Download this chapter as PDF

12.1 Introduction

Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country.” Such freedom of movement is a fundamental right, upon which other human rights are contingent. As such, restrictions may only be imposed if they are based on law, pursue a legitimate objective, and are strictly necessary.

Throughout 2006, in direct and blatant contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC- the Burmese military junta) continued to tightly restrict, monitor and interfere with the movement of the Burmese population. This was especially true for villagers in rural ethnic areas, with areas of Karen and Mon State especially affected in 2006. In addition, members of particular communities, especially the Muslim Rohingya, were unjustly targeted with such restrictions. The SPDC also required other non-citizens, generally ethnic South Asians or Chinese, to obtain prior permission to travel internally. In addition, the movement of politically active people in the country was closely monitored and controlled.

The regime continued in its attempts to limit and regulate those allowed to leave the country through restrictions on the freedom of movement, the prohibitive costs of obtaining travel documents, the threat of punitive action, and the regular closure of official border crossings. Despite this, the country’s borders with China, Thailand, Bangladesh, and India remained porous throughout the year with significant undocumented migration and commercial travel occurring. Simultaneously, foreigners, including humanitarian agencies attempting to deliver much needed aid supplies, seeking entry and access to certain areas of the country, were faced with significant restrictions on their freedom of movement, to the point where many were unable to operate effectively.

Rights to assembly and association were also significantly curtailed by the regime in 2006, with the order prohibiting unauthorized outdoor assemblies of more than five persons enforced selectively. Despite obligations under domestic law and international treaties to recognize and respect the rights of workers, the junta has banned trade unions and labour organisations. Many political parties and social organisations have also been outlawed by the regime. Those that are allowed to exist have been denied the ability to function freely and securely. In particular, the regime has targeted their political opponents. Over the course of the year the SPDC continued to coerce National League for Democracy (NLD) and Shan Nationalities league for Democracy (SNLD) members to resign and arbitrarily renewed the house arrest of NLD leaders Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and U Tin Oo. In general, freedom of association existed only for SPDC approved organisations and Government Organised Non-Governmental Organisations (GONGOs) such as the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), which in fact rely on coercion for their membership. In turn these organisations coerce attendance at mass rallies supporting SPDC policies, as well as being complicit in the junta’s continued oppression of the Burmese population. (For detailed information concerning restrictions on fundamental freedoms for religious minorities, organisations and practitioners see Chapter 10: Freedom of Belief and Religion).

12.2 Restrictions on Villagers in Ethnic Minority States

“Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.”

                                             -Article 13, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

“He (DKBA Commander Mo Kyo) didn't allow the women to go to the river to bathe. He said that none of you can leave the village. If you leave the village, you have gone to give information to the KNLA... You can't go out in the forest. If we see anyone, we will shoot them or kill them.”

       - 50 year old Female Karen villager, from Bilin Township, July 2006 [17]

SPDC troops, as well as those of allied groups such as the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), severely restricted the movement of villagers in areas inhabited by ethnic minorities throughout 2006. Such moves were generally justified as a means to cut off food supplies, information and potential recruits to armed opposition groups. Measures imposed have included the establishment of stringent curfews or completely confining villagers to their respective villages; enforced through shoot on sight policies, erecting an extensive array of checkpoints, as well as the deployment of landmines and the compaction and fencing in of villages and relocation sites.

The dry season vehicle road between Kya In Seik Gyi and Kyone Doh in western Dooplaya, seen here in June 2006. Villagers using this road must pay ‘fees’ at a number of SPDC and DKBA checkpoints in order to pass. The fees are particularly heavy for vehicles or carts carrying goods, which local villagers say stifles all trade in the region. [Photo and caption: KHRG].

Throughout 2006, villagers were frequently required to obtain travel permits from the military and local authorities to travel outside their villages. Those found outside of their village without such documentation were liable to be fired upon, or at the very least subject to a large fine. Even compliance with such movement restrictions did not guarantee the villagers’ physical security. There were numerous reports of arrest, torture and extra judicial killings, being visited upon those in possession of a valid travel pass. [18] Villagers were required to pay for their permits which often only allowed one days travel, and no overnight stays outside of the village boundary, particularly in areas of continued resistance. At certain times, villagers struggled to obtain even a one day permit, with the SPDC military instituting total bars on any form of travel outside of their respective villages, and in some cases even banning movement within the village during the hours of darkness. [19] In less volatile areas villagers were often permitted one week passes. [20] Travel restrictions extended to what belongings a villager was allowed to have on their person whilst outside their village, with regulations imposed on the carrying of food, medicine, batteries and the use of flashlights; as these items are deemed to be useful to resistance forces. [21]

To monitor the movement of villagers and ensure compliance with restrictive travel policies, the SPDC set up and maintained numerous roadside check points in areas over which it had control. These checkpoints were generally manned by a few soldiers in a small bunker or bamboo hut and not only served as instruments of control but provided local troops with additional revenue. Even villagers with the necessary documentation were generally required to pay a small fee to pass. In 2006, it was reported that villagers living in the Shwegyin area of Pegu District and farming in Hsee Moo Hta area were not only forced to pay 2,000 kyat per month in order to obtain permission to leave their village, but were faced with ten checkpoints along the river, and seven on land between these two areas, with each checkpoint charging 200 kyat. Additional charges were generally imposed on any goods brought through the checkpoints.  [22] On top of such fees, villagers were susceptible to extortion at the hands of individual soldiers, expecting large bribes in order to grant right of passage.

The fencing in of villages, whereby outlying houses are dismantled and moved to a central location before a perimeter fence is placed around the village (through the forced labour of the villagers), is a further means utilised to check the movement of villagers. In November 2006, it was reported that many villages in Toungoo District had been ordered to erect such perimeter fences, leaving only three entry and exit points into their village. Villagers were assigned sentry duty at each gate, taking the names of all those who had left the village and when, allowing the SPDC to punish relatives, in lieu of the missing person, if they did not return within their allotted time. As such, the families of IDPs and refugees from these villages remained a high risk group throughout 2006. [23]

In addition, the relocation of communities to sites close to army bases in well garrisoned SPDC areas made it easier for the SPDC to monitor and control the movement of the population (as well as easier to demand forced labour, money, and goods.) Relocated villagers were often barred from returning to their old homes, even if they had been forced to leave before being able to collect all their belongings, or placed in uninhabitable relocation sites, with no clean water. [24] Even if allowed to return to their fields and plantations, they were frequently relocated a long way from their farms and passes issued for a limited number of days were insufficient to maintain their fields. As a result, villagers were often forced to find work as day labourers in the towns or villages near their relocation site. [25] In 2006, villagers in Hteh Htoo relocation site, Nyaunglebin District, complained that whilst they were barred from going out of the site, the SPDC soldiers had been looting their livestock, with 20 cows and buffaloes reportedly stolen between April and November 2006. [26]

In 2006, restrictions on freedom of movement in ethnic areas had grave consequences in other areas of villagers’ lives, and led to numerous infringements on their human rights. Primarily, they served as an enormous impediment to villagers’ ability to enjoy their right to an adequate standard of living. Those who own or work on farms and plantations and rely on revenue and foodstuff from these, as a majority of villagers do, had their very source of life cut off. Even the ability to travel to their farms on daily passes was not sufficient when harvest time required farmers to stay on their land for a period of two to three weeks. [27] Trade was also greatly hindered by such restrictions, creating large scale food security problems for villagers, and preventing them from earning any actual income. Often a situation arose where villagers’ only access to food was to buy it from the local SPDC troops at grossly inflated prices, who in many cases had simply harvested the produce from farms owned by the villagers in the first place.

This photo taken in late April 2006 shows part of Plaw Law Bler forced relocation site and surrounding fences. On the perimeter fences, note the construction with sharp bamboo spikes sticking out of the sides of the fence to make them impossible to climb over. The relocated villagers were forced to build these fences. [Photo and caption: KHRG].

