people highly expected upon the request of Union Parliament: to solve totally for the monsoon paddy lately in May and summer crop lately in September. The rural believed in but the government cannot and the Parliament cannot make the Government do.
Land disputes have existed in every town with no exceptions out of 19 townships’ experience. We have to educate the Village Land Management Committee, up to now they are giving the land ownership to the peasants who utilize the land for five years, following the 1/64 Instruction (See in Box 7) straight forward and lack observing the essence of the clause and without considering the other factors showed in the instruction. Township levels to Regional level Land Management Committee take the decision made by the village level only. For the peasants, they care about the Village Level Land Management Committee than President still in power.
The recommendations made by Union Parliament LLRDIC are not seriously considered by CLMC (Central Land Management Committee). The Cronies, mass land holders nor Township Land Management Committee does not regard the investigation commission’s suggestion but rather wait for the instruction of the Higher Level of Administration. The President, therefore, gave to formation Land Utilization Management Central Committee (Annex IV) in accordance with the notification No. 59/2013 of the Union Government Office dated 16-September-2013 with the aim of dealing with confiscated farmlands and other lands in the nation in a just and fair manner. It was also urged to get cooperation of the respective MP of the constituency. The first meeting of the committee was held on 18th September 2013 at Naypyidaw and he relayed the message of the speaker of Union Parliament: urging the respective region and state governing bodies assigned by the Union Government to effectively proceed with the Case File, Complaints and appeals of the people for the confiscated lands with correct and firm evidence under the law. Vice-President went travelling to the sites of problematic areas and deal with the peasants for a year but the land issue resolutions are rarely found on the media or seen by the civil society.
Finally the major problem found in the Township Level SLRD, they did not provide the types of plots whether it is for peasants or forest or out of forest areas or else. People do not have any information and get problem later on. This is true in Htantapin (Yangon Region) by Share Mercy’s experience, Ngayokekaung, Kangyidaunt and Pathein Township.
The peasants found assistance from Peasant Union members. Capacity development of the Peasant Union is a must so that they can continue working for peasants. Legal awareness has to be raised for the union members. After the 19 Workshops, Share Mercy’ Partner CSO, Peasant Union (Delta) could talk to Prime Minister to collect the issues for solving in the Regional Government. To do so, Peasant Union at the township level is already formed starting 15th Aug 2014 onwards. It is very worth doing the Legal Awareness Raising Training for Peasant Union Members, who are in the team to collect the issues related data. By having the knowledge they can be valued assets and apply that knowledge for the peasants.
Poverty Reduction Programme launched by the World Bank and Myanmar Government should cover that area so that people can help themselves and can maintain their cultural value and traditional practices. Micro-finance programme should also be introduced so that they can find more opportunity to survive.
And then capacity development programme should be made for the Peasants Union to make their performance more effective and efficient. Cross-visits should be arranged for them to copy good practices in the other part of Myanmar or other countries.


