UN expert urges rejection of Myanmar election 'fraud'
GENEVA: Elections being planned by Myanmar's ruling junta are a ploy to feign legitimacy and should be rejected by the international community as a "fraud", a UN expert said on Wednesday (June 25).
Myanmar has been engulfed in a brutal conflict since February 2021, when Min Aung Hlaing's(pic) military wrested power from the civilian government of Aung San Suu Kyi.
The military has said it is planning to hold "a free and fair multi-party democracy general election" around the end of this year or in early 2026.
But Tom Andrews, the United Nations' special rapporteur on the rights situation in Myanmar, said the suggestion that truly democratic elections could be held in a junta-controlled Myanmar was laughable.
"They want to find an exit ramp to the international pressure," he told journalists in Geneva.
Since the 2021 coup, trade sanctions have isolated Myanmar, making it increasingly dependent on China and Russia for economic and military support.
Min Aung Hlaing himself is under multiple global sanctions and the International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor has sought an arrest warrant for him for alleged crimes against humanity committed against the country's Rohingya Muslims.
The junta, Andrews said, was "trying to create this mirage of an election exercise that will create a legitimate civilian government".
But "you cannot have an election when you imprison and torture and execute your opponents, when it is illegal to report the truth as a journalist, when it's illegal to speak out and criticise the junta," he said.
"It's really important that countries reject this idea of an election and not allow the military junta to attempt to get away with this fraud."
Andrews, who is an independent expert mandated by the UN Human Rights Council but who does not speak on behalf of the United Nations itself, highlighted that more than 6,800 people had been killed in Myanmar since the military coup.
At the same time, he said, some 22,000 political prisoners are languishing behind bars -- "most of whom are guilty of only exercising their fundamental rights, including speaking out and participating in demonstrations opposing a brutal military junta".
A Myanmar woman was for instance recently arrested by the junta for "spreading propaganda" over a Facebook post celebrating Aung San Suu Kyi's 80th birthday.
Aung San Suu Kyi, who won the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize, has herself been incarcerated since the coup, and is serving a 27-year sentence on charges rights groups dismiss as fabricated. - AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
4 hours ago
- New Straits Times
MONEY THOUGHTS: Of squeezes and substitutions
CAN you sense the snowballing righteous indignation of regular people at the arrogance and disrespect shown to them by political leaders — far and near? Globally, Donald Trump's tariffs on the whole world have angered entire continents, even as some cautious national leaders are taking a placatory stance toward him. Note: Even disregarding trade volumes for the moment, the sizable dip in the number of foreign students enrolling in American universities, and the cratering of tourist visits Stateside both bear testimony to one unsurprising truth: If you don't want me, I have options! While not true under monopolistic or monopsonistic circumstances, it is true most of the time. (In a monopoly, there is only one seller or provider of a good or service; so, a monopolistic vendor can raise prices to the roof. Conversely, in a monopsony, there is only one buyer, again, of a good or service; therefore, a monopsonistic buyer can — and almost always will — slam prices to the floor on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.) Thankfully, we — people and countries — have choices. So, while Trump considers the United States of America the economic centre of Earth, billions of people are waking up to the truth that 95.8 per cent of humanity lives outside America, and about 73 per cent of global GDP (gross domestic product) is generated within the other 192 member countries of the United Nations (and the two permanent observers, the Vatican and beleaguered Palestine). In most buy-and-sell transactions worldwide, the high-handed arrogance of entitled monopolists and monopsonists cannot gain traction because of one word: CHOICE. CHOICE AND SUBSTITUTION Fused onto the word "choice" like a semantic Siamese twin is the robust economic concept of "substitution", which applies to current American economic animosity toward most other countries, and also to the growing hordes of frustrated Malaysian consumers and business owners. People have choices when substitutions abound. You exercise this proactive power each time you dine out and scan menu items. If you see two meal options, which appeal equally to your growling stomach, you are likely to select the cheaper option. When extending the selection of options made from among several (or, better yet, many) economic choices, we humans usually revert to the common sense behaviour of rejecting those who reject us and instead seeking out those who are warm, friendly and accepting. For an extreme recent example, consider