2010 Election Report of FDB (ENG Version)

BURMA’S 2010
ELECTIONS:
A DEVASTATING
FRAUD
2010 ELECTIONS
PUBLISHED BY FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY IN BURMA
PUBLISHING AND DISTRIBUTION
TIME OF PUBLISHING
January 31, 2011
COPIES
1000 (First Edition)
COVER DESIGN
thiha maung maung
PUBLISHED BY FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY IN BURMA (FDB)

2010 ELECTIONS
LAYOUT DESIGN
Information Committee and Documentation Committee
Forum for Democracy in Burma
DISTRIBUTION
P.O Box (142)

Mae Sot PO, Tak - 63110
Thailand
Email: democraticforum@csloxinfo.com
Website: www.fdburma.org
Contents
Acknowledgement
Objective
Prelude
Chapter I The absence of secret voting
Chapter II Illegal votes
Chapter III Illegal invalid votes absent votes and lost votes
Chapter IV Frauds regarding early votes
Chapter V Incidents of not being able to vote
Chapter VI Percentage of the voting
Chapter VII The right of observing and media coverage for the elections
Chapter VIII Voices from election contested parties and individual candidates

2010 ELECTIONS
Chapter IX Positions of National League for Democracy and other 90 election won parties
Chapter X Positions of armed opposition groups
Chapter XI Reactions and positions of the international community
Chapter XII General
Conclusion
Appendix (A)
Appendix (B)
Supplement (1)
Supplement (2)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Forum for Democracy in Burma (FDB) would like to thank members and working groups
of FDB for carrying out data collecting, documentation and research for this report. FDB also
would like to thank people, political parties, individual candidates, media groups, internet
websites which effectively shared and informed about election frauds and other people who
helped in various ways to make this report possible.
January 31, 2011

2010 ELECTIONS
OBJECTIVE
This report is published:
Regarding the elections
1. To expose the military regime’s abuse of power and violations of laws

2. To expose the biased and unfair nature of the Election Commission
3. To expose the intimidation towards people, and contestant political parties committed by the
military regime, the Election Commission, Union Solidarity and Development Party and all levels
of authorities
4. To expose the un-free and unfairness of the 2010 elections
5. To expose the military regime’s “Arbitrary attempts to legitimate and elongate the militarism in
Burma.”
6. For democratic forces from inside and outside of Burma and the international community to
firmly and systematically oppose the 2010 election results.

2010 ELECTIONS
PRELUDE
Negatives of the 2010 elections
The military regime in Burma held the elections on the 7th of November 2010. 37 political parties
including Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) and National Unity Party (NUP) contested in
the elections.
From the elections, 330 seats for People’s Parliament, 168 seats for National Parliament, 665
seats for States and Regions Parliament; in total 1,163 seats were elected.
However, on the 16th of September 2010, the Union Election Commission (UEC) issued
notifications 99/2010, 100/2010, 101/2010, 102/2010 and 103/2010 and partially excluded 300 village
groups in 32 townships of 5 states, without desire of actual voters, reasoning that “they are in no
position to host free and fair elections” and “where security reasons prevent the vote from being free and
fair.1”
1
NLM (17 Sep 10) Union Election Commission issues Notification No. 103/2010, NLM (17 Sep 10) Union Election Commission
issues Notification No. 102/2010, NLM (17 Sep 10) NLM Union Election Commission issues Notification No. 101/2010, NLM (17
Sep 10) Union Election Commission issues Notification No.100/2010, NLM (17 Sep 10) Union Election Commission issues
Notification No. 99/2010

2010 ELECTIONS
Thus, the elections were held in designated areas as planned. However, one question remains;
can democracy be automatically brought just by holding elections?
For people of Burma, there was a flash memory about a historical event; the 1990 elections.
The military regime with the name of State Law and Order Restoration Council had to hold the
1990 elections because of the 8888 pro-democracy uprising.
International community recognized the elections as relatively free and fair. From the 1990
elections which were held on May 27, the National League for Democracy (NLD) won 396 seats out of
485 seats (NLD: 392 seats, Patriot Veterans: 1 seat and National Democracy Party: 3 seats). Shan
Nationalities Democracy party won 23 seats and became the second party to win most seats. However,
after the elections the regime refused to accept the election results.
The 1990 election results still did not get any chance to be in the process of building a
democratic Burma.
Thus, it can be said that democracy will be automatically brought by just holding elections.
The 2010 elections were far below the essence and standards compared to the 1990 elections.
Everything such as the establishment of UEC, electoral laws, directives and notifications were
very chaotic and numerous cunning frauds occurred before and during the elections.
When indicated by 16 international standards, which any elections should meet with, the 2010
elections were far below the level of the standards of free and fair elections.
The Basic Standards for a Free and Fair Election
The Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance published “International Electoral
Standards” in 2002 based on human rights treaties, accords and conventions, which international
governments ratified, including the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In this book, the following 16 basic norms for free and fair elections regarding international
electoral standards were detailed as 16 different chapters;
1. THE BASES OF INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED ELECTORAL STANDARDS
2. STRUCTURING THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
3. THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM
4. BOUNDARY DELIMITATION, DISTRICTING OR DEFINING BOUNDARIES OF ELECTORAL UNITS
5. THE RIGHT TO ELECT AND TO BE ELECTED

2010 ELECTIONS
6. ELECTORAL MANAGEMENT BODIES
7. VOTER REGISTRATION AND VOTER REGISTERS
8. BALLOT ACCESS FOR POLITICAL PARTIES AND CANDIDATES
9. DEMOCRATIC ELECTORAL CAMPAIGNS
10. MEDIA ACCESS AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
11. CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND EXPENDITURE
12. BALLOTING
13. COUNTING AND TABULATING VOTES
14. ROLE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND CANDIDATES
15. ELECTORAL OBSERVERS
16. COMPLIANCE WITH AND ENFORCEMENT OF ELECTORAL LAW
Any elections of any country can be indicated by using those above mentioned standards to tell
whether they are free or fair.
In those international standards, pre-election, on Election Day and post-election standards are
already included to indicate whether the elections are free or fair.
The elections in Burma held on the 7th of November 2010 can be seen as un-free and unfair
elections with full of election frauds and intimidations by looking at the incidents which occurred during
the election process and by comparing with those international standards.
Pre-Election Report
Forum for Democracy in Burma (FDB) released a pre-election report on 1st November 2010
predicting that the elections, held on 7 November 2010, by the military regime in Burma, would neither
be free, fair nor democratic. The report, titled; “The Elections with Full of Cunning Frauds” looks at
violations that occurred in the months leading to the elections in relation to international standards. It
clearly details how the military regime staged the elections to legitimatize and elongate the military rule
and also highlights the numerous unfair electoral laws that were put in to place, extensive flaws in the
system, lack of media freedom, the use of early votes, and the disadvantages faced by political parties
and candidates who were not USDP party members.
What happened during the Elections?

2010 ELECTIONS
As mentioned in the pre-election report, there were numerous accounts of election fraud, vote
rigging and cases where citizens were forced to cast an early vote. The Election Commission showed
clear signs of favoring the USDP throughout the pre-election period. In the aftermath of the election
when votes were counted, there was further rigging and consequently a victory by the USDP.
Forum for Democracy in Burma has collected and documented election related violations, and
explains in this report with 12 chapters to expose that the 2010 elections were the elections in which
people of Burma were intimidated, threatened and faced numerous cunning frauds committed by the
military regime, USDP, UEC and all levels of authorities.
Chapter I
THE ABSENCE OF SECRET VOTING
All people of Burma knew that the military regime’s 2010 elections were not only designed to
activate the 2008 Constitution, but also set-up elections designed and prepared for USDP to win.
By analyzing the elections, the free and fairness of an election can highlight the reality of that
election. The lack of secret voting is the best proof to highlight that elections were anything but free and
fair. The interference of voting, the situation of polling stations and the presence of authorities inside
and near polling stations are the main facts affecting the secret voting.
The records of the absence of secret voting
When observing the 2010 elections to see whether there was secret voting, the followings were
found out:
1. A resident informed about an incident in which Ma Nwe Nwe Oo from 2nd Ward, North Okkapala
Township was followed by a polling station official when she was inside No. 23 polling station
opened at No. 29 primary school in 2nd Ward to vote, as follows:

2010 ELECTIONS
To whom it may concern 7/11/2010
Ma Nwe Nwe Oo from 2nd Ward, North Okkapala Township was followed by a female
polling station official when she was inside No. 23 polling station opened at No. 29 primary
school in 2nd Ward to vote so she was annoyed. Other voters were followed and watched as
well. Instead of voting secretly behind covered voting places, voters were instructed to vote in
groups and watched to see what party they voted for.
There were 29 polling stations in 2nd Ward, North Okkalapa Township and very few
voters came to vote.
Report by a resident from North Okkalapa about the absence of secret voting (020_fdb02)
2. A resident from Twante Township, Rangoon Division also informed about the absence of secret
voting by threats of authorities as follows:

2010 ELECTIONS
To whom it may concern 7/11/2010
In Pokanbay village of Adon village group in Twante Township, U Myint Aye, an official
of Village Peace and Development Council made door to door visits, distributed voting tokens
and urged residents to mark2 next to lion symbol (USDP symbol). He also warned residents that
he would not be responsible for any consequences if residents would not mark next to USDP
symbol. He also told residents to mark in front of him or come to the polling station. He
threatened people that if they wouldn’t mark in front of him or wouldn’t come to the polling
station, he would find out exactly who and those people would suffer from consequences.
Twante
Report by a resident from Twante about the absence of secret voting (018_fdb02)
3. A resident from South Dagon Myo Thit reported the absence of secret voting due to the
interference of USDP members by the permission of the chief of the polling station as follows:
2
Translator’s note: marking ( √ ) next to a party symbol means voting for that party

2010 ELECTIONS
To whom it may concern

70 Ward, South Dagon Myo Thit 7/11/2010
At the polling station 4 for which Maung Win was assigned as the chief of polling station,
two female persons urged voters to vote for USDP, and they voted those voting cards
themselves.
Report by a resident from South Dagon Township about the absence of secret voting
(019_fdb02)
4. Residents from Myo Thit, Zaiganai south and north, Hanthawaddy, Sein Tun, Hinthagon,
Thanappin, Zaypine, Payazay, Mon Sanpya, Inwa, Bahosi, Oatha, Oathathiri and Socialist wards
of Pegu reported about the absence of secret voting in some polling stations of some wards in
Pegu as follows:

2010 ELECTIONS
Records of the absence of secret voting

At the polling station No. 1 of the constituency 1 opened at Alinyaung school, ward
authorities from 14th Ward, pretended to help voters but actually they checked people’s voting
cards and asked them where they marked or what they voted for. They also annoyed voters by
urging them to vote for USDP and threatened them if they would not vote for USDP, they would
face consequences.
The other fact is that in Inwa, Oatha and Oathathiri wards, ward authorities made door
to door visits and distributed USDP membership cards and pamphlets about the biographies of
USDP candidates to contest from the constituency. In Alinyaung 1 and 2 and Mon Sanpya wards,
ward authorities urged residents to fill in USDP membership application forms and took photos
of residents (for membership cards) with free of charge.

2010 ELECTIONS
At the polling station opened at Basic Education High School No. 6 in Kyitawgon
(Nantawyar), the headmistress of the school who was also the chief of the polling station urged
parents of students to vote for USDP. Such kind of pressure towards voters was seen in many
other places.
In Myo Thit, Zaiganai south and north, Hanthawaddy, Sein Tun, Hinthagon, Thanappin,
Zaypine, Payazay, Mon Sanpya, Inwa, Bahosi, Oatha, Oathathiri and Socialist wards of Pegu,
there were many incidents more or less affecting the absence of secret voting.
Report by a resident from Pegu about the absence of secret voting (022_fdb05)
The polling station survey performed by FDB (021_fdb05)
At the polling station No. 1 of the constituency 1 opened at Alinyaung school, ward authorities
from 14th Ward, pretended as helping voters but actually they checked the voting cards of people and
asked them where they marked or what they voted for. They also annoyed voters by urging them to
vote for USDP and threatened them if they would not vote for USDP, they would face consequences.
At the polling station opened at Basic Education High School No. 6 in Kyitawgon (Nantawyar),
the headmistress of the school who was also the chief of the polling station urged parents of students to
vote for USDP. (021_fdb05)
Not only the data and documents collected by FDB exposed the absence of secret voting, but
media statements also disclosed the absence of secret voting as following:
5. U Aung Myo Oo, contested for People’s Parliament representing Difference and Peace Party,
stated about the psychological insecurity of voters regarding voting in polling stations in
Kyimyindine Township in Rangoon Division, and which was published by Mizzama News Agency
on the 7th of November as follows:
“Regarding the voting, as far as I know, there should be a separate voting room, but now it’s not
separated. Voting places were just separated by curtains like in internet cafes. Polling station
officials such as those who make the voting lists or those who distribute the voting cards were

2010 ELECTIONS
sitting very close to the voting places. So, the voting is not secret at all. For voters, they might
feel insecure like being watched by someone from behind? Who will see if they vote for a certain
political party? So, they have worries. When voters have that kind of worries when they vote,
that’s not good,” he said.
6. On the 7th of November 2010, Mizzima News Agency broadcasted what residents of Bilin, Mon
State stated about security troops guarding polling stations in Bilin as follows:
“Polling stations were guarded by local authorities, election commission officials, teachers,
members of Red Cross, militia and reserved fire brigade. In Bilin, USDP and NUP are the only
contestants.”
“I marked a cross on the voting card.3 First, I thought I would not go there to vote. But I was
worried about consequences because they (authorities) have lists of eligible voters and they
might know who voted and who didn’t. So, I went there and voted because I was worried.” A
resident from Bilin said to Mizzima.
7. Even though Electoral Laws restricted political parties from campaigning, Daw Bao Ja, the
representative for National Democratic Force (NDF), for Pyithu Hluttaw, stated that USDP
officials violated all these restrictions. These laws prevented contestants from wearing any
clothing resembling political slogans or symbols and posting posters within 500 yards of polling
stations. This was broadcasted from VOA on the 7th of November 2010 as follows:
“Authorities and officials were wearing those campaign shirts. And campaign posters were
everywhere, about 10 yards from polling stations. Sign posts were also there. In most of the
polling stations, people were forced to vote for USDP by marking next to USDP sign on already
distributed voting tokens. So, by seeing those, it is very obvious that what they (authorities) did is
not honest at all.”
“At every corner, there were security guards. Some were wearing reserved fire brigade uniforms.
Voting places were uncovered. People could see each other and anyone could peek at a who
voted for what. I also heard that provided ball pens were not good and when voters marked on
voting cards with those, they had to mark two or three times, and most of those votes became
invalid votes with the reason of being messy.”
8. Voice of America broadcasted on the 7th November about an incident in Myaypon, Arakan State,
which was the hardest hit area during Cyclone Giri, in which a USDP representative campaigned
inside the polling station encouraging individuals to vote for him.
“In Panga village, the USDP Township Secretary stationed there, whose brother is the Polling
Station Chief official and the headmaster of the village school, campaigned inside the polling
station and forcefully urged people to vote for the USDP. Our polling station representative
asked him to stop but it was useless. Likewise, in Taungpaw Ward of Myaypon Township, the
eligible voter list was just posted. Very few voters were only able to vote and there were many
3
Translator’s note: Marking (X) next to a party symbol on voting cards means voting against that party

2010 ELECTIONS
people left to vote. Taungpaw Ward is a Muslim dominated ward but they were very likely to
vote for the Arakan party. What I think is that they (authorities) know that so they were trying to
delay the voting in purpose.”
In the afternoon, in Nazi Ward in Sittwe in which most of residents are Muslims, USDP organizer
interfered the voting inside the polling station and eventually the chief of polling station refused to take
responsibilities as the polling station official.
“In the polling station, there was a representative. However, U Ba Tin from the USDP was there
as well. He took voting cards from the people and marked them in support of the USDP. Voters were not
allowed to vote even though they were in the polling station. When our representative tried to prevent
him from forcing people to vote for him, he was violently threatened. Thus, our representative, U Than
Wai, complained about that to the chief of the polling station. The chief of polling station couldn’t do
anything and outside of the polling station, there were many Muslim people in chaotic situation so the
chief of the polling station said that he couldn’t handle the polling station anymore.”
Chapter II
ILLEGAL VOTES
Using illegal votes is one form of fraud from numerous ways of frauds in 2010 elections. Illegal
votes include illegal extra votes, votes from underage people, votes with the names of deceased people,
votes from names that do not exist, votes by threats, votes received with money, and stolen votes.