8. General Recommendations
New democratic government has proclaimed to act out as ‘Good Governance’ and ‘Clean Government’ and formulated the reformation by means of ‘Wave’. Now it has reached in ‘Third Wave’ but not only the citizens but even the Civil Society and Political Leaders has not noticed any improvement and achievements. Some senior government officers were shifted from one ministry to another _ is mere their cornerstone.
The call of Public Oriented Administration follows reformations. If the government actually wanted to operate State’s policy, plan and actions derived from the public, the farmer’s population is the most in country. They will have fulfilled the public based administration while performing the welfare and well-being of the farmers, and then labourers and students.
Summing up with the findings of nineteen land governance workshops, Share Mercy would like to recommend and give inputs dividing 17 benchmarks for the Government reformation in ‘Farmer and Agriculture’ Sector.
1. Least Acreage for Traditional and Family Farming Households
According to the finding in Chapter 5, Acreage belongs to the peasants, there are above sixty percent of peasants who only have five ac. of farmland. The State should protect the social security of family farmers as their produces is much more than any other large scale farming in term of both number of acreages and value of production as per the website: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/07/23/concentration-in-u-s-agriculture/. It says there are 88.3 percent of farmlands belong to family farmers and the value of production is 65.9 percent other than large scale family farming and non-family farming. To improve the social and economic security for smallholder farmers, Government should grant around five acres of farmland rather than land user right and allow one acre for every five acre to nurse family forest and vegetable beds.
2. Freedom of Cultivation and Crop Choice
In Farmland Law, when a farmer wanted to change from paddy to another crop in a farmland, he has to apply step by step up to Central Level. This was a truly red tape and major barrier for farmers to choose the crops and grow freely according to market demand. This is one kind of driving factor for farmers were deep in poverty. Government should lift this red tape and the crop decision shall be finished with VTLMC.
3. Loan Challenges
Insufficient support of loan drives the farmer to mortgage their farmlands to the money lenders with at least 60 to 120 percent interest rate per annum or selling out the commodities with low prices to the rice brokers or rice millers. Quote: ‘Farmers grow paddy in monsoon, harvest in winter and sell then and buy rice for food intake in coming monsoon,’ unquote comes from the shortage and insufficient provisions of loan. Not only the loan period is shortened but also loan payment is later after ploughing. Farmers cry for making the payment since the Myanmar New Year: the period of ploughing and wait for two to three months after harvesting. Therefore, the loan rate shall be formulated from less to higher starting 9 to 12 months, 13 months to 18 months and 19 months to 24 months and so on by 7.2 percent to gradual higher and higher. The farmers can then be free from the market and merchant traps and exploitations. Farmers will have time to store and wait for the good price for selling. The range of loan provision should be expanded from ten acres to fifty acres. In Farmer Interest Protection and Welfare Enhancing Law, it puts a term for self-operating farmer and no further protection has said inside. But in Vacant, Fallow, Virgin Land Law, it says to give land leasehold right from 10 to 50 ac. of land for self-operating farmers. Therefore, farmers belong to less than 50 ac., grow paddy shall be regarded as family farmers and paid for loans for all acres.
4. Seeds
Seeds, regarding information has not collected nor heard during the workshops but one thing sure is Farmers cannot spare ‘seeds’ but every year they purchase at the Traders, back. Besides, the ministry has promoted to use Hybrid seeds instead Local seeds. According to SM’s experience, peasants utter they cannot keep the yield as the ‘seeds’ because in next generation the yield is lower and lower and thus dependency is over the foreign companies. On the other hand, local seed is robust, health, strong and weather and environment friendly despite not higher yield like hybrid. Advantages and disadvantages of hybrid seed are shown in footnote. Therefore, the ministry should support the research and production of quality seeds and help the farmers’ access to them.
5. Fertilizer and Pesticides
Fertilizer remains big challenges to the farmer in farming. Although farmers have the knowledge the use of chemical fertilizer destroys the soil, but for the sake of current yields, they are using more and more chemical fertilizer and pesticide. The more they use them, it is just short term solution and long term affects will be experienced _ none other than soil degradation. Appling pesticides and insecticides commodity, vegetables and fruits harm the consumers and people today has acquired health and nutrition knowledge and gradually avoid eating inorganic food and organic food start to replace chemical food. The farmers wanted to change organic farming but two concerns arise: one is yield will be lower and income will be less for several years ; second is market demands and place _ they cannot reach the market of organic food consumers. The government can help them in term of technology, networking, and organic market promotion and linking to the farmers.
6. Technology and Technical Knowhow
Farmers have addressed three critical needs for them are none other than year round and medium term loan with little interests, free and competitive market but no monopoly and technology. Nowadays, one will see variety of crops, vegetables and fruits were grown on few access of land. Even a few acres of land can help a family secure food if it can grow wisely. Government should spend on ‘Myanmar Agricultural Services’ and ‘Agricultural Research’ by putting more budgets. Capacity development for those departments and human resource recruitment and staff deployment to the fields is also vital.
Government, NGO and practitioners shall help the farmers to initial small-scale and home-based value added food processing technology and linking to market.
7. Milling and Processing
Much compliant has not heard about it but if the government helps establishing community managed rice mill by one piece per village tract shall be appreciated.
8. Storage
Lack of storage and safe storage facility is also a headache for farmers. Like one rice mill in one village tract, together with it one ‘Solo’ in operate environmental friendly, and disaster risk reduction manner shall be installed.
9. Market
Farmers, living further in the farm, do not understand the market: information, demand, price, promotion and strategy. Linking directly to communal market by Self Help Group approach shall be tried but Myanmar people are not fit-in working in group and organization is also challenge. Anyway, giving out end-user market situation and information along with political and environmental settings can be very beneficial to farmers.
10. Disasters Preparedness and Mitigation
