NUG and Reform
Speakers - Salai Dokhar (Founder, India for Myanmar), Sithu Maung (Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, CRPH), Comrade Myu (Phoenix Guerilla Force)
Moderator - Nang Ei Thi
Thought Process Program Season (2)/Episode (1)
Question – Nang Ei Thi
It was already mentioned that NUG need to be reformed. So, I would like to ask what you think the parliament should do to provide check and balance and put some pressures.
Answer - Sithu Maung
Frankly, although CRPH represent the parliament, it is only an interim parliament. Not a regular parliament but rather a revolutionary one. Although in a normal time the legislative, executive and judicial pillars would function separately and provide check and balance, this is a parliament that convene its meetings on Zoom. So, honestly, if you ask whether we can provide 100% full oversight during the revolutionary period, I have to admit the answer is No. But for the good of the revolution, we do the best we can to collaborate and coordinate whenever possible to identify the approach/path we should take. To ensure we fulfill our responsibilities as legislators for the interim period, we have convened interim union parliament meetings 6 or 7 times and during those meetings, MPs from respective constituency regularly asked relevant questions to government ministries.
This is their usual function as representatives of the people. They have to represent the interest of the people and provide oversight of government departments. So, they perform their duties such as asking questions and putting forward proposals and calls for actions for the benefit of the country and the revolution. But there are limitations during the revolutionary period. Say, an MP ask Ministry of Defense directly about military affairs, such as defense budget and expenditure. They can answer some questions publicly on livestream. But some questions, they cannot. In this situation, in regular parliament sessions, MPs would ask relevant questions to respective ministries. They try to make sure their proposals and questions are documented, to make sure that their position and stance in this particular time has historical record.
Question – Nang Ei Thi
The revolution has been going on for more than four years and currently, what do you think the leading actors of the revolution should focus their efforts on. Can you discuss based on what you see on the ground?
Answer - Comrade Myu
It has been four years since the revolution started. A lot of people are getting tired. I think what the revolutionary forces should do is that they should be more united. We cannot rely solely on guerilla warfare like in the past anymore. We need to move toward conventional war and in order to do that, we need to have proper structures more than ever. But in reality, that is not happening on the ground. There has not been effective military integration on the ground in the past four years. In the beginning of the revolution, individual people engage in the resistance movement at the village level in their own way and there were people everywhere who tried to carry out their own missions. They were not operating under a command structure. They were so scattered and there was not much progress in joining forces. If this continues, it certainly will be a long way for us to engage in a conventional war. I say this because, in the Dry Zone, we still cannot carry out major operations for capturing towns/cities. The Dry Zone was among the earliest to join the revolution, yet they still cannot engage in urban warfare to capture major towns/cities. This is why joining forces is the vital. It’s still rare in the Dry Zone for the armed groups to operate under a single command of a combined force and this is why we are not seeing significant military victories. Although they do have places like liberated areas in Dry Zones, there are also many SAC areas and tactical operation units in between. And because we are not able to carry out operations systematically and strategically under a central command, we have not seen significant victories. But then, when we talk about joining forces, there are many questions about how we are going to do it - is it just for military cooperation, or do we also want to merge politically as well? Or are we going operate under the umbrella of one organization and led by one organization, or are we going to work out something else? So, I think we should get the real experts to learn about the real situation on the ground and do consultation/discussion and help us figure out how to do it properly.
Question - Nan Ei Thi
Currently on the ground, arbitrary behaviors, crimes and violence committed by the armed forces on the rise. People are saying it’s because they are not under a chain of command (CoC), but in reality, many of them that commit those acts are actually units that operate under a CoC. Do you think it’s true that these cases will decline if they integrate under a chain of command?
Answer - Salai Dokhar
I want to mention four things to answer this question. First of all, I think glorifying the revolutionary forces really encourage them to go the wrong direction. If we look online and look at social influencers, they always speak and write from a one-sided view. Then, you see people are enjoying it and cheering them. I think these kinds of things can put young people on the wrong path, especially those who might still be too young to make independent decision. And it’s not just social influencers, those from leadership positions of the revolutions sometimes speaks very subjectively. Even though it’s true that we want to eliminate our enemy, still for young people and those who are doing the revolution work on the ground, they can be misled. We honour and praise the revolutionaries., but we shouldn’t do it to a degree that put them in the wrong direction. I think it is very important that social influencers are cautious about it and speak moderately as well. For example, in the case of eliminating Da-Lan (informers), sometimes, they spread it online carelessly to get attention without knowing that it can amount to international crimes. Then later they tried to do damage control. We always monitor the media so we notice these.
