In Burma, Internal Spy Network Lives On

In Burma, Internal Spy Network Lives On
TODD PITMAN / AP WRITER, Monday, July 29, 2013


MANDALAY — It’s been two years since Burma’s new government promised its people a more open way of life, but still they come, plainclothes state intelligence officers asking where former student activist Mya Aye is and when he’ll back.

Politicians, journalists, writers, diplomats, too, find themselves being watched: Men on motorcycles tailing closely. The occasional phone call. The same, familiar faces at crowded street cafes.

“It’s not as bad as it used to be,” said Mya Aye, who devotes much of his time today campaigning for citizen’s rights, “but it’s really annoying. They act like we’re criminals, harassing us, our families. It’s disrespectful and intimidating. It shouldn’t be this way anymore.”

Mya Aye was one of the student leaders of a failed uprising in 1988 against the repressive military junta that ruled for nearly five decades and employed a colossal network of intelligence agents to crack down on dissent.

In years past, he and thousands of other dissidents were hauled off to jail, instilling widespread fear in the hearts of a downtrodden population to ensure that nobody spoke out.

The level of oppression has eased markedly since President Thein Sein, a former army general, took office in 2011 after an opposition-boycotted election. But while many political prisoners have been released, newspapers are no longer censored and freedom of speech has largely become a reality, the government has not ceased spying on its own people.

“Old habits die hard,” said lawmaker Win Htein of the opposition National League for Democracy party, who spent nearly 20 years in prison during the military reign. He spoke to The Associated Press by telephone in a conversation he feared was being tapped by police.
Every day, six to eight officers from various security departments can be seen at a tea shop across the street from the opposition party headquarters, jotting down who comes and goes and snapping the occasional picture.

It is unknown how many intelligence agents are active nationwide, but at least two major information gathering services are still operating: the Office of Military Affairs Security and the notorious Special Branch police, which reports to the Ministry of Home Affairs.

A well-connected, middle-ranking officer, speaking on condition he not be named because he didn’t have authorization to talk to the media, said there are no top-down orders these days to follow a particular individual. Young, often-inexperienced agents instead are told to keep tabs on new faces or unusual movement in their “patch,” and then inform their bosses.
And so they do, often in crude or comic fashion, with little or no effort to be discreet.

When Associated Press journalists went to the city of Meikhtila to inspect a neighborhood destroyed by sectarian violence earlier this year, the watchers were everywhere, two men trailing close behind on motorcycles.

Yet more waited outside the hotel in Mandalay as the reporting team tried to find ways to lose them – finally entering a crowded temple and then slipping out the back – so they could interview massacre survivors so worried of being harassed by authorities that they would not even speak in their own homes.

Presidential spokesman Ye Htut insisted those days are over: “Special Branch is no longer monitoring on journalists.” Asked to comment further, he said the story is “based on false assumptions,” so he could not.

Human Rights Watch says intelligence gathering services tortured prisoners and detainees during military rule by using sleep deprivation or kicking and beating some of them until they lost consciousness. During another failed uprising, the 2007 monk-led Saffron Revolution, Special Branch officers videotaped and photographed protests, and then used the images to identify and detain thousands of people.

There are still reports of arrest, detention and sometimes torture, said David Mathieson, an expert on Burma for New York-based Human Rights Watch, but the number of incidents has fallen sharply, in part because activist groups and media report them when they happen.

State intelligence is still tracking targets out of “habit and continued paranoia,” he said. “The secret police are often the last people to embrace a transition, especially when so many of their past victims and opponents, such as former political prisoners and activists, are a central component of the transition and reform process.”

“The challenges for them now are that there are far more people to monitor, Burmese and foreigners, and a much less certain mission and confused political program,” he said. “Before 2011, the police, courts and military could use the rule of law to intimidate their opponents, cow journalists and throw critics in prison. They don’t have a green-light to do this anymore, so they have to be careful.”