Myanmar is one of the hazard prone areas on earth. Since 2005 Tsunami, our country has experienced a lot of cyclone, flood, earthquake, fire and wind storm. Affects of these disasters are mostly experienced by the farmers _ poor people in rural area. Therefore, not only Government but also NGO shall support planning, preparing and resource allocation on disasters preparedness and mitigation such as making better and safer transportation, information communication accessibility in real-time, formation of teams diversifying including Save and Rescue, First Aid, Food, Water and Hygiene, Relocation and Resettlement, and information and communication.
11. Dam and Water Facility
Water canals and supply is vital for agriculture. In some areas though there were canals but they were blocked and renovation has not done by Irrigation Dept. for instance SM has experienced this in Nethamein and Buthanot Village Tracts in Htantapin, Yangon Region and some canals were occupied by the Fishery Lessees for instance in Pantanaw, Ayarwaddy and farmers do not get water. Sometimes the policies and practices by Dept. of Fisheries contradict those by Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation. Inter-Ministry cooperation and coordination shall act for the interests of people. Country staple food is rice and commodity and hence priority shall be to agriculture and sufficient and timely water supply to farms is essential.
12. Machines
Farmers believe machine power goes four to five times faster and accomplishment than manpower and animal power. In rice growing cycle, since the ploughing, machines rent facility shall be installed up to weeding, threshing and milling. Provisions shall be provided to Self Help Groups or Community Groups and revolve by the lease of machines.
13. Weather and Climate
Irregular weather and climate pattern change distress farmers. Lack of rain, heavy rain, wind storm, heat intensity causes loss of yield and totally destroys on the farms besides delaying business and waiting for the right weather.
14. Farmland Disputes Resolution
In the National Land Policy draft it was expressed the disputes between farmers under the same Union, Association or Organization will be granted to these respective groups. VTLMC was not reliable by the peasants. The major cry regarding is VTLMC has not represented the farmers nor the persons listed as the representative of farmers did not really represent the farmers. Farmers were not happy with Village Tract Administrator include in VTLMC because they had scrutinized around the disputes by the time the land were lost. Now the case was presented to the VTLMC and they will decide on what they have corrupted. The Farmland law has protected VTLMC not to be sued at any court regarding their decisions and actions made by responsibility. Thus, whatever the VTLMC is decided, the farmers have no right to sue back at court but to appeal to upper level in administrative channel. There are different types of land disputes: with Regiments, or National Project (Ministry’s Project, or Transportation Facility), or Urbanization and Industrialization, or Company or Rich Villagers or Capable Farmers against Farmers. Strong land disputes resolution framework shall be formulated and delegate to the different level of Governments. For instance, the disputes against Regiments, all the exceeding land more than security and defense matters, shall be granted to farmers and allocate farmers to establish new farmlands. The farmland grabbed for National Project and Urbanization and Industrialization shall be paid compensation according to 2012 Farmland Law as well as provide for economic and social rehabilitation. Disputes against Company or different farmers or money lenders, formation of communal court which include a judge or an arbiter among community Honorary elders chosen mutual consent of litigants _ discussing, arguing against, and decide by the majority votes. The result shall be submitted to VTLMC, then to DLMC via TLMC which shall make legitimate of the result, farmland registration, selling/ and purchasing and crop change issues. If the problem still exists, the two groups shall be directed to Civil Courts. The draft National Land Policy has expressed about civil court for land disputes and is welcome. The decisive power of Land Management Committee shall be eliminated and long-existing disputes will not be living in the future.
15. Voice based Policy and Laws Adoption and disseminations in rural people friendly dialect
Though the country is operating in democracy, policies and laws are not descendent from the public. Laws related to farmers were not derived from the voices and interests of farmers. Therefore, all existing Laws like Farmland, Vacant, Virgin and Fallow Land, Farmers Interests Protection and Welfare Enhancing and now displaying National Land Policy should be amended by the incorporation with the true voices of poor farmers who are more than seventy percent of the country. Afterwards, the policies and laws dissemination shall be local friendly manner and made accessible to farmers. Compliant and Feedback Mechanism shall be running with proper response.
16. Farmer Organizations
Farmers are the kind living in the farm off the village half of the year and they are difficult to organize. But today farmers understand they need the organization working for their interests by their representatives. Through their representatives many rights can be claimed and their social life can be upgraded. Therefore, they welcome to form Farmers Union from grass root level to central level and network with Regional, Continental and Universal Level. Among Farmer leaders, some have the experiences of attending in Foreign for Farmers Union Forums and Conferences. Now, they are also dreaming to develop this way to claim for their rights and welfare. But Myanmar Farmers need assistance of NGOs and CSOs as they cannot stand upright themselves, initially, until they were brought up.
17. Welfare and Opportunity
The State shall provide health, education, learning and welfare facilities for family farmers and their generations because traditional family farmers shall be protected and supported as their productions in agriculture feeds most the country and they socio-economy shall be safeguarded.  
8. Annex
a) List of Attendees
Sr. District Township Town/ Village Tract Male Female Total # Peasant Voices # land Disputes accessed # Resource Members
1 Pathein Pathein Ngwesaung 31 4 35 5 28 6
2 Pathein Kanggyidaunt Kanggyidaunt 19 3 22 14 2 6
3 Pathein Kyaunggon Kyaunggon 20 4 24 11 1 6
4 Pathein Ngapudaw Ngapudaw 31 3 34 26 27 4
5 Pathein Thabaung Thabaung 31 9 40 13 1 4
6 Pathein Pathein Kyaukchaunggyi 11 22 33 9 0 3
7 Pathein Ngapudaw Ngayokekaung 43 4 47 1 0 4
8 Pathein Ngapudaw Hainggyikyun 27 18 45 33 1 3
9 Pathein Shwethaungyan Chaungthar 30 12 42 21 32 4
10 Pathein Yegyi Yegyi 17 3 20 16 1 5
11 Hinthada Ingapu Ingapu 43 1 44 21 2 6
12 Hinthada Myanaung-1 Oe Bo 86 7 93 9 0 7
13 Hinthada Hinthada Chin Boet (Seik Thar) 42 6 48 38 2 3
14 Hinthada Lemyethnar Lemyethnar 83 18 101 15 1 4
15 Hinthada Kyangin KhonGyi 27 9 36 24 0 5
16 Hinthada Myanaung-2 Nyaung Tone Le 9 2 11 1 0 5
17 Hinthada Zalun Zalun 65 29 94 0 0 5
18 Pyapon Pyapon Pyapon 31 4 35 15 158 4
19 Myaung Mya Ein Me Ein Me 18 2 20 34 3 4
(Total) 664
160
824
306
199
88

