Myanmar's military chief Senior General Min

Aung Hlaing sat down with Channel NewsAsia's

May Wong for his first interview with a foreign
journalist. In Part 1 of the interview, he
addresses talk that he will run for president, and
whether military representation in parliament
should change.
NAY PYI TAW: Myanmar's military chief has defended the role of the military in helping the
country's transition to democracy. The army currently represents 25 per cent of members in
parliament, and there have been calls to reduce its role.Senior General Min Aung Hlaing told
Channel NewsAsia in an interview that he is aware of the people's negative perception towards
the army due to its history of military dictatorship. But he said he is slowly trying to change that
and show the citizens how the military is performing its duties to protect and ensure peace in
Myanmar.
Q: Myanmar is set to hold its supposedly free and fair elections by the end of this
year. Your name has been thrown up very often, speculating that you will
participate in the upcoming elections. Do you have plans to enter politics?
This is what people say what they think. Actually carrying out my duty as commanderin-chief is a very important role for the country.
In order to protect the country we have to make our best efforts to build the capacity of
the military. Besides, as the army was born from the people; it needs to be an army that
protects the interests of the people. It also needs to be an army that acts to realise the
interests of the people. That is why we have to try very hard to be in touch with the
public. We have many kinds of activities in Myanmar, especially in remote areas there is
a lot of work that needs to be done.

First of all, we have to make the army a good army. Secondly, we have to make it
capable. Thirdly, we have to reach the people and be in touch. As my responsibility is
very big, I try to concentrate on my duties.
Regarding what you mentioned just now, about entering politics to be president, it will
depend on the situation of the times. If I turn my attention to politics now, it is likely to
affect or weaken my present job. Right now it is too early to make a decision or talk
about it.
A: You said that your duty is to protect the people and to help the people improve
their lives. Do you not feel that you can do that as a political leader? Do you not
feel that you can do that as the president of Myanmar?
At present, there are many areas in which I am doing whatever I can. Actually, as a
citizen, I carry out my duty whatever role I am entrusted with. As a matter of fact I can
say what I am doing is national politics.
In our country, the most essential things are firstly, we need peace. The second thing
is unity. After we have these things, we need to make our country developed. Every
citizen has this responsibility. As I am a citizen, I feel that whatever role I have to play, I
shall do my best to carry out my duties.
Q: To bring about unity and peace, do you feel you can do a better job at that by
becoming the president?
Each person can do his part according to his role. The president will do whatever he can
in his capacity. In some matters, he needs assistance. I have to provide assistance.
That is why each citizen has the opportunity to carry out his duty depending on his role.
Q: Do you have ambitions to become the president?
As I said to you earlier, as a citizen, there are three things we need to do. Peace, unity,
and development. Whatever role we are given, each citizen has to carry out his duties.
On my part, I will carry out whatever duty is required of me.

Q: To achieve peace, unity and development, as you said, where do you see the
militarys role post-2015 elections?
The militarys duty is to defend the country. The work of protecting the country is very
wide or comprehensive. There are defence activities that can be done directly, and there
are defence activities that cannot be done directly. Therefore, the military has to carry
out all the responsibilities that it is able to carry out. We will continue to carry out our
duties in accordance with law.
Q: You said that the military has to protect the interests of the people. Is that why
you are against removing and changing the 25-per cent representation by the
army?
We will have to look at the countrys history and how it relates to the military. The history
of the country cannot be separated from the history of the Tatmadaw (military). In the
effort to gain independence, the army worked together with the people for
independence. All along since then, we have been involved and played an important
role. We have all this experience.
We are now moving along on the path of a multi-party system. To progress in this
direction everyone needs to participate. At the same time people need to understand
and practice democratic principles. In that respect the Tatmadaw is providing support.
Q: In order to achieve democracy, many have called for changes to be made.
Many have called for amendments particularly section 436, which stipulates a
mandatory 25 per cent representation of the military in parliament. Do you feel
that by changing that section it will help the transition towards democracy?
This is related somewhat to the earlier topic. On my part, with regard to constitutional
amendment, I have no objection to changing some of the provisions that require
changes.
In Chapter 12 of the constitution there are sections that deal with amendments. We have
to act according to those provisions. The laws were not drawn up by us.

Representatives of the people from different sectors in society wrote the constitution.
This was done with careful consideration and thought.
Therefore, I have no reason to object to amendment of the constitution according to law.
Q: You mention that the people wrote the constitution and it was written for the
people as well. Do you feel as though this is the right time to change it, and in
particular - I want to get back to the subject - of changing the militarys
representation inside parliament?
We introduced a multi-party system in March 2011. Its been only about four years. We
are still a young democracy. As I said earlier, we cannot separate the countrys history
from the history of the military. Based on our experience, when we are moving towards a
multi-party democratic system it needs to be a strong system.
In a parliamentary democracy, the executive, legislative and judiciary need to have the
opportunity to work independently. With regard to the parliament, there are many areas
in which the parliament can carry out activities. In order to encourage and support such
activities the Tatmadaw is participating.
Q: When we look at the multi-party system as you mentioned, its a very young
system. What factors do you think the country ought to consider before you start
reducing the power and control of the military in order to allow the multi-party
system to fully establish itself?
We have had only four years experience. With regard to lawmaking it is the duty of the
parliament. The military representatives in parliament only give advice in the legislative
process, they can never make decisions.
We will make recommendations what should be done, what should not be done. The
parliament makes the decisions. They can use our recommendations if they want. If
they cant accept our recommendations, it doesnt matter. If parliament can practice
democracy properly, then well have to see. Well continue to act depending on the
situation that arises.

Q: But at the moment you all know that the military controls 25 per cent of the
votes. In order for things to move for legislation you will require more than 75 per
cent of the votes. So effectively, you cannot move unless the military gives the
green light.
Thats not true. They can do everything. For example, in parliament we just have 25 per
cent of the votes, thats all. For example, in making laws, there are many laws that have
been passed with majority support. Its not dependent on our 25 per cent support or
rejection.
Whether we support or not, depending on how important the business is, the bill can be
passed. There may be some conditions that restrict but they are not a cause for
concern.