2010 ELECTIONS
From the election surveys collected by Forum for Democracy in Burma, it was found out that
there were votes on behalf of voters which were defined illegal.
Union Election Commission’s frauds collected by FDB (038_fdb02)
Over Extra Votes

In some constituencies, there were more votes than actual eligible voters. It can be clearly seen
in the corrections of the military regime’s newspapers. The military regime’s voice The Mirror newspaper
had to publish corrections regarding the election results due to the huge amount of extra votes;
Corrections
-in the appendix page (2) of the newspaper dated November 13, 2010, a correction was made to No. 37;
from 152614 voters to 205785 voters and instead of 100% votes, 74.16% in Kyaukpadaung constituency
-in the appendix page (25) of the newspaper dated November 15, 2010, a correction was made to No.
187; from 26065 voters to 37886 voters and instead of 104.28% votes; 71.74% in Amn No. 1 constituency
-in the appendix page (28) of the newspaper dated November 15, 2010,a correction was made to No. 235;

2010 ELECTIONS
from 1082445 voters to 108197 voters and instead of 6.51%; 65.09% in South Dagon Myo Thit No. 1
constituency
-in the appendix page (28) of the newspaper dated November 15, 2010, a correction was made to No.
236; from 867956 voters to 102864 voters and instead of 8.15%; 68.79% in South Dagon Myo Thit No. 2
constituency
Corrections
from 74645 voters to 76535 voters and instead of 102.09%; 99.57% in Taungoo No. 1 constituency
from 84537 voters to 82647 voters and instead of 85.64%; 87.60% in Taungoo No. 2 constituency
Vote stealing/ rigging

Vote rigging includes the over adding of a higher percentage than the actual voter turnout, over
counting of actual voters, voting again and again, changing of votes from one party to another, and
voting of one person on behalf of other voters.
It was found out that most of polling station officials were USDP members. That clearly assisted
USDP for vote rigging easily. The followings incidents are some examples of illegal votes:
Incident 1
When Ko ---- went to vote at the polling station No. 9 opened at primary school No. 27 in North
Okkalapa Township, Rangoon Division, he voted twice because he did not know that every voter had to
vote for 3 times for 3 parliaments. When he was told by others, he went back inside the polling station
to complete his voting, he saw that someone already signed for him for the 3rd signature. When he
complained about that, polling station authorities retorted that he signed himself the third signature,
and drove him out of the polling station.
Incident 2
A resident from Bauthabyaykan village in Thanlyin Township, Rangoon Division, informed that U
Win Sein, USDP organizer of the village, voted over 100 votes.

2010 ELECTIONS
In No. 1 polling station of Bauthabyaykan village, U Win Sein, father of U Khin Aung Shwe who was
organized by U T member of USDP, voted over 100 votes. Another anonymous person also voted over
100 votes.
(Letter from a resident of Bauthabyaykan village: typed copy of the original)
Incident 3
The followings are the evidences of a couple voted in No. 5 polling station opened at Shweku
primary school and No. 1 polling station of Khayangon 2nd Ward, Zegon Township:
The evidence of voters voted in two constituencies (034_fdb02)
Incident 4
Most of the polling station officials of No. 2 polling station, Titud constituency, Prome, are
members of USDP. Thet Lwin Oo, Pa Pa Win, May Thinza Win, Wa Wa Oo, Phyu Phyu Aung and Leah

2010 ELECTIONS
Leah Khaing are members of USDP. At that polling station, Ko Aye Min Soe voted three times for USDP
for Region and State voting box.
Incident 5
It was reported that at the polling station of Tagondine village, Pegu Division, U Khin Maung Yee
voted for 5 other voters.
Underage Vote
There were many reports stating about USDP’s illegal collection and using of underage votes. A
witness reported about the voting of Maung Thiha Zaw, age 17, in Thadebin constituency, Prome
Township, Pegu Division, as follows:
Thadebin Constituency
U Kyaw Win, an official of Ward Peace and Development Council of Thadebin, provided a USDP
membership card to Maung Thiha Zaw, age 17 (DOB June 9, 1993), son of U Khin and Daw Moe Moe
Khaing, and added him on the eligible voter list. Maung Thiha Zaw went to the polling station and voted
because he received a voting token.
Incident of underage voting in Pegu Division (035_fdb02)
Threatened to vote
At the whole country level, there were many occasions in which levels of authorities; village,
ward, township, division peace and development and council officials, threatened people to vote for
USDP.
During the first week of November, U Myint Aye, an official of 19 Ward of South Dagon
Township, made door to door visits and threatened people to go to voting stations and vote on the
Election Day, and if not they would face consequences of not voting (punishments) after the elections.
Furthermore, officials of No. 1 polling station opened at High School No. 4 of Ywabae, Prome
Township, distributed voting cards on which codes numbers were written to know who voted for what
party. That is also a way of threatening people to vote for USDP.

2010 ELECTIONS
No. 1 polling station of Ywabae (location: High School No. 4)

Special Occasion 1
At the polling station No. 1, voters were provided with code written voting cards. The polling station
representative from Union of Myanmar Federation of National Politics questioned the polling station
chief U Min Than about that. U Min Than replied that, “I don’t know about that and it’s not my
responsibility. People who were responsible for distributing voting cards did that mistakenly.”
Number of code written voting cards: 400 (4 books)
The incident of the distribution of code written voting cards in Prome, Pegu Division (036_fdb02)
A witness stated that at the polling station No. 2 of Zaytan, Padaung Township, Pegu Division,
when two votes were needed for National Parliament voting box, invalid votes were added as votes for
USDP and some votes were added to USDP votes, at the Township Election Commission office. In that
polling station, most of the polling station officials were USDP members and they urged voters to vote
for USDP by pointing out to mark next to USDP’s Lion symbol. Furthermore, it was also found out that
they marked (voted) for USDP on behalf of some voters.

2010 ELECTIONS
Chapter III
ILLEGAL VOTE, INVALID VOTE AND LOST VOTE
The military regime issued directives and notifications during the election time regarding illegal
votes, invalid votes and lost votes. According to Pyithu Hluttaw (People’s Parliament) Electoral Laws,
Chapter 12, Article 66 (c) (5), unclear and uncertain votes are recognized as invalid votes.
However, according to election surveys conducted by FDB, it was found out that in some polling
stations, polling station officials failed to follow those electoral laws and changed some votes as valid
votes and some as invalid votes based on their own desire and judgment.
The expression from surveys conducted by FDB (023_fdb06)
The followings are examples expressing some polling station officials and authorities’ arbitrary
changing of votes into invalid or valid and lost votes:
Incident 1
At No. 2 polling station in Thegon Township, Pegu Division, polling station officials and
authorities made NUP to lose and USDP to win by using illegal votes. Regarding the incident, NUP
representative informed Daw Aung San Suu Kyi with a letter. The excerpt of the message is as follows:
Electoral Law Article 66 (c) clearly expressed how to decide invalid votes. According to that law
issued by the Union Election Commission, votes without any marks can be recognized as invalid votes
with the agreement of UEC.
However, in No. 2 constituency of Thegon Township, Pegu Division, the counting ended up with
no winner or loser. That happened because no single vote had UEC recognized marks on it. Instead of
recognizing those votes without marks according to electoral laws, polling station officials and
authorities counted those votes as valid votes and announced the results of that constituency by using
those votes.
(The message of U Khin Maung Win, NUP representative, to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is attached as
appendix (b))

2010 ELECTIONS
The result list of NUP and USDP representatives published as supplement (r) of the regime’s newspaper
dated December 15 2010 (024_fdb06)
Incident 2
In a polling station in western part of Pegu Division, it was found out that many voting cards had
marks out of the designated blocks instead of inside the blocks. Under electoral laws, those votes must
be recognized as invalid votes but polling station officials and authorities made those votes as valid
votes for USDP.
At the polling station No. 2 of Moteshae village which I observed, there was no information or
education about how to vote but instead polling station officials yelled and scolded at voters
who came to vote. Thus, people voted without knowing the purpose of the voting and how to
vote. It was seen that most of people who voted did it with fear of what would happen if they
did not. The polling station was located in a middle of an open space and voters were
threatened to vote as mandatory voting. Most of the early votes were for lion (USDP). Thus the
elections were one-sided and unfair. When votes were observed, there were many occasions in
which invalid votes with marks (√) over the blocks were counted as valid votes.
Report from a resident of Moteshae village in western Pegu Division (025_fdb06)
Incident 3
Residents of Natlin and Zegon townships in Pegu Division reported the making of invalid votes to
valid votes for USDP by local authorities as follows:

2010 ELECTIONS
By the instruction of U Myint Than, the Chairperson of Tainthae village group Peace and Development
Council, village authorities U Aye Myint and U Win Myint, village teacher U Win Zaw, and U Myint Swe
and some other authorities forcefully collected early votes from about 15 underage (from 14 to 16 years
old) people. They also provided national IDs for those teenagers reasoning that Immigration office
granted national IDs for them. While votes were counting after the polling station was closed, teacher U
Win Zaw collected and kept invalid votes without showing anyone else. A female teacher saw that U Win
Zaw turned a valid vote for the Democratic party as invalid vote and she could not prevent that. At No. 1
polling station of Myoma Ward, officials accepted that Daw Than Khin voted for 3 times.
At a polling station in Zegon Township, even though some votes for USDP were with marks (V)
instead of (√), those votes were still added as USDP votes. Another vote for USDP was with a mark (\)
instead of (√) and even though a representative from the Democratic party complained about that,
polling station officials added that as a valid vote reasoning that the voter was a left-hander.
220 invalid votes from Hlapagyin village were turned into valid votes and added to NUP votes. U
Khin Hlaing, the Chairperson of election commission and U Aung Myine Tun, member of USDP, made
door to door visits and threatened those who did not go vote to vote for USDP. A voter stated that
people were told lies, that USDP was Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, so many voters voted for USDP.
Report of residents about frauds in Natalin and Zegon townships, Pegu Division (026_fdb06)

2010 ELECTIONS
Incident 4
According to Pyithu Hluttaw Electoral Law, Article 59 (i), entering inside polling stations without
permission during the elections is a violation and can be charged under the Chapter 13 of Election
Offenses and Penalties.
Because the polling station officials let people, who were not responsible for voting process, be
inside the polling station, U Sein Hlaing, individual representative for Pyithu Hluttaw from Moenyo
Township, Pegu Division officially submitted a complaint to township election commission stating that
the voting result cannot be accepted as follows:

2010 ELECTIONS
U Sein Hlaing, individual representative for Pyithu Hluttaw

Moenyo, Pegu Division
No. 1/ Plan/ Individual-99/ 2010
Date: November 9, 2010
Chairperson
Township Election Commission
Moenyo
Re: : Submission to not being able to accept the election result of Moenyo Township
1. I, U Sein Hlaing, contested in the elections from Moenyo Township, in accordance with election
rules and regulations, with the believe that polling stations in villages and wards in Moenyo
Township would be free and fair as the government officially promised to both people inside
Burma and the international community.
2. However, in some polling stations in Moenyo Township, some election commission officials and
polling station officials did not follow election rules and regulations by letting people, who were
not responsible for the voting process, to take responsibilities of the voting process. I cannot
accept such inappropriate interference and the violations of electoral laws. Thus, by referring
reports of voters and self-witnesses, I submitted the complaint stating not being able to accept
the election results.
U Sein Hlaing
Individual Representative contested for Pyithu Hluttaw
Moenyo Township
Copies to
District Election Commission, Tharawaddy
Chairperson, Township Peace and Development Council, Moenyo
Chairperson, National Unity Party, Moenyo Branch
Chairperson, Union Solidarity and Development Party, Moenyo Branch
88 Generation Student Youths (Union of Myanmar)
Voters to know the reality based on their experiences
Office Copy
The complaint of U Sein Hlaing, individual representative for Pyithu Hluttaw from Moenyo, Pegu Division
(027_fdb06)
Incident 5
A member of All Mon Region Democratic Party (AMRDP) stated that polling station officials of
Mudon village constituency, Chaungzon Township, Mon State, committed violations of electoral laws
and which was broadcasted by VOA on the 7th of November 2010 as follows:
In Mudon village constituency, Chaungzon Township, Mon State, about 500 votes for AMRDP
disappeared. A party member said, “The disappearing means the amount or number of votes AMRDP.
That was in Mudon village. 500 eligible voters from Mudon village, Chaungzon Township, who would
definitely vote for AMRDP, were missing. What I think is that polling station officials are responsible for
that.”
Chapter IV

2010 ELECTIONS
FRAUDS REGARDING EARLY VOTES

Chapter 8 of FDB’s pre-election report “The Elections with Full of Cunning Frauds”, titled;
“Forced Early Votes,” draws attention to the tactics employed by the military regime in order to secure
their election victory, highlighted was their use of forced pre voting.
During the pre-election period, the military regime collected early votes in many places by using
numerous ways of intimidations. Early votes must be collected in accordance with the statements of
Article (54) of their own directive 1/2020 Pyithu Hluttaw Electoral Law, Chapter X, Early Votes from
voters outside of constituencies.
However, in reality, the military regime used numerous illegal ways in collecting early votes from
ineligible voters for early votes since pre-election period. When early votes were collected, the military
regime used numerous cunning ways to get early votes for USDP.
When the military regime used frauds and intimidation for winning of the proxy party USDP, it
was found out that the use of early votes was the worst.
When early votes were collected, headmasters or headmistresses were required to vote on
behalf of all teachers in their schools. All employees from numerous government departments were
assigned to be on excursions in groups or forced to be on trips in groups purposefully set up to be
eligible for early votes. Furthermore, the regime forced family members to cast early votes on behalf of
other family members on trips, instructed chiefs of government departments to cast early votes for
everyone in their departments and ordered military units to cast early votes including family members.
Thus, it is very clear that early votes collected during the pre-election period were not legal or
valid votes. After FDB released the pre-election report, from new documents collected by FDB, it was
found out that there were many incidents in which government employees were forced to cast early
votes. The following cases can be taken as some examples from documents collected by FDB:
On the 3rd of November 2010, in Hlaing constituency in Rangoon Division, it was informed that
local authorities threatened U Tun Sein, a government employee from the constituency, to vote for
USDP candidate for Pyithu Hluttaw Dr. Win Myint.
On the 2nd of November 2010, in Kyaukse constituency, Mandalay Division, U Thaung, the
current Minister of Science and Technological Ministry and USDP candidate, forced teachers from
Kyaukse Technological Institute to cast early votes for him.
The form of the collection of illegal early votes (014_fdb04)

2010 ELECTIONS
USDP and local authorities collected illegal early votes in wards and villages as well. A resident of
Dawpon Township reported the collection of early votes for USDP on 25th of September in Dawpon
Township, Rangoon as follows:
U Win Naing, the Secretary of Dawpon USDP and the owner of Gandawin Restaurant, USDP organizer (1)
U Myint Swe, organizer (2) U Han Thein, organizer (3) U Kyaw Naing and some other USDP members;
Naing Lin Aung, Hla Aye and Hla Moe Kyaw collected early votes from Bo Teza, Bo Min Yaung, Bo
Suanpat, Bo Aung Kyaw, Bo Tun Myat, Metta, Thisa, Min Nanda and Bo La Yaung Streets in Bo Tun Zan
Ward of Dawpon Township, Rangoon, starting from the middle of September 2010. They collected early
votes disguising it as census. For example, on September 17, 2010, they visited households in Bo Teza
Street, checked household lists and asked breadwinners to sign on behalf of every eligible voter over the
age of 18. They told to residents such things as, “If you want to travel, you can go anywhere. Your
signature is for the elections and you don’t need to vote on the Election Day.” They also told to some
families such as, “If you sign here, you don’t need to go vote on the Election Day. You don’t need to skip
work to vote.” The interesting point is that those USDP members avoided family members of NLD to
collect early votes.
Report of a resident of Dawpon regarding the collection of illegal early votes (001_fdb01)
A resident from South Okkalapa Township reported about the forced collection of early votes
for U Aung Thein Lin, the then Rangoon Mayor, on 16 October 2010, in South Okkalapa Township as
follows:

