Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission has previously issued an appeal about an elderly religious leader in Burma who has been imprisoned for allegedly establishing a deviant Buddhist order. In this appeal, we bring you details of another case of a monk jailed for allegedly teaching the group’s doctrine. Although the prosecution brought no firm evidence against the monk, and even though the local religious hierarchy defended him against the allegations, he is currently appealing to the Supreme Court against a two-year sentence for insulting religion.
CASE NARRATIVE:
In 2010 authorities in Burma began taking action against a Buddhist sect known as Moepyar, declaring that it was a schismatic sect and subsequently prohibiting it. They also prosecuted the group’s founder, Shin Nyana, who is now serving a 20-year jail term (AHRC-UAC-046-2012). It also issued documentation on other persons allegedly involved in the group.
U Ottama, the monk with whom the current appeal is concerned, was not among those persons named in the documentation. Notwithstanding, in May 2012 local authorities in Aungpan, Shan State, where Ottama was temporarily residing, brought allegations against him that he was also a member of the group. They claimed that he had in his possession books and a CD that he was using to propagate the allegedly deviant teachings of the sect, that deny orthodox beliefs associated with karma and rebirth and concentrate on the current life. They forced him to disrobe and prosecuted him, even though at this time the state council of the Buddhist order responsible for matters of discipline and doctrine had not yet determined that he had committed any unorthodoxy.
In September 2012, the religious council found that Ottama was not a member of the Moepyar group and had not propagated its teachings. Despite this, and without any firm evidence, the court hearing the case against him found him guilty in October and sentenced him to two years in jail. Two appeal courts have refused to rehear the ruling and the matter is now in the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, in January 2013 the religious council strangely and without explanation overturned its previous decision that he was not a member and found that he was a member of Moepyar, consistent with the court ruling.
Even if Ottama was a member of Moepyar, the ruling against him and actions against other members of the group constitute a violation of their rights to practice religion freely and peacefully. Ottama had been instructing townsfolk in small groups and had been using materials with him for those lessons. He had not been distributing them to the general public, let alone causing any type of public disturbance. The ruling against him also does not show any evidence of this, and nor does it accuse him of impersonation or any criminal act. In fact, the ruling is almost entirely concentrated on questions of doctrine, which are not questions of criminal law and should not be subject to any criminal inquiry or sanction.
Please call for the release of U Ottama. Further details are contained in the sample letter below, as usual.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
In recent times, the role of Buddhist monks in provoking and participating in communal violence in Burma has become a subject of strong media interest. It is notable that although monks who have openly encouraged Buddhists to take action to, as they put it, defend their religion and communities against Muslims, have been free to speak publicly in large gatherings and via the media and internet, members of this sect who come together peacefully and in small groups to discuss what they can do to practice religion for the betterment of themselves and others in the here-and-now have been targeted by the religious authorities and courts for prosecution and imprisonment.
For more commentary on these and other human rights issues in Burma, visit the Burma page on the new AHRC website: http://www.humanrights.asia/countries/burma.
REQUESTED ACTION:
Please write to the persons listed below to call for the release of U Ottama, as well as Shin Nyana. Please note that for the purposes of the letter Burma is referred to by its official name of Myanmar.
Please be informed that the AHRC is writing separate letters to the UN Special Rapporteurs on Myanmar, and on freedom of religion or belief; and to the regional human rights office for Southeast Asia calling for interventions into this case.
To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER
SAMPLE LETTER
Dear ___________,
MYANMAR: Imprisonment of Buddhist monk for alleged participation in schismatic sect
Accused: U Ottama, a.k.a. U Myint Oo, current detained in Taunggyi Prison, Shan State, Myanmar; normally residing at Mahamyin Forest Monastery, Bago Region, Myanmar
Persons involved:
1. Dr Htun Myint, resident of Aungpan, Kalaw Township, Shan State (complainant)
2. U Tin Maung, administrative head, Ward 1, Aungpan, Kalaw Township
3. U Htin Kyaw Oo, deputy head, Kalaw Township Religious Affairs Department
4. Members of the Kalaw Township Sangha Nayaka Committee
Charge: Section 295A, Penal Code, for insulting religion, in Criminal Case No. 811/2012, Kalaw Township Court, convicted and sentenced to two years in prison on 3 October 2012
Appeals: Criminal Appeal No. 38/2012, Taunggyi District Court; Shan State High Court, 19 February 2013, in both instances dismissed without hearing; final appeal pending before the Supreme Court, Criminal Revision Case. No. 284(b)/2013
I am very disappointed to learn that the authorities in Myanmar continue to pursue alleged members of a Buddhist sect accused of deviant teaching and prosecute them under the criminal law for the peaceful practice of their faith. I urge that the persecution of the group stops, and that those imprisoned, including monk U Ottama, be released from prison without delay.