FIGURE 41 LIST OF ATTENDEES

b) Case Studies
i. In Ngwesaung, 655 households affected and they have formed ‘Access to Justice for Land Losers Group’ by 17 members and they defended the concessions. At the SEA Game, though there were some men who tried to demonstrate the game, the group stops to save the country’s dignity. According to the residents, Ngwesaung resort project, formally it was Nga Saw village has initiated by Commander of the West-south Command, Maj. Gen. Shwe Mann with the given hope the lives of habitats will be up rising and they shall be enjoying lives and prosperity _ this promise he gave. In Nga Saw’s village life, people were secure socio-economy and inherit the premise down to the descendants. Now, becoming Ngwesaung Township, many strangers arrived; some are ill-moral and the stability of the area has been ruined. Therefore, they commented they were alright in the past life with wide acreage of land for agriculture as Nga Saw village folks; when they became the townsfolk, they are with small cottage in the tar streets, losing the peaceful country life and environment and their own lands _ hardly for social security.
Ngwesaung people complained the land concessions were not met with ‘Land Acquisition Act’ adopted in 1894. The laws and acts it is prescribed to exercise and they do not practice it. In 2012 Farmland Law, if someone has tax receipt and half of us have the notes, he/she is said to have the right to access to the land and he/she has right to register, too. The person can take the registration Form-1 free. But when people went to ask the registration Form-1, they said the administrator did not have the form 1. Upon inquiry they replied the land record department did not give out. In the law it does not p9rescribe is, if the responsible person does not give out the form, how they will be sanctioned against them. So, 2012 Farmland Law did not protect the peasants. Upon the decision of land management committees no matter they were biased or not, no article to sue against them. Therefore, it is next said, the Farmland did not protect the peasant.
Among 21 companies made the land concession, they only were compensated by Max Myanmar Company belong to U. Zaw Zaw only. Even, he was lobbied by his mother to pay compensation. The peasant tried the strike show against Max Myanmar, the company compensated them; they also wanted the other companies negotiate them. They also did the same trial against Shwe Kha Yu Company. The residents had blocked gateway of Shwe Kha Yu Company cooperating with other peasants. U. Lin Naing, the official from company along with his five superintendents came and destroyed their plot. The residents raised their force then the next day. Government departmental officials went-between to call the consultation. General Manager of company made the promise he would give the compensation _ 10 millions kyats for a garden, 2 and a half millions for a farmland and requested for two weeks. At that time, it was worth from 320~350 millions for an acre of land in hotel zone. Then the two weeks, he requested to postpone next two weeks. Later, he also asked for a week and then until the end of month. On 1st day of next month, they telephoned him and he counter questioned him if they had a murderer, do as they like and he would not solve it.
One resident raised his opinion, the command had grabbed the lands for all investor. He continued people expressed their concern they did not have the right to sell, buy, rent, give or inherit and all the lands belong to the state and they were being the lessee. The command warned they were not buying the lands, just offering them compensation and they had to give lands, otherwise, everything will be destroyed with bulldozer and fired.
The hoteliers took place at and nearby the beach and did not allow the residents to come there to the shore as they made dirty of the shore and the guests are not happy. ‘The residents use shrimp paste (‘Nga Pi’) in every meal; now they did not allow us to come to the shore because they think it is mess; therefore, we cannot go down to the shore and we have to buy out for shrimp paste and fish; nor we have the chance to fish.’ (Residential woman from Ngwesaung)
Daw. Ni, 60, Ngwesaung, who lost her farmland expressed, ‘Every day we are depressed daily for the loss of land; we were unable to send the children to school because of poverty; every day we were expecting the Government would make the order to return the land to us. When the organizations came in to the place, if they would bring us the lands, back; thinking and thinking so, day is in and out and I’m now looking at 60.’

For some hotels, Western South Command confiscated the lands and the way they gave compensation for the orchard is 4,500 Kyats for big coconut trees, 1,500 Kyats for middle-sized and 500 Kyats for small coconut trees.

Sr. Particular # Affected HH Focal Person/ Key Informant
1 Hotel zone (21 unit, see in below table)
Sr. Name Sr. Name
1 BoB 12 Emprise
2 Orion (former Ayarshwewah + Htoo) 13 PalaeNgwesaung
3 Sony 14 Yuzana
4 NgweZin Yaw 15 Silver View
5 Myanmar Treasure 16 YamonarOo
6 Rainbow View 17 ShweKa Yu
7 AMBO 18 ShweHinthar
8 Asia World 19 Chaung Thar Oo
9 Panbi 20 ACE Hotel
10 ShweThaZin 21 Central
11 ZabuLwan 22
248 U. MyoMyint
2 Urbanization 67 U. Aung Myint
3 Offices (Departments) 6
4 Prawn culture & rubber plantation 307 U. Chit Yoan
5 Sea Game’s facility 10
6 Raider Camp 14 25 HH have been compensated
7 13 miles Village land 3
(Total HH and acres) 655
12598.5 acres
FIGURE 42LAND CONCONFISCATION IN NGWE SAUNG BY 7 TITILES
U Myo Myint, key informant for lands concession for hotel zones, talked on his experience. In one case against Shwe Tha Zin, the lessees had had the tax receipts up to the year 2013. In 2014, it stopped accepting tax payment and replied they were fallow lands. The case reached U. Thein Tun, MP for Land and Land Related Disputes Investigation Commission 2 along with NLD MP U. Win Myint met the two opponent groups at Township Administration Office. NLD MP asked both parties should be hands-off from accessing the lands until the respective Land Management Committee have resolved. So did the former lessees but Shwe Tha Zin turned a deaf ear but to continue its Hotel project. Therefore, this year in April 14, U. Win Myint urged them again, that the excessive lands should be returned to original lessees and compensated the lands that had already allocated. One hotel has advertized to sell out the lands on the Government Newspaper without the right to leasehold is not sure.
U. Aung Myint represented for land concessions in urbanization. Though the peasants did not want to give up, becoming an urban, it is obliged to give up, and then the peasants had to hand the lands. There were 20 peasants altogether who asked two plots of land with an area 60*40 square feet in their handed lands. Only one plot but exists in outskirt were compensated. Their original lands reached in the hands of the relatives of ex-militants _ purchasing but who sold them is anonymous. They said they had purchased the lands.

