Harrassment of Politicall Prisoners
By Win Naing Oo

8.1 The September 1990 Prison Strike
This prison strike, in Imin prison, is the biggest that has taken place during SLORC era, and also led to the most severe punishments. There were many underlying factors which led to this prison strike, but the main reasons are:

1. The mixing of political prisoners with criminals
There are naturally differences between political prisoners and criminals. Criminals are arrested because of a violation of the rights of other people, carried out for their own personal benefit. Political prisoners are arrested for a different reason. They are arrested because of selfless demands, and struggle to get rights for all the people of the country.

These two different types of people are mixed together in prisons. If there is a problem in the prison, the views of these two groups of prisoners will differ, and their approaches to solving these problems will also be different. Usually, criminals would like to solve problems by force, by murder and suchlike, the implements for which are readily obtainable.

2. Non-recognition of political prisoners
Political prisoners reject the fact that they are not recognised as such. They feel this is an insult to their dignity. Even though they have the same status and rights as criminals according to the regulations of the prison, in reality they do not get the rights that the criminal prisoners receive. Political prisoners are even less free in prison than criminal prisoners.

Political prisoners are always closely watched and inspected by prison authorities. They have absolutely no chance to visit other cells or cell blocks. When they sleep, they cannot sleep near one another. Visitors and family members who are allowed to visit political prisoners are thoroughly searched many times. All conversation between political prisoners and their visitors is monitored by prison warders. If more than five political prisoners gather in a group in the prison, it is regarded as a move in defiance of the prison authorities and they are accused of engaging in political activities. Political prisoners are even prohibited from going near the entrance to the cells in which they stay, as the prison authorities worry about them talking to prisoners in other cells.

The situation for criminal prisoners is less strict. They can talk freely, can travel to other cells and cell blocks, and are much more free than political prisoners.

3. Lack of access to reading material
Political prisoners want to read books, newspapers, and material. Even though all books in Burma are strictly censored by the military govenunent, reading material is forbidden for political prisoners. There has always been access to reading material for prisoners every Burmese government except the SLORC.

4. Lack of visiting rights
Refer to section 2.6.

5. Harassment related to changes in the political situation outside the jail
When the NLD election victory was not honoured, and not transferred, more people were arrested and the punishments became more harsh. Political prisoners in the prisons were harassed and oppressed even more than usual. Political prisoners were very frustrated with the conditions in prison and found it very difficult to tolerate them.

Because of these conditions, 40 students from the dog cells made some demands of the prison authorities. They expressed their willingness to discuss these problems with the prison authorities. But the prison authorities refused, swearing at the prisoners and threatening them.

Subsequently, on 18 September 1990, students from the dog cell commenced a hunger strike and informed the prison authorities accordingly. They then announced the following five demands:

1. To allow political prisoners to stay together, segregated from the criminal prisoners
2. To recognize political prisoners as such, and grant them political prisoner status
3. To allow prisoners access to reading materials including newspapers, religious books and other legal reading matter
4. To allow political prisoners full and free rights to receive visits
5. To respect the results of the election and hand over power to the elected representatives.

Prison authorities and prison doctors arrived at the dog cells and acknowledged the hunger strike. Then, they came and confiscated all personal items and food in the dog cells. Later, warders came and smashed the water pots, telling the prisoners their water had been cut. The prison authorities blacked out news of the hunger strike so that it would not spread to other cell blocks. However, even though precise details were not known, news of the strike leaked out to the other cell blocks in the Prison.

After four or five days had passed, some of the students lost consciousness, suffered fits and were then sent to the prison hospital. The others refused to receive medical care and continued the hunger strike.

At that time, there were about 500 political prisoners in the six solitary confinement cell blocks. News of the hunger-strike, such as the number of students from the dog cells that were sent to hospital and the number that had died, reached the solitary confinement cells. Political prisoners from other cell blocks became concerned and prepared to support the hunger strike by also demanding just treatment for political prisoners.