Not only did the laying of landmines to control movement in these areas lead to injury and death, but restrictions on travel made it difficult for those injured by such devices, or in fact anyone who required care, to receive medical attention. In March 2006, in Toungoo District, a villager who stepped on a landmine was denied permission to rece ive treatment in Than Daung Gyi. He was told by SPDC troops that they did not wish him to be seen by foreigners. Perversely, foreign tourists were not permitted to visit this area throughout 2006. [28]

The areas where the tightest movement restrictions were imposed in 2006 were in northern Karen State (and eastern Pegu Division - see note on Karen State Disputed Areas of Demarcation in Abbreviations, Acronyms and Notes on Text), where the SPDC mounted offensives to establish control over areas in which the Karen National Union (KNU), and its armed wing the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA) maintained a presence; as well as southern parts of Mon State and areas of Tenasserim Division, where Mon resistance forces remained active. In these areas, stringent restrictions were mirrored by and in fact greatly contributed to increasing poverty and dire threats to food security. [29] (Movement restrictions were also severe in northern Arakan specifically targeting the Rohingya - for more information see, Section 12.3: Restriction on the Movement of the Rohingya).

The Karen Offensive

The SPDC launched its large scale offensive in the Districts of Toungoo, Nyaunglebin and Papun, northern Karen State in November 2005, and continued their operations throughout 2006. [30] Wholesale movement restrictions imposed in northern Karen State during the offensives were widely interpreted as being specifically designed to cut all contact between those living in the plains, under SPDC control, and those residing in the hills, including villagers, IDPs and the armed resistance forces, [31] in order to starve those in the hills down into the plains, where the SPDC could more easily control and exploit them. [32]

Traditionally villagers from the plains and those from the hills would come to markets and trade their produce. Through this system, both groups could access a variety of foodstuff and goods. [33] However, in 2006, those in the plains, under SPDC control, were barred from travelling without a pass and these were rarely granted. Checkpoints barred those from the hills to enter the plains, and concurrently villagers in the plains were ordered not to sell food or goods to those from the hills. Roads, between these two areas, continued to be closed throughout the year, and three bridges were dismantled further isolating those residing to the east of the Day Loh River. [34]

To ensure acquiescence to their restrictive demands, the SPDC deployed landmines along a north-south line, dividing Toungoo District between the eastern hills and western plains. This distribution of landmines reinforces the analysis that the SPDC’s intended aim was to limit the access of hill villagers and IDPs to food and supplies, forcing them to enter SPDC controlled areas, thus submitting themselves to forced labour duties and the SPDC’s extortionate demands. [35]

The entire system of restrictions meant that those in the plains were unable to tend to, and in fact forced to abandon, their crops and plantations and were also unable to trade for further goods that they required, creating large scale food scarcity. [36] Concurrently, villagers in the hills were unable to sell their vegetables robbing them of their only source of income. At the same time rice prices in the hills rose exponentially because of the inability of those in the plains to reach them. In August 2006, rice in these areas cost as much as thirty times that in the plains. [37]

Southern Karen State

The SPDC has justified travel restrictions in ethnic areas for decades as part of their ‘four cuts’ strategy to limit villagers’ support of, and communication with, armed resistance  groups operating outside the villages. [38] Movement restrictions in areas of Mon State and northern Karen State during 2006 were inarguably linked to the ongoing SPDC offensives in these areas. However, the situation in southern Karen State, during 2006, demonstrates that in the absence of significant active resistance the regime continued to impose oppressive controls on the movement of ethnic civilian populations. [39]

In the past year, many villagers in Dooplaya District, who had been forcibly relocated or displaced in the past, were permitted to return and re-establish their villages, but with a large number of conditions and restrictions. Scattered villages were made compact in order to better control their inhabitants, and villagers were only granted permission to visit their farms and plantations for a few days at a time, which was insufficient to protect and tend to their crops. Furthermore, the extensive system of SPDC, DKBA and Karen Peace Force (KPF) checkpoints in the area meant the transport of goods throughout the year was extortionately expensive due to the levies demanded from those who wished to pass. [40] As a further measure, villages throughout Dooplaya were ordered to send complete registers of household and village residents to the TPDC office and to provide these registers to every new military unit that arrived in their area. [41]

Similarly, in Thaton District, the SPDC and DKBA have spent the past decade consolidating control over the civilian population, with incumbent draconian movement restrictions being again heavily enforced in 2006. Increased DKBA activity within the district meant that most restrictions on the movement of villagers were in fact imposed through their command, with SPDC LID #101 and DKBA #333 Brigade, #999 Brigade, and the Central Security Battalion working together to enforce these restrictions. Reports given to KHRG have suggested that the SPDC paid the DKBA a large sum of money in return for their assistance in the imposition of tighter movement restrictions. [42]

Villagers were not permitted to leave their villages without permission and had to return to their villages before nightfall regardless, under threat of shooting. In order that movement restrictions be enforced, many villagers in Thaton District were ordered to construct fences around their village with limited entry and exit points. Outlying houses were also moved into more central positions inside of the fence. There were numerous checkpoints throughout the district, each demanding a fee to pass, and village heads were required to supply intelligence reports on the movement of villagers. [43]

In May 2006, the DKBA increased travel restrictions in the lead up to the rainy season, a crucial time for farmers. By the time the DKBA allowed farmers to travel to their fields, the rains had begun and much of their harvest yield for the year was lost. Beginning in June 2006, Commander Mo Kyo informed villagers that the DKBA would “take action” against those found outside of their village without the requisite permits. Permits were issued by the DKBA at a cost of 1,000 kyat and were generally only valid for a few days. [44]

The plight of residents in Dtah Meh Kee village during 2006, serves as an archetypal example of the strains such movement restrictions place on these agrarian communities. The village, in Thaton District, is made up of 20 households with the traditional occupation being to raise hill field rice crops. DKBA restrictions in 2006 meant they were unable to tend to their fields and as such yielded a grossly insufficient harvest. Residents were forced to become daily wage labourers on the farms of neighbouring villagers, where they earned a daily wage of 1,000 kyat. As a result, the villagers were forced to survive on watered down rice porridge for the rest of the year. [45]

Mon State

In southern Mon State, SPDC forces mounted an offensive in 2006 against an armed Mon splinter group operating in the southern part of Ye Township. Concurrently, SPDC TOC #3, from the Southeast Military Command, banned the travel of all villagers outside of their village. Many checkpoints were positioned along all major travel routes particularly along the Ye-Tavoy road and every villager wishing to travel was required to obtain a permit. Villagers, including children and women, were reportedly killed when SPDC troops sighted them outside of their villages. [46]

The implementation of total travel bans, whereby the SPDC completely ceased the issuance of travel permits, continued throughout the year, usually in response to instances of SPDC military engagement with the Mon splinter group. In December 2006, following the death of three SPDC soldiers, the entire population of 14 villages was completely confined to their respective village boundaries. Harvesting of paddy and rubber sap was greatly affected by this ban. [47] In Wear Kwao village, when betel nut plantations were ready for harvesting, the soldiers prevented the farmers from going to their plantations and instead sold their crops to local people as if they were their own; in some instances forcing stores to buy their cache, without any choice in the purchase or price. [48]

Villagers in Mon State also faced restrictions on their movements as a result of heightened security following a gas pipeline bomb attack in February 2006. The reported sabotage of the 210 mile long “Kanbauk-Myaingkalay” gas pipeline, by an unknown armed group near Kwan Hlar village, Mudon Township, occurred on 1 February 2006. The pipeline passes through a huge number of paddy fields, fruit plantations and rubber plantations all the way from Yebyu Township, Tenasserim Division through Mon State to Pa-an Township, Karen State. Following the reported sabotage, the SPDC barred villagers from crossing the pipeline, imposed night time curfews and greatly limited the movement of the general population in such a way that farmers were significantly obstructed in their efforts to maintain a livelihood. [49] Those villagers residing in southern part of Ye Township were not allowed to cross the pipeline, for at least the duration of February 2006. If found crossing in daylight they were informed they would be beaten, if crossing at night they would be killed, meaning many local farmers were forced to abandon their crops, situated on the other side of the pipeline to their place of residence. Whilst farmers in other areas were generally allowed to cross the pipeline during the day, this still prevented them spending the necessary time with their crops, often forcing them to hire more labourers, which they could ill afford. [50]

Shan State

A report published in January 2006 detailed the impact movement restrictions in Shan State were having on the livelihood of local inhabitants. Farmers in Mong Nai Township who had land far away from their home were not permitted to stay overnight in their fields. In order to get a day pass, they were forced to pay bribes to, either, the village headman, the police, the local SPDC LIB, or often all three. Even with a day permit, farmers were not allowed to take any lunch with them. The report also noted that different LIBs and patrols operative within the area were acting under differing orders. As such farmers in possession of a permit lacked any real security as they risked being shot at by those under a different command. As a result, many farms were abandoned within the area.