Land rights activist Win Cho has his own way of dealing with the problem: He informs on himself.

“I just tell them everything I’m going to do,” he said. He often travels outside the city of Rangoon to advocate for farmers who are fighting against land grabs by the rich and powerful. “If we’re having a protest, I call the Special Branch and tell them where, when and how. Then they don’t bother following me. They know everything already.”

Local police also employ their own intelligence agents. One who followed the AP journalists in Meikhtila acknowledged following Win Htein in the same city in recent months, though he declined to say why. The opposition lawmaker had been critical of the failure of police and authorities to rein in sectarian violence there.

When an AP team visited a Muslim neighborhood in the western city of Sittwe, half a dozen police carrying assault rifles followed every step of the way, writing down everything they heard in notebooks. Police officers also appeared during interviews at camps for those displaced by sectarian violence – and sometimes afterward, asking whom the journalists had spoken to and what they asked.

Earlier this year, an obligatory three-man escort from the police anti-drug division, the Central Committee for Drug Abuse Control, tagged along when an AP team traveled with the UN drug agency through the rugged mountains of eastern Shan state.

They said they were there for the journalists’ safety in a region where an ethnic insurgency has thrived for decades. But they also filmed the journalists extensively during interviews with villagers. Every night, the police faxed a multipage handwritten report to their headquarters in the capital, Naypyidaw.

Asked why, the chief minder, police Maj. Zaw Min Oo, said: “We like to keep a record of what you do, who you talk to, what you eat … you are our guests.”

Analysis: China wary of Japan after Abe’s big election win | Asian Correspondent

Analysis: China wary of Japan after Abe’s big election win | Asian Correspondent
Michele Penna, Jul 25, 2013

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe triumphed in the election for the upper house earlier this week, with the Liberal Democrats obtaining 65 of the 121 seats up for grabs. Together with their smallerA Buddhist partner, they can now muster a majority in Parliament, which counts 242 seats. The Liberal Democratic Party must be rejoicing. But what does China – up to now rather at odds with the Japan’s new administration – think of it?

The Global Times, a traditionally nationalistic outlet, does not have much optimism to share. “Abe’s toughness against China will be further fuelled… It’s hard to ease the Sino-Japan relationship at large,” reads an article published on June 23. The paper dismisses Mr Abe’s declaration that the bilateral relationship between Beijing and Tokyo is one of the most important diplomatic connections to both sides as a cliché and foresees that China “shouldn’t expect any détente in the bilateral relationship during his term.”

Others, too, highlighted that a stronger administration in Japan could mean a tougher position on the international stage, much to the dismay of the Chinese government. China Daily wrote that “Abe is moving toward security policy changes that mark a big shift in a country that has prided itself on pacifist ideals even as it built up a military bigger than Britain’s. Among those changes are an expected reinterpretation of the constitution… Another is a review of defense policies that includes a consideration of acquiring the capability to attack enemy bases when an attack is imminent and no other options exist, and creation of a Marines division to protect remote islands such as those at the core of a heated territorial row with China.”

Opinions on Weibo, the Chinese Twitter, were not as many as one might expect, but those who took the time to comment were clear-cut in their thoughts. “War maniac! He should get a lesson!” wrote one. “The dog is about to come out and bite!” warned another. Taking a more balanced position, a netizen gave experts some food for thought in the debate on Asian nationalism: “the path Japan has taken looks more and more like that of Germany in 1931, what will happen next will be the legitimization of the army and its expansion. They will engage in provocations and move to oversea areas. The U.S. is like Chamberlain, supporting Japan in order to deal with China and nevertheless will become a victim. We must be aware of this trend.”

(READ MORE: New China coast guard ships seen in disputed area)

Mr Abe, the grandson of Nobusuke Kishi, prime minister of Japan from 1957 to 1960 and former member of the Tojo Cabinet during the Second World War, is outspoken about his plans to revive Japan’s role in international affairs. He does not shy away from nationalism: in the past, he said he was looking forward to replacing the 1995 apology offered by Tokyo to Second World War’s victims and government members have criticized the way in which history is taught in Japanese schools for a lack of patriotism.

