Save Aung San Suu Kyi

Burma’s pro-democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has entered into a hunger strike and we all need to save her life. Saving her life means saving Burma’s future. It is time we all come together and demand her freedom and freedom for Burma.

It is obvious that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is on this hunger strike even though the regime denies her defiant and brave action. Simply stated: She has not accepted any food since August 18, 2008. No acceptance of food by her, means she is on strike.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is not only the most capable leader in our country who has the ability to unite all the various political organizations and activist groups, she is also well respected by the world as an icon of democracy who symbolizes non-violent struggle.

We democracy-loving people around the world need to save “The Lady” from the military yoke which has unlawfully detained her since May 30, 2003. Her motorcade was ambushed by the regime in Depeyin; during the shock of that ambush at least 60-100 of her supporters were killed. Not one soldier who committed those brutal murders was persecuted, whereas Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest.

Five years have passed and Burma’s rightful leader remains under house arrest. Finally, she tried to meet with her lawyer and find out how she could contest the regime through legal action. It appears that there exists no way she can challenge the regime on legal grounds because there is no law in Burma under General Than Shwe’s rule.

When Mr. Gambari visited Burma on August 18 and met with NLD leaders, he encouraged them to enter the 2010 election. This “encouragement” indicates that he has chosen to ignore the 1990 election results. We believe Mr. Gambari’s job is to mediate between the NLD and SPDC to start a dialogue involving mutual respect, one that does not pressure NLD to follow the regime’s one-sided road map. Such pressure made Aung San Suu Kyi decide on her current move.

She wrote a quotation of her father General Aung San, on the billboard in front of her entrance gate: “( I will) follow the work of Azani (Martyrs) until the completion.” This means she is ready to sacrifice her life for justice and freedom. We all know she will not only demand her release but she will also demand the release of all political prisoners.

Prominent pro-democracy Student Leaders such as Min Ko Naing, Min Zaya, Ko Htay Kywe and others are now in the Yin Kwe Teik (Broken Chest cell) inside Insein prison. They are not allowed to take a bath for more than four months and suffer from malnutrition and skin disease.

Once again Mr. Gambari failed to meet the real 88 Generation leaders who are in prison since last year September 2007. Instead, he met a pro Junta group led by Aye Lwin who claimed himself as 88 Generation leader.

We urgently appeal to the world and Burmese communities to stand together with one voice and say, “Please save Aung San Suu Kyi.” Saving Aung San Suu Kyi and saving 88 Generation leaders are a moral cause and if we save them we are saving Burma’s future too. In the universal sense, we are saving the entire world’s democratic future, as well.

We urge the UN Secretary, General Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, to directly handle the situation and save Daw Aung San Suu Kyi from being starved to death and investigate the inhuman treatment to prisoners in Insein prison. The UN needs to show the world it has teeth and is not a paper tiger.

Please use your channel to spread the words that she is on strike.

We fully support Aung San Suu Kyi’s courageous act. However, we are gravely concerned about her health and her life.

We strongly demand that Gen. Than Shwe’s illegitimate military regime release Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners immediately and unconditionally. Please approach the US, EU and democratic communities to write letters and gather in front of the Burmese Embassies to start a worldwide huge protest.

Take UN military interventions on the trouble situations of Burma

Dear Mr. Ban Ki-moon and Members of the United Nations,



We are writing to urge you in order to take military interventions on the trouble situations of Burma. The situation in Burma continues to deteriorate with no degree of measurable improvement. Members of the international community, including governments, coalitions of governments, nongovernmental organizations and many United Nations (UN) bodies, have reported grave human rights violations, sustained conflict between the Government of Burma (the State Peace and Development Council, or SPDC) and ethnic factions, and failures by the SPDC to move forward in any meaningful way with the national reconciliation it promised in its "roadmap" to democracy. As a result of the SPDC's refusal to implement recommendations made by the UN—in particular by the Office of the Secretary-General—Burma threatens the peace and stability of the region. Therefore, UN Security Council (Security Council) action is both warranted and necessary.



• Charged with the critical mission of maintaining peace and security between nations, the UN Security Council possesses unparalleled authority to make binding decisions that uphold the United Nations' commitment to prevent war, preserve human rights, and promote international political stability.



• Under Chapter VII, Article 39 of the UN Charter, the Security Council possesses sole authority to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression." As articulated in Article 33 of the Charter, whenever the Council "deems necessary," at "any stage" of a dispute, it may intervene "to ensure prompt and effective action" to safeguard peace and security.



• Action by the Security Council can include the adoption of simple and clear resolutions requiring action on the part of the offending government or group to curtail its aggressive or threatening acts, sanctions against the perpetrating government or group, or the authorization of a UN peacekeeping force to enter the territory. Under Article 25 of the UN Charter, all members of the UN "agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council."



• Relying on Chapter VII, the Security Council has intervened in such countries as Sierra Leone, Lebanon, Cyprus, East Timor, Sudan, Afghanistan, Haiti, Yemen, Rwanda, Liberia, and Cambodia when it determined the situations in those countries to constitute a "threat to the peace" that required intervention to protect and preserve international stability. Although there is no precise definition of what represents a "threat to the peace," the Security Council—through its past actions on a case-by-case evaluation—has elucidated a list of factors that can collectively constitute such a threat to the peace.



• Because the Security Council takes a case-by-case approach, no one factor or set of factors is dispositive. Each past case was a unique set of circumstances; the Security Council considered the totality of each situation in determining that a threat to the peace was taking place.