In addition, movement restrictions negatively impacted upon trade within Mong Nai Township, and consequently food security in the surrounding areas. The neighbouring district of Langhkur is known for its tobacco and sugar cane production and traditionally traders from Langkhur would travel to Mong Nai to buy the rice produced there. In 2006 it was forbidden to leave Mong Nai with rice or other foodstuffs. Road blocks enforced this order and those transporting rice along jungle routes risked being shot. [51]

Restrictions on Movement of Villagers - Partial List of Incidents for 2006

Arakan State

Please note: for further incidents, see Section 12.3: Restrictions on Movement of Rohingya.

On 26 January 2006, the SPDC, in Indin Village, near Maungdaw Township, imposed movement restrictions on the local population as part of a manhunt for a group who attacked their army base in order to free a detainee. Travel permits were withdrawn, and all travel in areas between Maungdaw and Rathedaung Townships was banned. The restrictions were in place until at least 5 February 2006. [52]

On 19 March 2006, local authorities in Buthidaung Township summoned religious authorities, village elders and VPDC members, from 12 village-tracts, and directed them to keep a watch on the movement of religious leaders. The authorities informed those at the meeting that they had information concerning the fact that around 1,000 religious leaders had entered Arakan. They ordered that the religious leaders were not to move from one village to another, and sentries were stationed around villages in order to monitor visitors. [53]

In May 2006, 15 men including Molvi Jaffar from Sadamaw village were arrested whilst visiting market in Sittwe. They were arrested by immigration officials for not holding village out passes and sentenced to six months in jail. [54]

On 19 July 2006, the SPDC military, NaSaKa, and police forces raided the homes of every house in the Shwezar quarter of Maungdaw Town (consisting of 5 smaller villages, Shwezar Mrauk, Shwezar Guna, Dayla Wra, Kanyin Chaung, and Aung Bala), blocking the roads and moving from house to house throughout the night.  At least 70 people, mostly Muslim, were arrested, either on suspicion, or for not having proper permission from their village councils to be staying in a different household or town.  The reason for the raid was unclear. [55]

In September 2006, it was reported that fishermen in Sittwe were forced to sell their catch to brokers on the banks of the river at much deflated prices. The fishermen were unable to disembark from their vessels in the absence of permits to visit Sittwe. [56]

On 4 September 2006, Mohammed Hussain of Bolati Village, Pauktaw Township, was arrested when he was found in Bogar Dill Village without a permit to leave his village. He was detained temporarily in Myuma Police Station Camp #1. [57] On 8 September 2006, he was sentenced, by a Sittwe Court, to two and a half years imprisonment with hard labour. [58]

In October 2006, an outbreak of diarrhoea in Arakan State, which claimed the lives of 41 children under 10 years old, over a 10 day period, was attributed to the consumption of unclean foods, which the children had foraged for. The families of the children had been unable to feed them since the SPDC banned travel to the local forest. Previously, roughly 90 percent of villagers in the Tawphyachaung area of Ponna Kyunt Township were employed as bamboo cutters. [59]

On 9 November 2006, NaSaKa forces raided three Muslim villages to check the family lists, birth rates, any visiting travellers or guests, as well as for other potential illegal activities. One raid in the village of Aukpru was led by NaSaKa Area #5 Commander, Major Than Thay, who ordered all road entrances blocked. Further raids were conducted in Kran Soe Ree and Wra Thik villages in Aungtha Bray Village Tract. At least 8 villagers were arrested during the night. [60]

Chin State

On 10 October 2006, it was reported that a curfew had been imposed on the road connecting Paletwa, Chin State to Mizoram, India. Following the desertion of two SPDC troops, the road was closed off to all wishing to visit India, causing grave difficulties to those who rely on cross border trade. The SPDC again ordered a blockade on the road from December 2006, which was expected to remain in force through to March 2007, with any one seen crossing the road liable to be shot. [61]

On 23 October 2006, Tactical Operation Commander, Brigadier Colonel Myint Shwe, stationed in Kalaymyo arrived in Dar Khai (B) village, of Chin State, where he held a meeting with Tactical Commander Colonel Tin Hla, stationed in Hakha town. A curfew was imposed as of the morning of the meeting and no movement was allowed in the area. [62]

Karen State

Nyaunglebin District

On 2 May 2006, it was reported that those villages residing in the Shwegyin area and farming in Hsee Moo Hta area were being forced to pay 2,000 kyat per month to the SPDC in order to obtain permission to leave their village. Furthermore, it was reported that the SPDC had established 10 checkpoints along the river and 7 on land between these two areas, with each checkpoint charging 200 kyat for right of passage. [63]

On 9 May 2006, all those residing in Maw Keh Tha Per Koh, Baw Bpee Der, Aung Chan Tha, Myaung Oo, Meh S'Lee Gone, Pa Doh Kyaw Hta, Kyaw Kyi Paw and K'Muh Loh in northern Mone Township, and Yu Loh and Tha Pyay Nyunt in southern Tantabin District, Toungoo Township, Nyaunglebin District, were ordered not to leave their respective villages. MOC #16 Commander Captain Soe Oo informed the villagers that they risked being shot if caught outside of their place of residence. As a result of the restrictions SPDC troops were able to sell rice to their captive consumer base at inflated prices. [64]

In August 2006, Battalion Deputy Commander Yan Aung and Company Commander Min Thant Lwin of SPDC LIB #599 ordered all villages in their control area of Mone township, Nyaunglebin district, to build a perimeter fence all the way around their villages with only one or two entrances/exits. The SPDC claims these fences are to keep ‘rebels’ out of the villages, but in practice they are used to restrict and monitor the movements of the villagers. It also makes it easier for the battalion to round up forced labour. These photos taken on August 27th and 28th show the people of four of these villages working on the fences. To get them done on time, everyone including children had to help. [Photo and caption: KHRG].

In July 2006, it was reported that around 800 people, in Nyaunglebin District, who had fled SPDC control and oppression in Mone Township, and were residing in the forests, were barely surviving without any access to food. [65]

On 10 July 2006, it was reported that villages relocated to Plaw Law Bler, Nyaunglebin District, were only allowed to return to their old village during the daytime, and with the permission of the SPDC forces, or else risk being shot. There was a scarcity of water at the relocation site. [66]

In August 2006, villagers of Mu Theh village, Nyaunglebin District, were ordered to construct a fence surrounding their village under orders from SPDC MOC #16 Operations Commander Than Soe and LIB #323 Battalion Commander Kyaw Kyaw Oo. [67]

On 3 August 2006, LIB #351 Battalion Commander Than Tate arrested villager Saw P--- in the Hteh Htoo relocation site, under accusation of having contact with the KNLA. He was bound, assaulted, and forced to stand in water overnight where he was bitten by leeches. He was then placed in a holding cell for a month. He was released, when his fellow villagers agreed to pay 300,000 kyat to the Battalion Commander, but remained barred from leaving the village. [68]

On 17 August 2006, Major Min Kyaing Thant of SPDC IB #57 ordered villagers in Kyauk-tan, Them seik, Tone-ta-da, Shu-khin-thee, Po-pay-gon, Kaw-tha-say, Baw-ka-ta and Pa-deh-gaw to completely fence the perimeter of their villages within 2 days. [69]

