Gerald Giam

UN Security Council deplores use of violence against peaceful demonstrators in Myanmar

The full text of the UN Security Council statement on Myanmar, 11 Oct 07 (emphasis mine):

The Security Council welcomes the recent mission by the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser to Myanmar Mr. Ibrahim Gambari, reaffirms its strong and unwavering support for the Secretary-General’s good offices mission as mandated by General Assembly resolution 61/232, and expresses its appreciation for the personal engagement of the Secretary-General.

The Security Council strongly deplores the use of violence against peaceful demonstrations in Myanmar and welcomes Human Rights Council resolution S-5/1 of 2 October 2007. The Security Council emphasizes the importance of the early release of all political prisoners and remaining detainees. It also calls on the Government of Myanmar and all other parties concerned to work together towards a de-escalation of the situation and a peaceful solution.

The Security Council stresses the need for the Government of Myanmar to create the necessary conditions for a genuine dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all concerned parties and ethnic groups, in order to achieve an inclusive national reconciliation with the direct support of the United Nations. The Security Council encourages the Government of Myanmar to consider seriously Mr. Gambari’s recommendations and proposals. The Security Council also calls on the Government of Myanmar to take all necessary measures to address the political, economic, humanitarian, and human rights issues that are the concern of its people and emphasizes that the future of Myanmar lies in the hands of all of its people.

The Security Council welcomes the Government of Myanmar’s public commitment to work with the United Nations and the appointment of a liaison officer with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. The Security Council stresses the importance that such commitments are followed by action. It acknowledges that the Government of Myanmar had invited Mr. Gambari to Myanmar. It underscores its support for his return as early as possible, in order to facilitate concrete actions and tangible results. The Security Council urges the Government of Myanmar and all parties concerned to cooperate fully with Mr. Gambari.

The Security Council welcomes the important role played by the ASEAN countries in urging restraint, calling for a peaceful transition to democracy, and supporting the good offices mission. It notes that the good offices mission is a process, and encourages the sustained support and engagement of the international community in helping Myanmar.

The Security Council remains seized of the matter.

This marks a significant shift in China and Russia’s stance on issues such as this — growing evidence that relentless pressure and campaigning against the Myanmar junta and its supporters does have an effect.

S’pore Ambassador calls for Myanmar’s suspension from ASEAN; MM calls generals "dumb"

Straits Times, Oct 6, 2007

Suspend Myanmar from Asean
By Barry Desker, For The Straits Times

LAST week’s crisis in Myanmar makes it imperative that Asean move beyond statements to action.

The 1997 Asean decision to admit Myanmar under the current military leadership without any conditionality was a mistake. Myanmar took shelter under Asean’s wings but there was no commitment by the junta to open up the economy or restore its fledgling democracy. Frankly, Myanmar has been an albatross around Asean’s neck for the past decade.

Asean broke new ground on Sept 27 when the Asean foreign ministers agreed to a statement by the current Asean chair, Singapore’s Minister for Foreign Affairs George Yeo, stating that they were appalled to receive reports of automatic weapons being used to quell the demonstrations in Myanmar and demanded that the Myanmar government immediately desist from the use of violence against demonstrators. They strongly urged Myanmar to seek a political solution and to work towards a peaceful transition to democracy, and called for the release of all political detainees, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

The Asean ministers recognised that what the junta has done is unacceptable. Asean should now go further. It is time that Myanmar was suspended from the privilege of Asean membership.

As Asean’s leaders will be adopting the Asean Charter to give the organisation a legal personality when they meet in Singapore on Nov 18, Asean needs to adopt clear standards of behaviour for its members.

Key provisions of the Charter will call for the promotion of democracy, human rights and obligations, transparency and good governance and strengthening of democratic institutions. But Asean needs to agree on what it will do if a member blatantly flouts these conventions.

Previously, it had adopted the practice of raising its discomfort with developments in Myanmar privately at meetings with Myanmar leaders and at informal retreats of Asean ministers, where no official records were kept.

Since its founding, Asean’s formal position was that every member had the right to lead its existence free from external interference, subversion or coercion. This principle of non-interference and non-intervention in the internal affairs of one another helped each state to develop its own identity in the first years of the grouping’s existence.

The primary concern of each member from 1967 was that it should be allowed to forge its own post-colonial identity.