Secondly, I want to talk about institution of dysfunctional organizations. The way we have set up the leadership is that we have the NUCC as a representative council and the NUG as a national government while CRPH is responsible for legislation and all of them supposedly are union level institutions that represent the whole country. But this is not working. For example, if we look at the composition of the NUCC, we have respective federal units as well as civil society organizations. However, there is no systematic representation. For example, federal units such as that of Karenni’s and Chin’s have constituencies that they represent but then we don’t have those kind of federal units for Mandalay and Yangon. We have a ton of CSOs from Yangon and Mandalay in the NUCC but they don’t have influence over armed groups on the ground. Sagaing is the same as well. So, we do have numbers in the NUCC but we all know who the NUCC represent. If we look back, we can also see that when the NUG was established, the Karenni people cannot even form their own federal council yet. Back then, Chin already formed its federal council but, at that time, the situation on the ground was still very messy for them as well. So, NUCC was not much of a mechanism where respective federal unit representatives come together, but more of an effort of CRPH that handpick people to tick the box for diversity and representation. This is what I mean by dysfunctional NUG. No matter how much you try to be inclusive, it like you want to cook Mohingya but you cannot just throw in ingredients randomly. You need the right proportions of the right ingredients. You cannot call it Monhingya otherwise.
The third point I want to make is that people talk a lot about transitional justice but they don’t talk enough about justice for current time. For example, if there is an issue, we often say that perpetrators have to face justice and be accountable for what they do after the revolution. No matter how many letters the NUG issues, they don’t have state level governance bodies like they used to anymore, although they might have some state-level authority in the form of federal units. So, since there are no state government and the NUG is directly handling local issues, the judiciary, especially the operation of justice department, become problematic. So basically, there are too much talk about transitional justice without enough training for the soldiers about seeking immediate justice. So, we need to create a structure. Federal unit governments, federal unit councils and NUCC need to step in. Right now, no one is complying with what the NUCC is issuing. Some leaders become even less serious about justice and some even openly talk about how they don’t care what happen and how they can be excepted from accountability after the revolution.
Lastly, NUG is not able to address even the most high-profile cases, so when we try to address other less known cases, we might face questions like “why don’t you take action against them first”. And this is not just a problem for the NUG. It might as well be an issue within the leadership of Chin revolutionary forces. Because we are not able to operate systematically yet, we need to address the cases in a very firm and strict manner to make up for a messy justice sector.
Question – Moderator
I want to ask Comrade Myu again. During the past four year of the revolution, what do think you are the notable successes, weaknesses and strengths of NUG? How should they preserve their strengths?
Answer – Comrade Myu
If we look at the situation on the ground right now, we can see the strengths as well as many weaknesses of the NUG. It is obvious. Personally, I think they have had significant military advantages. For example, they were able to carry out major operations to capture towns/cities and there were times they actually succeeded.
They were also able to carry out many other military operations. These are the notable strengths. For example, they were able to launch major operations to capture Kawlin as well as Pinlebu. But even then, I think it would still be very difficult to advance to next areas. There are issues related to military cooperation as well as territorial divisions by local forces. So, this is an area that the NUG need to make significant improvement. Another area they need to improve would be governance and administration. The issue of Pa Thone Lone (Local People’s Defense Force, People’s Security Force and People Administration Departments) has been a major talking point. I think this is a very obvious weakness. When they were established, there were major debates about whether they are really needed. Their formation brings some advantages for local administration but when it comes to defense matters, there have been a lot of clashes with the People Defense Force (PDF) units. The role of LPDF is unclear – is it for defense (security of the people) or offense (fighting SAC). Because their purpose is unclear, even if the NUG adopt separate policies for them, interpretation on the ground can vary wildly. As a result, compliance for these rules and regulations become weak.