On 25 August 2006, LIB #351 Company Commander Yeh Win arrested a Taw Koh villager after finding two batteries in his hut, for which he was accused of having contact with the KNLA and fined 30,000 kyat. [70]

On 28 August 2006, troops from LIB #351 spotted two villagers who had left the Hteh Htoo relocation site and gone back to their old village to collect their belongings and harvest somevegetables.  The soldiers arrested the two villagers and took them to their battalion commander, Than Tate, who accused them of having contact with the KNLA and fined them 10,000 baht each. [71]

On 30 August 2006, it was reported that SPDC forces had overseen the construction of a fence near Muthey, Nyaunglebin District. The fencing has greatly hindered local villager's access to their farmlands. [72]

On 3 September 2006, LIB #351 Battalion Commander Than Tate arrested villager M--- from the Hteh Htoo relocation site and three of his friends when they were seen outside relocation site in their boat.  They were locked in leg stocks for one week and fined 5,000 kyat each.   [73]

On 9 September 2006, LIB #351 Company Commander Lieutenant Yeh Win forced Hteh Htoo villagers to build a fence around the village while he took photos of them doing it.  He subsequently demanded 2,000 kyat from the villagers in order to develop the film. [74]

Also on 9 September 2006, LIB #351 Battalion Commander Than Tate ordered residents of Hteh Htoo village that they must obtain a travel permit, at a cost of 20,000 kyat, in order to be allowed to go fishing, and pay a further 3,000 kyat to be allowed to sleep in their field huts (off site). At the end of a five day period, the villagers had to return and resubmit an application for their travel permit. [75]

Also on 9 September 2006, SPDC IB #242 began forcing villagers in the plains around Muthey area to erect fences around their villages. Villagers were also barred from travelling outside their villages. Roads and routes valuable for trade and travel between the plains and mountainous regions were blocked by SPDC forces. [76]

On 10 September 2006, LIB #351 Battalion Commander Than Tate arrested Maung Min Oo from Hteh Htoo relocation site, reportedly telling him “I am arresting you because you came back late and the time is over according to a specific time I set up.” He had failed to return to the village when the time stipulated on his recommendation letter had expired.  He locked him in mediaeval-style leg stocks for a week and fined him 10,000 kyat before releasing him. [77]

On 9 October 2006, LIB #350 Battalion Commander Tha Neing established a checkpoint at Toe Ta Dah and demanded 5,000 kyat from each car and 3,000 kyat from each motorbike wishing to pass. [78]

On 19 October 2006, it was reported that the SPDC was forcing villagers in the Muthey area of Nyaunglebin District to construct fences around their villages in order to restrict their freedom of movement. [79]

In November 2006, it was reported that twenty cows and buffalo had been stolen by SPDC troops in the area around Hteh Htoo relocation site since 1 April 2006. The thefts all occurred when villagers were restricted to their place of residence under orders from the SPDC. [80]

Papun District

On 6 February 2006, Dta Khaw Hta village head Saw Mer Ler was arrested by SPDC soldiers from LIB #60, accused of writing a travel pass for a man believed to have exploded a bomb in Toungoo on 4 February 2006.  Dta Khaw Hta villager Saw Ghay Ler Htoo was also arrested, as he was accused of allowing the same man to sleep at his house en route to Toungoo.  At the same time, SPDC spokespersons were attributing the bomb blast to several opposition groups, without any announcement who the ‘man’ referred to was.  Furthermore, any travel pass issued at Dta Khaw Hta would not have been valid for the entire journey to Toungoo.  It was thought that these arrests were an attempt to implicate the KNU by suggesting that the attacker had crossed the Salween from Thailand.  Saw Mer Ler and Saw Ghay Ler Htoo were each sent to army camps at Saw Hta and then Maw Pu and were held there incommunicado.  On 10 March 2006, Saw Ghay Ler Htoo escaped.  His wife Naw Lah Hser Paw and her infant child were then arrested, but later released.  Saw Mer Ler’s fate was unknown. [81]

Toungoo District

On 7 January 2006, it was reported that troops from SPDC IB #20, #39 and LIB #124, in Thandaung Township, banned people from villages  located on the east side of Thyauk-ye-kat-chaung stream, from crossing the waterway and going to Than-daung-gyi. The troops subsequently planted landmines on the east side of the stream to enforce their order. [82]

On 12 January 2006, SPDC Southern Command, Strategic Command #1 Commander Thein Htun, ordered that passes were needed in order for motor traffic to travel on the Baw-ga-li-gyi-Ye-tho-gyi road. He informed villagers that if fighting broke out, in the Baw-ga-li-gyi area, he would completely ban motor traffic and would distribute land mines in the area. [83]

This ‘jungle market’ is one of the ways hill villagers evading SPDC control manage to survive. People in SPDC-controlled villages are strictly forbidden to take any food or medicines into the hills, but secret arrangements are made and on the specified date they smuggle goods out of the villages to a prearranged place in the forest, where they trade with the displaced hill villagers. The hill villagers bring cash crops like cardamom and forest products to trade for rice, salt and dry goods which they need to survive. This photo was taken in December 2005 in northern Nyaunglebin district. Since then the SPDC has tried to prevent these markets by sending in more troops, blockading and landmining the roads and footpaths between SPDC-controlled areas and forest areas. [Photo and caption: KHRG].

On 21 January 2006, troops from SPDC LIB #440, based at Ye-tho-gyi camp prohibited Ye-tho-gyi villagers from going outside of the village and blocked roads in the area. [84]

In February 2006, LID #66 ordered a total bar on all travel in Taw Tu Tu Township and Daw Pa Ko Township. [85]

On 10 February 2006, in Toungoo District, the commander from SPDC Strategic Command 663, under LID #66, based at Play-sar-lo (Tate-pu) in Tantabin Township, demanded the village head of Ya-lo (Myauk-chaung) village, Lay-wo-lo (Kan-bay-myaung) village, and Paw-per (Bin-ba) village, to collect census data detailing the population and number of houses in each village. [86]

Also on 10 February 2006, troops from SPDC TOC #663, under LID #66, based at Play-hsa-lo (Tate-pu) army camp, in Tantabin Township, banned the villagers from going outside of the village, threatening that those found outside would be shot on sight. [87]

On 24 February 2006, LID #66, TOC #3, under Commander Tin Aung, ordered the closure of Bo Maw Kee, Tha Pa Chaung and Day Yeh Kee Roads. Villagers from the hills were told they were not allowed to travel to the plains, and villagers from the plains were told not to travel on any of those roads, under threat of shooting. Subsequently, on 25 February 2006, Saw Roland and Saw Da Nu Nu, two brothers from Ler Klah Der village were killed by SPDC troops, with their bayonets, when carrying rice to their farms in the Kleh Loh area. [88]

On  11 March 2006, SPDC LID #66, led by Commander Aung Soe, captured Saw Ah Poe and Saw Dah from Ker Der Kah village before torturing and killing the pair as punishment for leaving their village. [89]

On 12 April 2006, SPDC IB #73 troops banned villagers from using all cart-roads in Shasibo area. SPDC IB #53 troops, based at Htee-lo, kept watch on the cart-roads. [90]

On 26 April 2006, SPDC troops forbade villagers in the Za-yat-kyi area, Tantabin Township, from transporting goods in the region. Travel by cart and car was also banned. [91]

On 28 April 2006, it was reported that SPDC IB #53, commanded by Myo Thoo Ya and located at Sha-si-bo, placed heavy restrictions on the movements of local villagers. They were instructed that if they went to the mountains or slept in their fields they would be shot. [92] Also on 28 April 2006, soldiers from LIB #801 shot at villagers from Kaw Thay Der working in their plantations, hitting 35 year old Saw Mya Ler and breaking his arm. Following the shooting, the soldiers entered the village and informed the residents that anyone found outside the village would be considered an enemy and shot. [93]

On 30 April 2006, in Tantabin Township, troops from Column 1 and 2 of LIB #108, under TOC# 663 of SPDC LID #66, fired on villagers of Ye-tho-gyi. Villagers were instructed that if they needed to go outside of their village they would need to get a travel permit from the SPDC army. Villagers were warned that they would be shot if found to be disobeying this order. [94]