Last Wednesday, in a show of patriotism right before the election, Mr Abe visited a vessel on Ishigaki, an island close to the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku group. He reportedly told the crew that “Japan faces a grim security environment because Chinese vessels are frequently sailing to areas close to our waters, and there are consistent provocations targeted at us… I will continue to take charge and defend our territory, territorial waters and territorial airspace.”

The most controversial move envisaged by Japan’s new leader is the modification of Japan’s pacifist Constitution, which everybody believes would cause anger among Beijing authorities. In June, the Prime Minister told the public he would raise the issue after the election. The chief target seems to be Article 9, according to which “Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes,” vowing that “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.” To be sure, Japan has an army, and a sophisticated one, too, but Tokyo cannot use it like other nations do.

While constitutional changes could be a major issue in the future, a short term irritant could be a visit to the notorious Yasukuni Shrine, where Japanese leaders convicted as war criminals are honored along thousands soldiers who died in the Second World War. As the anniversary of Japan’s defeat in the conflict on August 15 nears, eyes are fixed on the Prime Minister.

Manus Island, the new “promised land” for refugees seeking Australia | Asia News – Asian Correspondent

Manus Island, the new “promised land” for refugees seeking Australia | Asia News –  Asian Correspondent
Rowena Dela Rosa Yoon, Jul 20, 2013

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has come up with his own Papua New Guinea Solution to deal with boat arrivals containing people seeking asylum in Australia. In doing so he has scrapped predecessor Julia Gillard’s Pacific Solution Mark II and embarked on a bold move towards border protection while still operating within the parameters of the UN refugee convention.

Rudd sealed the deal with his counterpart, Papua New Guinea Prime Minister Peter O’Neill, in Queensland on Friday in a mutually beneficial pact: PNG will take in asylum seekers in exchange for a wide range of economic and social benefits, including funding assistance for education and health reforms, as well as security. The pact is reported to cost billions of dollars.

PNG will be the asylum seekers’ processing hub and refugees will be resettled in PNG. They will not be reverted back to Australia.

“Asylum seekers who are determined to be genuine refugees will therefore have a country of settlement, namely Papua New Guinea,” Rudd announced.

Rudd also projected a positive economic outlook for PNG as a result of the deal, although local people are reported to be pessimistic on the impact of overcrowding and severe “culture shock.”



Located in the north, Manus Island is the smallest province in PNG with an area of 2,100 square kilometres. As of a 2011 Census, it had a population of 50,321.

Rudd said the new pact would set ”no limit” to the number of people who will now be diverted to PNG, ignoring the fact that it is estimated that more than 15,000 asylum seekers have sought to arrive in Australia in the first six months of 2013.

Detention centres in Manus have been criticised for their poor living conditions. About 215 people live there in makeshift shelters and tents. The expansion of facilities on Manus Island is underway, including a 600-bed facility due for completion in January 2014. Manus Island can only accommodate a maximum of 3,000 people.

Japan vs. Australia: Whaling row | Asia News – Asian Correspondent

Japan vs. Australia: Whaling row | Asia News – Asian Correspondent
Graham Land, Jul 16, 2013

Australia’s recent anti-Japanese whaling appeal to the International Court of Justice in The Hague has resulted in diplomatic tensions between the two countries, with representative lawyers trading verbal barbs.

Australia’s claim that Japan’s whale hunt in the Southern Ocean in the name of scientific study is illegal and dishonest met with a rebuke from Japan’s legal representation, labeling the Australian argument as “an affront to the dignity of the nation”. Japanese counsel Payam Akhavan also hinted that Japan might leave the International Whaling Commission (IWC).