Consequently, prisoners from these six cell blocks, together with those from the female hall began to shout slogans in unison, beginning at 7:00 am, on 25 September 1990. The slogans were the same demands that the hunger strikers from the dog cells were making. All the cell blocks echoed loudly with the sound of slogans being chanted.

In spite of this, no prison officials arrived on the scene. No one came and talked to the protesters. There was no discussion between the hungerstrikers and the authorities. One hour later, the authorities played music over loudspeakers so that people in other blocks and outside the prison would not hear the chanting of slogans.

At 11:00 am, military intelligence persormel, soldiers and warders, with a combined strength of at least 200 men, entered the prison, armed with batons and other weapons for beating prisoners. Even though the prisoners were coordinated in shouting slogans, they were in different parts of the prison. At that time as the doors had not been opened, they were all shouting from within their locked cells.

Warders then entered the cells and began scolding the prisoners, chaining their hands behind their backs and beating them. Some prisoners were dragged out of their cells. At that time there were three prisoners in each cell. After these prisoners had been dragged out, the warders came back and repeated the process. The second time they were more violent and one old man, who could not stand it any more, shouted at them with tears in his eyes: "You should not be brutal like this." But that old man was also beaten and taken out. His name was U Kyin Maung.

The prisoners who were taken out of the various solitary confinement cell blocks were all beaten by many prison officers in the field beside the prison office. They were beaten with various kinds of sticks and even iron bars. They were kicked with army boots and jumped on. The prison officers continued to beat the prisoners until the majority were unconscious. These unconscious prisoners were then thrown, as if they were corpses, into the cells on death row.

Prisoners who were badly tortured were: See Side Bar

The prison authorities continued to beat these prisoners who had chanted slogans in support of the hunger strike very brutally until the next morning. At the same time they took the hunger strikers out of the cells. The hunger strikers were very weak and were unable even to walk. The authorities led them into the death row cells and showed them the prisoners who had been badly tortured and were stained with blood, telling them these prisoners were suffering because of their hunger strike. The authorities told them that to prevent more suffering they should abandon their hunger strike. The prisoners were then taken back to the cells and ordered to eat.

When the hunger strikers still refused to eat, the prison authorities put cooked rice in front of them. Then they started to beat the strikers, even though by this stage they were so weak they were unable to walk. All hunger strikers were beaten in various brutal ways. Finally they sorowfully began to eat.

Meanwhile, 40 of the strikers, including five of the hunger strikers, were again taken into the military dog cells. Early the next morning, they were sent to Tharawadi prison and Thayet prison in two groups, with orders for them to be denied medical attention.

The prisoners from death row were beaten the most severely. Finally some of them became unconscous and lost large amounts of blood, and were sent to the prison hospital. The hospital became full with victims. Those prisoners who were not so seriously injured were not sent back to their normal cells, but were kept on death row and provided with no medical treatment. 40 were sent to Tbamwadi and Tbayet prisons. 100 were kept on death row and tortured. The remaining strikers were kept in tiny cells in solitary confinement.

When they came to visit the following day, all of the family of the prisoners heard about the events that had taken place and about the death, bloodshed, brutal beatings and the departure of two trucks from the prison, carrying prisoners soaked with blood. When they heard this outside the gate of the prison, all the family members began crying loudly. But they were not allowed to meet the prisoners. Although they pleaded with prison officials to let them know if the prisoners were still alive or just injured, the officials never told them.

On their way home, the family members of the political prisoners were unable to control themselves and cried and talked about the situation with other passengers on the same bus. The other passengers also became sad and angry, but tried to calm down the grieving family members, since there was nothing that could be done about the situation.

8.2 The case of Soe Thein and Zaw Win Htut
Soe Thein had been sent to the attached prison from solitary-confinement cell block number 5 in the main prison, after being accused of discussing Politics. This happened one month pnor to the 25 September 1990 prison strike. There are two walls between the main prison and the attached prison, so it is well isolated from main prison.