the sheer idiocy of the Trump administration barring eager, supersmart non-Americans from entering Harvard University. China's immediate (and massively logical) response was to welcome those brainiacs with open arms. Every country's future wealth is more dependent upon the scientific, technological and business acumen of a minority of talented people — regardless of where they were born — than upon the masses who believe mere birthright dubiously grants them some form of superiority. I suspect if America continues down this path of rejecting those who come from outside its shores, in less than a decade, other countries, led by wiser leaders, will grow at its expense. However, the proven self-correcting mechanisms in the American system of governance will probably permit the pendulum to swing back toward sanity in a few years. So, the advantage those of us who invest globally have is a vast range of choices for the allocation of our hard-earned, hard-won and hard-retained capital. Within our, ideally, globally diversified portfolios we should observe and think before acting. ECONOMIC RE-ENGINEERING Toward that end, the idea of substitution is readily understood, both within the SIPs (or savings and investment portfolios) we build lifelong wealth with, and within the narrow parameters of analysing the impact hiking a small country like Malaysia's sales and service (SST) rates can have. In case you missed it, there was an announcement that the Malaysian government will rake in an additional RM10 billion from its most recent hikes in certain SST rates. Time will tell if that durian runtuh -type harvest for government coffers materialises. You see, on the surface, having a competent, clean government that collects more tax revenue and which channels it toward enhancing the country's healthcare and education systems is laudable. However, that targeted extra RM10 billion flowing to the government is RM10 billion flowing OUT from the collective pockets of all Malaysians. It's been reiterated that 85 per cent of Malaysians won't be hurt too much, while the highest earning 15 per cent of Malaysian households shouldn't begrudge this economic re-engineering. Yet, in truth, dissatisfaction is rising like a king tide across all slices of the so-called privileged T15 — the 15 per cent of top-earning Malaysians. And the source of that dissatisfaction — increased taxes — will morph consumption habits across all socio-economic layers of this country. When we-the-people feel that disengaged authorities are squeezing us, we will respond rationally, logically, and decisively — to protect the economic well-being of those who matter most to us: our immediate families. Similarly, but on a larger scale, countries other than the US, especially across Asia, will evolve and grow new supply chains that exclude and sideline offensive rogue nations intent on rejecting or hurting them. Consider that as you contemplate your key investment choices over the next three-and-a-half years. © 2025 Rajen Devadason
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
Between borders and belonging
AS humanitarian crises escalate globally and resettlement opportunities for refugees shrink, countries around the world are grappling with how best to manage displaced populations. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Global Report 2025, launched in conjunction with World Refugee Day on Friday, the number of people forcibly displaced worldwide last year saw a spike of almost six million people – from 117.3 million in 2023 to an estimated 123.2 million people at the end of 2024. Meanwhile, in its role as Asean chair this year, Malaysia has taken a more active stance in highlighting regional issues, particularly the crisis in Myanmar, from where many of Malaysia's refugees originate. Sunday Star speaks to the new UNHCR representative in Kuala Lumpur, Louise Aubin, about her priorities amid this environment, the push for a domestic asylum framework, and why international solidarity matters now more than ever. > What are some of your priorities as the UNHCR representative in Malaysia? I'm pretty confident that our priorities in Malaysia align with the government's priorities. First, I think our top priority would be accompanying the government's efforts in setting out what would be an appropriate framework to manage, process, and respond to asylum from a Malaysian perspective, and continuing that close dialogue with the government. When I say an asylum system, I really do want to emphasise that it's more than registration and documentation. It's a framework through which the government of Malaysia would understand who is here in its territory, for what purpose, and what is owed to these people. So rights that would flow from a legal status would be given to them, but also, the responsibilities of refugees vis-à-vis Malaysia. With that, you'd have a framework that would add more predictability in dealing with what is a reality. The second one might be to probably reinforce what we mean by protecting refugees here in Malaysia, especially in today's context, where resources are extremely scarce and it's very difficult to predict what the future might bring. That will require an inordinate