4.2.2

PREVIEW

Do you think either the 1947 Constitution or the 1974 Constitution was better for minority rights than the 2008 Constitution? Explain.

The 1947 Constitution of the Union of Burma differed from the 2008 Constitution in several ways relating to the rights of minority groups:

• Even though the government owned the natural resources of the country, there was the possibility for individuals, groups and companies to have ownership rights for natural resources.
• Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and Animism were recognised as some, but not all, of the religions present in Burma in 1947, in contrast to the 2008 Constitution which only recognises these religions but no others. 
• Religious instruction in schools was stated to be non-compulsory for “religious, racial or linguistic” minority groups.
• There were fewer restrictions relating to legal citizenship status to become President, a judge in the Supreme Court or High Courts, or a Member of Parliament. 
• The government was responsible for supporting each citizen in “old age, sickness or loss of capacity to work.”
• The government was responsible for paying attention to the education and economic interest of disadvantaged groups, especially to protect them from social injustices and exploitation.
• The government was responsible for protecting the “strength and health” of workers.

The 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma also differed from the 2008 Constitution in several ways relating to the rights of minority groups:

• The 1974 Constitution defined the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma as a place where “various national races make their homes together.” The “national races” are not specified, however.
• The Burmese language was stated to be the common language and the language used by courts and government institutions. However, other languages of “national races” were also permitted to be used.
• There were fewer restrictions relating to legal citizenship and disability to vote and become a Member of Parliament. 
• The government was responsible for arranging medical treatment for “every citizen in sickness.”
• Every working citizen was granted “benefits as prescribed by law for injury due to occupational accidents or when disabled or sick or old.”
• The 1974 Constitution did not recognise Buddhism as the official state religion, nor did it give Buddhism any special position.

REFLECTION/DISCUSSION

Why do you think the rights within the constitutions changed between constitutions?

FOCUS ON MYANMAR: 

making changes to the 2008 constitution

Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution has been called “undemocratic” because it gives the Defence Services appointees in all parliaments and control over certain ministries. Among several powers, the 2008 Constitution allows the  Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Services to appoint:

• “not more than 110 Pyithu Hluttaw representatives” (article 109); 
• “56 Amyotha Hluttaw representatives” (article 141); and
• “one-third of the total number of Hluttaw representatives” for States and Regions (article 161).

This allows appointees from the Defence Services to hold 25 percent of all seats in both houses of the Union Parliament and also 33 percent of all seats in State and Region Parliaments.

Since it was originally written, there have been discussions about if the 2008 Constitution should be changed, such as by:

• amending an article so that the wording of the article is changed;
• adding new content to an article without changing the wording that is already there;
• repealing an article so that it is completely removed; or
• abolishing the entire constitution and replacing it with an entirely new constitution.

Article 436 states that amending the constitution requires the approval of over 75 percent of all Members of Parliament, which means representatives of the Defence Services would need to agree to the amendments. Amendments for certain sections of the 2008 Constitution would then need to be approved by over 50 percent of voters in a national referendum.

REFLECTION/DISCUSSION

Do you think it better to change the 2008 Constitution by amending, adding and repealing articles, or by abolishing it to write a new constitution? Why?