Memories of Indonesia’s Konfrontasi policy towards Malaysia and hostility to post-independence Singapore, the bitter Singapore separation from Malaysia, the Philippines’ claim to Sabah and Thai fears of spillover from the conflicts in Indochina shaped Asean’s handling of domestic developments in the region. An emphasis on developing mutual confidence, understanding the different perspectives of each member and creating an awareness of the regional environment and regional sensitivities marked interactions in the early years.

In 1967, Asean leaders were more attuned to the political environment of the former metropolitan countries and needed to become familiar with their neighbours.

This process of developing cohesion and the habit of cooperation received a boost from the challenge posed by the Vietnamese invasion and occupation of Cambodia in December 1978. Asean’s resolute response to the invasion and ability to build an international coalition opposed to the intervention marked a high point for the policy of non-interference. It meant supporting the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia but it also led to international credibility and recognition for Asean as the only Third World regional grouping able to influence United Nations debates and shape the conflict negotiation process.

In 1967, a policy of non-interference and non-intervention also made sense to the post-colonial regimes in Southeast Asia as they were faced with domestic insurgencies by communist revolutionary movements assisted by China.

As the Asean states sought improved ties with China after the historic Nixon visit to China in 1971, calls for an end to Chinese support for the communist parties in the region were coupled with the need to uphold the principles of non- interference and respect for the sovereignty of the region’s states.

Forty years later, geopolitical realities have changed. The end of the Cold War undermined the logic of the policy of non-intervention and non-interference. Doctrines of humanitarian intervention and ‘the responsibility to protect’ are increasingly the basis of decision-making in the UN Security Council, especially as the impact of bloodshed and the consequences of riots, revolutions and bombings are covered hour by hour on television screens and in widely circulated blogs and on the Internet.

In 1988, the scale of the much larger crackdown by the Myanmar military only became known several weeks later. Today, these images are transmitted instantaneously around the world by mobile phones and YouTube.

As long as Myanmar is part of the highest councils of Asean, the region will have a credibility problem when it seeks to address issues of humanitarian concern elsewhere around the globe.

Not only is the junta a failure when it comes to ensuring Myanmar’s economic development, it has also failed to build a cohesive society or ensure a political transition from military rule.

Myanmar does not play an effective role within Asean either. When former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad succeeded in getting Asean approval for Myanmar’s admission in 1997, it was believed that Myanmar’s participation would lead to learning by example: As Myanmar interacted with Asean states, it would realise that outward-looking policies, increased foreign investment and expanded trade, tourism and other exchanges would lead it to move in the direction of a more open society increasingly integrated with the rest of South-east Asia. These hopes were soon dashed.

As the Singapore co-chair of the Singapore/Myanmar senior officials working group on economic issues, I realised in 1998 that we were going nowhere. As we were preoccupied with the Asian financial and economic crisis, we decided not to proceed with these meetings as our hosts were more interested in taking us on a week-long jaunt to gem mines and tourist attractions than engaging in serious exchanges on policy issues.

As Asean moves towards the establishment of an Asean Community based on the three pillars of a Security Community, a Socio-Cultural Community and an Economic Community, can it afford to have a member seen as having a government that has failed to ensure the well-being of its people not just recently but since it joined Asean?

Old Asean hands will say that Myanmar is part of Asean and should be a member. Yes, but only when Myanmar can uphold its commitments. Until then, the forthcoming Asean Summit should agree on the suspension of Myanmar’s membership.

The writer is Dean of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University.

Mr Barry Desker is not just the Dean of RSIS, but also a former Ambassador to Indonesia and the current Non-Resident Ambassador to the Vatican. Kudos to Ambassador Desker for taking this bold stand calling for Myanmar’s suspension from ASEAN!

Consider
ing Singapore’s public stand has been that Myanmar must remain within the ASEAN family no matter what, it is rather unusual for a former career diplomat and such a senior member of the Establishment to take this contrarian position. It is unlikely he would have “broken ranks” like this had he not gotten tacit support from many other members of the Establishment in Singapore.

In addition, MM Lee Kuan Yew was quoted in the Straits Times (to appear on 10 Oct) describing Myanmar’s ruling generals “as being rather ‘dumb’ when it comes to managing the country’s economy” and “will not be able to survive indefinitely”.

