Sunday, March 6, 2011

Press Release in English about DVB kick out HAK.

Explanation to DVB audience, Democracy activists regarding dismissal
from DVB's Journalist.

280211 (Htet Aung Kyaw)

(a) The latest situation
-An official letter stating the dismissal of 3 persons; Htet Aung
Kyaw, Khin Hnin Htet and Nang Kham Kaew from DVB was given by board
team on 22 February. Therefore, we have ceased all our daily
activities last Friday 25 February.

(b) Explanation on dismissal from job– indiscrepancy
-Regarding dismissal from job, in the first section (initially), as
there is difference in some places between the notice letter of board
team sent to all staff and what are really happening, I write this
letter so that all staff will know the true sequence of events.

1. according to the email sent around 9pm on 19 January to all DVB
staff from DVB board team, it was not said that we 3 are to be
dismissed, just that if we desire, we could go and work in Chiangmai
office, (and) that we will be given entitlements given to staff of
Chiangmai office, (and) that we will be given help as much as possible
on our Norwegian refugee travel documents we are holding, by
negotiating/cooperating with Norway Immigration department officials.
(It was also said at the plenary meeting on the following day). Board
chairman himself said and promised.
But at the individual meeting between us who were going to be
dismissed from job and board chairman, DVB director and deputy
director, only 4 people on 7 February, all these words were put aside
(withdrawn) and, as the current Norwegian refugee travel document you
are holding is not valid for living outside Norway for more than 7
months, the original statement of (you) going to carrying out in
Chiangmai office for years is not possible anymore. At least you
should try to get a permanent document/status in Norway first and
re-apply for the job. Only then we will reconsider it, the three
authorities said. To sum up, in the first section (initially), it was
not said directly that we are dismissed from job, but that we are to
be transferred to Chiangmai to carry out duties. Then, we were made to
appear as if we want to cling on to Norway and that we do not want to
return to Chiangmai with Chiangmai salary, in a dishonest way and
dismissed us. (In fact, with current document we can stay outside the
country for six months each.)

2. Before the decision was made, the points we put forward both in
letters and orally to board team, were; we have no objection to the
fact that the administration team needs to decide to reduce staff for
budget deficit, the cessation of broadcast and such a thing. This is
their rights, but what we did argue was (We had said it to the
administration team and board team, both orally and by letter more
than twice) why we three were chosen for dismissal; isn’t it possible
not to dismiss staff who served more than 15 years and couldn’t it be
possible to solve it by other means, isn’t it possible to reduce the
budget of all departments by percent (to recover) just 3 millions
deficit out of 23 millions, is it not possible to recheck the budget
of internal network properly which uses much budget to get a little
bit more (money), couldn’t we get a bit more if we take out Youth
Voice which is not made up with permanent staff and appointed while
there was donor and now that there is no donor, and that there are
people who are already Norwegian citizens and got permanent status who
should go and work in Thailand in terms of work, (and) currently if we
give Thai salary to those who are taking Norway salary and living in
Thailand, could we not get a bit more (money) for the deficit money?
Moreover, according to the rule and regulations of organizations and
companies, when it is inevitable to dismiss (someone), we argued that
there is the nature that, (it is done) in accordance with the
years/length of service; people with the highest years of service are
dismissed only after people with lowest years of service are

3. And although this case is titled budget case, I questioned that if
there are other hidden agendas of the two directors. The fact that
triggered such a question thus is, just before we the letter notifying
our dismissal from job, (an incident) occurred. News editor Ko Moe Aye
was suspended from the duty of news editor in relationship with
disputes/rows in TV broadcast room, internal network problems and
other matters. But he was not dismissed from DVB. The emergence of the
decision and thinking to dismiss us 3 from job who have been carrying
out duties under him (his supervision) during the days he was
suspended from editor duty, could not just be a coincidence.
Another coincidence is, all the 3 people who are dismissed from job
are singles with no family, (and) people who could not afford to buy
house. What I mean is, by dismissing us from job, is it done (with the
thinking that) we could not face family problems like others and (our)
house could not be repossessed because we could not pay monthly house
debts/rents – is a point.