Whale meat for sale in Japan. Pic: akibubblet (Flickr CC)

From The Australian:

The session was the first of two days allowed for Japan to rebut Australia’s central claim – that Japan’s whaling program is commercial rather than scientific.
Australia has argued that it is not necessary to kill whales for research and the fact that the meat from the program is eaten is proof that it is commercial whaling in disguise.

Japan’s diplomatic response is that it cannot carry out the necessary research by non-lethal means. Its lawyers have furthermore accused Australia of imposing its own culture and culinary preferences on the rest of the world. Australian Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus maintains that it’s all about what is legal in terms of the IWC treaty of which Japan is a signatory 

Is this an issue of Western neo-colonial attitudes and moral posturing or simply the law? Honestly, I think it has elements of both. Three Western European countries, Iceland, Norway and the Faroe Islands (technically a self-governing territory of Denmark), continue to practice whaling, but they are not signatories of the IWC treaty and therefore only a moral, not a legal, argument is relevant. This also downplays an Eastern vs. Western dichotomy regarding the morality of whaling.

Whale hunt turns sea red at Hvalba beach, Faroe Islands. Pic: Inf-Lite Teacher (Flickr CC)

Read this ho-hum defense of Japanese whaling in the Japan News. It basically echoes Payam Akhavan’s defense in The Hague.
Yet it is clear that Australia is not simply interested in Japan following the letter of the law, but wants whaling banned outright. It is of course not buying the whole spiel that research whaling requires the killing of between 500 and 1,000 whales per year and that the selling of whale meat in shops and restaurants is just a convenient by-product.
This WWF statement sums up the argument against lethal whaling for scientific purposes:

Since the whaling treaty was signed there have been great scientific advances that allow data about whales to be obtained through non-lethal means. The International Court of Justice has heard abundant evidence on why hunting hundreds of whales in the Southern Ocean is not necessary for science
In this day and age there is no reason to kill whales for scientific research and WWF strongly hopes for a positive ruling by the court that will end whaling in the Southern Ocean.
–Wendy Elliott, species programme manager WWF

The public hearings on the case in The Hague are now closed. We will have to wait perhaps several months for the judges to deliberate and deliver a verdict.

Abolishing Burma’s feared border force: PR or reform? | Asian Correspondent

Abolishing Burma’s feared border force: PR or reform?
Francis Wade Jul 15, 2013

Surprise news arrived on Sunday with a statement from President Thein Sein’s office announcing the disbanding of NaSaKa, the feared security force that has manned Burma’s border with Bangladesh (and previously the Chinese and Thai borders), and attracted fierce criticism for its treatment of civilians in western Burma. It was always seen as symbolic of the Burmese military’s evil – a force that acts with total impunity and indifference towards the suffering of those it is meant to ‘protect’. Formed of a toxic marriage between the police, army, customs and immigration offices, it has long been unclear to whom it answers, and likely deliberately so.

So the announcement appears a positive step. A quick Google search of the word will give an idea of why it’s held in such fear in Arakan state, and why its departure would bring much relief: razed villages, mass rapes and extrajudicial killings are included in its repertoire. It’s the kind of shadowy group with a malleable remit that can induce, to great effect for a central government whose control of the peripheries has always been shaky, perpetual terror among civilians.

But as with any ‘development’ in Burma, there is equal cause for concern. The timing of the announcement, coinciding with Thein Sein’s trip to the UK, is clearly tactical. The UK government has been quite explicit with its feelings about Naypyidaw’s treatment of the Rohingya, who along with Arakanese have felt quite brutally the agenda of NaSaKa.

“Disbanding the NaSaKa is a good way to soften the blows he [Thein Sein] will receive on that, without really having to do anything substantial to improve the situation of the Rohingya,” says David Mathieson from Human Rights Watch.

The fear is that it could just be a name change – that the personnel could regroup under a different banner. Burma is no stranger to this – see the Border Guard Forces in the country’s east, for example, who are merely members of formerly government-aligned militias brought into the ‘legal fold’, with little done to reform their bad ways.