On 3 June 2006,  SPDC columns from IB #11, LIB #5 and LIB #108 ordered all villagers of Ye-tho-gyi and Ye-tho-lay not to leave their villages. They threatened to shoot any person found outside of their village. [95]

On 15 June 2006, TOC #2 Commander Ko Ko Kyi, based at Teik-pu camp, Tantabin Township, ordered the residents of Myauk-chaung Han-tho, Pa-ta-la-Myang and Kyauk-son-dung villages to register the names of their family members, and ordered all villagers to apply for a national identity card. He further instructed the residents of these villages to construct a fence around Teik-pu village. [96]

On 25 June 2006, SPDC LID #66 Commander Tin Aung Naing ordered villages in Baw-ga-li-gyi, Ye-tho-gyi, Sa-ba-gyi, Maw-Ko-doe, Der-doh and Gar-mu-doh villages to construct a fence around their respective villages. At night villagers were not allowed to move between houses within their village under threat of being shot. [97]

On 6 July 2006, SPDC IB #35 ordered all villages located on the west bank of Thauk-ye-khat River to complete the construction of a perimeter fence around their village by 15 July 2006. [98]

On 22 July 2006, SPDC LID #66 Division Commander Ko Ko, ordered Baw-gli, Kaw-soe-kho, Wa-tho-kho, Ler-ko and Kaw-thay-doe villagers to construct a fence around their respective villages. Any villager who wished to travel outside of the fence was told to purchase a village out pass at a cost of 100 kyat each day. [99]

In August 2006, it was reported that the rice supplies of villages in the Kler Lah, Day Loh and Klay Loh areas of Toungoo District were extremely stretched, with some villagers having run out. Those they were forced to borrow from had no more than two months supply left with no prospects for acquiring more. [100]

In November 2006, it was reported that strict movement restrictions continued to be placed on 12 villages in the Kler Lah area, with warnings that villagers disobeying these commands would be shot on sight. The twelve villages were:

1. Kler Lah;
2. Kaw Soh Koh;
3. Wa Thoh Koh;
4. Ler Koh;
5. Maw Pa Der;
6. Koo Pler Der;
7. Klay Soh Kee;
8. Kaw Thay Der;
9. Der Doh;
10. Gha Moo Der;
11. Maw Koh Der; and
12. Peh Kaw Der.
[101]

On 10 December 2006, SPDC IB #48 blocked all roads leading to villagers’ betel-nut plantations and farm huts, located on the eastern side of Sha-zee-bo village. [102]

Mon State

On 10 February 2006, it was reported that students attending a Mon school in Khaw Zar sub-Township were were often unable to return to their village after school because of an SPDC imposed 5 pm curfew in the area. As a result many students were missing classes or else being forced to sleep outside of their villages at night. [103]

From May 2006 to at least the time of this report, 31 July 2006, SPDC troops from LIB #299 barred villagers from Khaw-zar-chaung-wa from leaving their houses between 9 pm and 6 am. The villagers were also forced to erect fences around the village in order that the application and monitoring of movement restrictions be unproblematic for the SPDC. [104]

On 12 May 2006, Captain Than Tun of LIB #586 ordered villagers from Mi-htaw-hla-kalay and Mi-htaw-hla-gyi, southern Ye Township, to obtain a pass from him before leaving their village. He charged 150 kyat for a daytime pass, and 700 kyat if the applicant wanted an overnight pass. [105]

On 14 May 2006, following a clash between a Mon guerrilla group and SPDC forces, residents of Kabya village were prohibited from leaving their village by command of IB #31 and LIB #299. Villagers were also forced to construct fences around their village. [106]

On 22 May 2006, SPDC IB #61 Captain Myint Zaw ordered that all those residing in Tuu-Myaung village, Ye Township must obtain a pass from the battalion in order to leave the village. A week pass was reported to cost 400 to 500 kyat. Surrounding villages in the area, including Kyone-Paw, Paw-Thaw, Wae-U, Kha-Pi-Taw and Kwan-Toe, were subject to similar demands. [107]

On 28 May 2006, villagers in Kyone-Kanya village, Ye Township, were ordered to pay 200 kyat for permission to work outside their village by Battalion Commander Maj. Win Maung, of LIB #591. [108]

From 19 June 2006 to 30 June 2006, villagers in Sin-gu village, southern Ye Township were ordered by Commander Aung Kyi of LIB #587 to register all their family members with the VPDC. Villagers were further ordered not to leave the village without a village exit pass, for which they had to pay 300 kyat each. Aung Kyi informed villagers they would be shot if found outside Sin-gu without a pass. [109]

On 28 June 2006, Captain Soe Naing Lin, of IB #591, ordered the villagers of Kyaung-ywa village, Ye Township, not to travel outside the village without permission. A 500 kyat charge was subsequently imposed for a 24 hour pass. [110]

On 2 July 2006, SPDC troops from LIB #106 arrived in Koe-mile Village, Ye Township, Mon State, to begin a four week operation. Captain Thein Than informed the village headman and VPDC members that all villagers would be confined to the village for the duration of the operation. Anyone found outside of the village was to be shot. Farmers from outside the village, with fields within the area of operations, were also barred from visiting their farms and plantations. [111]

On 17 July 2006, it was reported that over 30 people had been forced to pay a fine of 100 baht each for failing to register guests with the VPDC in the Three Pagoda Pass area. [112]

On 31 July 2006, it was reported that movement restrictions in Kyone-kanya, Southern Ye Township, Mon State, ordered by SPDC TOC #3, IB #61 had been in place since the beginning of May 2006. Villagers were barred from going to their farms and plantations and were unable to harvests their crops. [113]

Also on 31 July 2006, it was reported that the inhabitants of Kwan Hlar village, Mudon Township, Mon State, were barred from crossing the nearby gas pipeline by local authorities. Those who needed to cross the pipeline, to tend to their farms, were permitted to cross if they paid a daily toll to SPDC troops stationed along the pipeline. [114]

Also on 31 July 2006, it was reported that Commander Soe Myint, of SPDC LIB #209, ordered villagers living along the Kanbauk-Myainkalay gas pipeline to keep away from the pipeline. He threatened that those who crossed the pipeline between the hours of 6 pm and 6 am would be shot. [115]

On 3 October 2006, it was reported that villagers in southern Ye Township had been ordered to construct fencing around their villagers. They were also barred from taking food with them to their farms and plantations. [116]

On 4 December 2006, a clash between Mon insurgents and SPDC troops, which left three SPDC soldiers dead, resulted in heavy restrictions being placed on surrounding villages. SPDC IB #31 ordered the residents of 14 villages in the Ye Township area not to travel between villages, or visit their farms or plantations. Farmers reported cows eating their crops as a result. The authorities gave no indication of when the restrictions might be lifted. [117]

Pegu Division

On 2 March 2006, it was reported that SPDC troops in Nyaunglebin Township, had assaulted local residents for crossing the local railway tracks at night. Restrictions had been imposed declaring that no one may cross the tracks between 6 pm and 6 am. However, the announcement had not been made along the full length of the track, meaning that those assaulted had been unaware of the prohibition. [118]

On 28 March 2006, villagers in areas of Pegu Division were ordered to confine themselves to their villages. All homes lying outside the village boundary were ordered to be dismantled and relocated within 15 days. Those who owned houses built of concrete were forced to abandon them. [119]

Sagaing Division

In September 2006, the VPDC in Tahan, Sagaing Division, initiated a night curfew for youths in the area. The curfew was more strictly enforced in November and at the time of the report, 22 November 2006, was expected to be imposed throughout the Christmas period. Ostensibly, the curfew was imposed to keep a check on juvenile delinquency. However, local sources suggested that the curfew was put in place through a fear of SPDC troops conscripting youths into their ranks against their will. [120]