Already, several months ago, the Singapore Government decided it would not defend Myanmar at the UN any more because of its refusal to show any meaningful progress on its “Roadmap to Democracy”. Now, such strident calls from a “non-government academic” could be a prelude to an even more significant shift in Singapore’s public position on Myanmar.

There is no better time to ratchet up the pressure as now. If Singapore and ASEAN miss this window of opportunity to pressure the generals to compromise, we could be looking at another 20 years of brutal military suppression and economic disasters before the next uprising.

Sydney Morning Herald article on Singapore "disproportionate, unbalanced…misleading"

A reader, “Indochina“, posted a very well-analyzed comment on my blog post, “Myanmar junta leader’s family reportedly in Singapore” (Oct 2). This was in response to a Sydney Morning Herald article, “Singapore, a friend indeed to Burma” (Eric Ellis, SMH, Oct 1), which I linked to in my original blog post.

I’m reproducing it below because it is such a good piece on its own:

The actions of the Burmese junta are repulsive and beyond contempt and deserve the universal condemnation it is receiving. My friends there have suffered greatly and have seen family and friends die in the last uprising. In a heartbeat, I would be all for sending in an ASEAN peacekeeping force to mitigate the unbridled tyrannical power.

Nevertheless, I take issuance with Eric Ellis on his article. Its not that there isn’t a small element of truth in what he writes, but it’s disproportionate, unbalanced and a bit misleading.

Although he is well known writer, there is a sense that he writes with some underlying Australian chauvinism – sentiments which seem to be shared some of his fellow countrymen. The same sentiments are evoked in reading comments from Quantas, Telstra and so on. In any case, Ellis’s article has been carried with great speed through the Oceanic press which seems to indicate some popular position.

Perhaps in the Australian psyche, there’s a fundamental insecurity which arises from an inability to handle Asia rising, including ASEAN, in which Singapore stands as a prototype of increasing success – with many many warts and failings, but certainly not the Nee Soon whorehouse that one suspects that Ellis would prefer Singapore to have remained.

His previous articles – also criticisms of Singapore – the hanging of the Australian drug runner, the Shin Corp involvement in Thailand; were all tinged with some sense of the personal ire.

Why not talk about Thailand or the UK which are by far the top investors in Burma? Or castigate the Japanese, French, Belgians and Chinese who are also there. In the following “dirty list”, there are many nationalities to be accused, the least of which are Singaporeans. http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/dirty_list/dirty_list_details.html

And why not make it clear that, by and large, Singapore involvement has been in economic development with the airport with new hotels and development of tourism. Or even that Burma and Singapore have long been linked and that ties goes back to the 19th century and this is evidenced in the earliest Singapore road names – Rangoon, Mandalay, Pegu, Moulmein, all testify to this.

Why not look at possible outcomes and compare this with Singapore’s investment into Vietnam, which at one time was the largest investor, and how this in its own way helped trigger the economic boom that is making Vietnam the second fasted growing nation and that this boom is resulting in increasing individual freedoms – and how this was ASEAN’s overall objective of engaging with the whole of Indochina from the mid 90’s.

He writes that without Singapore’s support the Burmese Junta would weaken and fail; that’s nonsense – the Burmese army is 3 million people and they are paid by the oil revenues from the UK.

Looking at some of the accusations Ellis makes, contrast this with what Burmanet (Burmanet.org) which is an online resource on Burma – and which is not afraid to say offensive things about the junta – has this to say about Tay Za.

“He knows that the regime has no future and is plagued with internal fighting. He also knows that his close ties with the top dogs make him vulnerable….Sources also report that Tay Za is keeping an eye on Deputy Snr-Gen Maung Aye, the army commander-in-chief, who has reportedly taken a dislike to him.”

Its not that I know anything personally about Tay Za or Lo or for that matter anyone in any way related to them, its just that the reporting is basically prejudiced and unbalanced in such a way as to be offensive.

With regards to the drugs trade in Burma, let us not forget that it was 2 divisions of the Kuomintang who were ordered by Chiang Kai Shek into northern Burma to develop the drugs business to fund the nationalist army. “To fight a war, you need guns. And to buy guns, you need money. In these mountains, the only money is opium. (General Tuan, speaking about why his Nationalist Chinese (KMT) troops were involved in the opium trade in Upper Burma)”. Go check it out, these guys were CIA funded

Finally, in considering Ellis’s accusation of Singapore’s complicity in perpetuating the Burmese junta, lets look at Australia’s high morals.