What’s also apparent with the NaSaKa incident is some face-saving on the part of the government. Thein Htey, the general recently sanctioned by the US for coordinating ongoing weapons deals with North Korea, had been the former Minister for Border Affairs, ostensibly the NaSaKa boss. “It’s nothing more than removing a target organization that became too controversial and a PR liability,” says Burmese academic Maung Zarni. He suggested it might also be a way to divert attention from a press bill just approved by the Lower House that does little to break with past censorship laws, and effectively bans criticism of the military-drafted 2008 constitution.

And in turn, it works very well for the UK, which recently announced it would begin military engagement with Burma. The abolishment of NaSaKa takes away some of the controversy surrounding the engagement, which is probably more to do with geostrategic concerns, but still cloaked in human rights chat.

And again, it offers the pretense of a reform effort in the Burmese military that is not actually happening. Those NaSaKa personnel won’t be retiring from active duty, but will probably be reassigned. And even if they’re withdrawn from Arakan state and placed elsewhere, the same police and military that have made life so miserable for Arakanese and Rohingya will remain, guided by the same mentality towards civilians that really should be the target of reform. “In the absence of accountability for the crimes committed by Nasaka soldiers, the utility of their disbandment is highly limited,” says Matthew Smith, executive director of Fortify Rights International. “There is nothing to prevent the next security force from simply replicating Nasaka’s abusive ways, particularly if it comprises the same soldiers.”

Most Islamic countries in the world are non-Muslim | Malaysia Today

Most Islamic countries in the world are non-Muslim | Malaysia Today

LETTERS/SURAT, Thursday, 11 July 2013

Radical Muslims should be careful that the Christians they imagine lurking under their beds may turn out to be better Muslims than themselves.
Yin Ee Kiong, Malaysiakini (Published in 2011)

What makes a good Islamic country? Is it one where the people dress conservatively (or even severely in the case of women), adhere strictly to the rituals of Islam, where shariah laws apply?

Or is a good Islamic country one that keeps to the substantive teachings of Islam, more concerned with the content rather than the form of the religion? Where fairness, justice, honesty are the cornerstones of government policies and of its citizens' daily dealings.

How is a good Muslim judged? By the number of times he prays a day, by how assiduously he keeps to the rules? Or by how he lives the true meaning of his faith?

A study by Scheherazade S Rehman and Hossein Askari from George Washington University, published in the Global Economy Journal Vol 10 drew surprising conclusions.

The study examined if policies of Muslim countries (or Muslim majority countries) were founded on Islamic principles in comparison to non-Muslim countries. 208 countries were studied.

The criteria: economic opportunity, economic freedom, corruption, financial systems and human rights were used to measure the level of 'Islamicity' (based on an information website about Islam and Muslims).

The study found that most Islamic countries did not conduct themselves according to Islamic principles concerning economic, financial, political, legal, social and governance issues.

This is reflected in the governments in those countries but also the practices of the citizens in their daily dealings. Even at a social level it was found that many non-Muslim countries did much better in keeping to Islamic values.

The most ‘Islamic' country the study found was actually non-Muslim – New Zealand. Luxembourg came second. The top 37 countries in the study were all non-Muslim.

Imaddudin Abdulrahim, one of Indonesia's leading thinkers on Islamic monotheism claimed that Ames, a small city in Iowa, represents an exemplar of an Islamic state.

Yet Islam does not play a part in the day-to-day social, economic and political life of the city. The population does not observe Islamic rules on food or dress.

Imaddudin was not interested in form; he used parameters which reflect what he considered true Islam – trust, justice, fairness, freedom.

He found that people did not lock their doors when they went out and yet no one trespassed.

If you returned a broken egg to the grocer he accepted that it was broken when you bought it and replaced it without question.

People were honest in their dealings irrespective of the value of the transaction.

The government was fair and non-discriminatory. People were accepting of ethnic or religious differences.