2010 ELECTIONS

2010 ELECTIONS
In the 5th Ward, South Okkapala Township, Rangoon, to educate people about the elections, USDP
displayed where to mark on the voting card and how to vote. During that time, USDP members also
urged people to cast their votes as early votes. U Aung Than Oo, uncle of U Aung Kyaw Moe who
contested in the elections for State and Region Parliament from South Okkapala Township, is a member
of Ward Peace and Development Council. The ward council members campaigned for USDP by
pretending for educating for voting. Some USDP members had been appointed as local authorities to be
able to misuse authority to help USDP for the elections. Similar occasions were seen in many other
townships. Around 7pm on Saturday evening (on the 6th November?), U Aung Than Oo, U Aung Htwe, Ko
Zaw Hein Aung and two other people made door to door visits and did the above mentioned activities.
When they displayed how to vote, they crossed (on voting cards) in blocks for other parties (voting
against) and marked (√) in the block for USDP. Furthermore, they verbally urged people, “Vote for Uncle
Aung Thein Lin,” and forced people to cast their votes as early votes.
During visits, residents would say things like, “No responsible people at home right now” “What party
are you from” “To be honest, I’m totally not interested in the elections” “My grandmother has shaky
hands so it’s better not to mark on voting cards (not to vote)” “What will I get if I vote for your party?”
so they did not face any big difficulties. However, when they visited the house dealing with illegal ‘Chae’
lottery, the dealer confessed that the household needed to vote for USDP because local authorities
provided protection for the illegal business so even they did not want to vote for USDP they would have
to. Municipal and USDP used land to deter fire and posted a signboard stating “USDP Property. No
Trespassing.” Furthermore, they build shops and rented for funding. So, businesspeople in the ward
cannot really avoid dealing with USDP.
Report from a South Okkalapa resident regarding the collection of illegal early votes for U Aung Thein Lin
from USDP (002_fdb01)
A resident from the military compound of Light Battalion 139 reported the collection of early
votes from military families of LB 139 in Tanyin Township on the 5th of November 2010 as follows:

2010 ELECTIONS
Capt. Soe Naing Oo, the Director of the Municipal office near the market in Tanyin, instructed
employees from his office to cast early votes on the 5th of November. He also ordered and threatened
the employees such as, “Check next to the Lion. I will be watching you when you do that and do not care
about any organization or anyone. You will be fired if you do not do as I told you.”
Report of a resident regarding the collection of early votes from family members of LB 139 in Tanyin
Township (003_fdb01)
People from LB 139 were not only forced to cast their votes as early votes but Col. Myat Soe, the
Vice-Chairperson of District Election Commission, arbitrarily committed vote rigging. A resident reported
the incident as follows:
7/11/2010
Soldiers and family members of LB 139, former LB 90 near Kyikekhauk pagoda in Tanyin Township, had
to cast their votes as early votes on the 5th of November 2011. After the collection of early votes, Col.
Myat Soe, the Vice-Chairperson of District Election Commission, opened envelopes and checked the
early votes. When he saw many votes against USDP, he took 100 voting cards from the Commission
office and marked on those as voting for USDP.
Report about the change of early votes of family members from LB 139 in Tanyin Township (004_fdb01)

2010 ELECTIONS
The following is the statement regarding the illegal collection of early votes from Bagan Myo
Thit, Nyaung-U District, Mandalay Division on the 1st of November 2010.
Starting from the 1st of November 2010, in Bagan Myo Thit, Nyaung-U District, Mandalay Division,
chairpersons of Ward Peace and Development Councils collected early votes from residents. It was
informed that breadwinners voted on behalf of all household members and had to vote for USDP.
In Bagan and Nyaung-U constituencies, USDP and NUP were the only contestants for the elections.
Residents reported that USDP campaigned in surrounding villages and threatened residents to vote for
USDP. Also in 2008 Constitutional Referendum, residents were threatened to vote for the referendum.
Report of a resident from Nyaung-U District, Mandalay Division regarding the illegal collection of early
votes (005_fdb01)
By observing the above mentioned reports, it is obvious that USDP representatives who were
also officials of SPDC abused power by forcing and threatening government employees under their
supervision to cast early votes for USDP.
Furthermore, during the counting after the closing time of polling stations on the Election Day,
they committed obvious violations of electoral laws regarding early votes even in the public scene.
Article 48 (A) and (D) Counting of Vote and Declaring Confirmation of Chapter X, of the military
regime’s Pyithu Hluttaw Electoral Law issued on the 8th of March 2010 states as follows:
48. (a) The Ward or Village-tract Sub-commission shall hand over the advance ballot papers already
casted under Sub-sections (b) and (c) of Section 45 and Section 46 and the list of those who have voted
with advance ballot papers in connection with the various polling booths to the respective polling booth
officer before the opening of the polling booths on election day.

2010 ELECTIONS
(d) The Township Sub-commissions shall count the advance ballot papers already casted under Sub-
section (a) of Section 45and Section 47 which they have received before 4 p.m. in the presence of Hluttaw
candidates or their election agents and the public and shall combine the respective voting list schedules
for each Hluttaw constituency in the manner prescribed.
It was found out that the Union Election Commission and levels of election commissions violated
the electoral laws issued by the military regime by vote rigging and other means of fraud in counting and
changing the results by making USDP candidates from the losers to winners.
Residents from Yaykyigon village, Oatsawe group, Prome Township, Pegu Division reported the
frauds in their village regarding early votes as follows:
Yaykyigon village, Oatsawe group, Prome Township At 10am on the 5th of November 2010
When Ko Khin Lat, a voter from the village, came and reported about the early vote frauds at the
residence of Ko Tun Min Zaw from Yaykyigon village, U Kyaw Kyaw Aung, Union of Myanmar Federation
of National Politics representative from Prome Township for Amyotha Hluttaw, U Aung Naing Oo,
representative for Pyithu Hluttaw and U Ye Lwin, District organizer of the party went to the residence
and found that Ko Tun Min Zaw was alone counting early votes that were not sealed in envelopes, which
is not in accordance with electoral procedures so they took some photos as evidence.
Report about early vote fraud in Yaykyigon village (006_fdb02)

2010 ELECTIONS
Photo evidences of early vote fraud in Yaykyigon village (007/008_fdb02)
The following is the report about one of the worst in history of 2010 elections. Authorities from
Wettikan District, Prome Township, Pegu Division made tradeoffs the early votes illegally collected.

2010 ELECTIONS
Innwin village group, Wettikan District, Prome Township (Innwin village + Kanbae village)
At the polling station in that district, Pwa Gyi (aka) Aung Zaw Myint, the Chairperson of Innwin village
Peace and Development Council, and Nay Lin Tun, the clerk of the village council illegally collected 150
early votes with the help of Ko Nge Gyi, member of Kanbae village Peace and Development Council. Two
polling station representatives from Union of Myanmar Federation of National Politics complained
about the 150 early votes. Then, the authorities said that they would only take 50 out of 150 early votes
into account and make the rest 100 votes invalid and requested the two representatives not to submit
the case to anywhere. However, after the agreement, the authorities ordered about 15 villagers to mark
on those 100 votes for USDP and added them back into the list. It was reported that Ko Nge Gyi alone
marked on 6 early voting cards.
Report about the tradeoffs of early votes in Prome Township (009_fdb02)
Totally not in accordance with the electoral laws, authorities from Prome Township changed
early votes collected one month before the elections into early votes collected as two days before the
elections. They also made those early votes as votes for USDP. The following is the report about the
incident:

2010 ELECTIONS
The important announcement regarding early votes political parties was that early votes collected
between October 27, 2010 and November 4, 2010 were cancelled as invalid votes. Only early votes
collected on the 5th and 6th could be recognized as valid early votes. Village and Ward election
commissions also knew about that announcement so they changed early votes from October 27 and
November 4 as early votes collected on the 5th and 6th of November 2010. U Maung Khin, Chairperson of
peace and development council, U Hla Min, Chairperson of Ward/Village Election Commission and Daw
Aye Aye Thin, secretary of the election commission, refused any accusation and claimed that early votes
were collected on the 5th and 6th of November. However, what they did was obviously a violation of
electoral laws. As early votes, 650 early votes from Kyaung Oh Ward alone were added into a polling
station. Early votes were added as votes for USDP. Furthermore, authorities helped voters to cast their
votes even on the 7th of November; the Election Day.
Report about the violation of electoral laws regarding arbitrary adding of early votes (010_fdb02)
Residents from Moulmein, Paung, Kyikemayaw, Chaungzon, Mudon, and Thanbyuzayat

townships in Mon State reported how USDP collected early votes as follows:
All polling station chiefs were required to report to designated election commissions why they did not
get enough early votes if their polling station received less than 50 early votes. USDP also collected early
votes creepily and arbitrarily. Early votes were collected mainly from government employees and people
related to illegal businesses such as illegal Che lottery, black market, human trafficking, illegal Thai-
phone business, massage, KTV and some company employees. Even though early vote casters were told
to vote freely for what they wanted, those people had to cast their early votes in front of collectors.
Furthermore, as an example, in an incident at a polling station, if there were 1000 eligible voters, 350
early votes had to be collected from those voters. Over 50% of early vote collectors were members or
related to USDP.
Letter from residents of Mon State typed as written in the original

2010 ELECTIONS
A resident from Payagyi Ward, Thanatpin Township, Pegu Division, reported with details about
arbitrary collecting of early votes in the area as follows:

2010 ELECTIONS
We went to observe when polling stations were closed and began the counting. The vote counting from
the voting boxes was satisfactory but we were not satisfied with the early votes. 148 early votes for each
of three parliaments arrived. Out of 148 early votes, USDP received 141 votes each for Pyithu Hluttaw
and Amyotha Hluttaw and 138 early votes for Regions and States Hluttaw so USDP was totally ahead
regarding early votes.
Regarding early votes, USDP was arbitrarily collecting early votes even a month before the elections.
Daw Tin Yee, wife of U Kyaw Myint the Chairperson of Ward Peace and Development Council of Payagyi
Ward, is USDP organizer and the Ward Election Commission office was opened at their house. Their
residence was also a gathering point for USDP members. On the 30th of October 2010, an announcement
was posted there urging people to come to cast early votes. USDP organizer U Zaw Naing Tun was also
there, sitting. On the 31st of October, U Hla Aung, ward authority of the 12th street of Payagyi Ward, and
his wife Daw Khin Ohn Myint (aka) Ohn Ohn, USDP organizer, required residents to gather at their
residence at least one per household for early votes. There, USDP organizers U Zaw Tun, U Zaw Naing,
and Ohn Ohn told residents that it was the collecting of early votes for USDP and after that, residents
would not need to go to polling stations on the Election Day because that’s the final and they would
take care of everything regarding voting. Even though residents were disappointed, they did not dare to
say anything, so they went home. I believe that early votes I saw from observing the counting were
collected that way.
Report about USDP’s illegal collection of early votes in Pegu Division (011_12_fdb03)
FDB conducted election surveys in a broader way. A remark of voters from Mingalataungnyunt
Township clearly highlights frauds in collection of early votes.

2010 ELECTIONS
There are two systems of collecting early votes in the election process; early votes submitted to Ward
Election Commission and early votes submitted to Township Election Commission. Furthermore,
candidates from political parties were not allowed to know about the counting of early votes. When
votes were counted at the ward election commissions, the result was sent to township election
commissions and these early votes were added for final results. That is not in accordance with the
electoral laws and the elections were not transparent at all.
Report about the scheme of early votes (014_fdb05)
FDB released an analysis paper “FDB’s Analysis Paper for not Recognizing 2010 Election Results”
on the 9th of November 2010. In that analysis paper, FDB exposed numerous ways of fraud regarding
early votes for USDP under a chapter.
By analyzing the surveys FDB conducted, reports from voters and media coverage, it is very clear
that USDP won 2010 elections by using numerous intimidations, frauds regarding early votes in the
nationwide level. Furthermore, according to the lists and statistics released by the Union Election
Commission, USDP won by adding thousands and thousands of early votes.
From losing, USDP candidate became the winner by adding over 20,000 early votes
It was found out that 62 USDP candidates became winners from losers by adding thousands of
early votes. The list of USDP representatives elect with early votes is attached as appendix (A).

2010 ELECTIONS
Chapter V
INCIDENTS OF NOT BEING ABLE TO VOTE

Article (6), Chapter IV Eligible Voters, of the military regime’s Pyithu Hluttaw Electoral Law
states:
6. Persons possessing the following qualifications shall be eligible to vote at the election
irrespective of sex and religion:
(a) citizen, associate citizen, naturalized citizen or holder of temporary certificate who has
reached the age of 18 years on the day of commencement of election and who does not
contravene the provisions of this Law;
(b) person whose name has been included in the voting roll of the respective constituency.
However, there were many incidents in which even though some people were eligible to
vote in accordance with the military regime’s electoral laws, they were not allowed to vote.
Incidents of not being able to vote
Incident 1
The following is the report list by residents of Prome Township about voters not being able to
vote in a polling station in Prome due to local authorities’ violation of electoral laws for 2010 elections.

2010 ELECTIONS
Before the Election Day, residents from near Garden Pagoda, Muyabin Ward, went to Ward Election
Commission and informed officials that they did not receive any voting tokens. Officials from the
commission office replied that they could not solve the problem and told residents to inform Ward
authorities at polling stations on the Election Day and authorities would take care of the problem. On
the Election Day, over 30 people who did not receive voting tokens went to No. 8 polling station and
informed the problem to U Tin Myint, Ward authority. U Tin Myint said, “eligible voter list with your
names was lost. So your names were already added as early votes. If you want to vote, you can vote with
other people’s IDs cards and names.” Those voters were dissatisfied with the answer because their right
to vote was violated. They could not do anything so they returned home. Some voters who lost the right
to vote, as being able to collect names, were in the following list:
1. U Sein 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 039515
2. Daw Hninsi 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 039999
3. Ko Aung Kyaw Win 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 080639
4. Ma Mu Mu Sein 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 039971
5. Maung Chan Myae Kyaw 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 134047
6. Ko Kyaw Soe Min 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 111102
7. Ma Yi Mon Aung 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 113979
8. Daw Hla Shin 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 050200
9. Daw Khin Swe 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 053949
10. Ma Moe Thuza 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 179783
11. Ma Hla Hla Win 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 107740
12. Ma Tin Tin Nyo 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 179813
13. Maung Aung Ko Thet 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 193160
14. U Than Swe N/A N/A
15. Daw Thein Thein Myint N/A N/A
16. Maung Zaw Myo Lwin 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 161044
17. U Mya Win 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 056499
18. U San Myint 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 057979
19. Ma Nilar 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 108011
20. Ma Thida 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 056051
21. Daw Aye Thein 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 056452
22. Daw Nyo Nwe 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 056052
23. Maung Pyae Phyo Thwin 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 143798
24. U Aye Kyu N/A N/A
25. Daw Cho Cho Myint 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 101403
26. U Thein Ngwe 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 055705
27. Daw Myint Myint Yee 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 057972
28. Daw Khin May Kyi 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 030562
29. Maung La Pyae Win 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 181495
30. Daw Than Nwe 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 034817
31. Ma Kaythi Lwin 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 061070
32. U Than Lwin 7/Pa-Ma-Na (Naing) 134917
Video interview with above people was also provided as video report
List of voters not being able to vote due to authorities’ violation of electoral laws at a polling station in
Prome Township, Pegu Division (028_fdb06)

2010 ELECTIONS
Incident 2
From the form 3 of FDB election survey, a list of voters from No. 1 Constituency, Pegu Township,
Pegu Division, who were not allowed to vote can be seen as follows:
Form 3 for voting

