The document summarizes censorship of media coverage of Myanmar's 2010 election by the government press scrutiny department. Several key facts were censored from news reports, including the names of top USDP party candidates standing for election in Nay Pyi Taw and references to censorship faced by journalists. Even discussions of "change" or voters' confusion and lack of information were removed by censors. The censorship reflected the authoritarian control of information at the time and hindered public awareness and discussion about the election process.

1. Top USDP candidatesget the chop
The truth was a frequentcasualty in printmedia coverage of the
election campaign in 2010.
Thura U Shwe Mann wasrubbed out in Nay PyiTaw ahead of the 2010
election but it had nothing to do with a party purge. The censorsat the
Press Scrutiny and Registration Division ordered his nameremoved
from a Myanmar Timesreport about Union Solidarity and Development
Party candidates in the capital. He wasn’talone in having his name
expunged from the report, which had begun by sayingthat voters in half
of the 10 constituenciesin the Nay Pyi Taw Union Territory would have
only two parties to choose from in the November 7 election. One was
the USDP and the other wasthe pro-juntaNational Union Party, which
had been humiliated in the 1990 election, winning 10 seats to the
National League for Democracy’s392.
The excised names were included in a sentence that began: Several
senior governmentofficials will stand for election as USDP candidates ...
Then the red pen came out, deprivingreadersof knowingthat the USDP
candidates for election to the Pyithu Hluttaw in Nay Pyi Taw included
State Peace and DevelopmentCouncilmember ThuraUShwe Mann
(who was standingin Zeyathiri constituency], Secretary-1 of the SPDC
Thiha Thura U Tin AungMyint Oo (Pobbathiri), Prime Minister U Thein
Sein (Zabbuthiri) and Minister for HomeAffairsU MaungOo (Tatkon).
They were the only names ordered cutfrom the story.
The truth wasalso an casualty in a featurereport headlined ‘Voters
facing information hurdles’, which musthave sent a little frisson of
satisfaction through censorship headquarters on Wingaba Road.
The first excision from the reportwas a statement that the 2010
election “is the country’sfirstin morethan 20 years”. Next to get the
chop was sentence about the election campaign being “aperiod of
expectation, not only for the 37 registered political parties, but also for
the peoplewho have been seeking change for morethan two decades”.
A possible reason for the red pen rulingagainst this sentence was the
word ‘change’. It waslearned when I was editing the Myanmar Timesin
the early noughties that ‘change’ was banned from headlines because it
discombobulated Senior GeneralThan Shwe. [It was also learned that he
read the Myanmar Times]. Then came a cut that reflected the essence of
the story, about most citizens never having voted in an election or

2. experienced democracy. Take that out, said the censors, and the next
sentence, too. It said: “Many areconfused about the election and lack the
information necessary to make an informed decision”.
How could they notbe confused if essential information was being
censored, such as the namesof USDP candidates in the Union capital
territory?
A reportabout political parties welcominga decision by the Union
Election Commission permittingthem to makecampaign speeches on
state radio and television was censored because of referenceto
censorship. The reportexplained how the decision granted parties 15-
minutebroadcasts, up from 10 minutesin 1990, and listed stringent
conditions. Parties were required to submit campaign speeches no
longer than seven A4 pages to the UEC at least seven daysahead of the
designated broadcast time for “scrutinising”. The directive prohibited
ninetopics from being discussed, includingthat parties mustnot “abuse
religion for political ends”. How times have changed. I am referringto
the UEC’sdecision to disqualify most Muslim candidatesfrom this year’s
election. If that is notan abuse of religion for political reasons, what is
it? The election broadcast decision caused concern amongindependent
candidates, one of whom wasquoted as saying the UEC would be asked
to grant them the samerights as parties. “Like the parties, we also need
to explain our policies to the people,” said the independent, UBaTint
Swe, who stood as a Pyithu Hluttaw candidate in North Okkalapa. “Butit
seems we will only havejournalsto tell peoplewhat wewant to say …”
but what he said next wascensored, viz: “ … and the journalsthemselves
face censorship”. [Weekly newspapersareknown in Myanmar as
journals].
Rejected for publication in the September 20 issue of the Myanmar
Times, was an interview about the election with Dr Thitinan
Pongsudhirak, director of the Institute of Security and International
Studies at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok. It had been headlined
‘The bright day for democracy’. In Myanmar, thesun is still rising.
This serieswill continue until the election.