With regard to East Timor, Australia gave Indonesia economic and military assistance throughout the 24-year occupation and advocated on its behalf in the international community. The occupation resulted in the deaths of about a third of its East Timor’s population who got bombed with Napalm, with women raped by the thousands, and many tens of thousands more beheaded, tortured or simply disappearing. The report of the East Timor Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation (CAVR) concluded that Australia was influenced by a desire to get the most it could out of maritime boundary negotiations affecting oil and gas reserves.

Ellis would do well to “take out the log from his eye first”

Thanks Indochina for the comment.

Rational and pragmatic foreign policy does not mean it always works

ringsei wrote a blog post titled Sg’s Myanmar policy is rational and pragmatic. It was a pretty accurate articulation of Singapore’s foreign policy, particularly towards Myanmar:

Other than a statement and a letter, there really is nothing much Singapore can do since ‘we have very little leverage over the internal development there.’ Bearing in mind the above definition of pragmatism [doing what works; where what = x; when x = nothing], doing nothing is pragmatic.

Therefore, based on the three assumptions above, Singapore’s foreign policy towards Myanmar is rational and pragmatic. Such policy may be morally bankrupt and abhorrent but it is still rational and pragmatic.

Here is my response:

As a former MFA officer (writing in my personal capacity), I’m cautiously supportive of pragmatic foreign policy. Yes we should do what works. But pragmatism has been used to support every policy made by our Govt — moral or not, working or not. “Pragmatism” led us to admit Myanmar to Asean. “Pragmatism” guided our failed policy of constructive engagement of the military junta.

Yes, I support a rational and pragmatic foreign policy. I also support foreign policy that works. Our Myanmar policy has not worked. Therefore the pragmatic response would be to change that policy.

Singapore Ambassador’s address to the UN Security Council on the Myanmar crisis

Remarks by Mr Vanu Gopala Menon, Singapore’s Ambassador to the UN at the UN Security Council Session on the Situation in Myanmar, 5 Oct 07

Thank you, Mr President, for giving me the floor as ASEAN Chair,

1 As a neighbour of Myanmar and a fellow ASEAN member, it is with a heavy heart that we speak today. Recent events in Myanmar cannot be overlooked or ignored, even by Myanmar’s friends and neighbours. This is why on 27 September 2007 we issued a statement as ASEAN Chair. All the ASEAN members were present, including nine of ten Foreign Ministers. The statement expressed revulsion over reports that the protests were being suppressed by violence. It called for restraint, national reconciliation, the release of political detainees including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and for Myanmar to work towards a peaceful transition to democracy. In addition, the statement expressed support for the visit of UN Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari. It also referred to the serious impact on ASEAN’s credibility. It therefore cannot just be an internal matter of Myanmar.

2 On 29 September 2007, my Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, wrote to Senior General Than Shwe to convey his deep concern and to urge Myanmar to work with Mr Gambari to find a way forward. On 2 October 2007, my delegation in Geneva delivered a statement at the Fifth Special Session of the Human Rights Council on the draft resolution on Myanmar and to stress the importance of supporting Mr Gambari’s mission. On 3 October 2007, Prime Minister Lee met with Mr Gambari to assure him of ASEAN’s full support and to encourage him to press on with the UN’s efforts.

3 But we are here today to look forward not back. To move forward, there are certain realities that we have to acknowledge.

4 First, we need to recognize that the UN’s efforts, as embodied by Mr Gambari, are unique and irreplaceable. At this stage, Mr Gambari represents our best hope and is also the only game in town. Mr Gambari is an experienced and gifted diplomat who seems to have gained the trust of both sides. The international community should buttress his position and invest him with the requisite support, authority, and prestige. Mr Gambari should return to Myanmar and re-assume his good offices role as soon as possible to sustain the momentum. We urge the Myanmar Government to continue to cooperate with the UN and Mr Gambari.