ii. Ayarshwewah and Peasants in Four Townships
AyarshwewahCompany had grabbed 41,200 acres of lands in Kangyidaung, Kyaunggon, Tharbound and Yegyi Township, Pathein District. By the letter to the Prime Minister of Ayarwaddy on 26th July 2012 signed by the chairman U. TeZa, it was known the company gave up all the lands.The company also expressed its desire the farmlands shall be allocated to those who worked for them by forming cooperative societies _ for detail see in picture 24 and 25. For instance it had occupied 784 acres and returned 681 in Seikthar Village Tract, 728 acres occupied but returned 591 acres in NyaungChaung Village Tract, out of 412, only 362 acres returned in Payachaung Village Tract in Kangyidaunt Township; therefore, they did not return all the lands to whom had been lost by first hand since they had had backstopping plan The general manager, U. MaungMaung, said there are three groups of farmers: the first group established the lands; the second group rented and worked for several years for the company for some baskets of paddy per acre; the third group, currently working together with the company in a cooperative way. When the company wanted to return, which group should possess the company did not know that. It was told by General Manager at DVB debate on Land Concession conducted in April 2014 invited and attended by Share Mercy and some activists.
Therefore, it needed to look at the legal framework. In article 4 of Acts to Exercise _the procedures for land return, sub-article 15 said, upon the lands which returned farmers worked for it wanted to possess it must follow the acts prescribed in 2012 Farmland Laws and apply from the Village Tract level. The law gave everyone equal chance but in Ayawarddy the agricultural minister made the instruction to follow the 1/64 of Central Land Management Committee. It had said only those who really the farming, he or she will have the right to do the farming. In article 6, ‘…the current lessee who had been in the farmland for five years shall be considered prior to the previous lessee. But is guided to have disputes not only the current lease but many other factors expressed in article 5 are to be considered. In the real situation, Ayarwaddy agricultural minister and line departments are exercising this article without putting other factors into their consideration shown in exceptions but taken it alone as a straight arrow.

iii. In Kangyidaunt, the Regional MP has made the farmlands belong to the 7 peasants. One peasant who tried to plough was sent into the cell by the judge for refusing the warrant not to plough. Those peasants are very poor Karin ethnic and were not able to communicate the line dept. with the proper order. The local peasant named U. Chit Thein was sued by him and it has been over 43 times trial at the court. As usual U. Chit Thein planned to plough his farmlands, the judge warned him not to plough at one trial; he was insisted upon the farmlands belong to him and thus, he would plough it. Then, the Judge did not set free to face the trial as before but asked the police to arrest him. In the legal framework of Central Land Management Committee guidebook, under the session of ‘Right to Yield Where It Has Lands Disputes’, as per article 9, 10, 11 the current lessee has granted the right to access to land and access to yield until he lost the trial at court. It is instructed to exercise this, but the line departments failed to exercise.

iv. Ex-Maj. Sann Lin V.S Laymyintnhar People
Ex-Maj.Sann Lin established sole proprietorship from Rubber plantation. He was granted for Field Number 967, 963, 962 but he illegally accessed to Field Number 964 and 965 where 1000 over acres of farmlands exist. For the peasants who possessed the said fields have had the tax slips for five years up to 2004. The owner also blocked the tracts which connect village to village. Not only the farmlands but also he occupied the pastureland, vacant and virgin lands, and forest. To access the any type of forest lands, it needs to remove the lands from the list of forest first, and then it has to claim they are the virgin lands and accept the applications. But when any types of land is claimed to be as virgin land, as per the Orders during 1968 by the Revolution Council, either the outsider or the rich farmer must to be given runner-up priority. Nevertheless, the line departments were forced to give first priority to the rich and ex-militants by the SLORC and SPDC as well as these called Regimes duplicated Orders against the past Orders and Instructions without withdrawal to the past ones. This made the crisis when the country changed to democracy.