No. Constituency and Polling Eligible Voters Left without Cheated votes Remark
Station # voting
1. No. 1 Constituency, No. 1 963 23 15 Left without voting
polling station means people who
were eligible to vote
but not in the eligible
voter lists
Election Survey form regarding eligibility for voting conducted by FDB (029_fdb06)

2010 ELECTIONS
Incident 3
A resident from Tanyin Township, Rangoon Division, reported that some voters in Tanyin
Township were not allowed to vote as follows:
To whom it may concern

When Ko Tun Myint and Ma Ni Ni Maw, residents of Oakkyin Ward, Bogyoke Village, Tanyin Township,
went to vote at No. 3 polling station, they were denied to vote because they did not have voting token.
Even though they brought their IDs with them, they were not allowed to vote. Some other residents
faced the same problem.
Tanyin Township
An incident of not allowed to vote in Tanyin Township (030_fdb06)

2010 ELECTIONS
Incident 4
A resident from Thingangyun Township, Rangoon, reported that authorities did not allow some
residents to vote as follows:

2010 ELECTIONS
Country Burma
Division Rangoon
Township Thingangyun
Ward 6/A No. 11
Polling Stations 1, 2, 3, 4 (Education College)
Polling Station 1
Name of the Chief of Polling Station unknown (a headmistress)
Occurrence violators (members of Ward Peace and Development
Council)
“When I went to vote around 9 in the morning of the Election Day, my name was not in the eligible voter
list. From 3 households, 4 male and 4 female eligible voters lost their rights to vote. We told to the
polling station officials that we had been allowed to vote in 2008 Constitutional Referendum. However,
we lost our rights to choose any candidate we wanted for parliament for the betterment of the country
representing us. We lost the opportunity to choose those who govern us. What you did to us is that you
ignored the will of the people and did whatever you wanted unilaterally. We lost all our citizen rights. We
even lost the value of human being in the country full of unfairness. After saying that I returned home.”
Opinion
I think I lost all my human rights by being a human in Burma.
Name covered in the original document
Occuaption covered in the original document
Report about families were not allowed to vote in Thingangyun Township (031-1/2_fdb06)

2010 ELECTIONS
Incident 5
At a polling station in Prome District, Western Pegu Division, polling station chief and authorities
violated electoral laws as follows:
At the polling station No. 2 (opened at Koethaung primary school), Ywabae Ward, Ko Aung Hnin Moe
and wife, members of Union of Myanmar Federation of National Politics, were excluded from the voting.
Even though other family members were in the eligible voter list, they were excluded from the list
simply because they were members of that political party. The couple found out that they were
excluded from the voting when other family members received voting tokens. So, Ko Min Htin Kyaw and
Ko Aung Hnin Moe, members of the party, went to that polling station and reported about the problem
to U Pho Khin, Ward authority, and the chief of polling station, but they were replied that they could not
vote.
Incident of the violation of electoral laws reported by a resident of Ywabae (032_fdb06)

2010 ELECTIONS
Chapter VI
PERCENTAGE OF VOTING
Even before the 2010 elections, democratic forces inside Burma were launching campaigns to
boycott the elections because it was very obvious that the elections were designed to legitimize and
elongate the military regime. Democratic forces outside of Burma also launched lobbying campaigns
explaining why the elections should be boycotted.
The military regime also found out that people would boycott the elections; the regime
prepared everything for the elections such as forcefully collecting early votes, preparing illegal early
votes, vote rigging and intimidations forcing people to vote for the regime’s proxy party USDP. The
evidences of those activities are exposed in Chapter IV FRAUDS REGARDING EARLY VOTES, of this report.
Furthermore, the military regime purposefully announced the set up list of the voting
percentage of the elections.
The following is the example of the survey conducted by FDB in 10 villages in Kyaukpyu
Township, Arakan State:
Kyaukpyu Township
Village/Ward Eligible Voters Actual Voters Boycott Remark
Myitnartan Ward 839 386 453
Alaepine 864 420 349
Minkan 1 664 420 244
Lawtae Village 299 136 163
Kanyintaw 376 45 331
Masarai Village 241 102 139
Kyauktingyi 255 95 160
Village
Kyaukngyu Village 528 285
Panthuma Village 520 323
Report from residents of Kyaukpyu Township regarding the number of votes (032_fdb02)

2010 ELECTIONS
According to the report from residents, there were 4.586 eligible voters from 9 polling stations
in Kyaukpyu Township, Arakan State, but only 2,212 people actually voted. Thus, the percentage of
voter turnout is 48.23%.
However, when the military regime announced the voter turnout, it was announced that 71.99
percent of voters showed up in polling stations in Kyaukpyu Township.
Regarding the voter turnout of Taungoo Township, Pegu Division, the military regime chaotically
announced as follows:
The government-run The Mirror newspaper published on 14 November 2010 stated that from
No. 1 and No. 2 constituencies of Taungoo Township, there were 159.182 eligible voters and 128,153
people voted in the elections so the voter turnout percentage was 80.50.
However, on the next day, on the 15th of November, the Mirror newspaper published another
announcement that the voter turnout was that 99.57 from No. 1 constituency and 87.60 from No. 2
constituency, and the total was 93.58 percentage.
The Chart of the percentage of voting in Taungoo Township
Eligible Actual Early Votes Percentage Invalid Confirmed Percentage

Voters Voters Votes Votes
159.182 118.030 11.123 80.51 6.712 121.441 76.29
The above chart is from the official announcement of the military regime
According to the chart, it can be seen that the percentage of votes is not 93.58 but 80.81 and
the percentage of confirmed votes is 76.29.
The military regime’s announcements regarding voter turnouts and percentages differed from
each other from one day to another.
Furthermore, the regime’s propaganda newspapers illogically announced that percentages of
votes in constituency 1 and 2 of Pruso Township, and constituency 1 and 2 of Shadaw Township, Kayah
State were 100 percent.

2010 ELECTIONS
Chapter VII
THE RIGHT TO OBSERVE AND EXPRESS

As announced in advance, the Union Election Commission seriously restricted the observation
and the media coverage regarding the elections.
However, no only polling station chiefs, authorities of ward, village and township level, watched
closely to voters on voting, but pointed out and urged people to mark next to USDP which they wanted
voters to vote for.
Designated election commissions banned the observation of vote counting for the nationwide
level. When there were observers, authorities stopped the counting and resumed it in the middle of the
night secretly.
In polling stations of Obokyun village group constituency, and Hinthachaung village group
constituency in Moenyo Township, Pegu Division, authorities restricted observers to be present while
counting. Furthermore, authorities instructed representatives from political parties to be at least 15 feet
away from the counting of votes. Polling station chiefs and other officials counted alone without
observers and did not let anyone see the invalid votes.
The following is the list of incidents collected by FBD in which some news journals were banned
by Censorship and Scrutiny Board for those journals published news about voting and counting:

2010 ELECTIONS

Form 5 regarding the permission to media coverage
No. Media Name What is not allowed How it is not allowed How to know Remark
1. Weekly Eleven News about USDP campaigning inside Banned by Censorship Indirectly
and around a polling station in Labuta and Scrutiny Board
Tsp., Irrawaddy Division
2. Yangon Time Results of political parties by townships Banned by C&S Board Indirectly The result was not stable yet because
early votes were not only at township
level but at ward level election
commissions
3. Popular News News about voters unable to vote due Banned by C&S Board Indirectly
to not being in the eligible voter list
Article Seeing, hearing and electing out
of the 500 yard range
4. Article Seeing, hearing and electing out Banned by C&S Board Indirectly
of the 500 yard range
5. Voice Many voted in North Dagon without Banned by C&S Board Indirectly
being on the eligible voter list
6. True News Opinions of political party leaders after Banned by C&S Board Indirectly
the elections
7. 7 Days Individual candidate from Laymyetnhar Banned by C&S Board Indirectly
lost by early votes
8. All media News about election results Banned by C&S Board Indirectly There was a big problem at District
Election Commission about election
results regarding early votes
Form 5 (1) regarding the permission to media coverage
No. Media Name Reporter Name What is not allowed How it is not allowed How to know Remark
1. Pyithu Khit Eint Saung Oo Photos and News about Banned with reason of Self Seen Indirectly News Flash, Hot News, Popular, and
Messenger Htet Khaung Lin early votes from prisoners not reporting before the media groups related to the
√
Weekly Eleven - in Insein Prison publishing regime were allowed to cover the
Venus Set Naing news prohibited for other media
groups
2. Favorite Journal U Khin Maung Taking photos and news Security troops tried to √ Negatives were destroyed
Nyunt +3 from voters returned from seize cameras reasoning
2010 ELECTIONS
polling stations photo taking was not

allowed under security
reasons
3. True News Ei Mon Kyaw Taking photos while South Arrested for √
Journal (freelance) Okkalapa early vote interrogation
problem was being solved
in Tsp., election
commission
4. 24/7 Journal Ko Kyaw Tun The journal was prohibited SB took personal data √
from taking photos and from the reporter
news because the reporter
asked strong questions at
the USDP PC
5. All journals All reporters Not allowed to get news on Stopped by police when Media groups chosen by C&S
the Election Day approaching polling Board were allowed to take
stations photos inside polling stations
Forms collected by FDB regarding media coverage for election related news (015/016_fdb05)

Furthermore, Opinion Poll Group registered at Censorship and Scrutiny Board four months
before the elections to be able to conduct election surveys to find out people’s positions and opinions
regarding the elections. However, even after the elections, Opinion Poll received no reply from the
Board about the registration.
No. Observation What is not allowed How to know Remark

Group
1. Opinion Poll The group submitted Self Saw Indirectly News There are some surveys about
registration at Censorship and √ election results and eligible
Scrutiny Board four months voters, and voter turnout by some
before the elections to be able NGOs illegally obtained.
to conduct election surveys to
find out people’s positions and
opinions regarding the
elections. The Board transferred
the registration to Ministry of
Home Affairs but never
permitted to conduct surveys.
FDB survey regarding the right to media coverage about the right to observe the elections (017_fdb05)
2010 ELECTIONS
Chapter VIII
VOICES OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATES CONTESTED IN THE ELECTIONS
There are 37 political parties contested in the elections for 3 parliaments.

Except Union Solidarity and Development Party, the other 36 political parties including National
Unity Party faced numerous intimidations and the biased-nature of the elections. For USDP to be the
winner of the elections, levels of SPDC authorities abused their political power and the Union Election
Commission favored USDP by violating their own electoral laws and decrees. The other 36 political
parties faced devastating bullies by USDP, authorities and the election commission so they voiced their
complaints regarding the 2010 elections as follows:
1. U Khin Maung Swe, from National Democratic Force, interview with VOA on the 6th of November
2010
“In this country, USDP and village or ward election commissions and village or ward authorities
are trying to steal votes from people. This is happening throughout the country, in every town
and village.”
“There are many examples of vote buying particularly in Kengtung, Bogalay, Monywa and also a
few in Rangoon.”
“We even witnessed that in some areas, ward election commission officials took voting cards
from people and voted on their behalf. Many people have witnessed cases like this. We have also
been trying to solve a problem that occurred with the Election Commission because the Minister
of Electricity ordered over 100 employees and their families to vote for USDP.”
2. Shan Nationalities Development Party (SNDP) known as White Tiger party spoke to VOA on the
6th of November regarding USDP’s forced collection of early votes as follows:
The illegal collection of early votes also occurred in Shan State so SNDP submitted a complaint
letter to the Union Election Commission but SNDP office in Taunggyi Township informed that SNDP
received no replied regarding the issue.
“We were told that the complaint was sent to the Union Election Commission. We
haven’t heard anything from the commission regarding the submission of the complaint.
We, based in Taunggyi, received complaints from (SNDP) other townships. We received
complaints stating that personnel from the commission and local authorities themselves
went to collect early votes. They reasoned that they had to do that under the instructions
from above and collected early votes from both well and unwell people, and anyone
above the age of 18. They also urged people to vote for USDP whether if they wanted or
not.”
3. Dr. Kyaw Swe from NUP spoke to RFA on the 6th of November regarding the illegal and forceful
collection of early votes by local authorities for USDP as follows:
Dr. Kyaw Swe, NUP candidate to contest from Taungdwingyi Township for Region and State
Parliament, stated that in Taungdwingyi Township, USDP collected illegal early votes, with the help of

2010 ELECTIONS
ward commission and ward authorities, from residents. He stated about the incident at Kyaunggon
village on the evening of the 5th of November as follows:
“At that village, at the political campaign speech in the evening, people were urged to
cast early votes. Election commission chairperson and ward council chairperson told
people from the village to vote in the evening. We have prepared, with candidates from
other political parties, to sue those violators.”
“They violated all articles from 57 to 60 of the Electoral Law. Thus, we must sue them.
Many similar incidents have happened in many other places. So, we have sent our party
members as representatives to polling stations. There are only two polling stations
without our representatives. Those representatives informed us about many incidents.
So, we’ve been preparing to submit a complaint with all those reports. There are many
people who want to help us as witnesses. So, with our representatives as complainants
and those people as witnesses, we will submit our complaints.”
4. A member of All Mon Region Democratic Party (AMRDP) spoke to VOA on the 7th of November
2010 regarding some people were not provided with voting cards and instead those cards were made
USDP votes as follows:
“Some observers also stated that in Kamawet village in Mudon Township, out of an
estimated 2500 eligible voters, only about 1000 were provided with voting cards. The rest
were unable to vote. Their votes had been made for them, without their consent, prior to
the elections and were in support of the USDP. Furthermore, residents stated that in
Kyonepike area in Mudon Township, about 50 USDP members were positioned inside
polling stations and forcefully taking voting cards from voters, marking them in support
of their party. Even though AMRDP complained the problem to Township Election
Commission, the party was only told to solve the problem by dealing with each other at
the party level.”
Likewise, In Mudon village constituency, Chaungzon Township, Mon State, about 500 votes for
AMRDP disappeared. A party member said,
“The disappearing means the amount or number of votes AMRDP. That was in Mudon
village. 500 eligible voters from Mudon village, Chaungzon Township, who would
definitely vote for AMRDP, were missing. What I think is that polling station officials are
responsible for that.”
5. Voice of America broadcasted on the 7th November about an incident in Myaypon, Arakan State,
which was the hardest hit area during Cyclone Giri, member of Rakhine Nationalities Development Party
reported that a USDP representative campaigned inside the polling station encouraging individuals to
vote for him.
“In Panga village, the USDP Township Secretary stationed there, whose brother is the
Polling Station Chief Official and the headmaster of the village school campaigned inside
the polling station and forcefully urged people to vote for USDP. Our polling station
representative asked him to stop but it was useless. Likewise, in Taungpaw Ward of
Myaypon Township, the eligible voter list was just posted. Very few voters were only
able to vote and there were many people left to vote. Taungpaw Ward is Muslim

2010 ELECTIONS
dominated ward but they were very likely to vote for Arakan party. What I think is that
they (authorities) know that so they were trying to delay the voting in purpose.”
In the afternoon, in Nazi Ward in Sittwe in which most of residents are Muslims, USDP organizer
interfered the voting inside the polling station and eventually the chief of polling station refused to take
responsibilities as the polling station official.
“In the polling station, there was a representative. However, U Ba Tin from USDP was
there as well. He took the voting cards from the people and marked them in support of
USDP. Voters were not allowed to vote even though they were in the polling station.
When our representative tried to prevent him from forcing people to vote for him, they
were violently threatened. Thus, our representative, U Than Wai, complained about that
to the chief of the polling station. The chief of polling station couldn’t do anything and
outside of the polling station, there were many Muslim people in chaotic situation so the
chief of the polling station said that he couldn’t handle the polling station anymore.”
6. In the VOA interview, on 8 November, U Khin Maung Swe said that so many early votes arrived
to polling stations for USDP as follows:
“By looking at the votes last night, we could see that we had won about 18 seats in
Rangoon. In the morning, the situation changed. Early votes were added. If a USDP
candidate needed 1.000 votes to win, they added 1.000 early votes, if 2.000 votes were
needed, they added 2.000 votes. So the result became very confusing.”
“They prepared early votes in big plastic bags. When USDP representatives needed more
votes to win, those bags were brought to polling stations. When these bags were opened,
all early votes were for the USDP. Similar counting happened everywhere. We decided to
submit a complaint to the Election Commission requesting that they let us know how the
early votes were collected because those early votes eliminated the true desire of the
people, if they did not we stated that we would not sign any confirmation of the election
results.”
7. Daw Bao Ja, the representative for National Democratic Force (NDF), for Pyithu Hluttaw, spoke
to VOA on the 7th of November as follows:
Even though Electoral Laws restricted political parties from campaigning USDP officials
violated all these restrictions. These laws prevented contestants from wearing any
clothing resembling political slogans or symbols and posting posters within 500 yards of
polling stations.
“Authorities and officials were wearing those campaign shirts. And, campaign posters
were everywhere, about 10 yards from polling stations. Sign posts were also there. At
most of the polling stations, people were forced to vote for USDP by marking next to
USDP sign on already distributed voting tokens. So, by seeing those, it is very obvious
that what they (authorities) did is not honest at all.”
In PaKan region, there were 101 polling stations. U Ohn Myint, the USDP representative
and the regime’s local authorities provided temporary IDs for over 20,000 non-resident
workers working at gem mines.

