BURMA'S CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM DOMINATED BY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 CHIANG MAI 000074 SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR EAP, IO AND DRL NSC FOR PHU E.O. 12958: DECL: 5/12/2018 TAGS: PREL PHUM PGOV KDEM BM TH SUBJECT: BURMA'S CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM DOMINATED BY IRREGULARITIES, ACCORDING TO EXILES REF: CHIANG MAI 63 CHIANG MAI 00000074 001.2 OF 002 CLASSIFIED BY: Alex Barrasso, Chief, Pol/Econ, CG Chiang Mai. REASON: 1.4 (d) -------------- Summary -------------- ¶1. (C) Voting irregularities in Burma's constitutional referendum were blatant, wide-spread, and intentional, according to Burmese exile groups based on the Thai-Burma border. By the morning of May 10, they had already catalogued over 100 reports of irregularities covering both advanced voting and early morning voting on May 10 itself. At subsequent meetings on the afternoon of May 10 and the morning of May 11, these groups shared more such reports, as well as some preliminary results based on polling monitors they had deployed inside Burma. These reports belie the regime's own public statements that the referendum would be free and fair. They also contradict speculation by analysts and the media that the regime would not tamper significantly with the voting process itself, but would instead prefer to distort the final tally after completing the counting of votes. End Summary. ¶2. (C) On a May 9-11 trip to Mae Sot, Tak Province on the Thai-Burma border, we met with a wide variety of exiles to gather information about voting in Burma's May 10 constitutional referendum, as well as to discuss relief efforts in the wake of Cyclone Nargis and the political implications of the storm (Septel). The alliance of seven exile groups embodied in the Strategic Coordination Committee, and the Committee for Mass Movement (Reftel),used the offices of one of its members (the Forum for Democracy in Burma) as a center to receive and compile reports about voting. The FDB and its partners told us they plan to share much of this information at a press conference scheduled to take place in Bangkok on May 15. The National League for Democracy Liberated Areas (NLDLA) also compiled information on voting irregularities. ¶3. (U) Below is a synopsis of the reported irregularities these contacts shared with us. Meiktila Township, Kachin State: There was no ballot box; people were instructed to sign their ballots and vote yes. In other parts of the state, authorities asked the head of household to vote for the entire family. Voters were forced to provide their name, the name of their employer, and their ID card before voting. Voting was conducted at the offices of village headmen and the Burma Army, rather than at polling stations. In some areas, voters were also told to sign ballots on which yes had already been checked. Paukkhaung Township, Bago Division: Authorities added voters to the registry. Thayawaddy, Bago and Mandalay Divisions: Some voters were told to make their selection in front of polling officials and then place the ballot in the ballot box. Nahmkhan Township, Shan State: There was no ballot box at at least one station. One voter who checked the "no" box was intimidated and threatened with arrest; he was told that voting no was an act of opposition to the State, and his vote was changed by polling officials. These actions frightened the rest of the voters in line behind him, and they all checked yes on their ballots. Kyiakmaraw Township, Mon State: In seven villages, there were no ballot boxes. Those who voted no were questioned and reprimanded; they were reminded of the consequences of opposing the constitution, and told that if they did not vote yes, the SPDC would not continue development projects there. Kyaupadaung Township: Authorities denied a group of Muslims permission to travel to Mandalay Division until they voted yes first. Moumein: In several townships, residents were asked to vote in advance on May 9 under the pretext that there would be too many voters on May 10. In 12 villages, the ballots were already CHIANG MAI 00000074 002.2 OF 002 marked yes, and authorities told voters that the "vote no" campaign would not win, further insisting that they were "assisting" the villagers by making them vote yes. Yay Nan Chaung Township, Magway Division: In some villages, voting was conducted on the night of May 9. Local USDA (the regime's mass-member mobilization organization) and local PDC (Peace and Development Council) members went house to house, instructing voters not to oppose the referendum and taking their votes at their residences. In other parts of the township, voters were told to vote yes at the registration desk, or enter the voting booth if they wanted to vote no. Mandalay and Mong Ton: At two polling places, voters lined up outside were told that their votes had already been cast and were instructed to go home. Some became angry, and clashed with security officials. (Note: We have no further details on this encounter.) Zego Gone Township, Bago Division: Members of the Myanmar Woman's Federation followed voters into the voting booth. Pegu Division: There were no pens or pencils in some voting booths, and some voters returned ballots without making a selection. Authorities also reportedly seized identity cards, and only returned them if the holders voted yes. Local PDC and USDA members were present at some polling stations, with some entering the voting booths and forcing voters to tick the yes box. Hmawbi Township, Rangoon Division: Authorities handed out some ballots with the yes box already checked. Some voters had to sign ballots first, and were then told to make their selection at the voter registration table. They were also told that the authorities knew which way they had voted, leading many to cast yes votes. One civil servant who went to the polls found out that his ballot had already been cast. One voter who voted no was forced to give her name and address. Thayet District: Six voters were arrested for voting no. Magway Division: Voters sporting vote no shirts were forced to remove them. Others distributing vote no pamphlets were arrested. ¶4. (U) Our contacts also told us that teachers and other civil servants were forced to vote in advance, and were told by officials they would be "singled out for recognition" if they voted no. They claim that many who voted in advance nonetheless rejected the constitution. Soldiers and prisoners were also forced to vote in advance, our contacts alleged. They also asserted that in some townships, advance ballots were counted at the township offices without any observers. The groups also shared with us some preliminary results that their poll monitors were able to gather. All were lopsided yes votes. In one township, the reported result was 1060 yes votes and 200 no votes. In another, the numbers were 1070 and 239 respectively. ¶5. (C) When we asked what plans the exile groups had to press for change after the referendum, they made vague references to the 2010 elections, and to the need to wait for the official results of the referendum vote before determining next steps. -------------- Comment -------------- ¶6. (SBU) These reports of irregularities belie the regime's prior public assurances that the referendum would be free and fair. These irregularities, and the overall environment of fear and suspicion surrounding the referendum, serve only to lend weight to our long-standing position that the regime's roadmap is nothing but a sham. A relatively transparent voting process by international standards would have strengthened the regime's hand, even after announcing fictitious results. However, these reports of irregularities make it more difficult for the authorities to argue that the constitution was approved in a free and fair process. MORROW