Shan State

On 5 January 2006, it was reported that, following the killing of six members of the ceasefire Kachin Independence Army (KIA), by SPDC troops, in an unprovoked surprise attack on a Kachin District office in Muse, Shan State, the SPDC imposed heavy movement restrictions on those wishing to attend their funerals. “Many villagers from Mu-se came for the funeral - over 200 or 300 of them – but they were prevented from travelling and performing funeral rites. Those people were actually parents and relatives of the dead but they were nevertheless banned from travelling. No one is allowed to travel. We heard that the army had already cremated the bodies in order to cover up the incident,” stated a KIA officer. [121]

On 8 July 2006, a couple and their 2 daughters from Laai Paang village in Ho Yaan Village tract, Kun-Hing Township, were arrested by SPDC troops LIB #519 in transit at Saa-Laa Village, Murng-Ton Township and detained in a Buddhist monastery for 4 days. They were detained on the basis that their daughters were underage and ought not be travelling with them to the Thai border. They were finally released upon payment of a 220,000 kyat fine. [122]

Tenasserim Division

On 12 June 2006, to at least the time of this report, 31 July 2006, residents of Kyauk-tayan, Yebyu Township, Tenasserim Division were prohibited from fishing in the sea and working on their plantations. The order came in response to the ongoing conflict between Mon and SPDC forces. [123]

On 20 June 2006, the commander of LIB #282 informed villagers from Ye-ngan-gyi, Yebyu Township, Tenasserim Division, that they would be confined to their village between the hours of 6 pm and 6 am. Outside of these hours villagers were required to get permission from SPDC forces if they wished to visit another village. [124]

12.3 Restriction on the Movement of the Rohingya

“Everyone has the right to a nationality.”

    - Article 15(1) Universal Declaration of Human Rights

“Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.”

    - Article 13(1) Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Rohingya were rendered stateless by the Burmese Citizenship Law of 1982. The SPDC, as well as the majority of the Burmese public, consider them to be ‘illegal immigrants from Bangladesh’, and their non-citizen status places enormous restrictions on their freedom of movement. They are completely barred from travelling beyond northern Arakan, wherein many checkpoints are only applied to the Rohingya population who require a travel pass even to visit a neighbouring village. [130] In the spring of 2006, movement restrictions on the Rohingya were noticeably tightened especially in south Maungdaw Township, and from July, travel passes in northern Arakan were only valid for a period of three days, with permission to travel between Maungdaw and Buthidaung rarely granted. [131]  In a further measure of control over the Rohingya, VPDC chairman were ordered to keep the NaSaKa (Border Security Force) abreast of all incidents occurring in their village on a daily basis, and fined if they failed to do so. [132]

Throughout the year, authorities in northern Arakan mounted numerous raids and censuses on Rohingya villages, [133] and in December, villagers found to be absent without proper travel documents were erased from their family list, with their relatives fined 5,000 kyat.  In some cases, families had to sign a declaration that they agreed for their missing family member to be deleted from their list. Earlier, in August 2006, in south Maungdaw (Inn Din and Kyauk Phun Du), NaSaKa (Burma’s Border Security Force) ordered the VPDC to expel over 100 villagers who were not properly registered as residents of their village.  These persons had their names deleted from their family lists in previous years and had been living in Bangladesh ever since.  However, when the oppression of the Rohingya had relaxed in the aftermath of Khin Nyunt’s ouster, they had returned to their village and negotiated with their Village Council to be reinstated against the payment of a bribe. With the oppression of the Rohingya again increasing, throughout 2006, they were forced to return to Bangladesh.   [134]

The Rohingya have been barred from travelling to the Arakan State capital, Sittwe, since 2001, in the absence of prior permission from the authorities. From December 2005, the State Immigration Department in cooperation with police began a crackdown in Sittwe, arresting any Rohingya not in possession of “Form 4”. “Form 4” was initiated as a “temporary travelling form for foreigners”, but has been adapted into a further tool of oppression for use against the Rohingya population. Many Rohingya have refused to accept the order to carry such a form due to the insinuations such a diktat contains, stating “We are not foreigners, we live here, we were born here, and we will die here.” Those found to be travelling without the form were sentenced to six months imprisonment. [135]

The inability to travel freely in Burma has severely impacted many areas of the Rohingya population’s lives, jeopardizing their personal security, food security, livelihood, educational opportunities and access to adequate healthcare. This was especially true in 2006, with the economic crisis in Arakan State continuing to worsen. [136]

As there is only one University in Arakan State, located in Sittwe, the need to acquire permission to visit Sittwe is a huge obstacle to obtaining a higher education. On 16 January 2006, DPDC Chairman Major Ran Myu Aung and immigration officers in Maungdaw District failed to grant 270 prospective students their necessary travel permits, despite previously soliciting money from them, under the promise of forthcoming passes. Eventually, the Rohingya students were told that they would not receive travel passes as they were not citizens of Burma. [137]

The inability of Rohingya to travel to Sittwe further acts as an impediment to their right to health. For patients with a medical case too serious to be treated locally, prohibitions on travel or delays in the issue of travel passes make it virtually impossible for them to be referred to a hospital outside northern Arakan. [138] In 2006, those Rohingya who could afford it were forced to become a member of the Border Trade Organisation, at a cost of around 20,000 kyat so as they could visit Bangladesh for medical attention. [139] Concurrently, movement restrictions served as a major impediment to humanitarian assistance in Arakan State throughout 2006, and negatively affected the Muslim staff of international agencies and NGOs, preventing them from attending necessary trainings. [140]

As well as affecting health and education needs, restrictions on movement greatly hindered the Rohingya’s ability to sustain a livelihood. As around 60 percent of Rohingya are day labourers, most cannot afford the fees and bribes required to obtain travel permits, whilst at the same time needing to travel daily to their place of work [141] As such, the mountain pass between Buthidaung and Kyauktaw became a popular route for Rohingya wishing to bypass Sittwe, and checkpoints along busier routes. However, during 2006 many Rohingya were arrested by passing SPDC army columns along this route. In April and May 2006, alone, over 100 people were arrested whilst traversing the pass. The punishment for using the pass was said to be severe as the SPDC saw its use as an affront to their authority. [142]

When the Rohingya adhered to the draconian restrictions placed on them, and were able to produce the requisite travel and identity documents on demand, they nevertheless often fell victim to corrupt and prejudice officials. Due to the economic depression in northern Arakan, many Rohingya were using the Maungdaw-Buthidaung Road to travel to Maungdaw for work. In 2006, one of the army checkpoints (outpost 18) was specifically targeting Rohingya travelling along the road. It was reported that those with valid travel permits were frequently detained, had their documents destroyed, their money extorted, and were sent for trial, where some received prison sentences of two years. [143]

Restrictions on the Movement of the Rohingya Minority - Partial List of Incidents for 2006

On 10 February 2006, U Aye Maung and other police officers from Buthidaung Town reportedly arrested seven Rohingya villagers from Dongpyin village for having relatives living in foreign countries. Relatives of the arrested villagers had to pay 30,000 to 40,000 kyat for the release of each person. Those persons arrested were:

On 3 April 2006, SPDC army outpost 18 on the Maungdaw-Buthidaung Road seized money from Rohingya travelling along the road despite the fact that some were in possession of valid permits. After taking the money from them and destroying their travel permits, the labourers were detained, tried and sentenced to two years imprisonment. Those Rohingya sentenced to two years, their age, and amount extorted from them, were:

On 18 May 2006, an SPDC column under the command of Captain Win Tin Aung from the Military Operation Planning Bureau in Buthidaung arrested over 30 Muslims on the mountain pass near Mi Gaung Tet Village, located between Buthidaung and Kyauktaw for travelling without permits. Included in those arrested were Muslims from the following villages:

On 24 June 2006, NaSaKa forces raided a number of Muslim villages in Buthidaung Township where they checked on family lists, unlicensed construction of mosques, and marriage licenses. NaSaKa discovered 2 illegally married couples and 18 families who had moved from one village to another without permission. [147]