2010 ELECTIONS
Furthermore, Daw Bao Ja stated that, those miners brought already marked voting cards
provided by USDP when they came to polling stations.
8. U Kaung Myint Htut, contested from South Okkalapa Township, Rangoon Division as an
individual candidate, spoke to VOA on the 7th of November about the winning of U Aung Thein Lin,
current Rangoon Mayor and USDP candidate, by adding early votes, and VOA broadcasted as follows:
“At the contest, which people were really interested, between U Kaung Myint Htut, a
former political prisoner and individual candidate, and U Aung Thein Lin, the current
Rangoon Mayor and USDP candidate, from South Okkalapa Township, U Aung Thein Lin
became the winner by adding early votes after counting votes from polling stations in
the 5th Ward of South Okkalapa Township, U Kaung Myint Htut told to VOA.”
9. RFA broadcasted on the 12th of November 2010 about the joint-statement of 6 individual
candidates stating the elections were not free and fair as follows:
6 individual candidates who contested in the elections released a statement today on the
12th of November, announcing that the elections were not free and fair.
In their statement, they described that they did not recognize the election results for the
elections as they were not well organized and fair.
They also analyzed that there might be more sanctions from western democratic
community due to the unfairness and frauds of the elections.
The statement was jointly released by individual candidates: U Win Cho, U Win Ko Ko
Win, contested from Tanyin for Region and State Parliament, U Soe Kyi, Daw Khin Thein
Win from Shwepyitha township, Dr. Soe Lwin from Laymyatnhar Township and U Zaw
Min Thein.

2010 ELECTIONS
Chapter IX
POSITIONS OF ELECTION WON PARTIES OF 1990 ELECTIONS INCLUDING NATIONAL LEAGUE FOR
DEMOCRACY
2010 elections were shameless elections held without handing over power to the winning
political parties of 1990 elections. The National League for Democracy (NLD) decided not to participate
in the 2010 elections as the political boycott.
NLD also decided to establish an inquiry committee to take legal actions against nationwide
frauds and intimidations during the pre-election campaign period and on the Election Day.
U Win Tin, member of NLD Central Executive Committee, spoke to VOA at the interview on the
8th of November as follows:
“There were many frauds, intimidations and unfair winning by using early votes in the
elections. Even though those issues were not related to those who boycotted the
elections like NLD, those issues were devastating issues for politics in Burma or political
process in Burma. We suppose that politics in Burma will be deteriorated as well if there
are cunning frauds and intimidations in Burmese politics.”
So, we have to act in any way we can. If we stand doing nothing with the reason that we
are the boycotted organization so the problem is nothing related to us, we believe that
the situation will lead to a huge drawback or huge problem for political situation in
Burma. Thus, we need to act, we need to stand against the bullies, and we need to
expose the truth by documenting to inform the international community.”
Position of Shan Nationalities Democracy Party (SNLD)
SNLD also conducted election surveys in 60 townships in Shan State and 10 townships in Kachin
State to prove that the elections were not free and fair. The survey conducted areas were Shan ethnic
people dominated areas and it was informed that the results of surveys would be released.
U Sai Laik, member and spokesperson of SNLD, spoke to VOA on the 30th of November as
follows:
“The most problematic issue is early votes. And the other is added votes. We just want to know
whether the elections were free, fair or democratic, and about the process of the elections. We
mainly conduct election surveys in 60 townships in Shan State and 10 townships in Kachin State.”
“In general, there is almost no freedom, fairness and democratic practices. Even if the
procedures are different from one place to another, eventually, frauds happened almost
everywhere. The only difference is how big the frauds were. Almost in every town, early votes
issue is the main problem and other frauds through intimidations happened. We have found
many cases regarding forcing people to vote, excluding from voting, and turning valid votes for
other parties into invalid votes.
Position of Arakan League for Democracy (ALD)

U Aye Tha Aung, Secretary General of ALD, Secretary of Committee Representing People’s
Parliament, member of the Secretariat of Union Nationalities League for Democracy, spoke to Mizzima
on the 29th March 2010 regarding ALD’s position on 2010 elections as follows:

2010 ELECTIONS
“Election is a procedural step of a country’s democratization. It can’t be said that a

country can become a democratic country automatically only by holding elections. Thus
holding election is just one step of democratizing Burma. Before the elections, certain
political preparations or changes are necessary. In Burma, people face the lack of
national unity. In particular, there is a division among the military, ethnic nationalities
and democratic forces. For all those forces to be united, national unity is necessary. To
build national unity, dialogues must be conducted before the elections and set plans for
national unity, and draft constitutions. Those steps are necessary before the elections.
The current political situation is not prone to build a democratic country.”
Position of Zomi National Congress
U Pukyin Shin Tang, Chairperson of Zomi National Congress (ZNC), representative elect from No.
1 Constituency of Tedim Township from 1990 elections, member of CRPP and United Nationalities
Alliance, spoke to Mizzima on the 29th of March 2010 regarding ZNC’s position on the 2010 elections as
follows:
“A genuine election should be for inclusive dialogue regarding all problems. Then, we need to
draft constitutions to move on with the participation of all forces. Based on that inclusively
drafted constitution, political parties will emerge and political leaders as well. Elections will be
the next step for people to be able to choose their leaders from those political parties or from
individuals. People will choose presidents or prime ministers by electing who they think are best
to serve the country on behalf of them. Elections stand for a fair choice of leaders. Now, the
drafted constitution is not fair and totally biased. Elections will absolutely not be free and fair.
Nothing is good. All good doings for the country is already prohibited. I believe that earning
money by other ways is better than contesting in the elections to earn salary and benefits as
parliamentarians.”
Position of Mon National Democracy Front (MNDF)
U Nai Ngwe Thein, Vice-Chairperson of MNDF, spoke to Mizzima on the 29th of March 2010
stating that MNDF cannot accept the 2010 elections because it was based on the 2008 constitution:
“From the very beginning, we did not accept the National Convention. We did not accept
the convention because we did not agree with the procedures of the convention. When
the law was published, we analyzed the new laws and we found out that nothing is in
accordance with any democratic procedures. We don’t think national reconciliation can
be brought by that. When we read the Article 405 of the new constitution, it states that
“A political party shall : (a) accept and practice a genuine and discipline-flourishing
multi-party democratic system; (b) abide by and respect this Constitution and the
existing laws; (c) form and register as a political party in accord with the law. So, we
sensed that political parties would face difficulties under that statement. I warned
everyone at that moment that political parties would be allowed to establish after
signing to accept that statement. It is impossible for anyone who does not accept the
constitution to sign the statement of that constitution for the permission to establish
political parties. Since then, we already decided not to contest the elections if and when

2010 ELECTIONS
elections are held. Thus, United Nationalities Alliance (UNA) released a statement dated
the 20th of January 2010 urging the release of all political prisoners, engaging of
tripartite dialogue and reviewing of undemocratic points in the new constitution. We
decided to not participate in the elections if those are not met.”
“We couldn’t accept the elections based on 2008 constitution, from the very beginning.
We knew that elections would not bring democracy to Burma and would not be able to
establish a genuine federal union. We already had our point of view that the elections
would not bring development, peace and any betterment to the country. We are still
holding that position.”
Position of United Nationalities Leagues for Democracy (UNLD)
U Thaung Kho Tang, representative elect from Tamu constituency from 1990 elections, member
of presidium of UNLD, stated the UNLD position not accepting 2010 elections due to 2008 constitution
as follows:
“The main reason why we decided not to participate in the 2010 elections is because we
cannot accept the 2008 constitution. So, we roughly decided not to participate in the
elections even after the constitution was drafted. The decision became stronger when
electoral laws were announced. Even though we’ve been in politics since 1990, we knew
that we could not become ministers or deputy ministers and after all, not even orderly
status for ministers. If asked why we have been in politics then, our answer is that we
hope we can choose our representatives from our state, we can choose ministers from
our state, we can write our own constitution for our state as residents of our regions.
That’s why we have remained in politics. When the 2008 constitution came out, there
was nothing we needed and wanted in the constitution. We, ethnicities of the country,
have no reason to accept the 2008 constitution. Because we cannot accept the
constitution, we cannot participate in the elections. So, we decided not to register to
participate in the elections.”
“For rights for ethnic people, State Parliaments do not have any power to refuse any
State Prime Ministers appointed by the President of the Union. If State Parliaments do
not like State Prime Ministers appointed by the President, the President will send
another one. And again, State Parliaments have no power to refuse this one.”
“Now, in the constitution, State Parliaments are not permitted to refuse anyone
appointed by Union President as Prime Ministers. In politics, administration is the main
mandate. For state residents or ethnic people, it is the devastating disadvantage
regarding that issue. Furthermore, the appointing of military representatives by the
Commander in Chief and their role as leading role are also effective in State Parliaments.
Thus, ethnic people or state residents cannot accept that point.”

2010 ELECTIONS
Chapter X
POSITION OF ARMED ETHNIC FORCES
Armed ethnic forces also released their positions on the 2010 elections as follows:
Position of New Mon State Party (NMSP)
Even on the 18th of October 2010, NMSP released a statement “NMSP’s position on the elections
on the 7th of November 2010.” There are six points in this statement including the facts that 2010
elections on the 7th of November is partially designed by the military regime, designed to activate 2008
constitution which is not in favor of genuine federal union system, designed to eliminate 1990 election
results and to legitimize military rule in Burma, designed to favor USDP in many different ways, with no
transparency and in denial of international observation.
Due to the above mentioned points, NMSP released the statement on its position to boycott the
elections.
Position of Karen National Union (KNU)
Pado David Takapaw, the Vice-Chairperson of KNU, spoke to RFA about KNU position on the
2010 elections while during the 3rd Session of the 14th KNU Congress held in a revolution area in Karen
State from 14th to 18th of December 2010 as follows:
“The upcoming new government from 2010 elections looks like a civilian government but
in reality, is still the military government. So, they (the military regime) will not change
any of their policy, plans or activities. They will still oppress ethnic people and violate
ethnic people’s rights. We will continue the fight until the regime accepts the tripartite
national reconciliation.”
Position of Shan State Army (South) (SSA-S)
Lt. Gen. Yawd Serk, leader of SSA-S, spoke to Irrawaddy stating that 2010 elections would not
bring democracy to Burma as follows:
“Their elections are not held within democratic procedures and are not fair at all. None
of the problems of Burma can be solved either. The aim of the regime is to cover their
wrong doings with the elections. The new government will appear with civilian clothes
but the essence will not be changed. When the parliament is called, that parliament will
also go under the military control and military mind-set. What I want to inform people is
that there is no peace and stability in Burma. Even when the elections are over; Burma
will not become a democratic country. So, nothing will happen from the elections.”

2010 ELECTIONS
Position of United Wa State Army (UWSA)
The People’s government of Wa autonomous region released a statement on the 5th of

November 2010. In this statement, Wa government stated that elections would not be held in Pan Kam,
Naphan, Pang Wai, and Mongmaw townships in Wa autonomous region so over 460,000 Wa ethnic
people from Wa region would not recognize any 2010 election results.
Position of Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA)
Col. Saw La Pwe, the commander of the 5th Brigade of DKBA, spoke to Irrawaddy on the 10th of
November 2010 stating that 2010 elections would not bring any equality to ethnic nationalities as
follows:
“The elections will not bring democracy for people of Burma and ethnic nationalities in
Burma will not be able to enjoy any equality. This is not democracy. The reality is that
military generals changed their clothes, that is all.
People did not support the elections. The elections were not genuine elections either. It
is important that international community come and observe what is going on in ethnic
areas.”
Position of Re-establishing Council for Shan State (RCSS)
On the 11th of November, RCSS released a statement of not recognizing the 2010 elections. Shan
Herald Agency News published 4 points from that statement on the 15th of November as follows:
There are 4 points in the statement but the main point states that the election results are not
acceptable. The statement also explains that the elections on the 7th of November cannot be acceptable
because people were forced to vote for the regime’s proxy party USDP and election commission officials,
illegal early votes were collected, village chiefs were forced to vote on behalf of residents, polling stations
were moved under numerous reasons when elections became close, and other political parties faced
abuse of power by authorities and partiality.
Furthermore, instead of problems of Burma solved by the new government from the winning
USDP, the civil war in Burma will be fueled by unfairness, intimidations and frauds of the elections
committed by the regime and proxy parties. RCSS requested the international community focus on the
fact that only by eliminating war crimes and unfairness in Burma, political problems can be solved.

2010 ELECTIONS
Chapter XI
RESPONSES AND POSITIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
The military regime tried to convince not only people in Burma but also the international
community that they were changing.
However, the international community correctly responded the sham elections. The
international community started responding the military regime’s electoral process even before the
elections, since the one-sided process and intimidations were truly obvious.
Position of the Foreign Minister of the Philippines

At the ASEAN Summit held in Hanoi, Vietnam on October 30, 2010, The Philippines says the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) will be undermined if next month's elections in military-
ruled Burma are a sham. Philippine Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo said Saturday that flawed
elections "will cost Asean not only goodwill but its own position. They are also putting at risk Asean
itself." Philippines: Flawed Burma Vote Will Damage Asean
Position of the Foreign Minister of Czech Republic

Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg said on October 12 that the forthcoming election
on November 7 could not bring about any progress in Burma's situation.
http://www.burmapartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Weekly-Political-Events-Regarding-
the-SPDCs-Election-040-2010-Eng.pdf
Position of the Western Community including the United States

The military regime announced on November 1, 2010 stating delegates from embassies in
Burma could observe designated polling stations. However, most western embassies rejected the offer
to observe polling stations with the reason that they would not want to recognize that the 2010
elections also had the right to observe by observing only limited and designated polling stations.
Position of British Ambassador

The British Ambassador to Burma, Andrew Heyn, had appeared at the FCCT in Bangkok on
Thursday evening before returning to Burma for the elections. A phone interview was conducted with
him at 3:40 p.m. yesterday while voting was still in progress. He said that while many people were
voting, they seemed “resigned”, as if going through the motions of a necessary chore – which was
perhaps a quite appropriate description, given reports that ballots had been individually numbered and
were thus traceable, raising fears of reprisals should they vote the “wrong” way.
http://www.mizzima.com/edop/analysis/4555-observers-foresee-little-change-after-elections.html
Positions of Mike Hammer; a spokesman for National Security Council of US and Bill Burns;
undersecretary of state
Ahead of Sunday's elections, the White House on Thursday said there has been no effort by the
Burmese military regime on the engagement process initiated by the Obama administration, but
reiterated that it will not give up on its year-old policy.
“We have tried to engage with the Burmese government. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like they've
made much of an effort on their part,” Mike Hammer, a spokesman for National Security Council, told
foreign correspondents on the eve of Obama’s departure on a four-nation Asian trip.