5 Second, we should avoid falling into the trap of over-simplification. The situation in Myanmar is complicated. As the Secretary-General himself has noted, we should not prematurely try to pigeon-hole Mr Gambari’s visit as a “success” or “failure”. He has succeeded in beginning a process that can bring change to Myanmar. The fact that Myanmar has allowed Mr Gambari to visit three times, most recently in the midst of the present crisis, is encouraging. It shows that the Myanmar authorities want to maintain a line to the UN. There are also reports that the authorities have released some of those detained. Unfortunately, many others are still being detained and arrests reportedly continue. Yesterday, Senior General Than Shwe announced that he was willing to meet with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. But he imposed “pre-conditions” on this meeting, and most regrettably, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi remains in detention. Mr Gambari’s visit is the start of a long and arduous process.

6 Third, we have to be pragmatic. It would be a grievous mistake to think that if the SPDC left the scene tomorrow, all would suddenly be well and all problems would automatically be resolved. The military is a key institution in Myanmar that cannot be wished away. Any peaceful solution to the crisis will have to involve all parties, including the military. If the military is not part of the solution, there will be no solution. If the process is mishandled it could result in greater instability and more suffering for the Myanmar people. Thant Myint-U, a former UN Secretariat official and grandson of U Thant, warned recently that the world must be careful that the change it wants to see in Myanmar does not lead to the anarchy seen in Iraq. Myanmar is not a homogeneous state. There are many armed ethnic groups that are opposed to central government rule and only a very tenuous ceasefire prevents the renewal of hostilities. This should not be an excuse for delaying necessary steps forward. But neither do we want a Yugoslavia in Southeast Asia.

7 There has also been talk about additional sanctions. My delegation can understand the impulse to punish unacceptable behaviour. Indeed, we should not rule this out. But we have to pause to consider dispassionately what the real impact of additional sanctions will be. How will they affect a regime that is only tangentially connected to the rest of the world? Will they help or hinder the UN’s role? How will they affect the willingness of the SPDC to cooperate with Mr Gambari? What is their impact on the people of Myanmar? All such actions should have only one objective, which is to strengthen Mr Gambari’s hand as an effective mediator.

8 Fourth, ASEAN will take a responsible position. Myanmar is part of the ASEAN family. Whatever we may think about the behaviour of a family member, it is still a family member. But ASEAN’s influence is limited. This was underscored last year when the Myanmar authorities refused to seriously engage the ASEAN Envoy. Yet, the same authorities received Mr Gambari and arranged a substantial programme for him, which included meetings with Senior General Than Shwe and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. This was a clear signal of Myanmar’s preferences.

Mr President,

9 It is in everyone’s interest to keep Myanmar in the ASEAN family. But we are not Myanmar’s only neighbour. China and India are two large countries with a long history of engagement with Myanmar. We believe that they are uniquely placed to play a role. In this regard, allow me to commend China for its quiet efforts which we believe were instrumental in securing a substantive and useful visit for Mr Gambari. We hope that India will play a similar role. Likewise, Japan has a role to play because it is a major aid donor to Myanmar. All of us – the international community as a whole – must do our part. Because of the size and complexity of the undertaking, the good offices of the UN and Mr Gambari offer the only new way forward.

Thank you.

. . . . .

(UN Photo/Devra Berkowitz)

Pregnant woman: One life or two?

Straits Times, 5 Oct 2007

Husband who killed pregnant wife with sword jailed 2 more years

A MENTALLY ill man, jailed three years for stabbing his wife and their unborn child with a sword, will now have to serve two more years in prison.

The Court of Appeal on Friday increased Han John Han’s jail term from three to five years after the prosecution appealed, arguing that he had got away too lightly.

In delivering the stiffer sentence, Justice Andrew Phang said the court could not ignore the fact that two lives had been lost.

[Read more]

This is a judgment that should be taken note of. For a country with over 12,000 abortions each year, and which allows teenage girls to get an abortion without their parents’ permission, it is certainly interesting that a court has made a ruling based on the fact that a pregnant woman and her unborn child are considered “two lives”.

Indon to M’sia: "Rasa Sayang" is ours

M’sia urges Indonesia to drop plans to sue over folk song

A GOVERNMENT minister on Friday urged Indonesia to drop its claim of ownership over a Malay folk song used in Malaysia’s tourism campaign and focus instead on boosting bilateral ties.

The Indonesians have accused Malaysia of stealing the song Rasa Sayang, or Feeling of Love, from them and are considering suing.

Kuala Lumpur has rejected the allegations, which could spark a diplomatic row between the two neighbors.

Malaysian Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister Rais Yatim warned that Jakarta’s plan to sue for copyright was immature and would setback bilateral ties.