v. Chaungthar DPDC V.S the Residents
There are altogether 625.75 acres of land grabbed by troop, departments then to individuals or companies and for urbanization _ three drivers. In 1993, it was the time of late SLORC and start of SPDC. The DPDC confiscated the lands: for urbanization they gathered the people told them the lands would be grabbed and they would relocate the residents in uptown. For other two drivers, it was the secret confiscation and the land holder were let known on the time of transferring lands to the company and the persons concern came to lands _ shocking surprise the residents. Then, people reported to the Land and Land Related Disputes Investigation Commission – 2 and suitable parties for around 50 times and the commission came to there more than 5 times for investigation. The residents became more confident on hearing the quote of Vice-president U. NyanTun‘Even if anyone has either Map 105 or Testimony to access the farmland in other means as per Farmlands Nationalization Act and unless the acts were taken consensus with the leaseholders, it cannot be assumed one had the land holding right’. The Prime Minister of Ayarwaddy said the current lease holders have Map 105 and Testimony to access the farmland in other means as per Farmlands Nationalization Act, and the peasants who established the lands only had the tax receipts which cannot be regarded as Land Holder Right and not the said Testimonies. The people cited the quotes of Vice-President and the PM replied to sue against the Land Grabbers.
The resident woman aged 40 over said, ‘The original holders were sued for invasion as it is fenced by the second holders as per the officials. Think about it I also fenced with bamboo but the grabbers fired my garden and 300 coconut trees together with cottage. I also made fences in my affordability as well as him and my poor management on my premise was not treated equally.’ She also criticized the performance of ‘Regional levels Management Committee’. ‘They said I invaded the lands of Dr. Nay ZinLatt as he had fences. I responded them I also made fences and he invaded mine. The committee does not have the proper plan nor schedule for inspection. The inspection is not clear and I was called as per their conveniences. I am not happy with their action.’
Next man also added, ‘Maj. Yin Sein grabbed the lands on behalf of the companies. The lands were allocated to the companies by the deadline to implement the infra within six months. But when the deadline was passed, no action is found against for being overdue. But the holders were trading on the lands from one hand to another. If there is the transfer from one hand to another, Township Administration Officer ruled to implement within six months again but half of the buyers followed the rules and continued selling the lands to another.’
U MyintWai also presented about his concession experience of May Flower Company and other rich men. Due to the advocacy of the LLRDIC-2, the grabbers came to some original holders for compensation. Some stayed neglected whilst some played tricky as if they would negotiate for payment but making the case pass by in times.
In term of urbanization, Maj. MaungPyonecalled the residents upon the meeting. He explained they would no longer have right to live and earn there. The local government would relocate them in next to there; pay the transportation fee and reconstruction costs for their cottages. Finally, no payment was received by the residents.
There is also invasion in the lands belongs to two son and father, by electricity staffs in 4.73 acres. It was, later, known to the names of Hydro-power electricity project to fulfill the electricity requirements for the area. However, it is said, Max ZawZaw bought the project and applied it for his hotel and sell out the water to local people. The two men also lost to access to teak, ironwood and similar timber and fruit trees like banana.
All in all, to wind up the whole picture, all the disputes reached the LLRDIC; they came and check with both parties and reminded both should stop on-going access to the disputed lands. The host communities stopped so they are reminded but the company and rich men side did not obey the reminder.

vi. Pyapon Township Zin Bound Village Tract Development Committee Chairman & Villager Ko Yin Oo together with U KalarPauk(ref: Myanmar Spring Book I)
U Yin Oo and U KalapPauk are from Pyapon Township, ZinBaung (1) Village, ZinBaung Village Tract, they had thirty acres of arable land. However, in 1979, authority, Outpost Police Officer U Saw KyawHtoo, Village Peace and Development Council Chairman U OhnMaung, Secretary U Saw KyawTun, Chairman of “Co-Operation Office U SeinHtun and Secretary, U Thein grabbed U Yin Oo and U Kala Pauk’s 30 acres of land by force with the intention to establishCo-operation Society office there. After that, they sold out the plot to another.
In addition to this, in 2012, when the Farmland law was released, U Yin Oo did the ploughing as a form of ‘Strike’ on his former land. Nonetheless, at the time of the harvesting, in response to this farming strike, ZinBaung Village Development Fund Committee Chairman and Kan Sate Primary School General Worker, U Win Naingharvested the plants that U Yin Oo has grown by (16) power tillers on 28 July 14. That terribly unfair event was videotaped and submitted to Pyarpon Township General Administration Department, Township Development Support Group on 29 July 2014 for intervention or solutions but “NO” comment or response came from the township level authority. Moreover, U Win Naing, who harvested the yield of U Yin Oo, also sued him with Penal Codes 447, 427 pouring large sum of money. Other four parties’ also sued U Yin Oo with the same Codes. Being poor, U Yin Oo was not able to hire a lawyer but face the suit by self-service. It has been over a year U Yin Oo has been present at the court. Though farmers had to appear regularly but by the side of the sue person, they never showed up during nine months time. Every week, it costs (30000 Kyat/ 30 USD) for travelling to the court and legal expenses forfarmers. As farmers could no longer pay for the court related expenses, feeling extremely very awful that finally Farmers asked for ‘Imprisonment’ but court did not imprison the farmers straight away that those farmers have to keep on-going to the court three days a week _ once a week by the Judge’s mercy and appear without fail on regular basis.Farmer U Yin Oo was hit by great frustration, down in the dumps and traumatic as he has to be at the court for three days a week that he could no longer do his living wage well. His wife does the work for other’s farm for their income. His son, in his third year at the University, had to adjust to work as distant university student from day student and joined the workforce as the mason. So far, Farmer U Yin Oo is deeply wondering whether he could complete his four children primary education or he could finish his sue cases at the court or not… wondering, doubting…
One day, four months ago U Yin chased the chance that 88 Peace and Open Society-the Peasant Committee, held the Conference for Peasants in Pyapon. At the event, U Yin Oo has been familiar with Share Mercy which is trying to publish the Book for Land Concessions. U Yin Oo story was selected as 6th Case when the Book is launched. U Yin Oo went to see key stakeholders such as the Judge, Township Administration Officer, Land Record Dept., Zin Boung Co-operative Society as well as distributing the copies of Books that he received. The next period at court, the Judge told him his suit does not deserve punishment and just on-hearing session. Zin Boung Company also fired the person who made sued U Yin Oo. Zin Bound Company returned 120 arable lands which had had plants while they made concession to the Government. U Yin was selected as the Secretary of Peasant and Fishermen Union and as the representative of the Union he accompanied the Workshops of Share Mercy while the Chairman was not able to come along with the team. Formerly, he was Chairman of Village Tract Council, then became the farmer, later his farmlands were grabbed and landless, now as the Leader of the CSO and campaigner, he is working for his people’s rights and independence.
vii. Ein Me: Ministry of Education V.S Daw. Anonymous (Member of Peasant Union)
“I belonged to 8 acres in the past. But it was grabbed by the Ministry of Education, as they constructed the school building in my farmland. After finishing the school construction, I found much of the land were extra, they let the other peasants to grow in exchange for crops. I only have 1 acre or so left. This cannot fulfill my family needs. I submitted the letter to Land Record Department. They called me to question but upon arrival, they kick us out of the office. In fact, they did not ask anything but challenged that to whoever (President) we complained (Land Registration Department) they do not care. I do not know what to do now, where to follow up to get back my plot of land.”

