Jump to content

Talk:Politics of Myanmar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Missing Information

[edit]

Having read this article, I don't understand the ideological position of the military regime. What are their justifications for their work? While there appears to be massive support for change in Burma, I doubt the military are ruling without some sort of self-justification. For example, SLORC's name suggests a concern with social disorder, and I think that many similar dictatorships that end up in similar straights have leaders with grudges against outsiders (c.f. North Korea, Libya) who have, in the past, exploited them.

I don't think the article is neutral or whatever. --74.141.133.51 03:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken Table Numbers

[edit]

The "1990 People's Assembly election results" table on this page is mistaken. The number of seats adds up to only 479, NOT 492 as it appears here and as the source, Adam Carr's website, has it. More accurate information needs to be found. Also, on that note, a lot of the sources I have looked at, including the CIA World Factbook and others, say that there were only 485 seats "available" for that election, not 492. Matatigre36 21:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

This article seems to aggressively promote NLD and NCGUB, this is in clear breach of Wikipedia Neutral Point of view policy and the article appears to be a propaganda leaflet. I would like to urge all contributors to adhere to Wikipedia unbias policy.Okkar 12:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the tone of this article is biased. However it needs information on the political situation in Burma before 1962. Perhaps you could write that, Okkar? SimonBillenness 12:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll be glad to write up, although I'm not sure it would be of anything in favour for opposition groups as it largely centered around the civil war and ethnical tensions leading to Ne Win's caretaker government. This is not my subject of expertise, but I can give it a try. Please try to wirte something neutral and not overtly propaganda materials, if in doubt, please refer to NPOV guidelines. Okkar 12:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've made a good start. (It feels strange to like one of your edits for once.) I'd suggest that you just include the bare bones of the structure and add historical language from other Wikipedia pages that has been already written by those with a historical bent. No need to reinvest the wheel, eh? I'd be happy as always to tighten the grammar and spelling. SimonBillenness 12:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that the "West" has imposed sanctions shows that the elections were suspect (c.f. the "Color Revolutions"). Just exactly what is the West's interest in democracy when Bush and Blair have obviously rigged elections in 2000, 2004 and 2005 in the US and UK such that the UK's electoral judge said it would "shame a banana republic". America was against a gas pipeline to China which was approved by Myanmar shortly after China vetoed a UNSC motion against her. The "National League for Democracy" also sounds like another Americanism and Condoleeza Rice has re-used the term "Outpost of Tyranny" that she used for Venezuela with the US having failed to depose the democratically elected Hugo Chavez in a coup financed by the US state department. The NLD was set up in 1988 and at the tender age of 2 won a landslide? Pull the other one it's got bells on. Similarly Lord Browne former head of BP has lost his job and BP has had a number of serious setbacks with leaking pipelines and exploding refineries in the US. BP gets 10% of its profits from Russian projects. In the greater context, the interference by the West begins to make sense and it isn't for democracy.

About okkar

[edit]

A person calling a military coup and dictatorship for 'caretaker government' isn't really fit to write an objective article. Zarkow 125.24.209.24 10:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag in "Political conditions" section

[edit]

I've tagged the "Political conditions" section for POV, as it basically stands as more of a human interest piece in a newspaper than a strictly factual page of encyclopedic data. That the entire section basically sprung from a single editor that never made another edit[1] is kind of suspect, as well. I'm not saying that the data is wrong; I'm just saying that it's not referenced and it's not written in an encyclopedic manner. EvilCouch (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New constitution, criticisms

[edit]

I added this NOTABLE, and first since 1990, referendum and new charger: Myanmar's army-drafted constitution was overwhelmingly approved (by 92.4% of the 22 million voters with alleged voter turnout of 99%) on May 10 in the first phase of a two-stage referendum amid Cyclone Nargis. It was the first national vote since the 1990 election. 2010 multi-party elections in 2010 would end 5 decades of military rule, as the new charter gives the military an automatic 25% of seats in parliament. NLD spokesman Nyan Win, inter alia, criticized the referendum: "This referendum was full of cheating and fraud across the country; In some villages, authorities and polling station officials ticked the ballots themselves and did not let the voters do anything." Reuters, Cyclone-hit Myanmar says 92 percent back charter The constitution would bar Aung San Suu Kyi, from public office. 5 million citizens will vote May 24 in Yangon and the Irrawaddy delta, worst hit by Cyclone Nargis. www.gmanews.tv, Myanmar OKs charter amid cyclone disaster --Florentino floro (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice

[edit]

The government section of the "Outline of Burma" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.

When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.

Please check that this country's outline is not in error.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist .

Thank you.

heroin trafficking by military government, forced relocations

[edit]

the main page on burma mentions the burmese government's narcotrafficking record with thorough citations, though this page only briefly mentions "state-sponsored" trafficking. perhaps it deserves more of a mention on the page, as it is a highly politically significant issue? also perhaps the issue of forced relocations by the government should be mentioned more thoroughly? According to Mike Davis, speaking about the "Visit Myanmar Year 1996" mass relocation program: "One and a half million residents - an incredible 16% of the total urban population - were removed from their homes ... and shipped out to hastily constructed bamboo-and-thatch huts in the urban periphery, now... renamed the 'New Fields'..." 173.3.41.6 (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Politics of Myanmar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judiciary

[edit]

In the section on the 'Judicial System' it states that the judiciary is 'independent of the executive branch', no citation provided. In the SPDC era section, however, it states 'There is no independent judiciary in Burma' for which a reputable source (The Guardian, a UK newspaper) is cited.

I would suggest amending the first of these assertions to read 'Under the constitution the judiciary is said to be independent of the executive branch, however in practice this has not been achieved.' and citing the aforementioned Guardian article.78.19.11.102 (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I decided to just edit it myself and inserted 'not' and the source citation.78.19.11.102 (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Politics of Myanmar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wareru dhammathat

[edit]

I don't understand why this section on historical law books is included here. What I would expect is more information on the different sections of the current laws, how they were drafted and any issues in public debates. For example, the 1984 citizens law and its exclusion of the Rohingya should be mentioned. - I am not well enough informed about this, but hopefully someone can add this information. Cheers, Munfarid1 21:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Munfarid1

Myanmar Coup

[edit]

I'm not amazingly well informed on any topic, but I have done a little bit of research on the coup, shouldn't this article talk about the new military government at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.207.175.250 (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Politics_of_Myanmar&oldid=1208325132"