Question – Moderator
I want to ask Sithu Maung. In 2025, we see some changes. Secretary of MoD resigned from his post and was reappointed as advisor to Office of the Prime Minister. Can we consider these as a form of reform? Do you think these are in line with what the people want? What kinds of changes do you thinks are necessary for the NUG to make. What would you propose as an MP? Can you spell them out?
Answer – Sithu Maung
Resignation of Naing Htoo Aung was not part of a reform. I think it’s probably because of too much workload in NUG. These kinds of things are not significant enough to have an impact on the revolution. It is the committee in NUG that is responsible for alliance building that can realistically make effective reform initiatives for the revolution. There might be people we don’t know that are helping as well. There are people who are trying to build relationship and alliance with EROs. I don’t know much about defense matters. But for Security and Defense Committee of CRPH, whenever they meet with relevant ministries, they ask them questions and discuss with them about ongoing issues regularly. Sometimes, we are not satisfied with the answers, but when it comes to defense matters, the scope we discuss with them is very narrow. We need to be stealthy with our moves, so we cannot discuss openly about our strategy. But what I can say is the revolution is not just about military victories although it may precede political matters. In the end, we have to have a political conclusion. We take up arms for a political cause, so we need to have a political ideology. I think this is more important for the revolution. I am aware that there are confusions about Pa Thone Lone mechanisms. Do they want to function as polices or take up defense duties? What is their role? Or do they want to be member of parliaments? Do they want to function as an oversight body or as a government administration body. Their role needs to be clear. In terms of reforming NUG, whether it is a review or a reform, I don’t expect much from it, to be honest. I think we are already looking forward to the next phase of the revolution which is a transitional period or a pre-transitional period. But whether we are already in that period or not is something we need to discuss so that we can all be on the same page and we are doing it. On the other hand, the SAC is trying to legitimize a false central authority and we need to respond to it politically in a practical manner. We are already having discussion openly among revolutionary forces about sustaining military pressure and strengthening cooperation. This is as much as I can say for now. To touch on other political issues, there is ASEAN that is trying to approach Myanmar situation with its Five Point Consensus. Then there are China and India who have their own approaches as well. The revolution in Myanmar doesn’t need heroes. It needs champions. It’s more important who is going to be the champion. But for sure, we only have ourselves to rely on in this struggle and in the end, it is the unwavering support of the people that matters most. I believe things like US funding cut didn’t have much impact on this revolution. This is a people movement and we rely on our own strengths. We have a clear political goal. We are moving toward a federal system. In conclusion, in stead of thinking about reviewing or reforming the NUG, we are already thinking about whether we are in the first phase of transitional period or not and we are already trying to make preparation to improve the composition and representation under this new context.
Question – Moderator
I want to ask Salai Dokhar. Is it possible to make reform within the NUG. People from CRPH are also appointed in NUG. So, that means CRPH members are also holding positions in NUG. How do you think we can reform the NUG?
Answer – Salai Dokhar
First of all, we must fix the NUG, we don’t have other choice. We should keep the NUCC as a mechanism for inclusion and diversity and keep NUG compact. If we want the NUG to have diversity, we can form a committee for collective decision-making under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Right now, the NUG has its ministry of foreign affairs, but can they talk with China on behalf of the revolution? Can they also talk with India? The answer is no. India meet Chins separately and they also meet the Rakhines. That’s how they are approaching us. So, if we have an inclusive body or committee under the NUG, they can engage with these countries. What we want is that if CRPH want to adopt a new law, they should consult with relevant ministries. They can use the platform of NUCC and make sure there is a consultation process. Also, CRPH should play a facilitating role to help strengthen federal units. NUG keeps these positions in its structure but they don’t really have influence on the ground anymore. Because, in Chin State, local institutions are stronger compared to Sagain and Mandalay. It’s not good if we have to worry about the influence of local actors. If there is a problem in Sagaing, CRPH should step in and take a coordinating role. For other areas where there are no federal units yet, they can take a facilitating role as well. Any outcome has to come through an inclusive process. We saw Sagain Forum was initiated. But why did it fail? Were there so many divisions among them? Holding onto the mandate of elected MPs from 2020 election is very ugly. If we maintain this model, it doesn’t matter what kind of statement a chief minister or a council issue, people won’t comply with them. The last thing I want to say is that during the revolution period, people might listen to you so long as you give them money or weapons, but you can’t take their weapons back when stop listening to you. It is important that we step in with good faith when a situation arise on the ground. We need to have good understanding. If the leaders themselves are competing for positions, how are we going to address the same problem on the ground? We need to be a role model for them to look up to.