According to information that I have received, in 2010 the state Buddhist religious council, the Maha Sangha Nayaka Committee, began action against a small group known colloquially as Moepyar, deeming it in 2011 to be a schismatic and unorthodox sect that is not practicing Buddhism (Vinayadhara Committee No. 17/2010, decision of 15 November 2011; Maha Sangha Nayaka Committee Directive No. 95, 16 December 2011). Accordingly, the Ministry of Religious Affairs issued orders for action to be taken against the sect, whose founder, Shin Nyana, was by this time already imprisoned.
U Ottama, the monk with whom this letter is concerned, was not among those persons named in the material released by the ministry. Notwithstanding, in May 2012 a doctor in Aungpan, Shan State, acting in conjunction with local authorities brought a criminal complaint against him for allegedly propagating the group’s teaching while on a visit to the town. He claimed that the monk had in his possession books and a CD that he was using to deny orthodox beliefs associated with karma and rebirth and concentrate on the current life.
Local authorities then forced the monk to disrobe and prosecuted him, even though at this time the state council of the Buddhist order responsible for matters of discipline and doctrine had not yet determined that he had committed any unorthodoxy. Thereafter, on 28 September 2012 the state religious council issued an order finding that Ottama was not a member or proponent of the Moepyar sect [Letter No. 191/(Vi-Htway)-13/2/Vi-MaHaNa]. Despite this finding, and without any firm evidence, the court hearing the case against him found him guilty in October and sentenced him to two years in jail.
Two appeal courts have refused to reconsider the ruling and the matter is now in the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, on 7 January 2013 the Maha Sangha Nayaka strangely and without explanation overturned its previous decision that he was not a member and found that he was a member of Moepyar, consistent with the court ruling [Letter No. 290/(Vi-Htway)-13/2/Vi-MaHaNa].
The reversal of position by the council strikes me as highly suspicious, pointing to the likelihood that it was brought under some kind of pressure, or felt it necessary, to bring its own position into line with the findings of the criminal courts. It is disappointing, because it is clear to me that the matter in question is not a criminal matter at all but a matter of religious doctrine, and one whose only place for debate and resolution lies with the religious authorities. In fact, the 23-page ruling against Ottama consists not of any allegations that he committed criminal offences or disturbances, but is almost entirely taken up with questions of Buddhist religious faith. These are not matters for the courts, let alone criminal matters. That Ottama has been imprisoned on these grounds not only constitutes a violation of his human right to practice his faith peacefully, but also strikes me as inconsistent with the domestic law in Myanmar, which is a secular country that has no state religion. In short, the courts should not be meddling in these matters and have no grounds nor competence to be deciding upon them.
Accordingly, I call for the release from prison of U Ottama and also for the release from prison of other persons accused in association with the Moepyar sect, including its founder, Shin Nyana. Whether or not its doctrine is unorthodox is a matter that can be taken up in religious quarters and decided upon by people of faith. They are not questions for judges nor are they matters that should lead to the imprisonment of anyone.
I also take this opportunity to note the curious juxtaposition between the persecution of the Moepyar sect and the apparent impunity with which other Buddhist monks in Myanmar are currently engaging in preaching that is apparently aimed at inflaming interreligious violence in the country. These monks are not only speaking at large public gatherings but their views are being carried through media outlets, and in video and text on the Internet. Evidence of their complicity in crimes is there for all to see; however, they do not appear to be the subject of any criminal inquiries. That the members of the Moepyar sect, who preach peaceful coexistence and the spiritual betterment of people in this life within the confines of adherents’ houses and in other settings that do nothing to upset the public tranquility or otherwise cause potential offences to be committed are instead made the targets of prosecution strikes me as an act of great hypocrisy by the authorities in Myanmar, and one altogether inconsistent with both their domestic and international obligations. Therefore, I urge the relevant parts of the government of Myanmar to review their positions on these matters, so that religious figures who are responsible for crimes—and against whom ample evidence exists—are brought to justice, while those practicing their faith in accordance with their human rights are left to do so uninterrupted.
Yours sincerely,
—————-
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:
1. U Thein Sein
President of Myanmar
President Office
Office No.18
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
2. U Sun Sint
Minister
Ministry of Religious Affairs
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
3. Dr. Tun Shin
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Office No. 25
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 404 088/ 090/ 092/ 094/ 097
Fax: +95 67 404 146/ 106
4. Thura U Aung Ko
Chairman
Pyithu Hluttaw Judicial and Legislative Committee
Pythu Hluttaw Office
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
5. U Aung Nyein
Chairman
Pyithu Hluttaw Judicial and Legislative Committee
Committee for Public Complaints and Appeals
Amyotha Hluttaw Office
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
6. U Win Mra
Chairman
Myanmar National Human Rights Commission
27 Pyay Road
Hlaing Township
Yangon
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 1 659668
Fax: +95 1 659668
Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) (ua@ahrc.asia)