On 26 June 2006, NaSaKa officers raided Ngakhura Village under NaSaKa Area #5 to inspect family lists, birth rate compliance, and marriage licenses. The authorities discovered 18 children who were born in contravention of the rule governing the number of children each Muslim couple were allowed. They also found that 8 people had recently fled to Bangladesh and 34 people, 13 males and 21 females, had migrated within Burma without the authorities’ permission. [148]

On 2 July 2006, NaSaKa troops arrested 17 Rohingya villagers in Fokira Bazaar, Maungdaw Township, as they had come to the village without obtaining travel documents. The villagers were subsequently forced to work on a road construction site between Aung Zu and Khamaung Zeik in Maungdaw Township as punishment. [149]

On 19 July 2006, the tatmadaw, NaSaKa and police raided the homes of every house in the Shwezar quarter of Maungdaw Town (consisting of 5 smaller villages, Shwezar Mrauk, Shwezar Guna, Dayla Wra, Kanyin Chaung, and Aung Bala), blocking the roads and moving from house to house throughout the night.  At least 70 people, mostly Muslim, were arrested, either on suspicion or for not having proper permission from their village councils to be staying in a different household or town. [150]

On 9 November 2006, two columns of NaSaKa troops conducted raids on three Rohingya villages in Maungdaw Township. Troops led by Major Than Thay blocked all roads surrounding Aukpru Ma village and checked every household for irregularities in the family lists, unregistered births and non permitted guests. Some villagers were reportedly arrested. Raids also took place in both Kran Soe Ree and Wra Thik, Aungtha Bray village tact, where at least 8 villagers were arrested. One villager asserted that those arrested in the raids are typically freed after paying bribes to the NaSaKa officials. [151]

12.4 Restrictions on International Travel and Migration

“Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”

    - Article 13(2) Universal Declaration of Human Rights

In order to travel abroad legally a Burmese citizen is required to have three separate documents, the issuing of each being controlled by a different Ministry. A passport is issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, a revenue clearance by the Ministry of Finance and Revenue, and a departure form by the Ministry of Immigration and Population. Since a relaxation in regulations, in 2004, those issued passports have been allowed to retain them on their return from abroad for: one year after incidental travel; three years for dependents; four years for employment; and 18 months for those travelling on business. [152]

Despite announcements in 2005 that passports would be issued within a week of application, the process frequently took several months in 2006, and corrupt officials often sought bribes, of up to 300,000 kyat, equivalent to one year’s salary, in order to speed up the process. [153] Citizens were required to indicate their religion on official application forms including those for passports, and there were reports of Muslims facing discrimination as a result. [154] In 2006, 500 Muslims wishing to attend the Biswa Itjema in Dhaka, Bangladesh, were each forced to pay 7,000 kyat to authorities in order that their passport applications were processed. However, the authorities did not issue the passports in time for the occasion and 13 Burmese Muslims were later arrested in Bangladesh, after taking out a single day pass in order to get across the border. [155] The costs and procedures for women wishing to travel abroad, particularly those under 25, remained prohibitive under the justification of anti-trafficking measures (for more information see Section 12.5 Restrictions on the Movement of Women). College graduates were required to pay a fee to reimburse the regime for the cost of their schooling, in order to obtain a passport, and passports continued to be denied on political grounds. [156] Burmese comedian, and former political prisoner, Zargana, was refused a passport to travel to Singapore for an International Burma Studies Conference in June 2006. [157]

Citizens who emigrated legally were generally allowed to return to visit relatives, and some who left the country illegally and acquired foreign citizenship were also able to return. [158] However, in 2006, the Burmese junta cancelled the passport of Chin human rights activist, Salai Tun Than, and prevented him from returning to his home country from the USA, via Thailand. Salai Tun Than rightly claimed “I am barred from returning home, this is a human rights abuse.” He had been refused permission to board a flight in Thailand after announcing his intention to stage a protest on his return, and as such became effectively stateless. [159]

Throughout 2006, passports were generally issued quickly for those seeking to work abroad through official channels, with the processing time cut from 4 months to 14 days. Employment agencies offering overseas work rapidly grew in number; actively encouraged by the junta. As the SPDC taxed these workers, economic analysts saw the relaxation as an attempt to generate income through the outsourcing of manpower. [160] However, prohibitive costs and discriminatory procedures ensured that the vast majority of Burmese, particularly those from ethnic minorities, did not possess a passport. As such the bulk of those who migrated to neighbouring countries did so surreptitiously. On 1 December 2006, the SPDC’s newspaper, the New Light of Myanmar, reported that since September 2001, the SPDC had prevented 868,995 persons from emigrating in this way and had taken action against 1,638 brokers. [161]

If migrants are able to bypass SPDC checks against emigration and are then deported back to Burma, through official channels, they are criminalised under Burmese law. SPDC regulation 367/120 (b)(1), introduced in 2001, imposes punishments of up to 7 years imprisonment for illegal emigration, and Article 13 (1) of the Immigration (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1947, states: “No citizen of the Union of Burma shall enter the Union without a valid Union of Burma Passport, or a certificate in lieu thereof.” Under this Act, undocumented migrants are subject to one year’s imprisonment and a fine upon their return to the country. [162] Deportees have reported that SPDC officials photograph and maintain records on all deportees. Those deported are informed that if officials collect three photographs of one returnee, (i.e. if someone is deported through the reception centre three times) that person will be arrested for illegal emigration. (For more information see Chapter 15: Situation of Migrant Workers). Furthermore, family members of those who have emigrated illegally are subject to punishment in lieu of their kin. On 10 February 2006, police from Buthidaung Town reportedly arrested seven Rohingya villagers from Dongpyin village for having relatives living in foreign countries, only freed after a payment of between 30,000 and 40,000 kyat. [163]

Throughout 2006, the SPDC continued to make strides to account for all undocumented migrants who had left the country for Thailand. However, an MoU between the SPDC and the Thai Government, whereby worker registration in Thailand will be dependant upon the worker’s nationality being verified by the SPDC, was stalled in its implementation after the 19 September 2006 coup installed a new administration in Bangkok. The MoU would basically require the forced repatriation of migrant workers for processing by the SPDC, before being allowed to return and work in Thailand. Such a process would potentially put many migrants at risk of arrest or simply not being permitted to return to Thailand. In their place the SPDC would be able to send more favoured sections of the population such as members of the USDA. It would also likely leave workers liable to a large financial burden, primarily in the form of a heavy tax on their earnings whilst abroad, imposed under threat of action against family members, but also through the creation of new avenues for extortion.

Despite a lack of agreement with the Thai administration, the SPDC, in 2006, exerted pressure on family members in order to force the return of these migrants. On 28 September 2006, SPDC LIB #548 organised a meeting with village heads in Dt’Nay Hsah Township, Pa’an District, stating “The villagers whose children have gone to Bangkok must return to their village and register their names. Everybody must come back without fail. Tell your children who work in Bangkok to come back and get travel documents.” The cost of registration was set at 500 kyat, with requisite travel documents costing a further 100,000 kyat. It is feared that family members will be liable to punishment in the absence of their relatives. [164] (For more information see Chapter 15: Situation of Migrant Workers).

Despite such measures, there continued to be significant undocumented migration as well as commercial travel across the country's borders with China, Thailand, Bangladesh, and India, which remained porous throughout 2006. However, official border crossings with India, Bangladesh and Thailand were routinely closed, negatively impacting those who rely on cross border trade for their livelihood. [165] In some instances, authorities were even reluctant to allow those requiring urgent medical attention to receive it across a State border. On 18 April 2006, it was reported that only after one of those injured, in an oil tanker explosion in Tachilek, actually died, did the authorities allow others to cross to Thailand for treatment. [166] This in a year in which Sen. Gen. Than Shwe visited Singapore in order to receive the best possible medical care. [167]

12.5 Restrictions on the Movement of Women

“States Parties shall accord to men and women the same rights with regard to the law relating to the movement of persons and the freedom to choose their residence and domicile”

                                                                                                    - Article 15 (4) CEDAW

The SPDC is itself heavily involved in the internal trafficking of women. The country has been ranked as a Tier 3 Country (the lowest possible ranking) by the U.S. Department of State since 2001, largely for its forced labour practices, wherein persons are trafficked throughout the country for use as labourers and porters. [168] In seeming contrast, the SPDC is ostensibly tackling the international trafficking of its female population to neighbouring countries. However, under the auspices of such measures it has placed draconian restrictions on the movement of women, which are not only an infringement on their human rights but potentially make them more vulnerable to the criminal trafficking fraternity.