Moderator - Nang Ei Thi
Four years after the 2021 coup, do we still have a strong momentum to bring about the types changes that the people wanted to see. Are the politicians and revolutionary forces able to keep up with it? What do people want right now? I want to hear from comrade Myu.
Answer – Comrade Myu
In the beginning, general public had a clear vision about what they wanted. They wanted Min Aung Hlaing gone. They had a high expectation on revolutionary forces as well. They put a lot of trust in them. They believed we could defeat the military. But their view has evolved and now they are starting to see that current structure is not enough and that we need proper structures. They have had to deal with many cases of conflicts between different groups. The revolution cannot go on this way. More and more people are adopting the view that we need proper integration/cooperation. In the beginning, we had one group for one village and we felt safer that way. But this is not working anymore on the ground and it has even become an issue for travelling. So, they start to see that they really need to combine forces. In the past, they felt motivated just by hearing the news of resistance forces fighting the SAC, it didn’t matter where or how. Now, that’s not the case anymore. When there hear there is a battle, they want us to win. They don’t want to see the resistance forces still using the shoot-and-run tactic or having to retreat because their soldiers get injured. Now, they want to see allied revolutionary forces capture places. If we want that to happen, we need to join forces and set up proper system and organize ourselves like a proper military force.
Moderator - Nang Ei Thi
So, I want to ask Sithu Maung again. Acting president of NUG said the focus now should be on practical operations on the ground inside the country rather than on international fronts. Meanwhile, we see NUG is opening more offices in other countries. So, what could be the strategy of NUG and CRPH going forward? Will they focus more on what need to be done inside the country from now on? Besides, we keep hearing that there have been positive developments in terms of international relations. If that’s so, what would be a approach for dealing with neighbouring countries like India, Thailand and China.
Answer - Sithu Maung
In terms of engagement with China and India, we only have parliament to parliament relationship because CRPH is a body that represent parliamentarians and union parliament. Because we are acting like the parliament of Myanmar, we have engaged with different platforms such as with the International Parliamentary Union and other meetings and regional conferences as well as respective parliaments from individual countries. We try to maintain parliament to parliament relationship and we represent Myanmar in those platforms. It is different from government to government relation. In parliament to parliament relation, because we represent the people rather than the government or their policies, we can exchange ideas more freely and openly. In most of the meeting we attended, we learned that MPs from other countries do not like incidents like military coup in Myanmar that obstruct democratization process. They want to see Myanmar restore democracy and stability and they want to see all government branches functioning properly. So, to answer your question, the revolution has many fronts. Some take up arms and some take part in the resistance by reading poems. For us, we are fighting in international relation fronts. In the political fronts, we also engage in dialogues and try to figure out how to rebuild the country. We need to do all these thing in harmony to win this revolution. The way we define alliance is also very basic and simple. We look at who is fighting Min Aung Hlaing. Anybody who is fighting him can be an ally. There might be some differences between us in terms of our political goals, but we have a common enemy.
We can find harmony in this situation and form stronger alliance and coordination. I am not saying these just for motivational purpose. I think I don’t need to say what the strategy is exactly but I can say that there have been more coordinated efforts.
Moderator - Nang Ei Thi
I want to ask the last question to Salai Dokhar. Who play a more important role? Is it the West such as United States and European Union or neighbouring countries like China, Thailand and India? Where do you think we should focus more on?
