Aung San Suu Kyi Guilty - 3 years prison with hard labour - then reduced to 18 months house arrest. Release her, and restore democracy to Burma

After independence on 4/1/1948, Burma was a democracy until an army coup in 1962. In 1990, the military regime said they will restore democracy and a general elections was held. Of the 485 Parliamentary seats contested, Aung San Suu Kyi-led National League for Democracy(NLD) won 392 (over 80%). Ethnic minority parties won 65 more seats. The military junta abdicated in its promise, and continued to rule. Aung San Suu Kyi has spend 14 out of the last 20 years in detention.

The detention itself was wrong - and, now she is found guilty of breaching a condition of her detention. [ See below, for similarities in Malaysia's Detention Without Trial Laws..]

I call for the immediate and unconditional release of Aung San Suu Kyi and all other political detainees, and for a return of democracy to Burma.

Burma pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi was sentenced to another 18 months of house arrest by a Burmese court on Tuesday.

The special court set up at Rangoon's notorious Insein Prison was originally scheduled to deliver its verdict on July 31 but postponed the decision until Tuesday, citing legal problems.

She was initially sentenced to three years injail with hard labour, but the sentrence was commuted to another 18 months under house arrest.

The case stemmed from a May 3 incident in which American national John William Yettaw, 53, swam, uninvited, to Suu Kyi's home on the edge of Inya Lake and stayed there until May 5.

The military junta said Yettaw's presence violated the conditions of the Nobel peace laureate's house arrest.

Yettaw was sentenced to seven years of hard labour.

Mrs Suu Kyi had argued it was not her responsibility to keep intruders out of the grounds of her home. It was the responsibility of the Burmese authorities who kept her imprisoned there.

The case is proving to be a major headache for Burma's powerful generals, caught between growing international pressure to free Suu Kyi and what critics say is their determination to keep her locked up during elections due in 2010. - Bangkok Post, 11/8/2009, Junta returns Suu Kyi to house arrest

The courtroom was initially told that Ms Suu Kyi was sentenced to three years in prison with hard labour.

But after a five-minute recess, Burma's home minister entered the courtroom and read out a special order from the country's military ruler Than Shwe that commuted the sentence to 18 months and said it could be served under house arrest.- BBC News, 11/8/2009, Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi 'guilty'

Likewise in our ISA and other Detention Without Trial Laws, there is these restrictions and conditions...and a breach of these conditions makes a person liable to a criminal offence which on conviction is punishable with imprisonment up to two years. It is really unjust and totally wrong. I refer you to an extract from an article that I wrote several years ago. [For the full article, you could go to Malaysia & Human Rights Website or the Malaysian Bar website ]

Besides the Detention Order, the Restriction Order is an alternative DWT order available to the Minister under the ISA, E(POPC)O and the DD(SPM)A. In my opinion, this is a more repressive order, because a breach of the conditions or restrictions makes a person liable to a criminal offence which on conviction is punishable with imprisonment up to two years. The RRA only allows for the imposition of a Restriction Order.

To appreciate the kind of restrictions and conditions that can be imposed on a person subjected to a Restriction Order, s 8(5) ISA is set out below: ‘If the Minister is satisfied that for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) it is necessary that control and supervision should be exercised over any person or that restrictions and conditions should be imposed upon that person in respect of his activities, freedom of movement or places of residence or employment, but for that purpose it is unnecessary to detain him, he may make an order (hereinafter referred to as a restriction order) imposing upon that person all or any of the following restrictions and conditions:

a) for imposing upon that person such restrictions as may be specified in the order in respect of his activities and his places of his residence and employment;

b) for prohibiting him from being out of doors between such hours as may be specified in the order, except under the authority of a written permit granted by such authority or persons as may be so specified;

c) for requiring him to notify his movements in such manner at such times to such authority or persons as may be specified in the order;

d) for prohibiting him from addressing public meetings or from holding office in, or taking part in the activities of or acting as adviser to, any organisations or association, or from taking part in any political activities; and

e) for prohibiting him from travelling beyond the limits of Malaysia or any part thereof specified in the order except in accordance with permission given to him by such authority as may be specified in such order.’ (s 8(5) Internal Security Act 1960)

In the case of the E(POPC)O, the conditions and restrictions which cover similar areas, are elaborated even further and one significant addition is the inclusion of Police Supervision Orders[16].

‘If the Minister is satisfied that for any of the purposes mentioned in section 4(1) it is necessary that control or supervision should be exercised over any person or that restrictions or conditions should be imposed upon that person in respect of his activities, freedom of movement or places of residence and employment, but for those purposes it is unnecessary to detain that person, he may make an order (hereinafter referred to as a ‘restriction order’) imposing upon that person (hereinafter referred to as a ‘restricted person’) all or any of the following restrictions and conditions:

a) that he shall be subject to the supervision of the Police for any period not exceeding two years;

b) that he shall reside within the limits of any State, districts, mukim, town or village specified in the restriction order;

c) that he shall not transfer his residence to any other State, district, mukim, town or village, as the case may be, without the written authority of the Chief Police Officer of any State concerned;

d) that except so far as may be otherwise provided by the restriction order, he shall not leave the State, district, mukim, town or village within which he resides without the written authority of the Chief Police Officer of the State concerned;

e) that he shall at all times keep the Officer in Charge of the Police District in which he resides notified of the house or place in which he resides;

f) that he shall be liable, at such times or times as may be specified in the restriction order to present himself at the nearest police station;

g) that he shall remain within doors, or within such area as may be defined in the restriction order, between such hours as may be specified in the restriction order, unless he obtains special permission to the contrary from the Officer in Charge of the Police District;

h) that except in so far as may be otherwise provided by the restriction order, he shall not enter any State, district, mukim, town or village specified in the restriction order;

i) that he shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

j) that he shall enter into a bond, with or without sureties as the Minister may direct and in such amount as may be specified in the restriction order, for his due compliance with the restrictions and conditions imposed on him by the restriction order. (s 4A, Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance[17])

The length of the Restriction Orders is not clear, but s 4A(2) of the E(POPC)O seems to imply that this period could be up to five years. But note that in the DWT laws, the Minister also has the power to renew the detention/restriction orders for periods of not more than two years at a time, for an indefinite period.

As was mentioned earlier, a contravention of a restriction or condition would result in a commission of an offence, and if this contravention is proved, the said person ‘shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and not less than two years’[18] under the E(POPC)O. Under the DD(SPM)A, he can ‘be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and not less than three years’[19]