• To guide our appeal, we first reviewed initial Security Council resolutions that were adopted in response to internal conflict situations (when a government was in control of the country) that the Security Council deemed a threat to the peace. This review enabled us to identify the criteria that helped the Council make its decisions. These criteria are utilized in this report as the determining factors relevant to the case of Burma. These factors include: (1) the overthrow of a democratically elected government; (2) conflict among governmental bodies and insurgent armies or armed ethnic



• Furthermore, the extent to which some of these factors exist in Burma is considerably worse than in other countries in which the Security Council has chosen to act:



𐂾 Overthrow of Democratically-Elected Government: A military regime overthrew the

democratically-elected government in 1962. In 1990, the military regime permitted elections to take place. The result: the National League for Democracy (NLD) became the democratically elected government of Burma, winning more than 80 percent of the seats in Parliament. The NLD was never permitted to take power and NLD members have since been harassed, jailed, and murdered. NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi has remained under house arrest in Burma since 1990 with only intermittent periods of release.



𐂾 Conflict Between Central Governments and Ethnic Factions: Serious, protracted fighting between the SPDC and various ethnic groups seeking autonomy and freedom from oppression has been consistent and ongoing, even in areas where non-binding ceasefire agreements have been made.



𐂾 Widespread Internal Humanitarian/Human Rights Violations: The SPDC has committed grave, systematic, and widespread human rights abuses against the people in Burma, including violations similar to but even worse than in other cases previously considered by the Security Council. Some violations that are unique to Burma, or particularly pervasive, include the destruction of more than 9,500 villages since 2006, massive forced relocations, rape of ethnic minorities by SPDC soldiers, and widespread forced labor. As many as 80,000 children have been forced to become soldiers by the regime—more than in any other country in the world. Additional violations include the denial of political rights and free speech, harassment of political activists, torture, and murder.



𐂾 Outflow of Refugees: Almost 900,000 refugees have poured out of Burma in recent years as a result of the grave conditions created by the Government of Burma. The government is responsible for a decline in the economic situation so alarming that Burma is now one of the poorest countries in the world, providing its people little or no access to health care or education.



𐂾 Drug Production and Trafficking: Burma is one of the world's leading producers of heroin and amphetamine-type stimulants. The trafficking and use of these drugs are of enormous concern to the international community and to the region particularly.



In addition to those factors considered in prior cases by the Security Council, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1308 in 2000 calling attention to the threat that the spread of HIV/AIDS poses to international security. Burma has been a primary contributor to the spread of HIV/AIDS in Southeast Asia. Because Burma is the heroin supplier for the region, HIV strains that originated there are now spreading to neighboring countries along the heroin routes. The flourishing sex industry is another conduit enabling HIV to spread within Burma itself.



In conclusion, while Burma is similar to the other countries considered in this appeal, in that all of the factors taken from relevant Security Council resolutions are present in Burma, the situation in Burma is particularly unique, especially considering the severity of those factors. Additionally, in no prior cases do other distinguishing factors appear, such as Burma's contribution to the spread of HIV/AIDS. The persistence of these circumstances in Burma and the region, in conjunction with the failure of the regime to implement any reform or enable outside organizations to facilitate progress, makes the overall magnitude of the threat to peace in Burma substantially higher than it was in cases where the Security Council has acted in the past.



As a result of the severity of the overall situation in Burma and in consideration of all of these factors, which are analyzed in detail in this appeal, the situation in Burma constitutes "a threat to the peace," thereby authorizing Security Council action. Binding Security Council intervention is a necessary international and multilateral vehicle to restore the peace, promote national reconciliation, and facilitate a return to democratic rule.



Therefore, we strongly urge the UN Security Council to take up the situation of Burma immediately. Preserving peace, security, and stability in the region and world—as well as achieving national reconciliation in Burma—now requires nothing less.





Thank you,



Zaw Win

General Director

Arakan National Organization for Human Rights and Justice (ANOHRJ)

Arakan State

Union of Burma

Email: anohrj@gmail.com

Malaysia Bumiputra Billionare

Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary has become the latest Malaysian to join the ranks of world’s richest, according to the Forbes 2007 list of US dollar billionaires. The inclusion of the 55-year-old, who made his fortune in the rice and sugar trade, increased the number of Malaysians in the list to nine from eight last year. He was ranked as the seventh richest Malaysian, the only Bumiputra Billionaire and 754th in the world.

Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Shah bin Syed Nor Al-Bukhary is the richest Malaysia Bumiputra Billionaire corporate figure in Malaysia. With involvement in diversified business areas which include transportation and logistics, plantations, property development, defense and armory as well as engineering and power generation. He has a net worth estimated to be US$2.00 billion according to Forbes, making him the 7th richest Malaysian.

Former rice trader now controls Malaysia Mining Corporation (MMC); has stakes in Malaysia’s Johor Port; country’s largest independent power producer Malakoff; natural gas distributor Gas Malaysia. Donates to Islamic schools, mosques, arts.

EARLY LIFE
Syed Mokhtar al-Bukhary was born into a mid-low class family of Hadhrami Arab descent in north of Peninsular Malaysia; whose house was without necessities and luxuries. His highest education was only until form five, and he never went to university. A whole lot of his knowledge and experience was gained through his own entrepreneurship experience during his youth time.

Due in part his family’s mediocre-to-poor background, Syed Mokhtar al Bukhary had to step into the working world in his early life, while pursuing his primary and secondary studies. Syed Mokhtar helped his mother planting and selling vegetables in the market and also selling roti canai. His numeric knowledge was used to help his father in doing daily book keeping.

After finishing school, Syed Mokhtar helped his father in breeding cow business but only to see the business washed away by foot and mouth disease. Nevertheless, he took over the business and start over by selling meats. He then move on to packaging the meats and start selling them wholesale. His determination paid off and the business started to take off.