amount of outreach to partners and new partners, new ways of supporting what we need for refugees. Security is certainly one thing, but then it's also about very basic services. How do we ensure that refugees have access while the government is agreeing to a national asylum system? The third priority would be that we have to be looking to the future, and at least the immediate future doesn't look great in terms of an outlook for more durable solutions for refugees. Refugees want to return home. If the majority of refugees here in Malaysia come from Myanmar, I think we can all do the maths. But they won't be able to return home anytime soon, and this is a reality that anyone who bothers to understand what's going on in Myanmar also understands. There's a lot of effort but it takes more than a ceasefire for people to be able to return. What do we do in the meantime, where people have had to flee? They're here in Malaysia. Solutions have often focused almost solely on resettling refugees elsewhere. You follow what that looks like and the opportunities, the very small quotas that are agreed to by resettlement countries like the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Finland, etc. They're very small numbers. Why? Because resettlement needs are so great across the world. If we only focus on resettlement, there are a number of refugees who are obviously going to be not just disappointed, but they're losing out on hope. So broadening what we mean by solutions becomes a top priority, and I think there for the UNHCR, it's been encouraging to see the start of an understanding that even temporary solutions like the ability for a refugee to go study somewhere like a complementary pathway based on education, or we can have complementary pathways based on labour so even temporary labour schemes can help alleviate this very narrow potential of solutions and just at least provide another outlet for refugees who have a lot to contribute. So those three priorities, the national asylum system, stronger protection, and solutions for refugees are aligned well. > How do you see Malaysia's progress towards establishing a domestic legal framework for refugees? I'm new to Malaysia, so I can only speak with a little bit of what I've been briefed on by the government authorities and what I'm seeing now and able to discuss with the authorities. I'd want to believe that there's more and more clarity about what the government of Malaysia wants. There are always policy choices that a government can take, and what's important here is that Malaysia is looking at policy choices. Ignoring the refugee issue, which I think has been part of the problem, doesn't make it go away. Considering and facing policy choices is an incredible opportunity for the government of Malaysia to decide what it is that it wants. Let's say in five years, how does the government of Malaysia want to see refugees? Do you want to see them dependent on aid – aid that is becoming more and more scarce? Or do you want refugees in Malaysia to be contributing to Malaysia? How do you want this to happen? Can you open up some sectors or quotas for work that align with your economic reading and your needs as a country? Do you want to see children in the streets or do you want to see them in a safe place, learning and actually growing their potential for what I was talking about, other pathways like education? The same goes for labour. I think these policy choices are becoming clear for the government, and the more we support that effort in thinking through what it is that they want and how they can manage this reality in Malaysia, I think the faster we'll be able to evolve. > What do you see as the most pressing refugee-related challenges in Malaysia right now? The first one, I would say, is growing the understanding of the need and the benefits of international solidarity. Everything is interlinked. What happens in the US has a ripple effect worldwide. What happens in Malaysia also has a ripple effect, possibly in the subregion. So whenever one country relinquishes its international responsibility, it will have an effect somewhere else. It's in Malaysia's interest to drum up and create a better understanding of what this linked-up asylum system in the world is and the role that Malaysia plays in it. Malaysia is not just a client of international solidarity; it's an actor of international solidarity. The second challenge, and I say this particularly because we're in this moment where we've seen an abrupt, huge stop in sources of funding, where we've seen quotas for a settlement go from inordinately outstripping every other country to zero. This is really a moment when I think every country needs to think through what it can do or what it needs to do going forward. The other big challenge is improving the protection and well-being of refugees in Malaysia. > How does the UNHCR work closely with the Malaysian government when the country has not ratified the UN Refugee Convention 1951? I think Malaysia will sign the 1951 Convention when it's ready. In the meantime, that certainly hasn't stopped us from collaborating very closely to register, to identify, to document refugees, and from having a very close dialogue