Student activist’s controversial arrest sparks concern

The arrest of 26-year-old student union activist Ya Min Oo is raising concern that Myanmar’s government may be continuing to target student organisations, despite the release of student political prisoners ahead of the relaxing of Western economic sanctions.

Myanmar President Thein Sein pardoned some 93 prisoners recently as the European Union lifted economic sanctions on 22 April. At least two-thirds of them are thought to have been political detainees. And in the 10th amnesty in two years, 23 political prisoners were pardoned by Thein Sein on 17 May in advance of his visit to the US.

But independent student unions are still illegal in Myanmar and the recent arrest of student activists like Ye Min Oo is an indication that the military regime’s practice of detaining students on vague charges is continuing, students said.

March arrest

On 25 March Ye Min Oo – organising committee secretary of the Federation of Students’ Unions, or SFU, and a member of the Arakan Youth Association – was taken by unidentified officials from Yangon’s Bahan Monastery where he lives.

According to his family he was sent to the notorious Insein jail near Yangon, where Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi has been incarcerated in the past.

Ye Min Oo had been released under the president’s 2011 amnesty after being detained for his role in the 2007 ‘Saffron revolution’ – an uprising led by Buddhist monks.

The case has attracted a great deal of attention in the student community and has sparked controversy. There is concern that the arrest is linked to Ye Min Oo’s student union activities.

“It is not appropriate for the government to detain someone for over 24 hours and it makes people unsecure,” SFU Chair Di Nyein Lin told University World News.

When officials questioned Yae Min Oo “they said it’s illegal to form student unions and they can also charge him with this,” Di Nyi Lin said.

Communal violence

But others have said that Ye Min Oo’s arrest is linked to communal violence against the Muslim Rohingya minority in Rakhine (Arakan) state. Radical Buddhist monks have reportedly led some of the conflict.

The government is under international pressure to be seen to be controlling Buddhist-Muslim violence in the state.

On 21 May seven Muslims were sentenced to jail terms ranging from two to 28 years in connection with communal violence in March in Meiktila in central Myanmar.

Allegedly 30 to 40 Muslim students were killed at a madrasa – an Islamic educational institution – in Meiktila’s Mingalarzayaung quarter, which was razed to the ground along with surrounding buildings.

Other major clashes occurred in June and October last year, leaving many dead and thousands homeless, mainly Rohingyas.

So far no Buddhists have been convicted in connection with the Meikhtila unrest, although Ye Aung Mying, the government prosecutor in Mandalay, told news agencies in May that “there is no bias at all” based on religion.

Vague charges

Si Thu Maung, head of the student union at the Yangon Institute of Economics, told University World News that he did not think Ye Min Oo was arrested because of student union activities

If that were the case, many students would have been detained. However, some believe that Ye Min Oo’s arrest was unjust and he has been unlawfully accused – and that is of concern to student groups.

Khine Maung Lin, a member of the banned Arakan Youth Organization, said Ye Min Oo’s arrest could be connected to student union activities. However, “he is not only of Rakhine (Arakan) ethnicity but is also very close to the monks. And their organisation is also illegal.

“When the religious conflict started, the police just arrested him because it is easy to blame him. But they have neither special reason nor evidence,” he said.

Ye Min Oo’s brother Ye Min Aung told University World News that a letter from the police had been received on 1 April. “The letter said Ye Min Oo is the one who is behind the monks involved in the religious conflict in Meiktila.”

The young activist was charged in April under Action 505b, a sedition clause in the country’s draconian laws, and has been accused of encouraging nationalist Buddhist monks to organise anti-Muslim riots in central Myanmar, according to Ye Min Aung.

After a court hearing on 4 April, Ye Min Oo told local media that he was not linked to the radical organisation led by Buddhist monks known as ‘969’, which has been accused of fomenting anti-Muslim violence.

Throwback to military era

Ye Min Oo’s case was raised with government officials at a meeting on 11 May at the Myanmar Peace Centre in Yangon, attended by the Committee for Scrutinising Remaining Prisoners of Conscience, other civil society organisations and some political parties.

U Yae Aung, a member of the prisoners' committee, told University World News that the case was not being conducted under the rule of law and that it echoed how the former military government acted.

“We told the representatives from government ministries at the meeting that we still don’t know clearly why they took Ye Min Oo. The charge is not apparent. But they did not respond at all at the meeting,” he said.

Charges have been laid at three different courts – in Bahan and in Kauktada under 505b, and on 22 April at Thaketa court under section 153, a law similar to 505b. Myanmar’s law allows charges for the same crime to be laid in more than one court.

Ye Min Oo’s lawyer Kyaw Ho told University World News that the charge was vague and the prosecution’s case had also not been very specific.

“The prosecutor himself didn’t seem to know much about the case but only filed it because he was told to do so – and the witnesses are members of the police force and government administration but no member of the public allegedly instigated by him,” said Kyaw Ho.

On 20 May, in an appearance at Tharkayta township court, Yangon police officer Myint Maung said he had a phone record from 17 February in which Ye Min Oo allegedly discussed with a monk destroying mosques in Tharkayta township. But lawyer Kyaw Ho said the police officer had been unable to show the phone record in court.