This move was not known, at the time, by the prisoners staying at attached prison, as the information was totally blacked out. Soe Thein and Zaw Win Htut were put together in a tiny cell in the attached prison.

When the prisoners in the main prison were taken out to be beaten, warders also arrived at the cell of Soe Thein and ordered him to move gain. They took him out with hands shackled and face covered, and beating him when he got outside the cell.

How was Soe Thein related to the strike? He was not involved in what was happening in the main jail. He did not even hear about it. Why did they beat Soe Thein? Zaw Win Htut, who was left in the cell, shouted out: "You are totally unjust. Stop it, or if you are brave, come on let's fight one on one". Four warders opened the door, rushed into the cell and started to beat him very violently. He suffered a head fracture and was sent to the prison hospital.

The real reason the warders came and beat Soe Thein was probably not to do with the strike, but had more to do with their hatred of him. What is the principle of the jail manual? Is it justice or prejudice?

8.3 The demand for an end to hard labour
The following event took place at number 4 hall. There are two different types of cell block for political prisoners in Insein prison the solitaryconfinement cell blocks and the ordinary halls. Out of a total of five halls, three contain political prisoners. There are over 200 in each hall. Political prisoners who are put in solitary confinement cellblocks get only 15 minutes for washing clothes, bathing and walking, but do not need hard labour. In the halls the prisoners are a little more free, but they have to work in the vegetable gardens.

Political prisoners do not mind working in the vegetable garden, but they regard it as an insult to their dignity because it would put them same status as criminals. The work is extremely tiring, and prisoners are forced to work under a lot of pressure. The prison authorities use it as another way to intimidate and oppress prisoners. In line with the SLORC since, prison authorities always insult political prisoners, saying: "there are no political prisoners; all are criminals". One time students and became angry at these insults, and demanded that the prison authorities stop giving them forced labour.

The prison authorities summoned the students and told them they if they did not want to work in the vegetable gardens, they would not be allowed to stay in the halls, but would have to stay in solitary confinement. The students replied that they would not provide hard labour they agreed to stay in solitary confinement instead.

The prison authorities told the students who had agreed to be to solitary to come out. About 40 students came out of their hall brought their personal belongings (clothes, food, blankets) with them. Many warders accompanied them into the sofitary confinement cell blocks. However, they were not sent to the solitary confinement cell blocks, but were put into the dog cells instead. The dog cells are for the punishment for prisoners who commit crimes in prisons.

These students were very surprised that they were being taken into the dog cells. They were put into tiny cells, four people to a cell. When all the students were in the cells, the warders opened each cell in began to beat them, shouting 'This punishment is because you don't want to work. You worthless politicians! You f-ing politicians! This is you have to live! This is the dog cell!' The students had no opportunity to explain themselves. They did not even understand why they were being beaten, as they thought they had reached an agreement with the prison authorities. Thus, the dog cell was filled with the sound of beatings, shoutings and groans. All the students were given solitary confinement for one month as a punishment. Permission to receive visitors was denied and all their belongings were confiscated.

Please note: The dog cell was where the dogs used in patrolling the prison compound were kept. The prison authorities often used them to torture prisoners. Out of hatred, all the dogs were killed during a prison riot in 1988 and eaten by the prisoners.

8.4 The case of Zaw Myo Aung (Hall 4)
According to prison regulations, lights out is at 9 pm. After lights out, all prisoners must sleep and must remain silent. However, almost all the prisoners use this opportunity to talk with each other in whispers. The warders also come and talk with the prisoners.

Zaw Myo Aung was the general-secretary from Ma Ka Tha Pha (National Students' Organisation). Saya Maung Maung was a philosophy teacher from the workers' college. They were cell mates. One night they were talking together after 9 pm. It is common for prisoners to learn from teachers who have been incarcerated.

Zaw Myo Aung asked Saya Maung Maung a question relating to philosophy. Saya Maung Maung replied, but one prisoner, named Hla Htim, disagreed with what Saya Maung Maung was saying, and a quarrel started with Zaw Myo Aung. The next day Hla Htun kept quiet, pretending that nothing had happened, but the warder, Soe Win took the case to the prison authorities because he had heard about it from another prisoner.