He saw Islam beyond shariah and beyond its textual appearances. He was more concerned with the substantive elements of the religion.

Recently I enquired through a friend the possibility of getting a scholarship (from a certain university funded by a Muslim tycoon) for an Indian girl who had done very well in her exams but whose parents were poor and unable to send her to university. I was told in no uncertain terms that scholarships were only given to Muslims.

How does this reflect the true values of Islam?

When I was in Sudan I visited villages where artesian water was pumped out by equipment donated by Christian charities. I saw clinics and schools built and maintained by Christian foundations. Every village involved was however 100 percent Muslim!

Is there anywhere in any ‘Christian' country where Muslims are forbidden to build mosques? As long as they comply with the local building codes they have every right to do so and the law will protects their rights.

Yet this is not the case in many Muslim countries. No wonder so many non-Muslim countries score higher than Muslim ones based on Islamic principles.

It's no use spouting chapter and verse of the Quran if our deeds do not match the words we mouth.

We can follow all the rituals – fast, do the haj, pray five times a day, abstain from non-halal food, and cover ourselves. They all count for little if our deeds do not reflect the values of the religion.

If we are corrupt, if we discriminate against others because of ethnicity or religion, if we deny freedom of worship to others or even to one's own, are we living by the true values of Islam?

Are our economic policies geared to help those at the bottom of the ladder or do they benefit the top disproportionately? Is our political system fair?

Do we respect human rights? Have we an untainted legal system? Is our governance transparent and accountable?  Are we tolerant of other religions and not impede their practice?

By any of the above criteria Malaysia has failed to live up to Islamic principles.

The authorities obstruct the building of non-Muslim places of worship – or even demolish them.

Christians are persecuted on dubious grounds. Our government discriminates on race and religion. Corruption is rife especially in high places.

The poor (the majority of whom are Malays) are left behind while the rich get richer. There is no respect for human rights and the political system is skewed.

On every count we fail to live up to Islamic values.

Lately radical Muslims have started to see ‘Christians under the bed' – an Islamic form of the infamous McCarthyism of the fifties in the US.

They imagine that Christians are out to proselytise their fellow believers. They don't believe that other Muslims can be more sophisticated than they and can make up their own minds what to believe in.

More than that, they demand Christians desist in doing whatever may remotely be a threat to them.

If these people were in charge in Sudan there would have been a lot of thirsty people and a lot of people without medicine and children without schooling.

I suppose they will now pass a fatwa that no Muslims must go to Christian hospitals. The Seventh Day Adventist Hospital in Penang has been servicing the people for a long time and a lot of Muslims use the hospital.

There are symbols of Christianity everywhere and there are Bible tracts for those who want to read them.

Going by recent events the hospital could be charged with proselytising. If so I think they would have failed miserably - I doubt a single Muslim patient has converted.

You go to a hospital because you are sick and because you think it gives good service. You send your children to a school because you think it gives your children the best education, you drink because you are thirsty, you don't care who paid for the pump that brought the water out.

Religion does not come into the reckoning for most people in this way.

Conversely you provide care irrespective of that person's religion or give scholarships because the person is poor and deserving, irrespective of her skin colour or her religion.

If Malaysia lives up to the real values of Islam and not its superficiality, the country would be much better off.

Radical Muslims should be careful that the Christians they imagine lurking under their beds may turn out to be better Muslims than themselves.
But then maybe that's the crux of the problem, they are being exposed for what they are, faux Muslims.

Religious upbringing of children in Muslim-Christian marriages | Malaysia Today

Religious upbringing of children in Muslim-Christian marriages | Malaysia Today
SPECIAL REPORTS, Friday, 05 July 2013

Islam does not permit the father to neglect giving his children a Muslim upbringing. It is important to remember, though, that a Muslim upbringing does not force a child to live his entire life as a Muslim. A Muslim upbringing simply prepares the ground for the child's adulthood. Ultimately, when the child reaches maturity, he will make his own decision regarding which faith to follow.  

