1. Rejections, mutilationsand
shuntingthe Lady inside
Symptomsof red pen hysteria were evidentat the Ministry of
Information’sPressScrutiny and Registration Division in the early
weeks of the 2010 election campaign.
As the election campaign gained pace in 2010, so did the sensitivity of
the censorsto reportsthat must have breached its guidelines, someof
which wereopaque. There was also the possibility of a frenzy of
necessary instructions from the then Minister of Information, former
brigadier-general U Kyaw Hsan, a hardliner when it came to press
freedom. Duringaparliamentary discussion on mediareform in
September 2011, UKyaw Hsan said in a ramblingspeech that press
freedom would bring“moredisadvantagesthan advantages”.
Of the three election-related reports rejected from publication in the
September 27, 2010 edition of the Myanmar Times, one wasabout
reports generating the most reader interest in its vernacular
counterparts. In a possible reflection of scepticism about whether an
election held under juntarulecould be freeand fair, it had quoted a
downtown Yangon newspaper vendor assayingthat “customersdon’t
seem that interested in election news”. The other rejected reports were
about the Peace and Diversity Party issuing a challenge to other parties
to take partin a debate on “state-building matters”, and the cancellation
of votingin most of the Wa Self-Administered Division becauseof a
stand-off between the Tatmadaw and the United Wa State Army over
the Border Guard Forcescheme.
A featurereporton the PDP’scampaign that touched on media freedom
was oneof five stories approved for publication with cuts. It was
referencesto mediafreedom that crossed the red pen line. Out went the
responseto a heckler at a campaign event by the PDP’sgeneral
secretary, U Nay Myo Wai, who said: “If they wanta freemedia, the
public shouldn’tvotefor a candidatewho doesn’t promiseit.”
The frontpage lead about election speeches on state-run broadcast
mediawas mutilated because of a party leader’s referencesto
censorship. Cut from the report wasthe information that Democratic
Party (Myanmar)chairman U Thu Wai had to resubmithis presentation
to the Union Election Commission because it rejected the first version.
The red pen then ran a line through a sentence quoting him sayinghe

2. was notsure what it wasin the original that irked the authorities, a
confusion with which all private-sector journalists and editors in
Myanmar could sympathise at the time. U Thu Wai’s speculation about a
reason also ran foulof the censors. He had said: “I think it wasbecause I
said the country’spresentsituation is behind our neighbouring
countriesand they think by sayingthat I’m attacking the government.” A
comparison with Myanmar’sneighboursby Rakhine Nationalities
DevelopmentParty chairman Dr AyeMaung was also excised. It had
quoted him as saying: “We think that publicservants and the army
should be upgraded to the standard of our ASEAN neighbours … ”
Another reportthat did not passunscathed concerned a statement
issued at a newsconferenceby a group of independentcandidates. The
offendinginformation in the statement criticised military ruleand
exhorted voters to shun Union Solidarity and DevelopmentParty and
pro-juntaparty candidates. It also said: “Do notvote for the candidates
who would turn back the clock … “
A reportabout National League for Democracy leader Daw AungSan
Suu Kyi being eligible to vote despite being under housearrest was cut
from 12 paragraphsto eight. The cuts included areference to her father,
BogyokeAungSan as a “former Myanmar leader” and alist of the four
Pyithu Hluttaw candidatesin Bahan Township. They included UAung
MyatHtun, who was standingfor the National Democratic Force, a party
formed by breakaway members of the NLD after it decided to boycott
the election.
Reportsabout the Nobel Peace Prize laureate alwaysmadethe censors
nervous. Ithad been placed on page 1 but the censors ordered that it be
moved “inside”. It was placed on page 7.