(c) Our views ignored
These facts were put forward at the meeting on 7 February and
explained properly in a letter sent to board team before the meeting
but, 6 board members (board chairman said on 22 there are 8 board
members and Prime Minister and another person didn’t give their
opinion during the job dismissal letter giving meeting) and two
directors didn’t reconsider (to) amend their decision. And on 22
February, we were all summoned and given dismissal from job letter.
I state thus so that all DVB staff can know about it because as I said
at the last meeting, this decision has no strong reason, the thinking
that caused this decision has no strong reason, (and that) as they are
only thinking and decision without thinking properly from every
viewpoint, every corner, I could not agree with it, (that) although I
have no plan to file lawsuit in accordance with the law regarding the
decision, I would continue to expose the true states to the public and
audience by using every means.

(d) Future activity
-The last thing I want to say is, I, Htet Aung Kyaw will inevitably
have to go through the phase of unemployed life due to current
situation. Beyond this phase, I will continue to carry out
revolutionary duties and media duties either at media that has no
direct relation with DVB administration team (or) revolutionary
organizations (or) social organizations or as an individual.

(e) What I want to urge democracy activists, DVB audience, media within
and without Burma is –

If DVB regards itself as an organization for democracy, democracy
activists including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi must study and investigate
whether the decisions within DVB and other factors are democratic or
not, whether these decisions are giving impetus to democracy movements
or weakening it, and advise people responsible in DVB accordingly.

Another thing is, I want to urge other colleague media, internet
media, ethnic national media to study this incident for the truth to
come out.

At the same time, I want to alert international news reporter
protection organizations including CPJ, RSF, Burmese media association
outside Burma and news reporter protection organization just formed
inside Burma to study and assess this incident, and strive for the
emergence of independent news organization and more protection of the
rights of each news reporter.

Respect to all

Htet Aung Kyaw


Oslo, Norway.
မွတ္ခ်က္-...။ က်ေနာ္တုိ့ကုိထုတ္တာ တနွစ္နီးပါးျကာပီျဖစ္ေပမဲ့ ထုတ္ရျခင္းအေျကာင္းျပစာပါ အခ်က္ေတြအတုိင္း မနက္ပုိင္းေရဒီယုိကိုလဲ ရပ္တန့္ျခင္းမရွိေသးပါ။ ေရဒိယုိ-အခန္းျဖစ္တဲ့ တတိယ ထပ္ကိုလဲ ျပန္လည္အပ္နွံျခင္းမရွိေသးပါ။ ေနာက္တခါ ဘတ္ဂ်က္မရွိလုိ့ ျဖုတ္လုိက္ပါတယ္ဆုိတဲ့ ဒီဗီြဘီ အင္တာေတးမင္းဌာနလဲ ရွိျမဲရွိေနဆဲျဖစ္ပီး အခု ဆုိရင္ အင္တာေတးမင္းတာ၀န္ခံဆုိသူဟာ အဲဒီေခါင္းစဥ္နဲ့ စင္ကာပူအထိေတာင္ နုိင္ငံေတာ္ ေငြနဲ့ ခရီးဆန့္ေနပီျဖစ္ပါတယ္။

တခ်ိန္တည္းမွာဘဲ့ ေငြမရွိလုိ့ အလုပ္ထုတ္ပီးကာမွ ဒီဗြီဘီ-အတြင္း ေဒၚလာ ၄-သိန္းနီးပါးတန္ လာဒ္စားမႈ ျကပီးျဖစ္ေပၚလာပါတယ္။ အဲဒီအမႈကိုေဖၚထုတ္နုိင္ဖုိ့ ေဒၚလာ ၂-သိန္းတန္ ေရွ့ေန့အဖြဲ့ကို ငွားရမ္းခဲ့ပါတယ္။

ဒါေျကာင့္ က်ေနာ္တုိ့ကို အလုပ္ထုတ္တာဟာ ေငြေျကးအက်ပ္တည္းေျကာင့္မဟုတ္ဘဲ နုိ္င္ငံေရးေျကာင့္။ ဒီဗီံၤြဘီ- အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ေရးအဖြဲ့ရဲ့ မတရားလာဒ္စားမႈ။ ျခစားမႈ။ အရည္ခ်င္းမျပည့္၀မႈေတြအေပၚ ေ၀ဖန္မႈ ေျကာင့္ ဆုိတာ တေျဖးေျဖးထင္ရွားလာေနပါတယ္။ ပရိသတ္ေတြ ဆက္လက္ေလ့လာေစခ်င္ပါတယ္။


Until now, they not yet return the third flood as they say in statement to return after dismissed ours.



Post a Comment


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More