The release of over 6000 prisoners from jails in Burma last week, including over a hundred prisoners of conscience, attracted a lot of news internationally. Many reports gave an impression that the amnesty was an exceptional event. In fact, governments in Burma, or Myanmar, have long issued amnesties, as a variety of publications in the National Library of Australia’s collection reveal. Far from being exceptional, amnesties in Burma are, these documents suggest, increasingly rather like seasons: predictable in their arrival, but less easy to forecast in their specific characteristics.
After independence, the question of who had power to grant an amnesty and whom it could cover was hotly contested. The question came up in the 1952 Burma Law Reports, in the case of Boh Sein Tun. The High Court considered the meaning of an amnesty, following a 1950 ministerial announcement that the government would not prosecute surrendering insurgents. The court agreed that the president had the power to issue general amnesties covering either persons not yet convicted or those already convicted and imprisoned, but that he could do so under the 1947 Constitution only on advice from the government. A ministerial order alone did not constitute an amnesty. Other than going via the president, the government had to legislate if it wanted to make an order binding on the courts.
After the military seized power in 1962, General Ne Win declared a general amnesty. A collection of Ne Win’s speeches contains a homily that he delivered to prisoners upon their release from the central jail on 5 April 1963. This amnesty order, like those before it, was subject to cases in the courts. But the cases did not contest the general’s authority to issue the amnesty, only its scope. In contrast to the ruling in 1952, the court held in the 1964 U Bo Kyi case that the amnesty order was an act of “high policy” that eclipsed law. From this time onwards, the granting of amnesty became an administrative rather than legislative matter.
Successive governments have granted amnesties whenever they have seen fit. In 1980 the Ne Win government issued an amnesty for criminal and political detainees meeting certain criteria, including former armed forces commander and later deputy chairman of the National League for Democracy, Tin Oo. The photograph at the top of this post, from the July 1980 edition of the Party Affairs periodical, shows the release of prisoners on that occasion.
In recent years, amnesties have been issued frequently, and news media wait with excited anticipation for this person or that to walk though the gaol gates. In September 2009 over 7000 walked free, including prisoners of conscience like U Win Myint, a National League for Democracy member shown being interviewed in the photograph under the article headline (“Their happy day”) from 7 Day News, above. According to a speech given by U Zaw Win, Director General of the Correctional Department cited in that article, around 120,000 prisoners had been released under amnesties issued by successive military governments in the two decades since 1989, which comes to around 6000 persons on average per year.



Makes you wonder if the govt regards this like freeing fish into a pond/river or caged birds in order to gain merit to atone for their sins and improve their karma in addition to yadaya to ward off ill fortune periodically.
Some of the ‘multicoloured insurgents’ were the first to ‘enter the light into the legal fold’ taking up Prime Minister U Nu’s “arms for democracy” offer of 1955. In 1980 U Nu was himself one of the people who took advantage of the amnesty to return home after winding down his failed Thailand based ‘revolutionary’ activities against Ne Win who ousted him in a military coup in 1962 and imprisoned him for four years.
Denial of the existence of prisoners of conscience however is a more recent phenomenon as the use of Section 5 to incarcerate political activists charged with sedition and treason has gone into disfavour. Instead the regime has introduced criminalisation by new legislation on electronic media and so forth. Besides the overwhelming majority of prisoners who benefited from the amnesties in the military era have been real criminals. The coup in 1988 during the popular uprising was staged on the grounds of anarchy and chaos deliberately heightened by the authorities releasing hundreds of hardened criminals from prison into the neighbourhoods of Rangoon to do their bidding.
The latest one included among over 6,000 released dozens of political prisoners such as the famous dentist turned comedian and defiant political activist Zarganar and also Su Su Nway, but the 88 generation student leaders such as Min Ko Naing, Ko Ko Gyi, Htay Kywe, Jimmy & Nilar Thein, Mie Mie etc. , the prominent leader of the Saffron Revolution Ashin Gambira, and ethnic leader Hkun Htun Oo are all conspicuous by their absence. The newly democratic govt either feels it is too risky to release these prisoners of conscience or is engaging in some haggling with the international community for the lifting of the sanctions and the Chair of ASEAN as a quid pro quo.
The people on their part have got used to this cat and mouse game, and reconciled with the amnesty lottery as far as their loved ones in jail are concerned.
Quality comment or not?
1
2
1980 was 31 years ago. Microsoft Word didn’t exist. Let’s not paint this as a frequent event.
Quality comment or not?
0
2
This frequent enough for you Charles Edward Frith (@charlesfrith)?
The first round of amnesty since the new govt was formed was as recent as May 17, 2011 when 14,600 prisoners were released including just 34 political prisoners. July 2005 stands out as exceptional when the regime tried for the Chair of ASEAN the first time round since out of around 400 released 341 were political prisoners.
Quality comment or not?
1
0
I stand corrected.
Contrary to prevailing sentiment I like being proved wrong so I thank you for that. However the Burmese government does lock up a lot innocent people so letting them go has, I imagine, less of a contrition factor than in other parts of the world.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
“Amnesty in any form is good locally”.
Looking the gift horse in the mouth by yahoos among New Mandala posters prove “never enough” attitude towards present Myanmar government action.
Because of this amnesty x # of families will be happy.
If AI and leery individuals can not see and appreciate this benefit to the citizenry then what do they really stand for in the arena of “HUMANITIES”?
Quality comment or not?
1
0