The Shan Federal Proposal , Part Four .

                         The  Establishment  of   Federal  Union.  

(1) The structure

Even at the time various drafts of the Constitution were being submitted to the Constituent Assembly for ratification, U Chan Htoon had explained that a federal type of structure had been adopted due to unavoidable circumstances. But in adopting the federal structure, the United States of America and Switzerland, considered to be examples of the true federal type, were not chosen as models for the Union of Burma’s Constitution. It was the Canadian type, (or what U Chan Htoon considered as the moderate type) that was adopted.

Further, according to Mr. Tinker, a former Professor of History at the University of Rangoon, the Constitutional Advisor, Chan Htoon, observed much later that “our Constitution, though in theory federal, is in practice unitary.”)*
PART TWO of this document entitled The Shan State after the Second World War, has shown that the oft-repeated demands of the leaders of the Frontier Areas for a federal union was certainly not for the Canadian type, nor for a union that was in theory federal, but in practice unitary. What they demanded was for a truly federal structure.
U Chan Htoon had further commented that “the Chapters setting up the States together with the concession of the right of secession (under stringent safeguards) were inserted to assuage the doubts of the frontier leaders rather than to meet actual political and administrative requirements; a form of atonement for the age-old suspicion of the Burmese the hill peoples could not at once discard.”
But the frontier leaders’ desire for a truly federal structure was not due to suspicions of the Burmese, as U Chan Htoon erroneously supposed, but was based on the “Right of the Nations to self-determination” that was proclaimed by World Leaders at the time.
If we look at the federal structures anywhere in the World, we will find that the structure was established by various constituent units or States coming together to form a union by common agreement. In the case of the Union of Burma, although individual States were formed for the peoples of the Frontier Areas, such as the Shan State, the Kachin State and the Karen State, there was no separate State established for Burma proper. Instead Burma was established as the one and the same entity as the Central Union Government.
This structure of the Union under the present Constitution, apart from doing away with the principle of equality, is what has made frontier peoples more suspicious of the Burmese.
This structure could one day become the principal cause of the break-up of the Union.
Therefore, in revising the Constitution, if we wish to ensure stability and equality, we must see to it that Burma proper is established as one of the constituent States.

(2) Distribution of powers

There are two methods of distribution of powers in a federal system.

(i)	In a truly federal nation, the (Central) Federal Government is given powers in respect of subjects common to all, and the residuary powers are retained by the States.
(ii)	In a moderate type of federal nation, limited powers are given to the States and the Federal Government tightly controls all the residuary powers.

What the frontier leaders wanted was power distribution according to the truly federal type. The power distribution under the Constitution of the Union of Burma goes directly against the wishes of the frontier leaders.
The peoples of the frontier areas are greatly dissatisfied and are suspicious that the Burmese are trying to dominate them because only limited powers are given to the States while the residuary powers are tightly controlled by the Union Government, and because Burma proper has not only not been made a constituent State but concurrently holds the reins of power together with the Union Government.
Therefore in revising the Constitution, the genuine federal principle must be followed, with the Central Government being given only those powers in respect of subjects common to all, while allowing the States to retain all residuary powers.

(3) Establishment of the Parliament

Parliaments in Federal Unions normally consist of an Upper House and a Lower House.
The Lower House is usually composed of members chosen by the people on a population basis. The States therefore have the right to elect and send to the Lower House of Parliament the number of Representatives their population entitles them to. With regard to the Upper House, however, States, whether large or small, send the same number or representatives. Such a composition of the Upper Hose ensures that larger and more populous States cannot act in a domineering manner over the smaller ones; and the Upper House can also act as a check on the powers of the Lower House. In other words, by forming the Upper House in this way, it ensures the equality of all the constituent States in the Union, and also safeguards the rights of the smaller States.
Furthermore, the two Houses of Parliament in a Federal Union are usually granted equal powers. In the present Parliament of the Union of Burma however, the Chamber of Nationalities which is the Upper House, does not enjoy the same powers as the Chamber of the Deputies, the Lower House. The States also do not have the right to send the same number of representatives to the Chamber of Nationalities. And since the Union Government is made responsible only to the Chamber of Deputies, the Chamber of Nationalities little influence, and cannot defend the rights of the States.
Therefore the way the Parliament is established in the present Constitution will have to be changed. Not only must the Chamber of Nationalities have powers equal to those of the Chamber of Deputies, but every State must have the right to send an equal number of members to t the Chamber of Nationalities