about what Malaysia requires in terms of support from UNHCR and its partners. It hasn't stopped Malaysia from actually hosting refugees since the 1970s, has it? So while the 1951 Convention would be helpful because it's a ready-made framework, it's not the end all, be all. If Malaysia feels it wants to structure a domestic framework to manage refugees and to imagine what solutions there could be for refugees, well then, that's exactly how we're going to do it, no problem. > So the UNHCR stands ready to work with the government to come up with this framework, if need be? Absolutely. We've certainly got expertise because we've got the legal mandate. It's a unique mandate in the UN system. But secondly, I think there's an opportunity also to draw on our experience. > How has your previous experience shaped your approach working with UNHCR today? I became immediately interested the very first time I read the definition of refugee. Up until that moment, I had no idea the luck I had. A Canadian passport fell onto my lap with no effort, no merit. I was born in a peaceful country that was hosting refugees, but up until that moment, I didn't realise anyone can become a refugee and that's the last thing I would hope for myself. So it's not all that altruistic. It's also about knowing that it could happen to anyone. The second is something I heard from a quote from (the late South African bishop) Desmond Tutu. He said, refugees are as old as the hills. By that, he meant that asylum cuts across the history of humankind. Asylum is part of every religion. You can find refugees on every continent. The history of humankind is one of responding to need. It does not turn its back on persons fleeing danger. It's not saying that I accept conflict or persecution. It just means that there's a reality there that has shaped us, and knowing that means that there's no judgment about asylum because we're all working to ensure that those same citizens can go back home. The third story is the one about international solidarity. International solidarity is, yes, how countries behave, interact, help each other or not, but it's also about the role that every individual can play. So you're this very small person, you think you're this grain of sand, but you're part of something bigger, more complex, and you can still play a part. It's a privilege to work alongside refugees because they remind you of every single day that, you know what, you think you can't do anything, but you've got a role to play. So you just chip away and try to get something done. > How would you describe the current global refugee situation, especially in some of the more conflict and climate-affected regions in the world? When you talk about the number of refugees in the world, you immediately overwhelm people because you can't compute those numbers, even if, compared with the world population, the number of refugees is quite small. But it's overwhelming to think of where these refugees are. The majority are not in rich countries, sorry to say. Over 70% of refugees are hosted in low or middle-income countries. And it's not by accident, that's geography. Refugees flee next door so they come from regions that are feeling the brunt of poverty, fragility, have frail institutions safeguarding human rights, where democracies are still having difficulty, etc. In this world, there's an imbalance and I think the world today shows that even more. While overwhelming, I think it's important to see what is evolving in a very positive direction. There's a movement toward more equitable sharing of responsibility. In 2017, the Global Compact on Refugees was agreed upon in the General Assembly at the UN. All member states of the UN reaffirmed the value of asylum, but they went a step further and said, this thing about the imbalance, we need to do something about it. The Global Compact on Refugees is precisely this tool. It's this platform where refugees, the rich countries are saying, you know what, maybe we can give more in terms of funding, or resettlement places, or pathways to education and labour. > What is UNHCR's response to increasingly strict immigration policies in countries like the US, which, for example, just introduced a travel ban on 12 countries? Do you see it affecting refugee protection efforts globally? It already has. The first thing to recognise is that the US has been, by far, a consistent, very supportive partner of refugees for decades. It outstrips everyone else in terms of funding and resettlement. Still though, any time one country closes a border, we're not talking about an inventory of boxes you can just keep on the other side of the border and you can just wait until the border reopens. We're talking about human beings – families, children, etc. So any time a country closes a border, it has a ripple effect far down the road. What you're saying to the rest of the countries in the subregion is that you're not going to be participating in this effort, and that has very detrimental effects. Tragically, it's not just one country I'm talking about; we're in a moment in history where we've never seen the excessive use of violence, of targeted discrimination and the impunity that goes with it. I mean, we're