Shaykh Hamza Karamali

QUESTION

Dear Sir,

I have a question concerning religious education of children in Muslim-Christian partnerships.

I know that the dominant opinion among the Muslim community is that these children have to be raised solely as Muslims. As far as I am aware, this is not explicitly stated in the Qur’an, but based on the following assumptions:

1) Every child is a Muslim at birth. Only the parents and/or its environment make it to follow any other religion than Islam. Thus, the inherent and therefore right religion of every child is Islam.

2) The Qur’an explicitly states how children should be taught about religion e.g. with regard to learning prayers at a certain age etc. Because these are general statements, children born to parents who are not both Muslims are no exception either. These rules also exclude the Christian partner from teaching the children about her religion in the same way as the Muslim partner is obliged to do.

3) A Muslim man can marry a Jewish or Christian wife, but not the other way round. In the male-dominated society at the time of Prophet Muhammad, it was supposed that a Muslim woman might experience difficulties in practising her religion having a husband who would not acknowledge Islam and its Prophet, whereas a Muslim husband would appreciate Judaism and Christianity and thus ensure that his Jewish/Christian wife could continue practising her religion. However, the husband’s dominance over his family would also imply that children would be brought up in his religion. Thus, the tolerance of a Muslim husband towards his wife practising her religion would not entail her passing on this religion to the children.

Leaving aside all practical and emotional difficulties arising from this “Islam only” stance with regard to education of children for Muslim-Christian marriages, I am aware that there are also Islamic theological positions justifying the teaching of both religions to children (and subsequently allowing them to choose one themselves once they are old enough).

Would you, please, let me know what verses in the Qur’an these are based upon and how their theological reasoning is? I would be grateful if you could, please, go into some detail in this. Also, it would be interesting to know which respected scholars hold this opinion.

Thank you very much for your help.

ANSWER

Thank you for your question. I pray that this message finds you in the best of health and spirits.

The tolerance of Islam to other religions is--as you point out in your question--borne out in the permissibility of Muslim men to marry Christian or Jewish women. The nature of a successful marriage relationship is one of friendship, love, and genuine concern for one's spouse, and non-Muslim wives are not an exception to this rule.

However, there is a difference between one's non-Muslim wife and between one's child from the non-Muslim wife. The wife is a mature adult who has the ability to reason things for herself and then choose her own belief. Her God-given ability to reason implies the freedom to choose her faith. God Almighty says in the Qur'an, "Let whosoever wishes believe, and let whosoever wishes disbelieve." (18:29)

Children do not have the ability to reason independently. Rather, they are innocent pieces of clay waiting to be moulded into whatever form their parents desire. Parents are responsible to give them the best upbringing possible to best prepare them for their lives as adults. It is not, for example, acceptable for the father to neglect educating his child and to say instead that "he can grow up and learn to read and write if he wants to." For him to not educate his child would put the child at a tremendous disadvantage when he grows up. This would constitute parental neglect.

Muslims believe that God gave all humans the ability to freely choose whatever faith they please. This freedom of choice does not, however, imply that they believe every choice to be equally good. A Muslim father believes that his Christian wife has the freedom to choose her faith. But he also believes that her choice is not the best one--that's why he retains his Muslim faith.

For a Muslim father not to give his child a Muslim upbringing would therefore constitute parental neglect on his part because the child will be at a disadvantage compared to other children who will have a "head start" over him through their Muslim upbringing. For this reason, Islam does not permit the father to neglect giving his children a Muslim upbringing.

It is important to remember, though, that a Muslim upbringing does not force a child to live his entire life as a Muslim. A Muslim upbringing simply prepares the ground for the child's adulthood. Ultimately, when the child reaches maturity, he will make his own decision regarding which faith to follow. Belief is something in people's hearts and is beyond the reach of compulsion.

I hope this answer helps clarify matters for you. Please don't hesitate to follow up with further questions if something remains unclear.

