MPs Say States Should Get Cut of Resource Revenues
Ethnic MPs attend a regular session of Burma’s Union Parliament on April 23, 2012. (Photo: The Irrawaddy)
Burma’s Upper House of Parliament agreed on Thursday to discuss a proposal to share natural resource revenues with the states and divisions where the resources are located.
The proposal, made by Saw Maung Phyu, a member of the Upper House from the Rakhine Nationalities Development Party, calls on the central government to “allot a suitable rate or 25 percent” of wealth from resources with state and division governments.
According to the state-run New Light of Myanmar, the proposal was made “according to the matters prescribed in schedule one of the Union Legislative List of Section 96” of Burma’s military-drafted 2008 Constitution.
“I’m not asking the government to amend the Constitution. I just want them to share with the ethnic governments and recognize that we are all brothers,” Saw Maung Phyu told The Irrawaddy.
He added, however, that he wants Burma to have a federal system, and not the unitary party system prescribed by the Constitution.
Nai Bayar Aung Moe of the All Mon Region Democracy Party was among those who supported the proposal. “I agree with his idea and will back it in Parliament. Our ethnic people should not be asking for just a few pya,” he said, referring to the smallest units of the Burmese currency.
“It is time to build a federal union and demand equal rights,” he added.
The proposal won the support of more than 40 MPs, the minimum required to be accepted for further discussion. The next step is to get the approval of the Parliament’s drafting committee, said Phone Myint Aung, a New Democracy Party MP for Rangoon Division’s Constituency 3.
One issue that is likely to lead to resistance to the proposal is the fact that some states and divisions have far more resources than others. Most of Burma’s natural resources are concentrated in the country’s predominantly ethnic states.
“For instance, Kachin State has jade and Arakan State has gas. Rangoon doesn’t have such resources,” said Phone Myint Aung.
This division has played a major role in perpetuating conflicts between the central government and ethnic armed groups. Under Burma’s former military junta, much of the income generated from exploitation of natural resources was used to fund the army’s efforts to suppress ethnic rebels.
Some ethnic MPs who support the proposal say they are worried that the ruling military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party and military appointees in Parliament will shoot it down, just as they did with another recent proposal calling on government officials to declare their assets.
That proposal, put forth by National league for Democracy MP Dr. Myat Nyar Na Soe, was rejected earlier this week.
Related Posts:
-
Clashes Likely To Delay Burma-China Pipeline Start-Up: Official -
Ethnic Alliance Restates Call for Tripartite Political Dialogue -
Kachin Group Says Its Investigation Could Reveal Killers of Teachers -
As Summit Closes, Ethnic Leaders Say Unchanged Charter Cripples Peace Deal -
As Fighting Rages in Northeast Burma, Govt Claims Territorial Gains
The proposal must be submitted.
It is a worthwhile proposal and as many articles in the Irrawaddy show, good things are a bit scarce in Myanmar.
The deed of doing good things is never easy. But please be assured tat there are those like us who are listening, watching and remembering.
Please do not falter.
I tell my daughter from time to time about the issues going on in the Parliament and tell her that this is why the future of Myanmar is going to be bright.
Courage to act and say the right thing in front of your colleagues makes a normal person into a great person.
Walking forward one step at a time. Good job. USDP is just a loser in history even though they made themselves hlutdaw members without our votes.
I think sharing assets to state and division where resources came could jeopardize state and division which have no resources. As well as it can be good to share 25% of assets to state and division, it will also be beneficial to share 25% of military annual budget to poorer state such as Karen, Kayah and Chin to construct transport roads within their state.
Suu Kyi only talk about the rule of law but I think the content of law is very much insufficient to give guarantee to civil society and international investors as 2008 constitution is drafted by military regime and forced to approve by civilians.
Any bill could be strike out by military selected MPs and their appointees before it become law.
I don’t know if it is Militocracy in Myanmar.
The most urgent matter for all of us at this point of time is to reassess the dual pipelines: do they conduct participatory consultations with local communities and compensate them fairly; conduct independent environmental assessment studies; give examples of successful projects of the kinds they are implementing, whether in China or abroad?
This is a constitutional question and it’s not easy to resolve. In Canada, where I live, most of the revenue from natural resources (such as the oilsands in Alberta) go directly to the province, but many Canadians find that “unfair”, because some provinces are a lot smaller and do not have oil and gas for example. The Eastern provinces in Canada have to get their oil from the Middle East, while the oil from Alberta gets shipped o other countries, like China and the US. Burma has a lot of gas, but most of it is going to Thailand and China, so who’s getting the money?
Personally, I think “Federalism” can cause a lot of problems and can be very divisive, because at the end of the day, it’s all about fighting for “turf” and money. In any case, I welcome the fact that important issues are now being raised and discussed in public.
In a true federal system of government, the Divisions and States must manage their own internal economic and political affairs, albeit what remains as residual powers of the Federal Government, which the Federal law permits for that purpose. And some State taxes are mandatory as the basis of the State’s budget. It is not a free state but independently managed with a distinct legislature.
So, States have the right and duty to levy taxes in a most fair and equitable manner as is allowed by the Federal and State constitutions. It is not confined to Resources only.
Frankly speaking,Burmans have been enjoying unequal share of benefits from national resources.Now has the time come for our ethnic brotherens to claim their fair share of revenue from resources derived from their lands.This unfair exploitation should come to an end forthwith.
Decentralization of economy? Revenues? Budget? Defence? Well, the military and pseudo-military governments of Burma have been crying this for ages, and never bothered about the local problems of the ‘states’, which are mostly ethnic entities. To balance the rising demand of equal share dictator Ne Win invented seven ‘divisions’. Till now this has been the basis of revenue sharing, if not other issues of statecraft, in Burma. Federalism never existed … for example, the German legislature is out of the question in the light of the Burmese constitution. Now if the ‘cuts of the cake’ are seen as a rosy picture of governance, there still remains the question of the seven divisions. Is it equal really, or equitable? There are many issues that will come up as serious headaches for the statesmen of Burma before a viable solution is worked out. Even the present solutions are in fact not done one at a time, but done at the rate of half-finished at a time, creating more and more questions and resource disparity, coupled with questionable international economic, military and political relations with the prosperous neighbours that can threaten stability and powerplay.