With Burma's new Parliament having completed its first session, there is now an ongoing debate as to whether the country's first legislative branch in 20 years will promote an agenda that benefits the people and where the nation's democratic transition is heading. To get a first-hand account of the parliamentary session and perspective on how effective the new legislature has been and will be in the future, The Irrawaddy reporter Htet Aung interviewed Dr Aye Maung, chairman of the Rakhine Nationalities Development Party (RNDP) who was elected to the Amyotha Hluttaw (Upper House) of Parliament. Aye Maung is also the chairman of the Guarantees, Pledges and Undertakings Vetting Committee for the Upper House.

Dr Aye Maung

Answer: The Parliament has to be built on the foundation of the 20-year military administration. During the parliamentary session, the cabinet ministers, who are all members of the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), viewed their ruling period positively and protected themselves when answering all the questions.  Although our proposals would be beneficial to the people if the union government would carry out them, they were all blocked or rejected by the ruling government’s ministers to protect all of their state-building tasks which were carried out during the military rule in the absence of a constitution.      

But at least we have been able to begin a good tradition in Parliament, under which all the government ministers have to come and answer all the questions asked by the members of the Parliament (MPs). It shows the role of the ministers in this new system. In the next 6 months or one year, when the Parliament will go back in session, the union government ministers will again be questioned by the MPs, who will then prepare a set of questions regarding their respective regions. 

Such a question and answer session will become a good tradition and the minsters will have to pay due respect first to the speaker of the Parliament and speak in good terms in accordance with the Parliament's tradition. I just recalled an incident that happened in the Upper House in which a cabinet minister used inappropriate expressions when he answered the questions of the MPs and then the speaker of the House prohibited him immediately from using these words. What I mean is that no matter whether these ministers are elected or appointed, they have to pay due respect towards the Parliament and the MPs and to cordially respond to the MPs' questions on state affairs.

Q:  There has been no Parliament in the past 20 years and the people have not had any information about what the government is doing. Now after the emergence of the Parliament, the people have come to know the state affairs to some extent. Some people view the right to question the cabinet ministers as a rare chance that has never happened before. On the other hand, some argue that all the ministers protected themselves and their work by displaying a huge pile of statistical data and information, resulting in maintaining the status quo. What is your response to these two different views?

A:  There will always be two sides in viewing a thing. As I said before, we have to consider the fact that a good foundation has been established. When a situation has arisen for the people to voice their criticisms, they will be able to criticize the good and bad images of the Parliament by themselves. This will be to the benefit of all. All the discussions in the first Parliament session will be left as a historical record. In the interim time before the resumption of the second Parliament session, the MPs should study what issues they should raise and how they should approach the people to collect data on the issue. We should look into where the country is going and whether it is in accord with the Constitution. What shall be repaired? Are the government officers taking bribes? What is really happening on the ground? Are the people really enjoying their rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution? Do the people really have property rights, either for their moveable or non-moveable possessions? All these matters will likely be the questions in Parliament.

We shouldn't talk only about the union government. The Parliament should also look into whether the MPs are really representing the people of their constituencies or whether they are betraying their voters. For all these matters, the media will step in to investigate and criticize the performance of each individual MP. President Thein Sein mentioned in his first speech that the media is the fourth pillar of the nation. The media should also take a neutral stand to criticize all the good and bad aspects of the legislative, executive and judiciary bodies. We have to accept it. Whether or not we accept the 2008 Constitution, we have to demand the rights given by the Constitution gradually and to try to amend the Constitution.

Q:  There were weaknesses on the part of the MPs in their questions or proposals, which didn't provide accurate facts and figures in order to make them strong. What are your plans to have a more effective discussion in the next Parliament sessions?

A:  It is really important and the political parties must be systematic in their structures. To observe the situation at the grassroots level, we must have at least an R&D [Research and Development] department. To collect the accurate facts and figures, the parties also need the support of their local branch offices and the NGOs [non-government organizations] can also provide assistance. Later on, I will establish a research unit in my party.

Q:  The government has all the data and information of the development projects that they are carrying out in the country. As chairman of the Guarantees, Pledges and Undertakings Vetting Committee for the Upper House, do you have the right to get access to this information? How much authority can this committee exercise?

A:  The committee's duty and responsibilities are set already. The duty is that when a parliamentary committee has questions regarding the performance of the government, it can ask the respective minister to come and answer those questions in Parliament. In doing so, the Parliament can examine only the pledges that the minister made in front of the Parliament. There can be projects that the government is carrying out outside the Parliament, but the committees are in no position to examine them. We have to examine the pledges that the ministers made in their answers to the questions of the MPs and we can go to the place to which the pledge referred and examine it in the prescribed time frame. After conducting the inquiry, the committee has to submit its findings to the Parliament, which approves them with a majority vote and sends them to the President with the signature of the House Speaker. Identifying and enhancing the scope and authority of the Parliament in comparison with the other parliaments in the Asean [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] is the task that we have for the future in order to promote the role of Parliament to perform the act of “check and balance” against the administrative tasks of the government outside the Parliament.

Q:  Do you think this Parliament is indeed meaningful? What is your response to the skepticism that there is no change because the new government was formed by the same ministers from the military junta?

A:  In structure, it can't be seen as the same between the new and old governments. Although the players are the same, the rule is not. The president has already given the speech three times and we have to watch the consistency of his speech and deed. It is the responsibility of us all to watch whether the government keeps following its pledges correctly. Although the policies, but not the policymakers, have been changed, if they have the will to change their desire, feelings and visions, we can say that both the policies and the policymakers have changed after a period of time.

Q:  Before the emergence of the Parliament, there was an assumption that as the parliamentary system was designed to be a civil-military one, there would be an opportunity between the military and civilian MPs to build a mutual understanding. How can you describe the relation between the 25 percent military-appointed MPs and the civilian MPs in the previous Parliament sessions?

A:  Previously, I thought that the 25 percent military-appointed MPs would include some high-ranking military officials such as Maj-Generals and Brig-Generals and many Colonels, but in reality, they are majors and captains in their young ages. It is surprising, and the military may have an intention to send their younger new generation to engage in Parliament. In Parliament, they are just the listeners. But during the Parliament sessions, we were able to build a mutual relationship with them to some extent, based on some commonalities such as coming from the same birthplace, ethnicity and educational background. When we met outside the Parliament, they said that they can't speak out in Parliament this time and hoped to have their voice heard next time. If so, there will be questions from the side of the military-appointed MPs as well.

Despite the difference between the uniform and civilian clothes, it is necessary not to go in with a different way in mind. I found out that they also have their personal feelings because they were born to the families and relatives who are also part of the society. Especially if they are in the armed forces, their families have to rely on only  a single income source, and they have also many feelings between the high and low ranking officers among the armed forces. They live under a strictly disciplined society while we come from a relatively free society, so we are freer than them even in our way of speaking. I often noticed that their faces looked encouraged while we were discussing the state affairs in Parliament, while they had to keep their mouths tight all the time. In the future, we can build a mutual understanding with each other through these commonalities.