An interview with ABFSU Information Committee member Ma Khin Ni, on the ABFSU’s strong opposition against the ‘Civil Service Law on the Civil Disobedience Movement’
The All Burma Federation of Student Unions (ABFSU), Generations’ Solidarity Coalition of Nationalities (GSCN), Democracy Movement Strike Committee (DDMSC), and the University Teachers’ Union Representative Committee have individually issued statements opposing the Civil Service Law on Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM), which was enacted by the Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (CRPH) on 13 June, claiming it deviates from fundamental human rights and democratic principles.
Shanni Voice spoke with Ma Khin Ni, a member of the ABFSU Information Committee, to learn more about the reasons for opposing this law, perspectives on the law, its benefits and drawbacks, whether it benefits the Spring Revolution, and what impacts it may cause.
Q: We’ve seen that the ABFSU has issued a statement strongly opposing the Civil Service Law on the CDM enacted by the CRPH. Could you first explain why you oppose this law?
A: We have carefully reviewed the CRPH’s Civil Service Law. There are parts we agree with, but there are also aspects we must oppose. The opposition stems primarily from Chapter 4, which deals with punitive actions, including the non-recognition of civil service examinations and the exclusion of appointments made during this period. If they believe these appointments lack qualifications, they could conduct a review process. It’s possible to reassess both those who return to work and those previously appointed. However, treating non-CDM as if they committed a crime, or subjecting them to scrutiny as if they have violated something, is unnecessary. We don’t believe they should be equated or treated in this manner. That’s our position.
They could conduct a review process. Another issue is that the law mentions taking action against offenses. In the context of civil service, offenses like corruption—whether external or otherwise—aren’t new issues that only emerged after the military coup. They may have increased since the coup, but these offenses existed before as well. So, it’s possible to review past offenses as well. Lastly, regarding non-CDM individuals, whether they are involved in CDM or accused of committing crimes like murder, we believe that instead of labeling and punishing them as “non-CDM,” the focus should be on addressing criminal acts or those involved in the military’s killings. This applies not just to non-CDM individuals but to anyone, regardless of their role or position, who is involved in such crimes. Action can be taken against them accordingly.
Labeling and punishing people as “Non-CDM” is unacceptable. We can’t equate Non-CDM status with those who have committed criminal offenses. Treating Non-CDM as some kind of virus that needs to be dealt with in this manner is not right. These actions can have significant negative consequences, both now and in the future. That’s why we have serious concerns about this law. Another issue is in Chapter 7, the first paragraph, which states that Non-CDM individuals, after the military coup, must publicly apologize for their stance. It also says that these apologies must be made in accordance with government directives.
If we look at the law as a whole, based on the points I have mentioned, it appears to broadly assume that Non-CDM government employees are to be punished under the law. In reality, there are only three groups we should be taking action against that uphold the military dictatorship system: pillar of support for the military, the military regime and military bureaucracy. These are the groups involved in the military’s mechanisms of killing, oppressing, and imprisoning the people. These are the people we should hold accountable. This is correct. When seeking justice for CDM participants, these groups should be the ones held responsible. Taking action against them is appropriate. However, we can’t equate these groups with Non-CDM individuals. We can’t assume that Non-CDM people are inherently these individuals and treat them as such.
Among Non-CDM individuals, some may just be doing their jobs. Some might be involved in the military’s oppressive mechanisms, while others are not. Even within the CDM group, if such distinctions exist, broadly categorizing people for punishment under the law is not appropriate. We shouldn’t be dividing and labeling people as CDM or Non-CDM. If Non-CDM individuals are simply working and their actions haven’t caused the death, imprisonment, or oppression of any civilian, there’s no need to take action against them. However, this law seems to have the opposite effect. As I mentioned earlier, even if someone has participated in other resistance activities, the law requires Non-CDM individuals to apologize publicly for their stance, in accordance with government directives, as explicitly stipulated in the law.
From this perspective, it appears that this law was enacted with the assumption that Non-CDM individuals are obstructing the Spring Revolution. This goes beyond mere discrimination—it’s a deliberate form of segregation. Such actions undermine the revolution’s mobilization efforts. Among Non-CDM individuals, there could be those who can be persuaded to join the resistance forces. To mobilize them, we need to keep the door wide open and genuinely welcome them. But currently, instead of welcoming them, it feels like a sword is poised above their heads, ready to strike. When we voice our opposition, some argue back, pointing to the amnesty clause. They claim that if someone contributes to the revolution, their punishment will be reduced. This suggests that this is a form of welcoming and opening the door for mobilization.