The song has its roots in the Malay archipelago which includes Indonesia, Malaysia, southern Thailand and Brunei, and is also sung by people in southern Africa and Sri Lanka, Mr Rais told reporters.

‘It is a backward move (to sue). Indonesia should have instead encouraged Rasa Sayang to be made the song of harmony for the Malay archipelago,’ he said.

[Read more]

We also sing that song in Singapore, especially during National Day season. I tend to agree with the Malaysians. That would be a perfect song for ASEAN unity.

Free Myanmar Now

Click here to sign up to participate in International Bloggers’ Day for Burma.

What are your priorities, Mr Policeman?

This evening, as I made my way from Orchard MRT to the Myanmar Embassy to sign the petition to voice my revulsion at the brutal quelling of peaceful protests in Myanmar last week, I saw two prostitutes in front of Orchard Delphi (near the junction with Claymore Road) soliciting for clients. Their target clients were clear: single, Caucasian men.

A short distance down, as I walked up St Martin’s Drive where the embassy is located, I saw two policemen and a policewoman in plain clothes doing nothing but standing there eyeing every one walking up towards the diplomatic mission. At the embassy’s entrance, where a round-the-clock candlelight vigil is being held, another three or four policemen where there doing nothing productive except manning a videocamera mounted on a tripod, filming all the visitors as they went by.

I walked back down towards the MRT station a few minutes later. Those two prostitutes were gone (presumably with their clients). But again, in front of Delphi, another three prostitutes were there, smiling at Caucasian men who walked by and sometimes taking them by the hand and whispering something into their ears. None of the men succumbed to their charms.

I felt frustrated by this situation. Many tourists come to Singapore expecting a clean, wholesome place, free of vices normally associated with inner cities and Third World countries. Many of those men who were approached probably had a whole different story about Singapore to tell to their friends and family back home.

I decided to call the nearby police station to report this. The officer on the line told me he had sent in a request to the patrol, and that police officers will be there very soon. I waited for 10 minutes, and seeing no police car arriving, decided to just go home. However just down the road, I saw another policeman who looked like he was booking a motorist for a traffic violation. I approached him and reported the soliciting prostitutes. He told me plainly (albeit politely) that he did not have the authority to approach them, but would call in the anti-vice unit to have them handle it.

I don’t know what the outcome of this is. Perhaps the policemen eventually came. But what I can’t fit together is why our police would waste the manpower of six to 7 officers to eye a small candlelight vigil, while taking so long to respond to actual criminal activity taking place nearby.

What are their priorities? Keeping our streets safe and free of vice activities, or playing Steven Spielburg and filming and intimidating people who are peacefully expressing their genuine concern for their fellow human beings in Myanmar?

Update:

I wrote separately to the police’s “SPF Service Improvement Unit” to complain about the lack of enforcement all these years. This was their reply:

“Dear Sir

We refer to your email of 4 October 2007.

Police will continue to monitor the situation in Orchard Road closely and
will take enforcement action where necessary against any illegal
activities.

We thank you for your feedback.”

I encourage readers to call the police to report every time you see prostitutes soliciting in the Orchard Road area (prostitution is not illegal, but soliciting is). The number to call is 1800-7359999 (Orchard Police Post).

Once they get more complaints, they will feel under pressure to act on it. If no one complains, they will just continue to “close one eye” to the situation.

Myanmar junta leader’s family reportedly in Singapore

London’s The Times has reported that the family of Myanmar’s dictator, Senior General Than Shwe, has left Myanmar and is currently in Singapore.

Citing a report by the Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB), an established Myanmarese dissident radio station based in Norway, The Times reported that Than Shwe’s wife, daughter and son-in-law have arrived with other family members in Singapore. Than Shwe’s son-in-law, Teza, who is incidentally also Myanmar’s richest man because of his family connections, then flew off to Dubai and is staying at the seven-star Burj Al Arab Hotel, arguably the world’s most luxurious hotel. A DVB correspondent apparently was able to establish that Teza was indeed staying at the the Burj.

This adds to a growing list of Myanmar junta leaders who have made Singapore their “home away from home”. Than Shwe himself was recently in Singapore for medical treatment, and the current prime minister, General Soe Win, has been at Singapore General Hospital (SGH) receiving treatment for leukaemia since May.