2010 ELECTIONS
The undersecretary of state for political affairs, Bill Burns, said by all accounts Burma is headed towards
a sham election. http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=19954
Position of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC)

On November 5th, 2010, members of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC)
sent an open petition letter to ASEAN leaders urging them not to recognize the 2010 elections in Burma
because the elections would not be genuine free and fair elections.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/11/aipmc-to-asean-leaders-burma-elections-are-a-farce/
Positions of Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton

US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday strongly
condemned the general election in Burma that was marred by reports of large scale fraud and
intimidation conducted by the military junta and its proxy political party, the United Solidarity and
Development Party. The United Nations, however, remained silent, apparently because its members
failed to reach a consensus on how to respond to the polls.
Obama said the Nov. 7 election was neither free nor fair and failed to meet any of the
internationally accepted standards associated with legitimate elections. “The elections were based on a
fundamentally flawed process and demonstrated the [Burmese] regime’s continued preference for
repression and restriction over inclusion and transparency,” he said.
“One of the starkest flaws of this exercise was the regime’s continued detention of more than
2,100 political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, thereby denying them any opportunity to
participate in the process. The unfair electoral laws and overtly partisan Election Commission ensured
that Burma’s leading pro-democracy party, the National League for Democracy, was silenced and
sidelined,” Obama said.
Clinton is currently on a trip to Australia, and in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting
Corporation she said that holding flawed elections once again exposed the abuses of the military junta.
“It is heartbreaking,” she said.
“We were concerned by the regime’s refusal to allow international journalists and election observers to
monitor or cover the voting. Reports of intentional Internet slowdowns, voter intimidation and
fraudulent 'advance voting' schemes were also very troubling,” said Clinton.
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=19994
Position of UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Monday urged the junta to turn the Burmese election
into a new beginning for the country and its people. He said the authorities must demonstrate that the
election is part of a credible transition towards a democratic government, national reconciliation and
respect for human rights, said a statement issued by Ban’s office. Ban also urged the junta to release all
remaining political prisoners and lift restrictions on Aung San Suu Kyi so that they can freely participate
in the political life of the country.
http://www.irrawaddy.org/election/news/600-ban-calls-on-junta-to-commit-to-new-beginning.html
Position of Nobel Women’s Initiative

Six Nobel Peace laureates have expressed disappointment over the general elections in Burma
and said that the conditions under which they took place made clear that the elections were a means by
which to entrench military rule and legitimize an undemocratic constitution.
“We call on the UN secretary general and all states to condemn the undemocratic constitution of
Burma and the flawed elections. We call on the government of Burma to respect the human rights of the

2010 ELECTIONS
people of Burma and to unconditionally release all political prisoners and to immediately cease hostilities
against ethnic nationalities,” said a statement by the Nobel Women’s Initiative.
The statement said that the election procedures were not in accordance with international
standards and prevented the exercise of fundamental freedoms and political rights.
“Election laws barred a number of political parties and candidates from running, either by
disqualifying them or making it nearly impossible for candidates to participate. Over 1.5 million citizens,
internally displaced or part of ethnic nationalities struggling against the government, were prevented
from voting. Journalists and observers were banned,” the statement said.
“The people of Burma are ready for change—real change. Now is the time for the international
community to support them in making that change.” The Nobel Women’s Initiative was established in
2006 by sister Nobel Peace laureates Jody Williams, Shirin Ebadi, Wangari Maathai, Rigoberta Menchú
Tum, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan Maguire.
http://www.irrawaddy.org/election/news/600-ban-calls-on-junta-to-commit-to-new-beginning.html
Position of UN 3rd Committee

A key committee of the United Nations on Thursday slammed the Burmese military junta for
“the ongoing systematic violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms” of the people of Burma,
even as it welcomed last weekend's release of Aung San Suu Kyi.
Sponsored by the European Union, the United States and other Western countries, the six-page
resolution by the UN Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs Committee (also known as the Third
Committee) was passed 96 to 28, with 60 countries abstaining.
Burma’s two big neighbors, India and China, were among those who voted against the
resolution, while fellow Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) members Indonesia and
Thailand abstained.
The resolution also urged the Burmese rulers not to restrict Suu Kyi's fundamental freedoms in
the future and to release all other prisoners of conscience, currently estimated at more than 2,100,
including ethnic Shan leader Hkun Htun Oo and leading student activists Min Ko Naing and Ko Ko Gyi.
http://www.irrawaddy.org/print_article.php?art_id=20122
Position of VJ Nambir
A UN special envoy to Burma said Sunday he told its military government that it must address
concerns about recent elections, which critics charge were rigged. Vijay Nambiar, who is also chief of
staff for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, spoke Sunday to reporters as he was ending a two-day visit.
He said he listened to as many parties as possible about their "hopes, expectations and concerns
at this critical juncture" following the Nov. 7 polls and the release of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi
from house arrest. He said concerns about the elections have to be addressed "as transparently as
possible."
"This is important for laying the foundation of a credible transition" to democratic rule, he said.
Nambiar said he also called for the release of political prisoners, estimated by human rights
groups to number more than 2,200. Nambiar met Saturday with Nobel Peace Prize laureate Suu Kyi,
who said the talks were "very valuable" but that they might need "many and frequent meetings to sort
out all the problems we are facing."
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=20202
Position of UN Friends of Burma

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Monday that developments in the next two months
could potentially determine the future course of Burma, after a general election that was far below the
expectations of the international community.

2010 ELECTIONS
Ban, who again expressed his disappointment over the developments in Burma, briefed the
Friends of the UN Secretary-General in Burma, in a closed meeting at the United Nations headquarters
in New York.
He was accompanied by his Chef de Cabinet Vijay Nambiar, who also spoke to the Group of
Friends of Burma about his recent visit to Burma in his capacity as special adviser dealing with that
country. The European Union was a special invitee to the meeting.
Few details of the meeting were forthcoming. “The Secretary-General told the Group of Friends
that, regrettably, the conduct of the elections was far below the international community’s expectations.
Looking ahead, we need to keep encouraging the authorities to take steps to make the political
transition broad-based and inclusive,” said spokesman Martin Nesirky.
“He (Ban) said that the next two months will be a crucial period that could potentially determine
the future course of Myanmar’s political development and its place in the international community. The
authorities, in particular, should be in a better position now to meet their responsibilities,” Nesirky told
UN correspondents at his daily noon briefing.
Later in the afternoon, Nambiar briefed the members of the UN Security Council, the details of
which were not provided. Nambiar has come under criticism from some diplomats for his stance on
Burma and some diplomats have urged the secretary-general to replace Nambiar with a full-time envoy
for Burma. http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=20260
Position of Amartya Sen from the article in The Nation on December 25, 2010
In his article, Amartya Sen said, “the military generals designed the recent election, the first in
twenty years, in a crooked way to ensure that they, or their proxies or cohorts, will stay in power. Most
gratuitously, 25 per cent of the seats were reserved for military rulers; strong pro-democracy candidates
were barred from participation; opposition leaders and activists were kept in confinement; and criticism
of the regime was totally banned in pre-election speeches.”
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2010/12/25/opinion/Ten-things-we-can-do-about-Burma-
30145136.html
Regarding the military regime’s 2010 elections, it was clear that the international noticed the
reality in Burma and recognized that the military regime’s elections were full of frauds, intimidations
and unfairness. Even though the diplomatic tones were differ from one country to another, most
countries recognized the 2010 elections were not free, fair and undemocratic.

2010 ELECTIONS
Chapter XII
GENERAL
The military regime not only violated laws such as the discounting of secret voting, making USDP
winner by using illegal votes and illegal early votes, and not allowing voters who did not support USDP to
vote, but also committed numerous electoral mistakes.
The military regime’s propaganda newspapers published many wrong voting lists of 2010
elections.
(A) Wrong Announcements
The military regime’s Union Election Commission released the Notification 103/2010 dated
September 16 announcing the areas in which elections would not be held as follows:
Notification No. 103/2010

8th Waxing of Tawthalin 1372 ME
September 16, 2010
th
On the 16 of September 2010, the Union Election Commission (UEC) issued notifications
103/2010 under Article 8 (f) of the Union Election Commission Electoral Law announcing that the
follow areas are in no position to host free and fair elections, so no elections will be held in the
following areas:
--------------
--------------
--------------
9 Mongla Township

2010 ELECTIONS
1. No. 1 Ward (Mongla)

2. No. 2 Ward (Mongla)
3. Wan Pa Kha village group
4. Mongma village group
5. Wanpon village group
6. Wan Mong Lon village group
7. Htapanlon village group
8. Mong Wa village group
9. Sunpale village group
Even though Mongla Township was recognized as the area with no elections, in the appendix (f)
of the Mirror published on November 15, 2010, it stated that there were 1,290 eligible voters in Mongla
constituency for Pyithu Hluttaw. Thus, by adding the list of eligible voters from Mongla Township, the
Union Election Commission mistakenly announced the overall eligible voters as 29,021,608.
Furthermore, The Union Election Commission issued Notification No. 143/2010 on the 7th of
December; “Announcement on figures of multiparty democracy general elections for respective
hluttaws.” Even though it stated the overall voter turnout as 22,421,123 (77.26%), other
announcements from the regime’s newspapers chaotically stated the voter turnout as 218,914
(75.43%).
According to those, the voter turnout of the 2010 elections is incorrect as announced by the
regime’s Union Election Commission.
(B) Repetitive Announcements
The regime’s propaganda the Mirror stated repetitive announcements for voter turnouts, early
votes and confirmed votes as follows:
-in appendix (c) of the newspaper on November 13, 2010, and in appendix (a) of the newspaper
November 15, 2010, Kyikemaraw constituency for Pyithu Hluttaw
-in appendix (a) of the newspaper on November 12, 2010, and in appendix (a) of the newspaper
November 15, 2010, Thaton constituency and Bilin constituency for Pyithu Hluttaw
-in appendix (b) of the newspaper on November 12, 2010, and in appendix (d) of the newspaper
November 15, 2010 Kyauktan constituency for Pyithu Hluttaw
-in appendix (c) of the newspaper on November 12, 2010, and in appendix (f) of the newspaper
November 15, 2010, Kamayut constituency and Bahan constituency
-in appendix (a) of the newspaper on November 12, 2010, and in appendix (c) of the newspaper
November 13, 2010, 8 constituencies for Naypyitaw Region

2010 ELECTIONS
-in appendix (h) of the newspaper on November 12, 2010, and in appendix (k) of the newspaper
November 15, 2010, Rangoon Region and Ethnic Hluttaws, Karen and Arakan ethnic
constituencies
(C) Original Results and Corrections
The case of Dr. Saw Naing, an individual representative who contested for Region and State
Hluttaw from South Okkalapa Township, Rangoon Division, clearly shows that the result for Dr. Saw
Naing was changed again and again until his victory was taken away from him by the regime to make the
USDP candidate the winner. The case was highlighted in detail by media groups.
In the morning of the 8th of November, Dr. Saw Naing was declared the winner with 145 more
votes than his contestant U Aung Kyaw Moe from USDP. Again, in the evening of the 8th of November, U
Aung Kyaw Moe was announced as the winner by 8 more votes. After the announcements were made
back and forth, the Union Election Commission finally announced on the 10th of November that U Aung
Kyaw Moe was the winner.
U Saw Naing’s case shows that even after signing his recognition as the winner by the
commission, the Union Election Commission announced the different result by making the reality upside
down to make the USDP candidate the winner.
(D) Adding representatives elect who were not in daily announcements of election results
On the 8th of November 2010, the Mirror published the Union Election Commission Notifications
119/120/121-2010 which declared, under Article 41 (A), that there were 57 representatives elect each
from 57 constituencies for parliaments.
Even though those lists were announced after the elections as daily results in newspapers, the
following 3 representatives were added as representatives elect, who were not in any daily result
announcements, to National Parliament (Amyotha Hluttaw):
U Ne Win Tun 13/TaKaNa (Naing)044190 Constituency No. 9 Pa-O National League

U Tun Kyaw 13/NaSaNa (Naing) 003180 Constituency No. 10 Ta-aung (Palaung) National Party
U Lieu Kwe Shi 13/MaSaTa (Naing) 031834 Constituency No. 11 USDP
(E) Counting and Declaring
Regarding the counting of vote and declaring confirmation, Pyithu Hluttaw Electoral Law,
Chapter 10, Article 48 (B) states that:
Immediately after the ballot papers are casted in the relevant polling booth, the polling
booth officer himself or a member of the polling booth team assigned by him shall count
the votes in the polling booth in the presence of the members of the polling booth team,
the polling booth agents and the public. In counting, valid votes and invalid votes are to

2010 ELECTIONS
be differentiated in accord with the Rules. The polling booth officer shall prepare the list
of number of votes counted and compiled voting list schedules as prescribed and send
them to the Ward or Village-tract Sub-commission. A copy shall be sent to the Township
Sub-commission.
However, in practice, authorities and election commission officials violated their own rules and
regulations. It was found out that votes were not counted in the presence of voters, and not
systematically and tidily separated between confirmed votes, invalid votes and early votes. FDB
collected these violations:
-No. 1 polling station of Ywabae constituency, Western Pegu Division
-No. 2 polling station of Moteshae village group constituency, Prome Township
-No. 4 polling station of Wayone Ward, Prome Township
-No. 8 polling station of Muyaqin Ward, Western Pegu Division
Furthermore, in the letter of Daw Cho Cho Kyaw Nyein, contested from Kyobingauk Township,
Pegu Division for Pyithu Hluttaw, vote rigging was mentioned as follows:

2010 ELECTIONS
U Tin Maung Win, a teacher and polling station chief of Kywethe village group polling station brought
votes to his house and counted there. U San Hlaing, an USDP organizer, was also there to count votes. I,
Daw Cho Cho Kyaw Nyein from Democratic Party (Myanmar) am dissatisfied with the procedure of the
counting and about the incident, so I sincerely request the Union Election Commission, Naypyitaw to
unravel the problem.
Daw Cho Cho Kyaw Nyein
Representative for Pyithu Hluttaw
Kyobingauk Township, Pegu Division
Copies to
1. Union Election Commission (Naypyitaw Region)

2. District Election Commission, Tharawaddy District, Pegu Division
3. Township Election Commission, Kyobingauk Township, Pegu Division
4. Out letter
Vote rigging from the submission of Daw Cho Cho Kyaw Nyein (039_fdb02)
(F) Elections and Arrests
The military regime did many election related arrests. 18 people including a monk were arrested
during pre-election, on the Election Day and post-election periods.
Ko Khin Zaw, organizer of National Democratic Party for Development from Kyikeyoebin, was
arrested under the accusation of disturbing voting at a polling station. Over 100 supporters of National
Democratic Party for Development in Buthidaung and Maungtaw townships were arrested after the
elections.