However, provisions like those in Chapter 7, which require at least a public apology in accordance with government directives, are designed to humiliate and harm individuals. It states that all Non-CDM individuals must do this. Equating Non-CDM status with criminal offenses in this way is like a virus that’s already spreading. It leads to Non-CDM individuals being broadly labeled as criminals, which can happen even now. This approach is entirely incompatible with the idea of revolutionary mobilization. It not only fails to open the door for mobilization but also makes things worse. It’s outright intimidating and in no way conducive to mobilization efforts.
The last point is about situations where persuasion isn’t possible. Even if we can’t persuade them, there’s nothing we can do about it. One thing is for sure: we can’t take action against civilian Non-CDM individuals who haven’t harmed any civilian. Punishing someone, such as a student who is simply studying or working, or forcing them to apologize in accordance with directives, is unacceptable. They have their freedom to choose. Our participation in the revolution is also a choice we have made. Their decision not to join is their choice as well. Even those of us who joined the revolution didn’t do so because it was required by law; we joined based on our beliefs. These choices will one day be recorded in history. It’s understandable to feel disappointed with those who didn’t join, regardless of their role.
The essence of the revolution is to liberate everyone oppressed under the military dictatorship—both those who participate and those who don’t. We can’t treat those who don’t join as enemies just because they differ from us. That’s what the military does—taking action against, arresting, or killing anyone who doesn’t support or opposes them. We are not fascists. We can’t follow in the military’s footsteps, not even in the least. These actions will gradually undermine the revolution’s momentum. They will create severe consequences, both now and in the future. That’s why we are opposing this law. To sum up, we oppose this law for three reasons: first, it’s not conducive to mobilization; second, it violates people’s right to freedom of choice; and third, it follows the military’s mindset of “if you’re not with me, you’re my enemy.” That’s why we are opposing the CRPH’s law.
Q: Chapter 4 of the law, regarding punitive actions, states that only civil servants who participated in the CDM between 1 February 2021, and 30 April 2021, will be recognized as CDM participants. Those who joined the CDM after this period will only be recognized as such after providing reasons and undergoing a review process. What is the ABFSU’s view on this provision?
A: In our view, anyone can join the revolution at any time—there’s no such thing as being “too late.” Our strategy should be to persuade those in the middle ground and isolate our common enemy. Non-CDM people are part of that middle ground. We need to keep the door open and encourage them to join the revolution at any time, without restrictions. Setting a cutoff date for CDM participation and legally defining when it’s acceptable to join is like undermining our own strength. Such an approach only benefits the enemy. What we should be doing is weakening the enemy as much as possible while strengthening our side to the greatest extent possible.
CDM participants also face life-threatening oppression, while Non-CDM individuals are also oppressed in different ways under the military dictatorship. Both groups are oppressed under this system, just in different forms. Civilian Non-CDM individuals are in a situation where they fear both the military and the revolutionary forces. This situation must be avoided. We need to mobilize them as gently as possible, ensuring that Non-CDM individuals and the broader public grow to trust and rely on us. This is the responsibility of resistance organizations. Resistance groups can only sustain themselves in the long term with the support of the people, and we must always keep this in mind.
Q: The law states that it was enacted with the aim of providing remedies for CDM participants who made sacrifices and took risks. Do you see this as a law that truly provides remedies for CDM participants? What is your view on this?
A: If we look at the law, we see provisions for honoring CDM participants, recognizing their efforts, providing remedies, and seeking justice. We welcome these aspects. The losses, confiscated assets, and various hardships faced by CDM participants during this period need to be addressed and compensated, and we welcome the fact that the law stipulates these measures. If these can be effectively implemented, it’s a positive step. These are not just tasks for the post-revolution period but issues that need to be addressed during the revolution itself. Currently, CDM forces are scattered, and we need to consolidate them into a strong, cohesive CDM force that can actively participate in the revolution at a higher level. We need to build mechanisms to ensure they can fully engage in the revolution. If these measures can be effectively implemented, it would help address the challenges faced by CDM participants and provide meaningful remedies. If this law can truly be put into action, it’s a good thing, and we have no objections to it. However, one thing needs to be clearly understood: retaliation and remedies are not the same. While the law includes provisions to address challenges and compensate for losses, it also contains a significant focus on retaliatory measures. These do not contribute to remedies. During both the revolution and the post-revolution period, we have a lot of work to do. In this context, we should focus on addressing the challenges faced by our resistance forces and prioritize the most essential tasks. Taking action against Non-CDM individuals or contemplating retaliation is neither necessary nor productive. Such actions will not produce outcomes that provide meaningful remedies for CDM participants.
