“Myanmar Spring Chronicle – July 8 Perspective”
(Moemaka, July 9, 2025):
Is it time for NUG reform?
On July 7, Dr. Theza San, a representative from the Mandalay general strike movement within the National Unity Consultative Council (NUCC), publicly criticized the National Unity Government (NUG) on his Facebook page under the title: “The NUG Government Now Urgently Needs Reform.”
When contacted by the media for follow-up comments, Dr. Theza San clarified that his criticism was constructive and intended to be helpful. He emphasized that it was not an attack but a necessary call for change.
As someone who maintains close relations with NUG leadership—including the Defense Minister U Yee Mon and other ministers and chief ministers—and holds a position in the NUCC, his public critique naturally drew significant attention. Some commentators even compared it to the provocative slogan from the early days of the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM): “Fire a mortar at headquarters.”
However, a close reading of Dr. Theza San’s post shows it was not an inflammatory attack. It was a broad-based critique, highlighting a general dissatisfaction with NUG’s performance—particularly in defense, administration, and revenue management—without naming individuals or citing specific incidents or figures.
At the beginning of his post, he wrote, “The current NUG revolutionary government lacks the leadership capacity to lead this people’s Spring Revolution to its final destination, in my personal view.” This suggests a pressing need for restructuring and reform of NUG leadership. He argued that NUG needs both new personnel and systemic changes and claimed to have already submitted these suggestions repeatedly, both in person and online, over the past two to three years.
In discussing military organization, he noted that many People’s Defense Forces (PDFs) and local People’s Administration Forces (PaKaFas) still do not function as disciplined military units but rather resemble loosely armed civilian groups. He also criticized the lack of standardized conduct within some PDF and PaKaFa units, particularly in NUG-administered areas.
He pointed out that within the NUG, there now effectively exist two armed wings: the official Ministry of Defense (MOD)-backed forces and the more autonomous PaKaFas, which control substantial manpower, funding, arms, and decision-making power. This situation, he argued, urgently requires reform.
These problems are mostly present in the NUG-controlled central regions—Sagaing, Magway, and Mandalay. In contrast, different models of governance and military structure are found in ethnic areas.
Dr. Theza San emphasized that these issues arise from NUG’s territories and thus require NUG’s attention. Since NUG was formed in April 2021, there has been minimal change in key ministerial leadership. Apart from a few appointments or replacements at the deputy minister level, there has been little reshuffling of senior posts.
He questioned why, even after nearly four years, underperforming ministries or misaligned individuals have not been replaced with more capable alternatives. Notably, no one has publicly asked such questions or held officials accountable on this front.
Dr. Theza San called for major reforms in how armed forces are organized, how authority is delegated, and how revenue—from taxation and natural resources—is collected and distributed. He argued that more aggressive and focused efforts were needed to defeat the military junta and emphasized the need for better coordination and transparency.
He also pointed to a narrowing window of opportunity: the military junta’s battlefield strength is weakening, but China’s backing of some ethnic armed groups is helping the junta regain lost territory. Meanwhile, the junta’s proposed end-of-year election remains unpopular but could provide them a political lifeline. In light of this, he stressed that reforms within NUG must be immediate and decisive.
The key question now is: will the NUG leadership accept this constructive criticism and seriously consider implementing changes? And even if they accept it, can they follow through effectively?
The answers to these questions may ultimately determine the success—or failure—of the Spring Revolution.