2010 ELECTIONS
Conclusion
It was found out that during pre-election period and on the Election Day, the military regime
systematically and carefully committed organized frauds.
The ultimate goal of committing those cunning and devastating frauds is to make sure USDP
gains 75% of seats and military officers 25% at the parliament after the elections. It was systematically
designed to gain control in all three parliaments as well as to elongate military control over judiciary,
legislative and executive levels.
During pre-election period, the regime

1. Established the Union Election Commission as proxy body and granted it much authority
2. Over restricted political parties, individual candidates and people with electoral laws, decrees,
notifications and instructions
3. Created a barrier to prevent political parties which won 1990 elections from involving
themselves in political process
4. Prohibited activities or denied permissions for possible rival political parties of USDP from
standing as political parties
5. Prohibited any rival individual candidates to USDP from contesting the elections
6. Allowed USDP from using government revenue, buildings, and authority at will even under
electoral laws
7. Created financial crisis for political parties and individual candidates
8. Restricted political parties from recruiting, making speeches during campaigns, and publishing
political documents under numerous decrees and laws
9. While making political speeches through TV, restricted political parties from freely expressing
their political rights but only allowed to express what the regime wanted
10. Used numerous means forcing people not to vote for other political parties but to USDP
11. Violated own rules and regulations regarding the collection of early votes but forcefully and
illegally collected early votes
Those violations and frauds were already highlighted in FDB’s pre-election report, “The Elections
with Full of Cunning Frauds”, under 14 chapters, published on the 1st of November.
During the elections, the regime

1. Overly restricted other political parties’, except USDP, freedom of campaign, speech and
expression until almost those rights came to an end from existing
2. Not only created a gap of rights between USDP and the other 36 parties by using electoral laws,
decrees and instructions, but also favored USDP to win
3. Failed to provide electoral education for voters, to make eligible voter lists in time, and instead,
excluded some constituencies from the elections. Furthermore, the regime violated electoral
laws by adding votes of underage people, people who do not really exist and names of deceased
people as votes for USDP
4. Created the absence of secret voting by letting USDP members and local authorities to interfere
in the voting process not only near but inside polling stations and forced voters to vote for USDP
5. Prohibited both local and international observation teams to protect freedom and fairness and
to prevent from frauds regarding elections. The regime also banned any media freedom to cover
the election news but on the other hand, the regime’s media aired and published propaganda
for USDP all the time

2010 ELECTIONS
6. Violated abundant vote rigging, vote stealing and abuse of power at the nationwide level. The
worst is the ugly use of early votes to make USDP winner
7. Only targeted the winning of USDP and left counting and declaring results unclear.
8. Even though announced that from 29,021,608 total eligible voters, 77.26% voted for Pyithu
Hluttaw, 76.78% voted for Amyotha Hluttaw and 76.72% voted for State and Region Hluttaw,
the actual voter turnout was not that much. The announcements were total lies by counting two
or three times, forced people to vote repetitively, in disguise of the real will of people
9. Sued some election representatives who could make it through those frauds to replace with
USDP candidates
Because of the military regime, election commission, USDP and levels of authorities’ favors,
frauds and intimidations in both pre-election and election periods, political parties and individual
candidates, who participated in the elections with the hope that the situation would not be that bad,
could not bear it anymore and submitted complaint letters, and sued USDP and officials who violated
electoral laws.
There are 16 international standards to indicate if elections are free, fair or democratic. Pre-
election, during and post-election periods can be indicated with those standards to see if an election is
free or fair.
The elections held in Burma on the 7th of November 2010 were not free, fair and democratic
according to those indicating standards and it was found out that many frauds, intimidations and favors
happened.
It is obvious that whatever the internal and international condemnation of the elections, the
military regime has been continuing its plan to legitimize itself in disguise of a civilian government.
As the election result, the Union Election Commission announced on 17th of November 2010
that USDP won 259 seats (79.6%) out of 325 seats for Pyithu Hluttaw, 129 seats (76.7%) out of 168 seats
for Amyotha Hluttaw, 494 seats (74.8%) out of 661 seats for State and Region Hluttaw. On the 8th of
December 2010, it was also announced that 882 out of 1,154 USDP candidates were elected on the
nationwide level.

2010 ELECTIONS
Because of the frauds at will, the list of representatives elect for parliaments is as follows:
The chart of People’s Parliament in which the percentage of representatives from military is more
than it was supposed to be
Pyithu Hluttaw
Parties Quantity Percentage

USDP 259 59.54%
NUP 12 2.76%
SNDP 18 4.14%
RNDP 9 2.07%
NDF 8 1.84%
Other 6 parties 13 2.99%
4 Alliance Parties of USDP 6 1.38
Representatives from Military 110 25.29%
Total 435 100%
In Pyithu Hluttaw, the percentage of the USDP representatives and representatives from military
combined is already 84.83%. That is the percentage for control over any decision making or making
changes in the parliament. The regime gained that control for three powers: legislative, executive and
judiciary with cunning frauds.
By the 2008 constitution, the percentage of representatives from military must be 25% of the
total percentage of representatives. Now, it’s a surprise that the regime seized 25.29%. Instead of
electing 330 civilian representatives, the Union Election Commission illogically announced that only 325
were to be elected, and as the consequence, the number of representatives became 435 (325 civilian
representatives + 110 representatives from military).

2010 ELECTIONS
The decision to add 110 representatives was not changed, no matter how many civilian
representatives were short or no matter how many constituencies were excluded from the elections.
The Chart of the percentages of election won parties for People’s Parliament in which 5 vacancies
were included
The Chart of the Percentages of Parties won for National Parliament

2010 ELECTIONS
Amyotha Hluttaw (National Parliament)
Parties Quantity Percentage

USDP 129 57.59%
NUP 5 2.23%
SNDP 3 1.34%
RNDP 7 3.13%
NDF 4 1.79%
Other 6 Parties 13 5.80%
4 Alliance Parties of USDP 7 3.13
Representatives from Military 56 25.00%
Total 224 100%
In Amyotha Hluttaw as well, the percentage of USDP representatives elect and representatives
from military combined is 82.59. The decisive control over the parliament is in the hands of USDP
representatives and military representatives.
In both parliaments, there is almost no important role for other political parties. The regime
purposefully created that situation.
It was announced that Pyithu Hluttaw, Amyotha Hluttaw and Region and State Hluttaw would
be called on the 31st of January 2011. Even if individual representatives elect and representatives elect
from other political parties want to work for the betterment of the country and the people, there will be
no changes and their efforts will be useless. It is very clear that USDP representatives elect and military
representatives will bully other representatives with the use of majority role.
The military regime held fake elections with many frauds in order to legitimize it and to hold the
decisive control over all three parliaments and executive, legislative and judiciary sectors as well.
Thus, Forum for Democracy in Burma

Does not recognize the 2010 elections as free, fair and democratic elections
Does not recognize the 2010 election results either

1. Will continue to oppose the 2010 election results
2. Will also continue to oppose the 2008 Constitution
We, members of Forum for Democracy in Burma, would earnestly like to request and urge all
nationalities in Burma, political forces both inside and outside of Burma, armed ethnic forces, patriot
soldiers of the military in Burma, activists abroad working for democracy in Burma, international
governments and people who support democracy in Burma, and international organizations including
the UN to cooperate with democratic forces for democratization in Burma and to oppose and to not
recognize the 2008 Constitution and the 2010 election results.

Appendix 1
List of USDP candidates won by too many early votes from losing
No. Parliament Constituency Representative Name Party/Individual Received Votes Early Vote Difference
Normal Early Total
1. Pyithu Hluttaw Thaton U Saw Ba Thein USDP 31452 3801 35253 2812
U Aung Chit NUP 33888 989 34877
2. Pyithu Hluttaw Kyauktan U Kyi Than NDF 30250 746 30996 2288
U Aung Kyaw Zin USDP 28714 3034 31738
3. Pyithu Hluttaw Kamayut U Kyaw Min Hlaing NDF 8799 172 8971 871
Dr. Soe Yin USDP 8100 1043 9143
4. Pyithu Hluttaw Bahan Dr. Khin Maung Wint USDP 13813 1956 15769 1676
U Aung Myat Tun NDF 14506 280 14786
5. Amyotha Hluttaw Mandalay Region No. U Saw Ohn USDP 17954 1748 19702 1422
9 Constituency U Thaung Shwe NUP 18851 326 19177
6. State or Region Hluttaw Mandalay Region No. U Zaw Win USDP 21768 3129 24897 1983
10 Constituency U Aye Hlaing NUP 22387 1146 23533
7. State or Region Hluttaw Thaton No. 2 U Maung Maung Nyunt NUP 18539 337 18876 1385
Constituency U Thein Zaw USDP 17739 1722 19461
8. State or Region Hluttaw Bilin No. 1 Dr. Khin Maung Thwin USDP 12354 1174 13528 852
Constituency U Shwe Maung NUP 12959 322 13281
9. Pyithu Hluttaw Yaypyu U Hla Aung NUP 10642 3746 14388 4855
U Win Oo USDP 8851 8601 17452
10. Pyithu Hluttaw Taninserim U Soe Yi NUP 18048 1053 19101 3533
U Yon Bie USDP 15896 4586 20482
11. Pyithu Hluttaw Chanaye Tharzan Dr. Kyaw Myint USDP 27215 3376 30591 2520
U Khin Maung Thet NDF 28431 856 29287
12. Pyithu Hluttaw Kyikemaraw U Ngwe Thein AMRDP 16281 918 17199 2080
Daw Mi Yin Chan USDP 15924 2998 18922
13. Pyithu Hluttaw Kyankin Dr. Tin Maung Kyine USDP 23021 2163 25184 1032
U Thein Lwin NUP 23486 1131 24617
14. Amyotha Hluttaw No. 8 constituency of U Poe Reh Aung Thein USDP 22 1365 1387 1182
Kayah State U Sai Ohn Myint NUP 37 183 220
15. Region or State Hluttaw Magwe, Tilin No. 1 U Khin Maung Htwe UMFNP 5710 310 6020 581
Constituency, U Thein Swe USDP 5607 891 6498
2010 ELECTIONS
16. Pyithu Hluttaw Buthidaung U Shwe Maung (aka) Abdul USDP 46408 5577 51985 5168
Rorzat
U Abul Tarhayl NDPD 47393 409 47802
17. Pyithu Hluttaw Man Aung U Than Maung Individual 6087 73 6160 539
U Aung Sein USDP 5708 612 6320
18. Pyithu Hluttaw Gwa U Nyi Lay (aka) U Kyi Tha USDP 11802 1417 13219 1088
U Maung Kywin NUP 10854 329 11183
19. Amyotha Hluttaw No. 2 constituency of U Kan Nyunt USDP 18514 4667 23181 3263
Karen State U Saw Mya Tun Palon-Sawaw 20648 1404 22052
Democratic Party
20. Amyotha Hluttaw No. 6 constituency of U Saw Tin Maung Lwin NUP 1823 374 2197 602
Karen State Daw Nan Ni Ni Aye USDP 1421 976 2397
21. Amyotha Hluttaw No. 5 constituency of U Kyaw Kyaw Oo NUP 11645 3826 15471 4609
Taninserim U Maung Sein USDP 8394 8435 16829
22. Amyotha Hluttaw No. 9 constituency of U Saw Ohn USDP 17954 1748 19702 1422
Mon State U Thaung Shwe NUP 18851 326 19177
23. Amyotha Hluttaw No. 10 constituency U Zaw Win USDP 21768 3129 24897 1983
of Mon State U Aye Hlaing NUP 22387 1146 23533
24. Amyotha Hluttaw No. 9 constituency of U Maung Aye Tun USDP 42050 6070 48120 5700
Arakan State U Mustafa Khamal NDPD 43756 370 44126
25. State or Region Hluttaw No. 2 constituency, U Aye Maung USDP 21 1367 1388 1206
Shataw, Kayah State U Phya Reh Sue NUP 38 161 199
26. State or Region Hluttaw No. 2 constituency, U Kyi Soe Tun NUP 1944 347 2291 655
Papon, Karen State U Pado Aung San USDP 1407 1002 2409
27. Ethnic Hluttaw Mon State, Karen U Maung Shwe NUP 21585 658 22243 1616
State U Aung Kyaw Thein USDP 20973 2274 23247
28. State or Region Hluttaw No. 2 constituency, U Tun Win USDP 20005 716 20721 1528
Chanmyaethazi, U Win Shein AMRDP 20052 267 20319
Mandalay Division
29. State or Region Hluttaw No. 1 constituency, U Myo Nyunt USDP 5548 766 6314 538
Thanbyuzayat, Mon U Win Shein AMRDP 5720 228 5948
30. State or Region Hluttaw No. 1 constituency, U Maung Maung Nyunt NUP 18539 337 18876 1385
Thaton, Mon State U Thein Zaw USDP 17739 1722 19461
31. State or Region Hluttaw No. 2 constituency, Dr. San Shwe USDP 12450 1895 14345 1528
Sittwe, Arakan State U Aung Myat Kyaw RNDP 23844 367 24211
32. State or Region Hluttaw No. 1 constituency, U San Khin RNDP 8124 149 8273 867
Ramree, Arakan U Win Naing (aka) U Ba USDP 7547 1016 8563

2010 ELECTIONS
Thein
33. State or Region Hluttaw No. 1 constituency, U Maung Thein NUP 6524 90 6614 653
Taunggup, Arakan Daw Thein Sein USDP 6465 743 7208
34. State or Region Hluttaw No. 1 constituency, Daw Sanda Myint NUP 3202 60 3262 123
Lanmataw, Rangoon U Win Naing (aka) U Win USDP 3185 183 3368
Naing Oo
35. Pyithu Hluttaw Mongshu U Kyaw Tin Shwe USDP 6946 1630 8576 1385
constituency U Sai Lao Pan Pha SNDP 7322 245 7567
36. Pyithu Hluttaw Maukme U Sai Ngao Sai Hein USDP 780 4401 5181 3462
constituency U Sai Tin Aung (aka) U Sai SNDP 3483 939 4422
Aout
37. State or Region Hluttaw No. 1 constituency U Tin Oo (aka) U Than Aye USDP 9580 2224 11804 2562
Tavoy, Teninserim U Than Aung NUP 7516 4786 12302
38. State or Region Hluttaw No. 2 constituency U Kyaw Htwe USDP 5937 9195 15132 7431
Longlon, Teninserim U Htein Lin NUP 6769 1764 8533
39. State or Region Hluttaw No. 1 constituency U Tun Thit NUP 7432 2262 9694 2990
Yebyu, Teninserim U Shwe San USDP 4856 5252 10108
40. State or Region Hluttaw No. 2 constituency U Hla Shwe NUP 5716 1198 6914 8756
Kawthaung, Dr. Win Aung USDP 7619 9954 17573
Teninserim
41. State or Region Hluttaw No. 2 constituency U Sai Ba Oo USDP 3221 4212 7433 2470
Loilem, Shan U Sai Shwe Tun (aka) U Ywet SNDP 4422 1742 6164
Tai
42. State or Region Hluttaw No. 2 constituency U Sai Tun Kyi SNDP 2951 810 3761 2645
Kunhein, Shan U Sai Nu USDP 313 3455 3768
43. State or Region Hluttaw No. 2 constituency U Sai Hla Aung SNDP 1497 165 1662 1098
Mongpan, Shan U Sai Aung Kham USDP 570 1263 1833
44. State or Region Hluttaw No. 1 constituency U Khin Kyaw Nyunt USDP 11054 1011 12065 293
Kyangin, Irrawaddy U Thein Htay Win NUP 11071 718 11789
45. State or Region Hluttaw No. 2 constituency U Nyein Myine USDP 25666 4076 29742 3243
Pantanaw, Irrawaddy U Myint Aung NUP 28052 833 28885
46. Pyithu Hluttaw Homelin U Than Nyunt NUP 18473 1289 19762 4231
constituency U Aye USDP 17612 5520 23132
47. Amyotha Hluttaw No. 11 constituency U San Tun USDP 22937 3537 26474 2363
Kachin State U Myint Shwe NUP 24839 1174 26013
48. Amyotha Hluttaw No. 6 constituency U Suan Doat Kyint USDP 4824 1280 6104 733
Chin State U Lan Zaman Chin National Party 5099 547 5646

2010 ELECTIONS
(CNP)
49. Amyotha Hluttaw No. 10 constituency U Mana Nai USDP 2310 599 2899 466
Chin State U Mana Shin Chin Progressive 2582 133 2715
Party (CPP)
50. Amyotha Hluttaw No. 12 constituency U Salai Khwe Yan USDP 5720 355 6175 292
Chin State U Buu Lwin CPP 5695 63 5758
51. Amyotha Hluttaw No. 3 constituency U Sai Kham Hline SNDP 65901 2219 68120 24641
Shan State Dr. Sai Mauk Kham (aka) USDP 54245 26860 81105
Maung Ohn
52. State or Region Hluttaw No. 2 constituency U Kum Saung Sam Aoun USDP 2299 379 2678 312
Tanai, Kachin State U Khin Maung Than NUP 2422 67 2489
53. State or Region Hluttaw No. 6 constituency U Kam Lian Thang CNP 5201 516 5717 846
Chin State U Nan Zamon USDP 4762 1362 6124
54. State or Region Hluttaw No. 1 constituency U Kyaw Myint NUP 19431 466 19897 1918
Sagaing Division U Sein Win USDP 18132 2384 20516
55. State or Region Hluttaw No. 2 constituency U Khin Maung Tun USDP 8875 3105 11980 1589
Paungpyin, Sagaing U Thein Win NUP 8979 1516 10495
56. State or Region Hluttaw No. 1 constituency U Sai San Aye USDP 1815 5316 7131 4483
Theindi, Shan U Sai Win Myint SNDP 4873 833 5706
57. State or Region Hluttaw No. 1 constituency U Sai San Maung USDP 7101 1812 8813 1778
Tanyan, Shan State Dr. Sai Maung Pwint (aka) U SNDP 7170 34 7204
Sai Maung Pwint
58. State or Region Hluttaw No. 1 constituency U Tun Kyine USDP 5427 1002 6429 784
Mansi, Kachin State U Thant Zin Htay NUP 5545 218 5763
59. State or Region Hluttaw No. 2 constituency U Kyaw Myint (aka) U Win USDP 7757 2677 10434 2037
Namhkam, Shan Maung
U Sai Saw Hla SNDP 9135 640 9775
60. State or Region Hluttaw No. 1 constituency U Kya Tun Ta-aung (Plaung) 10053 805 10858 3838
Kutkai, Shan State National Party
U Sai Sa Lu USDP 9698 4643 14341
61. Ethnic Hluttaw Teninserim Division, U Khin Maung Kywe Karen People’s Party 10165 5404 15569 8455
Karen U Saw Harvey USDP 9464 13859 23323
62. Ethnic Hluttaw Mon State, Pa-O U Pe Mya (aka) U Khun Pe USDP 8953 559 9512 404
Mya
U Than Tun NUP 9327 155 9482

Appendix (B)
2010 ELECTIONS

2010 ELECTIONS

2010 ELECTIONS

2010 ELECTIONS
Date: November 21, 2010

To
Honorable Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (aka) Aunty Su
With all due respect, I am writing a report to you. My name is U Khin Maung Win, I contested
the 2010 elections from No. constituency, Thegon, Pegu Division for State and Region Hluttaw
representing National Unity Party (NUP).
I am a retired Lt. Col from military as well as a retired director from the Ministry of Construction.
I am much interested in both internal and international politics as a person used to serving my country
with high positions in both military and civilian services.
When the 2010 elections were announced to be held, I wanted to participate in the first ever
elections after the 1990 elections to bring changes to the population, which people of Burma have been
craving for.