c) Pictures

Figure 43Ngwesaung workshop view Figure 44Ngwesaung ‘land loser group’ LEADER U AUNG MYINT ADDRESS THEIR SUFFERINGS

FIGURE 45 ORIGINAL CLOTH MAP OF LAND HOLDING TESTIMONY

FIGURE 46 WHILE THE LAND ON DISPUTES, GRABBER ADS ON GOVERNMENT NEWSPAPER TO SELL IT

FIGURE 47 WOMEN PARTICIPATION IN NGWESAUNG FIGURE 48 KANGYIDAUNT PEASANT TALKED ON HIS LAND LOSS

Figure 49 AYARWADDY REGION PEASANT &lAND WORKER UNION CHAIRMAN, U AUNG MOE WIN TALKS AT KANGYIDAUNG Figure 50 NGAPUTAW WORKSHOP VIEW

FIGURE 51 U THEIN WIN CHAIRMAN FOR PEASANT AND FISHERMEN UNION DELIVERS AT INGAPU FIGURE 52 MYANAUNG WORKSHOP VIEW

FIGURE 53 HINTHADA WORKSHOP FACILITATION FIGURE 54 PEASANT VOICES TAKEN AT HINTHADA

FIGURE 55 VIEW OF LAYMYINTHNAR WORKSHOP FIGURE 56 MAJ. SANN LIN ISSUED WARNING MESSAGE NEARBY BY COUNTRY TRACKS NOT TO PASS

FIGURE 57 EX-MAJ SANN LINN MADE PRIME MINISTER AND HIS PICTURE VINYL AND ERECTED TO FRIGHTEN THE RESIDENTS

FIGURE 58 RESIDENTS SUED MAJ SANN LIN FOR GRABBING COMMUNAL LANDS AND ROADS

FIGURE 59 KYANGIN WORKSHOP VIEW

FIGURE 60 MAP 105 SAMPLE

FIGURE 61 LAND REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE (FRONT)

FIGURE 62 LAND REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE (INSIDE)

FIGURE 63 MYANAUNG-2 NYAUNGTONE LE VILLAGE TRACT WORKSHOP VIEW FIGURE 64 PATHEIN WORKSHOP VIEW

FIGURE 65 YAYGYI WORKSHOP VIEW

FIGURE 66 LETTER AYARSHWEWAH RETURNS ALL THE LANDS IN KANGYIDAUNG, KYAUNGGON, THARBOUND AND YAYGYI TOWNSHIP (FRONT)

FIGURE 67LETTER AYARSHWEWAH RETURNS ALL THE LANDS IN KANGYIDAUNG, KYAUNGGON, THARBOUND AND YAYGYI TOWNSHIP (REAR)

FIGURE 68 ZALUN WORKSHOP VIEW FIGURE 69 NGAYOKEKAUNG WORKSHOP VIEW

FIGURE 70 PYAPON WORKSHOP VIEW

d) Land Utilization Management Central Committee Meeting Note
Vice-President U NyanTun delivers an address at Land Utilization Management Central Committee Meeting No. 1/2013
Reference:http://www.president-office.gov.mm/en/?q=briefing-room/news/2013/09/19/id-2670
Thu, 09/19/2013 – 10:38