In eastern Shan State, the travel of women under 25 to and across the Thai border has been prohibited since 1997. [169] However, due to strong push and pull factors, such measures have had little effect in stemming the cross border movement of women. Nor have they stemmed the trafficking of women. In 2006, Akha, Lahu and Shan women, from Shan State, were cited as the most vulnerable groups, in the whole of South East Asia, to being trafficked to other countries. [170]

The Myanmar Women Affairs Federation (MWAF), a government organised NGO has been trumpeted by the regime as a crusader against trafficking within this region. The MWAF is said to distribute information on the nature and modes of human trafficking as well as organising trainings, discussions and educational sessions. They also play a role in rehabilitation programs for repatriated victims of trafficking. [171] In collaboration with the UNIAP, the MWAF organised the Coordinated Mekong Ministerial Initiative against Trafficking (COMMIT) in 2004 in Rangoon. [172]

Not only have the MWAF failed to stem the flow of trafficked women, but they have actually directly profited from travel restrictions in place in Shan State. The ban on the travel of young women is avoided if they are able to obtain a recommendation letter from the local MWAF. The sole criteria for obtaining such a letter: a substantial payment. The Kengtung MWAF chairwoman, who personally has to sign these letters of recommendation, is the wife of the SPDC Regional Military Commander. [173]  

The SPDC military also appear content to turn a profit from such restrictions. On 8 July 2006, a couple and their 2 daughters from Laai Paang village, in Kun-Hing Township, were travelling on a bus from Murng-Pan to Murng-Ton.  They were arrested by troops from SPDC LIB #519 in transit at Saa-Laa village, Murng-Ton Township, and detained in a Buddhist monastery for 4 days until they paid a 220,000 kyat fine. They had been arrested on the basis that their daughters were underage and ought not to be travelling with them to the Thai border. [174]

In addition, anti-trafficking laws have been absurdly misapplied against the regime’s political opponents. On 15 January 2006, NLD youth official, Aye Thein, was charged for eloping with his long term girlfriend. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment. Four of his friends were charged with abetting the act and given three year jail sentences. [175]

On 13 September 2005, the SPDC won acclaim from relevant international agencies when it enacted the “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Law,” which delineates harsh sentences up to life imprisonment against human traffickers. [176] The new legislation was actively supported by the UN Inter-Agency Project on Human Trafficking in the Greater Mekong Sub-Region (UNIAP) together with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the Asia Regional Cooperation to Prevent People Trafficking (ARCPPT), and has been described as a “success story” by UN staff in Rangoon. [177] The SPDC subsequently issued plans to create nine further police units tasked with the suppression of trafficking. [178] However, the introduction of the new law, with its associated lengthy penal sentences, has been unsurprisingly accompanied by an increase in the cost of MWAF letters of recommendation. They are reported to have risen from 150,000 kyat to 200,000 kyat with the enactment of the new law. [179]  Furthermore, immediately following the introduction of the legislation, there were reports of local authorities completely barring people from travelling to Thailand; households in many areas were ordered to re-register their family members and apply for new national identity cards with associated costs; authorities also reinforced restrictions on the registration of guests staying overnight, in order to monitor people’s movements more closely.  [180]

The authorities also restricted the international travel of women through the discriminatory pricing of passports. Under the justification of providing protection against trafficking; women have been charged 250,000 kyat for a passport compared to 10,000 kyat for a man. [181] A further ‘anti trafficking measure’ saw the continued ban on marriages between female citizens and foreigners during 2006, although this was rarely enforced. [182]

Not only have these measures failed to address the root causes behind the migration of Burmese women, namely: the economic situation in the country; the use of forced labour; and other human rights abuses committed by the regime, [183] but they are actually being used by the SPDC as a means to garner international support and legitimacy for the continuation of its rule. [184] Furthermore, and perhaps most alarmingly, such impediments to travel through official channels potentially force many women, fleeing oppression and abuse in Burma, to rely on the criminal trafficking trade. Lacking permission, sufficient funds or the necessary documentation, women are made more vulnerable to the exploitation, abuse and financial hardship associated with being trafficked. [185]

12.6 Restrictions on Foreigners in Burma

Throughout 2006, recognising tourism as a much needed income generator, the regime continued to issue ‘visas on arrival’ for tour groups, following a pre-departure application through the Internet. The country's embassies also generally issued tourist visas, valid for one month, within 24 hours of application. On 25 July 2006, Burma entered into the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Framework Agreement on Visa Exemption with its ASEAN neighbours, whereby citizens of ASEAN countries would be permitted to stay in Burma for up to two weeks without a visa, though the agreement grants member countries the right to refuse admission to anyone “considered undesirable,” or suspend the agreement in the interests of “national security, public order, and public health.” [186]

Certain categories of applicants, such as human rights advocates, journalists, diplomats, and political figures continued to be denied entry visas in 2006. [187] Not only were foreign reporters frequently denied visas but those who were found with a camera or journalistic documents in the country, without permission, were liable to seven years in prison. [188] Nevertheless, the SPDC did issue visas to foreign journalists at the time of the National Convention resuming in October 2006. At that time the SPDC invited select journalists to attend press conferences in which it conveyed its views on the country’s political problems. [189]

Internally, restrictions on tourists, foreign diplomats and foreign UN employees were relatively relaxed around recognised tourist sites and non sensitive areas in 2006; all other travel required advance permission. [190] Further, foreigners were not permitted on university campuses without prior approval and were not allowed to attend any meetings involving students. [191] Despite the hurried construction of numerous hotels, overseas visitors were barred from visiting the new capital city, which was still being constructed, close to Pyinmana. [192] Many areas within ethnic states also remained off limits to foreigners.

Furthermore, Burmese citizens faced harsh punishments if they housed foreign visitors without receiving permission from the State apparatus to do so. The Hotel and Tourism Act, 1993, has been applied by the regime as a means of controlling foreigners' movements, ensuring tourism revenue ends up in their hands, and as a pretext to target and arrest 'undesirable elements'. On 10 February 2006, Sa Oo Kya, a member of the Shan State Consultative Council, had his appeal against a thirteen year jail sentence rejected. One of the counts he had been sentenced under, the previous year, regarded the fact that he had hosted a foreign guest without having a license to operate a hotel or guesthouse. [193] Even privately run registered guest houses and hotels were required to register foreign guests at a cost of 200 kyat each per night. Concurrently, reports in 2006 stated that the SPDC, in search of the tourist dollar, had been pressuring tourists to stay at hotels in which they had a financial interest. [194]

Visiting foreign envoys and politicians received mixed welcomes throughout 2006. UN Under-Secretary for Political Affairs, Ibrahim Gambari, tasked with pressing the junta for political reforms, was twice received by the Burmese regime, as well as being granted an audience with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. His first visit, began on 18 May 2006, and represented the highest level UN mission sanctioned by the regime for more than two years.  During his second mission to the country on the 9-12 November 2006, he was granted observer status at the National Convention. [195] His visits, and particularly the fact he was twice allowed to meet with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, as well as other NLD members were taken by many as an optimistic sign pointing to a softening in the junta's attitude. [196] Gambari cautiously endorsed such optimism stating “The doors have been opened, but we have to see. This engagement is a process, not an event”. However, many other analysts opined that, by allowing Gambari’s visit, the junta was trying to avert an UN Security Council resolution on Burma, labelling the meeting with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the regimes “pre-emptive strike.” Gambari was unable to meet with any ethnic political parties during either of his two visits. [197]

Other diplomatic guests were not so well received during the year. The start of the year was marked by the resignation UN Special Envoy for Myanmar, Razali Ismail. Razali had took up his post in 2000, and like Gambari, enjoyed early success in mediating contact between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the SPDC.