Sincerely,

Shaykh Hamza Karamali, SunniPath Academy Teacher

Burma Lower House endorses controversial media bill | Asia News – Asian Correspondent

Burma Lower House endorses controversial media bill | Asia News – Asian Correspondent
Zin Linn, Jul 05, 2013

The Printing and Publishing Enterprise Bill submitted by the Ministry of Information with amendments was approved at Thursday’s Lower House of Parliament session, the state-run New Light of Myanmar newspaper reported today.

“As the fourth pillar, the media play an essential part in the democratization processes. I am also a former media person and still  contribute an article every Monday for the Yangon Times Daily.  The government needs to protect the media and its freedom. This law can protect publishers. However, we need to do our best to upgrade media law up to an international standard,” said Thein Nyunt of Thingangyun Constituency.

The Lower House approved the controversial Printing and Publishing Enterprise Draft Law, even though members of the interim press council argue that the bill still includes measures that hinder media freedom. However, the bill has many supporters.

Khaing Maung Yi of Ahlon Constituency  said, “The press bill is urgently needed. It is essential for the smooth functioning of publishing business enterprises. The bill willbring benefits to people, printers and publishers.”

According to Democratic Voice of Burma, Interim Press Council member Zaw Thet Htwe said the press body is holding an emergency meeting on Friday in response to the Lower House’s approval of the draft media law.

Several journalists, along with the Committee For Freedom of Press (Myanmar) gathered at a media workshop at the Yuzana Garden Hotel in Yangon on March 12 calling on the government to revoke the draft Printing and Publishing Bill. (Photo: Committee For Freedom of Press (Myanmar) Facebook)

“During negotiations with the Ministry of Information, we pointed out clauses [that would limit press freedom] and we learnt that those clauses were still included in the draft law that was approved by the Lower House today,” said Zaw Thet Htwe.  “This means that the negotiations and discussions we had with the [ministry] were fruitless and this can hurt the cooperation between the Press Council and the Ministry of Information in the future. So we are going to talk with the Press Council members about how to deal with this.”

With the Lower House’s amendments, the draft law will have to pass on to Upper House for endorsement. If both Houses have the same opinion on the bill, then the Union Parliament has the power to enforce the draft legislation into law.

After the Ministry of Information submitted the draft law in February, journalists and watchdog agencies unleashed heavy criticism of the bill for containing provisions that pushed authoritarian measures that would allow for the continuation of censorship.

In March this year, three media groups – MJA, MJN and MJU – protested against the draft Printing and Publishing Law. It was drawn up by the Ministry of Information (MOI) submitted to Parliament on 27 February, 2013. They protested because MOI did not consult with media stakeholders before it put forward the draft bill to the House.

Several journalists, along with the ‘Committee For Freedom of Press (Myanmar)’, gathered at a media workshop at the Yuzana Garden Hotel in Yangon on March 12 calling on the government to revoke the drafted Printing and Publishing Bill.

The MOl’s draft bill strengthens government control over print media freedom. Many journalists say that it is no different from the 1962 Printers and Publishers Registration Law.

The President Thein Sein government wants to keep the country under limited or guided democracy while the greater part of population desires a genuine democratic change. Citizens continue to demand freedom of expression and association while the government is vetoing the people’s basic rights. Free press has had no chance so far in Burma.

The Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) says in its press freedom report (2013), “To date, there is not much tangible proof of media reform, apart from the dissolution of the Press Scrutiny and Registration Division, and the publication of private news dailies that began on April 1, 2013.”

International media watchdog groups have repeatedly urged authorities of Burma to revoke unethical laws governing freedom of expression. The government still needs to dump the 1962 Printers and Publishers Registration Law, the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act, article 505-B of the criminal code, the 1996 Television and Video Act, the 1996 Computer Science Development Act, the 1923 Officials Secrets Act and the 1933 Burma Wireless Telegraphy Act, which are still menacing press freedom.