Answer – Salai Kokhar
We engaged with India for advocacy since the beginning of the revolution. We did this to supplement the political efforts of mainland Chin forces. We have also been consistently calling on India to allow NUG office in its territory. We did have some success, but our weakness was exposed and India turned a blind eye on us later. I want to explain this weakness so that we can learn from this. There is no proper coordination between the MoFA and MoD. For example, When the NUG’s foreign affairs minister give a message to India, its defense forces have to back it up with actions. If they could do that it would show that there is harmony and coordination and we would get their attention. CRPH also don’t have that (coordination). So, in diplomatic relation, for them to see us as a single government, we need the parliament and government to act consistently with each other. But the way we are engaging with them, that’s not the case.
Foreign ministry might say something, but then the MoD is not following suit. This is why we been repeatedly saying that if we want India to engage with us more, we need to be able to put more military pressure on border areas and take control of border-crossing like the one near Tamu. If we can do that we would be in a position to talk with India on different issues such as defense, military and home affairs. Then when we engage with them, we need to understand that their concern is not SAC or us. They are worry about the flow of illicit drugs and firearms which is a particular concern for the ministry of interior. Then there is the issue of border-crossing and they need to know who they have to work with from Myanmar side, and this is a concern of their defense ministry. So, what is our policy on those matters? what have our Ministry of Foreign Affairs communicated to them about these matters? What have we communicated to the Thais or the Chinese? That is the most important thing. Now India have paid some attention to the revolutionary forces and made limited engagements with us. But to be honest, they even open the channel for people like us to talk to their central government leaders. What I am trying to say is that India and Thailand are really opened about discussing Myanmar situation, but we are not grabbing the opportunities. Those who are responsible for these matters have a very important job to do, but they are all based in the western countries. We always say that neither India nor China is going to like the fact that Myanmar is influenced by western countries. Even Thailand might not like it, but because Thailand is a small country, they might not have much to say about it. So, here we are sitting between the world biggest democracy and communist countries and getting squeezed by them. Don’t get me wrong, I agree we have to win this revolution by ourselves, but these are the two countries that will declare our victory. If they don’t accept our victory, they can get involved and create a mess as they please. This is the real politics. Even if we win, if China do not accept it, they can mass it up and we would not be able to declare victory. The Wests is not going to come here and declare victory for us. The Wests is not in a position to do more than what they are already doing. If they get involved more, they would have to engage in a situation like a proxy war with India and China, and this is the path that will exhaust everything we have. So, in diplomacy, I think there is no need to improve our relationship with the West. When we win, we don’t need to worry about convincing the West to recognize us in the UN either. So, I think this means we have to focus fully on India, China and Thailand. They decide how relevant we are. There are tens of thousands of Chin people living in India. The people of India are also showing supports even openly in the media. As civil society organizations, we can meet India MPs any time we want. Why can’t CRPH make the approach to do the same and speak at Indian parliament. Sometimes, we are saying things as if we are doing so much, but in practice we not really doing muc and I think that shouldn’t happen again.
India as a country doesn’t see revolutionary forces and SAC as separate entities. They treat us as one people and one nation like they do to any other countries, although West who support democracy might think otherwise. They see us as a country in a struggle and a competition and they are only interested in who is going to win so that they are clear who they have to deal with. They are not interested in whether there is a democracy or not. It’s like a football match where India is a bystander who do not care who wear shoes and who play barefoot. It’s not in its rulebook. So, we cannot go and complain to them about SAC wearing boots and us not wearing. We just have to focusing on wining.
India itself have reached out to revolutionary forces and said many times already that they have open to engagement. They said it to SAC and they also said it to the revolutionary forces when they met them last time in November 2023. SAC was able to say Yes straight away, but why can’t the revolutionary forces say Yes. They are approaching both sides to a degree based on their interests, but we are not ready and we lost the opportunity to showcase our advantages. So, for CRPH and NUG, instead of being upset about them not accepting G to G or P to P level engagements, they should engage with local MPs and communities in Mizoram and Nagaland and try to get access to local Indian parliaments and make sure our voices are heard in those platforms. I think, currently, the approach of NUG and CRPH is that only care about countries that give them easy access, but they are not trying or willing to create their own opportunities for countries that do not explicitly open the doors for them. At every fronts, we have to fight for it and make it to happen. Same thing for international relations. We cannot just wait for them to open the door for us. We have to find a way and make it happen.