The warder later summoned Hla Htun saying that the case would be sent to trial. Hla Htun refused and so was forced to attend the internal hearing andgive evidence. Tbree senior prisoners were also summoned to give evidence against the accused, but no one was summoned as witness to defend Zaw Myo Aung. Consequently he was found guilty and sentenced to three months' in solitary confinement in the dog cell, with hands and feet shackled. He was also refused permission to receive visitors.

He was found guilty of the following offenses:

1. Talking after 9 PM
2. Lack of respect for prison authorities.

If they wish to enforce the first of these, then all prisoners must be sentenced. The second punishment is because he allegedly said to Ma Htun that he 'was not afraid of telling a truth to any one even if he was a prison official', and the authorities were angry that he dared to talk in this way in prison.

On another occasion, Abbot Meggin was put into a tiny solitary confinement cell because he had taught English to students in hall 3.

8.5 The case of Kyaw Htway (Cell block 5)
After staying in prison for a long time, sometimes students become friendly with some of the warders, and they often tease each other.

One time, Kyaw Htway asked warder Nyunt Kyi jokingly, "Will you give me your sister's hand in marriage?" Such jokes and taunts are quite common. All the prisoners and warders in Cell block 5 understood the situation, and did not take offense in such cases. However, on this occasion Kyaw Htway was soon summoned to the prison office by the authorities. They moved him to the attached prison, accusing him of insulting a prison official. When a prisoner is moved to a new cell, he always finds it hard to adjust to new conditions that are likely to be alien to him.

The warder, Nyunt Kyi, had not made any complaint, but the authorities had come to hear about the incident and took action directly. When Kyaw Htway was summoned, Nyunt Kyi apologised and appealed to the authorities not to take any action. However, his appeal was rejected and the authorities threatened Nyunt Kyi, saying: "Do you want to lose your job and be punished?" Moreover, they forced Nyunt Kyi to act as a witness.

8.6 The case of Mya Aye and others
Mya Aye is the vice-chairman of a post-graduate student democratic union. In May 1990 he was tortured and sent to solitary confinement because he complained that the meat ration was much smaller than it have been.

In December 1990, prisoners from death-row cell block number 2 were taken out and badly beaten. All were blindfolded with sarongs and forced to walk past the warders in single-file. The warders hit them side of the face as they walked past. When the other prisoners warders why they did that, they replied that it was a prison custom.

In June 1991, the students from Hall 3 complained to the prison authorities that they were only receiving half the usual amount of soap. Because of this complaint, fifteen students were moved to the attached prison.

8.7 Forced latrine cleaning
In November 1991, 100 political prisoners from Insein prison were moved to Thayet prison. All were kept together in Hall 2, separate from the criminal prisoners. There are four halls in Thayet prison.

One duty for prisoners is to clean the prison latrine pots (big bowls of excrement in the latrines.) This duty is a punishment for prisoners who commit a crime while in prison. Otherwise, it is a job for prisoners who want a reduction in their jail sentences. Only these two types of prisoners have to do this job.

As a part of the tradition in prisons, no political prisoners are required to clean the pots whatsoever. In Thayet prison, the political prisoners were always quiet, and did not create any problems. The criminals who had committed crimes in prisons were given the duty to do this job there.

However, two weeks after these prisoners were moved, the authorities announced that the political prisoners had to clean the latrines in their block. Since this was an unusual move, and not in accordance with prison regulations, the prisoners concerned asked the authorities the reason for this order. The reason given was that the political prisoners had been talking to the criminal prisoners when they came to clean the latrine.

This reason was a little strange. Speaking with criminals is not usually a problem. Indeed, for the two weeks preceding this incident, the political prisoners had been talking to criminal prisoners openly and in front of warders, with no problem. The political prisoners requested a discussion with the prison authorities over this incident. They did not complain about having to clean the latrines. They did not threaten to call a strike. They just wanted to have a discussion. But the prison authorities did not reply.