Q: The ABFSU’s statement warns that, as a consequence of this law, discrimination against Non-CDM individuals and students in resistance-controlled areas could worsen. What kind of consequences does this refer to?
A: In the current context, we see resistance groups engaging in acts of oppression, bullying, and in the worst cases, killing civilians. Specifically, Non-CDM individuals are being subjected to unlawful killings, threats, and attacks simply for working or studying. These incidents are already happening. If a law like this, which mandates action against Non-CDM individuals, is enacted, it will worsen these issues. Even now, there’s confusion about how to handle Non-CDM individuals, equating them with those who commit criminal acts. In such a climate, those with extreme authoritarian or militaristic tendencies could take advantage, acting arbitrarily and intensifying abuses against Non-CDM individuals.
This is detrimental to both the revolution and the people. These issues are already present during the revolutionary period, and we cannot predict how they might escalate in the future. Right now, instead of policies targeting Non-CDM individuals, we should focus on addressing resistance forces that are unlawfully killing and threatening people. Laws should be enacted to prevent such actions, not to address far-off post-revolution scenarios that may take years to materialize. The immediate priority is to tackle the ongoing problems—unjust killings and threats against Non-CDM individuals by resistance forces. These are the issues that need to be addressed. That’s why we’ve stated that if these consequences arise, the CRPH must bear responsibility, as we’ve emphasized in our statement.
Q: So, does the ABFSU believe that the Public Service Law on the Civil Disobedience Movement will benefit the Spring Revolution? Do you think this law should exist? What is your perspective on this?
A: We believe this law is causing a division among the public during this period. As mentioned earlier, the potential negative consequences of this law are crippling both the revolution’s mobilization efforts and undermining the unity of the people. The essence of the law—its failure to support mobilization, its encouragement of retaliation, and its tendency to follow the military’s footsteps—can’t bring any benefits to the revolution. It can only lead to negative outcomes.
Q: The law is said to be based on the NUCC’s CDM policy. Given the criticisms and objections to this law, do you think the NUCC should collectively review and provide recommendations on it? What suggestions would you make to the NUCC?
A: It’s true that the law is said to be based on the NUCC’s CDM policy. However, the issue is that this law emerged from the Joint Consultative Committee on CDM (JCC-CDM) network and was drafted based on NUCC’s framework, but it faced objections from both JCC-CDM and NUCC. We, the ABFSU, were part of those objections, not just as ABFSU but through our representative in the GSC, who also opposed it. Other organizations also raised objections within both JCC-CDM and NUCC. Due to these objections, the law could not proceed as intended.
So what happened? From what we know, they sought opinions at the CDM civil servants’ conference. But instead of those opinions being fed back to NUCC or JCC-CDM, they went ahead and approved the law on their own. So, while it originated from NUCC’s policy, because there were objections, it became something they just pushed through on their own. The NUCC was no longer in a position to make any decisions regarding it, so the NUG and CRPH made the decision instead.
Q: Does the ABFSU have any additional comments on the Public Service Law on the CDM?
A: The revolution is a long journey, and it’s not yet successful. There are still many steps ahead. At this stage, focusing on punishing or forcing apologies from those who haven’t joined the revolution is not something we should be considering. Such actions only weaken our strength and risk adopting a fascist-like mindset. It’s deeply regrettable that those in leadership roles are issuing such laws.
From the ABFSU’s perspective, both CDM participants and non-participants, including civilian public servants, are equally oppressed under the military dictatorship. Therefore, we stand for the rights of both sides. We fight for CDM participants, but we also oppose punishing or discriminating against Non-CDM participants. Instead, we aim to mobilize as many people as possible to join our side, isolating the common enemy—the military dictatorship— to the greatest extent possible while continuing the struggle.
Sent by Shanni Voice.