Nay Pyi Taw, 18 Sept
Land Utilization Management Central Committee was formed in accordance with the notification No. 59/2013 of the Union Government Office dated 16-9-2013 with the aim of dealing with confiscated farmlands and other lands in the nation in a just and fair manner, said Chairman of Land Utilization Management Central Committee Vice- President U Nyan Tun at the central committee meeting No. 1/2013 this morning.
As urbanization projects, designation of special project areas related to security and establishment of investment project are compulsory for long-term development of the nation, farmlands and other lands are confiscated due to work demands. Confiscated land investigation commission was formed for just and fair tasks regarding the complaints of confiscated farmlands and other lands.
The commission submitted the report in three portions to the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw session to ensure that the people do not suffer loss in land confiscation. In this regard, the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw Speaker had sent the messages to the President urging respective region and state governing bodies assigned by the Union government to effectively proceed with the complaints and appeals of the people for the confiscated lands with correct and firm evidence under the law. At this juncture, the Union government is carrying out political, economic and administrative and management system reforms over more than two years period.
Land reform is being undertaken for systematically implementing the land use policy and land use management to be able to carry out rural and urban development projects and investment projects for fulfilling the basic needs, job opportunity and daily life requirements.
Land reform is being undertaken for betterment of agricultural sector through morale, type of farmland, quality strains, agricultural mechanization and cultivation methods.
With regard to land policy for solving the land disputes based on confiscation so as to extend regiments and units of the Tatmadaw, the President has given guidance that the military units are not to rent its confiscated lands to the people for cultivation and not to carry out the mutually beneficial tasks, to take actual areas for security measures of units, headquarters and training grounds and to hand over the vacant lands to the original owners except actual required farmlands.
The guidance is inclusive of not only the Ministry of Defence but also other ministries, Nay Pyi Taw Council and region/state governments.
In conclusion, the Vice-President urged them to properly deal with the confiscated farmlands and other lands in line with the basic points of good public service reform adopted by the government:-
– to give swift, smooth and satisfactory services to the people
– to remove red tape of government departments that poses obstacle to the public service works
– to cultivate practice of effective service so as to fight bribery and corruptions
– to enable the State to sincerely take accountability and responsibility in giving public services between public service officers and personnel
– to raise attention on values, accountability and transparency in dealing with the people, and
– to promote the trusts of people on government and departmental personnel.
Vice-Chairmen of the Central Committee Union Ministers Lt-Gen KoKo and U MyintHlaing reported on tasks of the central committee and farmland management and Secretary of the central committee Deputy Minister Brig-Gen KyawZanMyint, formation of land utilization management committees at different levels and duty and functions.
Next, the Union ministers, region and state chief ministers and the chairman of the PyithuHluttaw Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries Development Committee presented reports on farmland matters, and the vice-chairman of the central committee reviewed the discussions.
After that, the Vice-President made a conclusion remark saying that the Union government pays special attention to the farmlands of the farmers who are 70 percent of the population of the nation.
The rule of law plays a crucial role in solving problems. All the citizens can enjoy rights equitably under the law. The cases of farmlands are to be submitted with the firm evidence and firm reasons. Region and state governments are to do their works in a transparent manner under the law and inform the people of their work processes. He urged all to place special emphasis on solving the cases promptly and correctly.
Also present at the meeting were central committee members Union Ministers Lt-Gen Wai Lwin, U Thein Nyunt, U Win Tun, Dr Myint Aung, U Kyaw Lwin and U Maung Myint and region and state chief ministers and chairman of the Pyithu Hluttaw Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries Development Committee U Soe Naing and officials.

MPs approve Suu Kyi bill to speed-up bylaws

File photo of Burma’s opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi (PHOTO: Wikimedia Commons) File photo of Burma’s opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi (PHOTO: Wikimedia Commons)

By SHWE AUNG
27 November 2014
Print
Email

Opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi put forward an urgent proposal on Wednesday in Burma’s bicameral parliament urging government ministries to speed-up the issuance of bylaws and regulations necessary to implement laws enacted by parliament.

In her formal proposal, the leader of Burma’s National League for Democracy (NLD) party told the Union Parliament: “The Hluttaw, as the country’s legislative estate, is primarily tasked with introducing laws that are in the interest of the people and the country. However, we can only declare that we have truly fulfilled the interests of the people when these laws have a real effect on their lives.

“[For example,] we adopted the law on Protecting Rights and Raising Interests of Farmers on 8 October 2013, but it still has not taken effect because the bylaws and regulations have yet to be issues. Therefore, to this day farmers are still forced to leave their homes, move elsewhere and face various difficulties due to heavy indebtedness and the lack of access to technology and resources need to compete in the market and deal with other challenges.

“If we cannot follow up with bylaws and regulations for laws that have been approved by parliament, then it will give people the impression that these laws are only superficial, and the public’s confidence might decline. This would damage the credibility of both the legislative and executive estates.”
Related Stories

A monk passes police outside Bahan Township court on Thursday, when three nightclub operators were remanded in custody. Three face jail after Buddha Bar post causes religious outcry
Kachin, Palaung, Kokang forces clash with govt units in Muse
Thein Sein calls for greater regional unity in ASEAN-Korea summit

Suu Kyi’s proposal was supported by Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) MP Thura Aung Ko and Deputy Attorney General Tun Tun Oo. Thereafter, the proposal was unanimously approved by the Union Parliament.

Burma’s parliament—now in its 10th session—has adopted over 120 pieces of legislation in total, but relevant government ministries have yet to introduce bylaws and regulations required to implement laws governing farmers and workers, who make up 85 percent of the country’s population.

Previous Older Entries