At 5 pm, while waiting for a reply from the prison authorities, the warders instructed the prisoners to collect their personal belongings together. At 6 pm the political prisoners were sent to three different halls. At Thayet prison, each hall has three large cells. Eleven political prisoners were put into each cell. These cells are large enough for 60-70 prisoners each. The rest of the prisoners in these cells were criminal prisoners.

At 7 pm, all the halls were closed. At 7:30 a warder visited these three halls with a list of names. Nine prisoners on the list were taken out. The prisoners did not understand what the reason was. These nine prisoners were all students. Without any explanation, prison authorities put them into solitary confinement cell block number 2 and shackled their legs to a 2.6viss (about 4.2 kg) wooden weight.

Two days later, the Chief Warden of the prison called these prisoners to his office. He told them that they were punished because they insulted and opposed the prison authorities. Although they denied this and tried to tell him that they were just requesting to meet with him, they were immdiately put back into their tiny cells without being allowed to explain what had happened. The nine were then put into tiny solitary confinement cells for one month.

Then two days after the punishment had been handed were put on trial. The nine students were:

1. Zaw Myo Win
2. Soe Myat
3. Aung Paing
4. Kyaw Wunna
5. Hla Win
6. Ye Maw Htoo
7. Kyaw Kyaw Thein
8. Hla Myo Naung
9. Win Naing Oo

8.8 The pen case (Thayet Prison)
The following incident took place at number 3 cell block, Thayet Prison in April 1992. There are four cell blocks in it.

Number 3 cell block was quiet after the 9 pm lights out. Some prisoners had fallen asleep and some had not. There were 1O prisoners in 8 cells in this block. It was a windy night. The rhythmic banging of a loose corrugated iron door was the only sound to be heard.

At one point when a powerful gust of wind blew against the door, something dropped onto the floor in front of number 6 cell where Win Naing Oo and Ye Maw Htoo were confined. Ye Maw Htoo was fast asleep. Win Naing Oo got up and found a folded Longyi (Sarong). It must have been left by someone to dry it out this evening, he thought. Then he shouted, "Whose is that?" A voice from number 3 cell answered, "That's mine." It was Soe Myat. "Grab it and throw it to me," he continued. "There is a ballpoint pen inside."

Win Naing Oo grabbed it and threw it to Soe Myat through iron railing. They used to throw food, cheroots, etc. from one cell to another because cell doors were locked.

A corporal walked in before Soe Myat was able to snatch the bundle. He was not on duty at number 3 cell block; the warder on duty had gone out (of the building) for a while. The corporal picked up the bundle and unfolded it. He found a ballpoint pen inside. Soe Myat requested the corporal to give the Longyi and the ballpoint pen to him. But the corporal did not say anything and walked out of the building.

"Tell them the truth when they question you tomorrow," Soe Myat then said laughing. "There will be no problem. At worst they'll take away my visiting rights. Maybe, in addition, they'll give me a few lashes. I'll wear thick clothes tomorrow." Prisoners from other cells laughed too when they heard him say this. Some prisoners did not even know what had happened. Soe Myat was the only criminal in the number 3 cell block. He had been a notorious criminal and when he was in Insein Prison, he was loved and feared by fellow criminals. Many years of incarceration had made him an expert on prison laws and other unlawful dealings in the prison. He was also friendly with prison authorities.

Prisoners are forbidden to own pens. Sometimes action is taken in such cases, but sometimes is not. When the warders do not turn a blind eye to this kind of thing, they usually just ask the prisoner where he got the pen, and then revoke visiting rights for a month. This is usually the maximum punishment. Wm Naing Oo and Soe Myint thought that they would be punished like this.

The next moniing, at 7 am, the chief warden, prison officials and I 00 warders came into the solitary confinement ceff-block shouting angrily and beating on the walls with sticks. The cells were locked.