2010 ELECTIONS
I wanted to contest the elections, first as an individual candidate and second, as a NLD
candidate. However, it did not work out as an individual candidate and NLD decided not to run for the
elections. Therefore, by the urging from the people who support me, I registered at the Union Election
Commission, one day before the deadline, to contest the election from Thegon Township, as a NUP
candidate.
I was successful in campaigns and speeches since I communicated with people by using Aunty
Suu’s political stands; brave to speak out, brave to act, and brave to face unfairness.
I decided to contest the elections because I trusted Prime Minister U Thein Sein and Minister of
Foreign Affairs U Nyan Win promised again and again at UN Assembly and ASEAN summits that elections
would be free and fair. Furthermore, I also believed in U Thein Soe, the Chairperson of the Union
Election Commission, on his words stating that authorities had enough international level election
experience and would not need any help regarding the elections.
However, everything went upside down in spite of what I believed. The electoral situation
between the 1990 elections in which Aunty Suu’s party won and the 2010 elections was totally
incomparable. The elections are now over with extensive elections violations recorded.
Thus, I would report you what happened in the elections based on my firsthand account.
1. By electoral laws, voters, from No. 1 polling station opened at Innma High School where I voted,
were supposed to show their national ID cards to get voting tokens, and then they would vote in
the station. However, in reality, the voting was done without showing any national ID but only
with voting tokens. Thus, similar to the 2008 constitutional referendum voting, there was no
overseeing of the voting of actual eligible voters. Aunty Suu can evaluate my report whether it
was true or not.
2. When I observed the polling station which was opened at Ma-U Kan elementary school in
Tagondine village group, I saw U Nyo voted for himself and his son Maung Moe, and U Aung
Aung voted for himself and his mother Daw Kyi Kyi Myint. When I complained about that to the
chief of polling station, a blame game occurred and ended up with no answer. Also, when I went
and observed the polling station opened at Pyasi elementary school in Pyasi village group, I saw
a voter, Ma Nay Chi Thwin, voting for herself and her parents. When I complained about it to
the commission official and chief of the polling station, it ended up as the same above. Aunty
Suu can decide whether a voter could vote only for self or could vote for others, no matter how
many.
3. Regarding the collection of early votes, it was supposed to be done by the chief of polling
stations and candidates of contesting parties or representatives of candidates in accordance
with the electoral laws. However in reality, by taking an example, U Naing Oo, a clerk of Village
Peace and Development Council, collected early votes alone in Yaydashae village, Kyaytha
village group. The procedure to collect early votes was that a group of officials collected early
votes from elderly people or voters who would be on trips on the Election Day, sealed early vote
envelopes, and opened and counted them during the counting in front of the polling station
officials. However, by that example, a clerk from the village council went alone door to door and
collected early votes. Aunty Suu can tell that early vote collecting incident was right or wrong.
When I observed some polling stations, I found out that many polling stations did not even meet
the standards for polling stations and those polling stations were very different from the
showoff polling stations given to the media and international observers. Thus, I assumed that no
one was allowed to take photos and video in and around those polling stations.
The counting started and quickly came to an end, even at the very beginning, because all votes
became invalid votes. Pyithu Hluttaw Electoral Law states that;

2010 ELECTIONS
(a) Votes without approved marks by the Union Election Commission shall be regarded as
invalid votes
Votes I saw from my constituency were not with any commission approved marks. It was totally
wrong to make valid votes from votes without any approved marks.
Township or village election commissions did not provide any education regarding election to
residents so people did not know how to vote and faced many difficulties while voting. The time
frame for campaigning was not enough so candidates could only go to main villages of village
groups and had to skip other villages.
Even though electoral education was aired through TV and Radio and published in newspapers,
many villages were without TV, Radio and newspapers so many voters did not know about any
electoral information.
Aunty Suu, the elections were successfully over without meeting any ASEAN or international
standards for free and fair elections.
4. Township election commission did not release any clear election results with valid votes, invalid
votes and early votes for each political party. I did not know how the Union Election Commission
announced the election results without consents of candidates with Form 19. Aunty Suu can
also decide whether it was right or wrong.
Even though we lost by frauds and early votes, candidates from NUP and other contesting
parties and individual candidates won over USDP candidates regarding reputation and dignity.
I was extremely happy on your release from house arrest.

As you have more responsibilities for the country and the people, I would like you to:
Take care of your health
Take care of your security
Sincerely
Ret. Lt. Col. Khin Maung Win
Winyadana Store
No. 585
Aungchantha New Ward
Innma, Thegon Township
Ph: 053 58153

2010 ELECTIONS
Supplement 1
Political Parties Contested in the 2010 Elections
No. Name of Party Registration No. Date of Permission

1. Mro or Khami National Solidarity Organization (MKNSO) No. 1 April 28, 2010
2. National Unity Party (NUP) No. 2 April 29, 2010
3. Lahu National Development Party No. 3 April 29, 2010
4. Kokang Democracy and Unity Party No. 4 May 7, 2010
5. Pa-O National Party (PNO) No. 5 May 13, 2010
6. Democratic Party (Myanmar) No. 6 May 20, 2010
7. Kayan National Party No. 7 May 20, 2010
8 Rakhine State National Force No. 8 May 20, 2010
9. Kayin People’s Party No. 9 May 21, 2010
10. Wa National Unity Party No. 10 May 21, 2010
11. Taaung (Palaung) National Party No. 12 May 24, 2010
12. All Mon Region Democratic Party No. 13 May 24, 2010
13. Peace and Democracy Party No. 14 May 24, 2010
14. Shan Nationals Democratic Party No. 15 May 26, 2010
15. United Democratic Party (UDP) No. 16 May 26, 2010
16. The 88 Generation Student Youths (Union of Myanmar) No. 17 May 26, 2010
17. Union of Myanmar Federation of National Politics No. 18 May 26, 2010
18. National Political Alliances League No. 19 May 27, 2010
19. Chin National Party No. 21 May 27, 2010
20. Wanthanu NLD (The Union of Myanmar) No. 22 May 27, 2010
21. Modern People Party No. 23 May 28, 2010
22. Union Democracy Party No. 24 May 28, 2010
23. Peace and Diversity Party No. 25 June 1, 2010
24. Chin Progressive Party No. 26 June 1, 2010
25. Inn National Development Party No. 27 June 1, 2010
26. Rakhine Nationalities Development Party (RNDP) No. 28 June 1, 2010
27. Wa Democratic Party No. 29 June 2, 2010
28. Phalon-Sawaw Democratic Party No. 30 June 4, 2010
29. National Development Party for Development No. 31 June 4, 2010
30. Union Solidarity and Development Party No. 32 June 8, 2010
31. Ethnic National Development Party (ENDP) No. 33 June 16, 2010
32. Kaman National Progressive Party No. 36 July 5, 2010
33. Khami National Development Party No. 37 July 9, 2010
34. National Democratic Force No. 38 July 9, 2010
35. Unity and Democracy Party of Kachin State (UDPKS) No. 40 August 2, 2010
36. Kayin State Democracy and Development Party No. 41 August 19, 2010
37. National Development and Peace Party No. 42 August 24, 2010

2010 ELECTIONS
Registered Political Parties Disbanded by the Union Election Commission

(Until 14 September)
No. Name of Party Registration No.

1. Union Kayin League No. 11
2. Myanmar New Society Democratic Party No. 20
3. Myanmar Democracy Congress Party No. 34
4. Mro National Party No. 35
5. Regional Development Party (Pyay0 No. 39
Unregistered Political Parties Disbanded by the Union Election Commission
No. Name of Party

1. Union Pa-O National Organization
2. Shan Nationalities League for Democracy
3. Shan State Kokang Democratic Party
4. Wa National Development Party
5. National League for Democracy
3 Kachin Parties Rejected to Stand as Political Parties
No. Name of Party Remark

1. Kachin State Progressive Party Registered on April 5, 2010
2. Northern Shan State Progressive Party Registered on April 23, 2010
3. United Democracy Party (Kachin State) Registered on April 30, 2010
-47 political parties registered to stand or to continue to stand as political parties

-3 Kachin parties out of 4 which registered were not allowed to stand as political parties
- Unity and Democracy Party of Kachin State (UDPKS) was allowed to stand as a political party on July 16,
2010. The party was allowed to register to contest the elections on August 2, 2010 (the only Kachin
party allowed). In total, 42 political parties submitted registrations and all 42 were allowed
-5 political parties already registered were disbanded by the Union Election Commission
-5 political parties which did not register were disbanded by the Union Election Commission
-37 political parties left eligible to contest the elections
The last party to register is Kayin State Democracy and Development Party, which submitted registration
on August 11, 2010. The party was granted permission on August 12, 2010 and registered as a political
party on August 12. It was allowed on August 19. On the same day, the party submitted the party
member list to the Union Election Commission.
(Information collected by Research Department of Democratic Party for a New Society)

2010 ELECTIONS
Supplement 2
Results of November 7, 2010 Elections
No. Name of Party Pyithu Amyotha Region/ Total of 3 Remark

Hluttaw Hluttaw State Hluttaw
Hluttaw
1. Union Solidarity and Development Party 259 129 494 882 From 8 to 18 Nov
2. Shan Nationals Democratic Party 18 3 36 57 From 11 to 16 Nov
3. National Unity Party 12 5 47 64 2 ethnic reps so 63 in
total, about 980
candidates contested
From 8 to 16 Nov
4. Rakhine Nationalities Development Party 9 7 19 35 From 11 to 13 Nov
5. National Democratic Force 8 4 4 16 From 11 to 12 Nov
6. All Mon Region Democracy Party 3 4 9 16 1 ethnic rep so in total
16 (11 Nov. DVB)
34 contested and 16
won
From 11 to 13 Nov
7. Pa-O National Party (PNO) 3 1 6 10 From 8 to 13 Nov
8. Chin Progressive Party 2 4 6 12 From 15 to 18 Nov
9. Phalon-Sawaw Democratic Party 2 3 4 9 Until 13 Nov
10. Chin National Party 2 2 5 9 Until 16 Nov
11. Wa Democratic Party 2 1 3 6 From 8 to 18 Nov
12. Taaung (Palaung) National Party 1 1 4 6 Until 8 Nov
13. Kayin People’s Party 1 1 4 6 From 11 to 13 Nov
14. Unity and Democracy Party of Kachin State 1 1 2 4 From 13 to 14 Nov
(UDPKS)
15. Inn National Development Party 1 3 4 From 13 to 17 Nov
16. Kayin State Democracy and Development 1 1 2 From 8 to 13 Nov
Party
17. Democratic Party (Myanmar) 3 3 From 11 to 13 Nov
18. National Democratic Party for Development 2 2 Until 13 Nov
19. Kayan National Party 2 2 From 13 to 18 Nov
20. 88 Generation Student Youths (Union of 1 1 Until 8 Nov
Myanmar)
21. Ethnic National Development Party (ENDP) 1 1 Until 15 Nov
22. Lahu National Development Party 1 1 Until 18 Nov
23 Individuals 1 1 4 6 From 13 to 14 Nov
(Information collected by Research Department of Democratic Party for a New Society)

2010 Election Report of FDB (ENG Version)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2010 Election Report of FDB (ENG Version)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BURMA’S 2010

PUBLISHED BY FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY IN BURMA

PUBLISHING AND DISTRIBUTION

January 31, 2011

1000 (First Edition)

thiha maung maung

PUBLISHED BY FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY IN BURMA (FDB)

Information Committee and Documentation Committee

Forum for Democracy in Burma

Forum for Democracy in Burma

P.O Box (142)

Chapter I The absence of secret voting

Chapter II Illegal votes

Chapter IV Frauds regarding early votes

Chapter V Incidents of not being able to vote

Chapter VI Percentage of the voting

PUBLISHED BY FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY IN BURMA (FDB)

Chapter X Positions of armed opposition groups

Chapter XI Reactions and positions of the international community

Chapter XII General

Forum for Democracy in Burma

January 31, 2011

PUBLISHED BY FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY IN BURMA (FDB)

Regarding the elections

1. To expose the military regime’s abuse of power and violations of laws

PUBLISHED BY FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY IN BURMA (FDB)

Negatives of the 2010 elections

PUBLISHED BY FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY IN BURMA (FDB)

The Basic Standards for a Free and Fair Election

1. THE BASES OF INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED ELECTORAL STANDARDS

2. STRUCTURING THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

3. THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM

4. BOUNDARY DELIMITATION, DISTRICTING OR DEFINING BOUNDARIES OF ELECTORAL UNITS

5. THE RIGHT TO ELECT AND TO BE ELECTED

PUBLISHED BY FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY IN BURMA (FDB)

6. ELECTORAL MANAGEMENT BODIES

7. VOTER REGISTRATION AND VOTER REGISTERS

8. BALLOT ACCESS FOR POLITICAL PARTIES AND CANDIDATES

9. DEMOCRATIC ELECTORAL CAMPAIGNS

10. MEDIA ACCESS AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

11. CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND EXPENDITURE

13. COUNTING AND TABULATING VOTES

14. ROLE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND CANDIDATES

15. ELECTORAL OBSERVERS

16. COMPLIANCE WITH AND ENFORCEMENT OF ELECTORAL LAW

What happened during the Elections?

PUBLISHED BY FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY IN BURMA (FDB)

THE ABSENCE OF SECRET VOTING

The records of the absence of secret voting

PUBLISHED BY FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY IN BURMA (FDB)

To whom it may concern 7/11/2010

PUBLISHED BY FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY IN BURMA (FDB)

To whom it may concern 7/11/2010

PUBLISHED BY FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY IN BURMA (FDB)

To whom it may concern

PUBLISHED BY FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY IN BURMA (FDB)

Records of the absence of secret voting

PUBLISHED BY FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY IN BURMA (FDB)

The polling station survey performed by FDB (021_fdb05)

PUBLISHED BY FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY IN BURMA (FDB)

PUBLISHED BY FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY IN BURMA (FDB)

PUBLISHED BY FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY IN BURMA (FDB)

Union Election Commission’s frauds collected by FDB (038_fdb02)

Over Extra Votes