talking about situations of possible genocide. In a world like this one, can we really afford for any country to turn its back? We can't. And so I think my message here is, yes, we're missing out on critical funding and places for resettlement, but you know what? We can't afford to miss out on the moral strength of countries upholding standards that we agreed on a long time ago and that have shown their value over time. > Malaysia is the Asean Chair this year. As Chair, what role do you see Malaysia playing in strengthening regional refugee protection and cooperation within the region? As Chair, we've heard Malaysia very seriously and effectively drawing attention to Myanmar. It doesn't mean that they will resolve the situation in Myanmar but without that effort to draw attention and to keep that attention in a sustained manner and very constructively engaging the actors in Myanmar, we weren't going anywhere. So thanks to Malaysia, I think that's quite good. Having a more collaborative approach to protecting refugees rather than feeling isolated in dealing with refugees, I think there's an opportunity there for Malaysia to speak up about that as well. > What message would you like to send to governments and the public about the importance of refugee protection today? Perhaps another message is that everywhere I've been, every refugee situation I've been in, the frontline protection has been provided by the communities of those countries. When I was in Bangladesh in 2017, when the massive Rohingya exodus happened and within a few weeks, Cox's Bazar had received over 700,000 Rohingya, do you know who was protecting refugees as soon as they crossed that narrow Naf River? It was the Bangladeshis in those villages who provided them with whatever water they had and whatever little food they had, so that the refugees could move on into Cox's Bazar. In Europe, it's the same thing. When the Syrian crisis happened, who were the frontline people? It was the communities of those European countries. Here in Malaysia, it's no different. Who are the ones, our biggest partners in protecting refugees and looking out for their wellbeing? It's Malaysians.
The Sun
6 hours ago
- The Sun
Gaza civil defence reports 37 killed by Israeli forces, including children
GAZA CITY: Gaza's civil defence agency said Israeli forces killed 37 people in the devastated territory on Saturday, including at least nine children who died in strikes. Civil defence spokesman Mahmud Bassal told AFP 35 people were killed in seven Israeli drone and air strikes in various locations, and two others by Israeli fire while waiting for food aid in the Netzarim zone in central Gaza. He said the dead included three children who were killed in an air strike on a home in Jabalia, in northern Gaza. Bassal said at least six more children died in a neighbourhood in the northeast of Gaza City, including some in an air strike near a school where displaced people were sheltering. The Israeli military did not respond to a request for comment by Saturday evening. As international criticism mounted over civilian deaths in Gaza, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said Saturday that his country 'stands ready, Europe as well, to contribute to the safety of food distribution' in Gaza. Such an initiative, he added, would also deal with Israeli concerns that armed groups such as Hamas were intercepting the aid. Barrot did not provide any details on how France could help secure aid distribution to Gaza's civilians. Restrictions on media in Gaza and difficulties in accessing many areas mean AFP is unable to independently verify the tolls and details provided by rescuers. AFP images showed mourners weeping over the bodies of seven people, including at least two children, wrapped in white shrouds and blankets at Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City. Video footage filmed from southern Israel showed smoke rising over northern Gaza after blasts. Other AFP footage filmed in Gaza City showed a cloud of smoke rising from buildings after a strike. In Jabalia, an AFP photographer saw civil defence rescuers aiding a man with blood on his back. - Gaza ceasefire drive - Israel launched its offensive in Gaza in October 2023 in response to a deadly attack by Palestinian militant group Hamas. After claiming victory in a 12-day war against Iran that ended with a ceasefire on June 24, the Israeli military said it would refocus on its offensive in Gaza, where Palestinian militants still hold Israeli hostages. Qatar said on Saturday that it and fellow mediators the United States and Egypt were engaging with Israel and Hamas to build on momentum from the ceasefire with Iran and work towards a Gaza truce. 'If we don't utilise this window of opportunity and this momentum, it's an opportunity lost amongst many in the near past. We don't want to see that again,' said Qatar's foreign ministry spokesman Majed al-Ansari. Hamas's October 2023 attack resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on Israeli official figures. Israel's retaliatory military campaign has killed at least 56,412 people, also mostly civilians, according to Gaza's health ministry. The United Nations considers these figures to be reliable.