They first opened the cell where Win Naing Oo was staying.

Both Win Naing Oo and his cellmate, Ye Maw Htoo, were pushed violently out of their cell. Ye Maw Htoo did not know what was going on; he had been fast asleep List night when the corporal had walked away with the bundle. They were ordered to sit down. Then the warders started to beat them with batons, shouting and abusing them verbally at the same time. They did not attempt to ask any questions. At least they should have been told why they were being beaten. Both ended up slumped on the ground because of the beating.

Then the warders made them to sit up again. This time one said, "How did you manage to get the ballpoint pen?" Win Naing them the truth. But another warder shouted, "Liar", and then they were beaten again. Win Naing Oo slumped to the floor again.

Meanwhile, Soe Myat shouted from his cell: "What Win Naing Oo said is true. The pen is mine! Don't be so ruthless like this." Then they took out Soe Myat from his cell and beat him. Abbot Meggin, who was in the same cell as Soe Myat, was also beaten at the same time as Soe Myat. The abbot did not respond to the beating and received it with great tolerance. Then Zaw Myo Win and Maung Maung Than, who were cells between the others, were also taken out. The authorities ask Myo Win if he knew anything about the pen, but he replied that he did not. Then the authorities started to beat both of them very badly shouting, "Why not?" Finally both of them dropped to the ground. Neither of them had actually known anything at all about the incident.

Maung Maung Than complained that he had heart disease. The people beating him just made a joke about this and continued the beating. After the beating, the authorities ordered the prisoners to sit in the standard position. However, because of the beatings they had sustained, them were unable to maintain their balance, and they could not even sit. At that time, the warders in front of them made them sit with their heads between their knees, they were beaten again. This time they all lost consciousness.

Subsequently, all the students inside that solitary confinement cell block were taken out and beaten unconscious. The other students had never even heard about the problem with the pen, and did not understand why they were being beaten. That day the whole cell block rang out with the sound of shouting, cursing, beating and cries of pain.

The next day, Win Naing Oo was taken outside and left on a brick block under the scorching sun for two hours, with his legs chained and fixed with 10 viss (about 16 kg) iron shackles. He was then forced to walk on the burning hot sand, which was as hot as charcoal. [According to the prison manual, the heaviest weight to be shackled to a prisoner is 2.6 viss.

Then Soe Myat was taken out. But he was not given the same treatment as Win Naing Oo. Instead they offered him a matted cane chair to sit down with them. Then they asked him politely about the ballpoint pen.

Soe Myat told them the truth saying that he had found it somewhere. Without any further questioning, the prison authorities closed the case. Soe Myat was sent back to his cell. Before he left, they said to him, "We treated you as a gentleman. Ask Win Naing Oo how we treated him." Subsequently, all prisoners at the number 3 cell block were put into solitary confinement.

The next day Win Naing Oo got cyanosis and his body turned a blue colour. He suffered tightness of breath and had great difficulty in breathing. The authorities gave him no treatment or care of any kind, even though the warders had seen his conditions. At 12 pm, other prisoners heard murmuring sounds coming from his cell and asked him how he was. There was no reply, however. So the whole solitary confinement cell block shouted together loudly.

Only then the authorities arrived and gave the sick prisoner some treatment. After about a week he recovered.

The following day, all family members of the prisoners arrived at Thayet prison to visit them. The authorities denied them permission, saying that the prisoners were being punished for climbing a water tower and giving a political speech. The family members cried and went home.

A protest was made by some prisoners regarding this case. They sent a protest letter to government officials not directly related to the prison. Some miltary intelligence personnel came and investigated the matter, but their findings were that:

1. The authorities beat the prisoners in self-defence
2. No 10 viss leg weights were found in Thayet prison. There were only the normal 2.6 viss weights.

The authorities concerned and all prisoners at Thayet Prison knew that the report was a coverup. This is usual when there are investigations in Burmese prisons.

There are many other cases of political prisoners in Thayet prison being mistreated.

For example: Ko Pyeit and Ko Hla Htay were forced to crawl on sharp pointed stones after being accused of failing to maintain their standard sitting position. They had to crawl like this for about 500 yards. While crawling they were beaten with sticks by officials on both sides. Finally they were put into solitary confinement cells. Such actions are totally against prison regulations.

One time Zaw Win Htut dropped a cup while drinking and it was reported to the prison authorities by a warder. This warder was angry with that particular prisoner as he had refused to give the warder food provided by his family members while they were visiting him.

After being taken out of his cell, Zaw Win Htut was forced to crawl on sharp stones and was beaten like Ko Pyeit and Ko Hla Htay. He was also put into a tiny solitary confinement cell. Some warders said that the hard bamboo stick which was used to beat him broke into two pieces, that is how brutally he was beaten.

The root of all such incidents is this: When there is a problem between political prisoners and the prison authorities, no attempt is made by the authorities to find a reasonable solution. There is no discussion. There is no justice and no reasonable punishment. The prison authorities decide everything with hatred or prejudice and all they want to do is oppress the political prisoners with the intention of breaking their spirit.

The cases discussed in the present report are only those that took place in Insein and Thayet prisons. There are many other cases of systematic abuse in other prisons in different areas of Burma. Moreover, there have been many more cases, even in Insein prison, which are not in this report, as the author did not have personal knowledge of them.

8.9 Deliberate separation of immediate families in prisons
Prisons have a deliberate policy of separating immediate family members while they are in prison. For instance when father and son, two brothers, mother and daughter or two sisters are put in prison, the authorities separate them. This is obviously a deliberate policy for the political prisoners. if two brothers are sent to the same prison, their families can visit them at the same time. If they are sent to different prisons, travel will be a big burden for the families for they have to visit both prisons in different cities. It is a tiresome and costly task for the families. This policy is aimed at aggravating the suffering immediate family members whose brothers, fathers or sisters are in prison.

The following are a few examples of political prisoners who had to live separately:

1. U Hla Shwe People's Progressive Party (father-Mandalay Prison)
2. Set Aung Naing Rangoon University Student Union (son-Thayet Prison)
3. Aung Din All Burma Federation of Student Unions (elder brother-Thayet prison)
4. Shwe Phone Luu All Burma Federation of Student Unions (younger brother-Thayawaddy)

Another deliberate policy to aggravate the already burdened families whose loved ones are under detention is the transferring of prisoners from one prison to another. Prisoners in Insein Prison whose families are in Rangoon will be sent to prisons such as Mandalay Prison, Myingyan Prison, Thayet Prison, Thayawaddy Prison, etc., which are located up-country. Their families can easily visit them in Rangoon on a regular basis, but it is not easy for them to visit their loved ones in Mandalay Prison. It is both a costly and a wearisome task. Some poor families are hit hard by this policy. When they cannot go to visit the prisoners do not get the essential things that they need while they are in prison.

8.10 The instigation of problems between political prisoners and criminals
The water supply is not sufficient for bathing; people can just get wet but not clean. As a result, many kinds of skin disease spread among the prisoners. When the political prisoners complained to the authorities that the water supply was not enough, the authorities failed to increase the water flow through the pipe, but instead told the criminals to carry the water themselves from an outside tap, 300 yards from the prison. When the criminals became tired of carrying water, the prison authorities told them that it was because of the demands of the political prisoners that they had to do this. They became angry with the political prisoners.

When the political prisoners refused to do hard labour, the prison authorities ordered the criminals to provide more labour. When the criminals became angry because they had to do so much, the prison authorities told them that it was because. of the refusal of political prisoners to do this work. The political prisoners finally decided to work as they did to have a problem with the criminal prisoners, and they did not want their actions to create more suffering for other prisoners.

Because prisoners have to bathe using food plates, they are only able to scoop up tiny amounts of water. For this reason political prisoners asked to be allowed to bathe using water cups. At this time, the prison authorities allowed it, and also told the political prisoners to bathe first, before the criminal prisoners. When the criminal prisoners came to bathe, the warders stopped the water supply, saying: "The water has run out because the political prisoners who bathed before you used too much water."

There are many ploys prison authorities employ to create problems among prisoners. It is a part of the divide-and-rule policy of the SLORC. In this way, criminals come to be angry with and hate the political prisoners. The creation of disunity reduces problems for the prison authorities, as criminal prisoners never protest or oppose the prison authorities when politicalprisoners are badly tortured or beaten. There are also more methods used to separate political prisoners and criminal prisoners. For example, the order that criminal prisoners cannot eat meals with political prisoners and cannot talk with political prisoners.

This divide-and-rule policy is very dangerous. Whenever there is a likelihood of a confrontation with the criminals, the political prisoners try to avoid it as criminals are inclined to resort to violence. Prison authorities always turn a blind eye to confrontation of this kind.

The following is the example of this kind which took place at number 1 cell, Hall 3 during an inspection in January 1991.

All prisoners were sitting in rows for the inspection as it was closing time of the prison. There were over 100 prisoners in all. Among them were 30 political prisoners. One of them was Thein Tun 0o, a handsome 16-year-old 8th grade student. The hall leader and another criminal named Soe Myat were sitting comfortably separate from the others.

Soe Myat was feared by all criminals and political prisoners alike.

At that moment, Soe Myat told Thein Tun Oo to come and Thein Tun Oo refused. Soe Myat asked him again to sit beside him. Again he refused. Then Soe Myat stood up and called him names. Soe Myat was angry because Thein Tun Oo refused. Soe Myat then continued, "I don't give a shit about you politicians. What do you take me for? Do whatever you want if you don't like my calling you names. Complain about it to anybody. I don't give a shit." None of the students replied; in fact, no one dared to say anything.

It's common in prisons that hard-core criminals force or coax younger prisoners to have sex with them. So younger prisoners have to be very careful when dealing with them, and keep a distance whenever possible.

After the inspection, political prisoners had a discussion on how to tackle this problem. Should the prison officials be informed? They did not want a fellow prisoner to be in trouble because of this whether he be a political prisoner or a criminal. Besides, they did not want to have any problems with the criminals. Their lives could be at stake. At the same time, they did not wish to be insulted again. Eventually, they decided that they would seek advice from political prisoners in other cells the following day.

But they could not sleep that night, knowing the mentality of prisoners and wondering what might happen the next day. As they worried, the criminals also had a talk on this. "I hate these politicians, I want to kill them all," were the remarks of many criminals. At that time, there was a well-known student leader among the political prisoners. His name is Zaw Myo Aung. The criminals decided that they would target him and Thein Tun Oo. Criminals urged Soe Myat to give them the order to kill the two. After consideration, Soe Myat told them to wait until the following day.

The next day Zaw myo Aung and Thein Tun Oo discussed this with political prisoners from other cells. "Should we inform the authorities?" Just then Soe Myat came over and said, "So you are discussing because you don't like me to call you names? You want a fight with me?" The students asked him to stop abusing them. But he continued, "I will kill all of you and be happy to live in solitary confinement. He then went out to assemble the criminals from number 3 hall. Criminals from other halls came and joined them. There were many of them. The cell leader from number 1 cell of hall 3 gave them pointed iron rods. During this time, none of the political prisoners knew anything about the plot.

The situation was heading towards a likely massacre. Political prisoners had no weapons at all, not even a needle to fight back the hard-core criminals. Then in the nick of time, an old prisoner who did not wish to see this happen risked his life and informed the prison officials, knowing that he would be definitely killed if the criminals found out who told this to the authorities.

Prison authorities did not want such carnage to take place as it put all of them in jeopardy. So they intervened at the last minute slaughter was averted.

Even if it had happened, the prison authorities must be held responsible, for they were the ones who created the problem by gradually inciting hatred in the minds of the criminals against the students; the political prisoners.

Political prisoners are usually defenseless in prisons against all possible dangers.