Myanmar Spring Chronicle – October 12: Scene
(MoeMaKa) October 13, 2025
MDY-PDF’s Local Administration and Air-Strike Risk Precautions
On October 12, a video spread rapidly on social media showing public security personnel and MDY-PDF members entering a house in Lepan Hla village, Singu Township (Mandalay Region), an area under MDY-PDF control, to remove a Starlink internet device and escort the homeowner to a camp. The roughly seven-minute clip shows a person in a green uniform, presumed to be from a public security unit, alongside MDY-PDF fighters in plainclothes carrying weapons, arguing and shouting back-and-forth with female family members from the Starlink-using household while attempting to take them in.
A statement issued last night under the National Unity Government (NUG) seal said the incident occurred on October 11. According to the release, five public security members first went to the house but, when that failed, returned with PDF fighters, making a team of twelve in total. They seized the equipment and brought the person responsible from the household for questioning.
The video captures accusations and exchanges between older and younger women in the home and members of the Lepan Hla public security unit—calls to accompany them to the camp, complaints about intimidation, and the claim “the strong bully the weak.” The footage has sparked sharp divisions online. Some critics ask whether PDF forces should speak to civilians that way, warning that the revolution’s gains—built on public support—could erode if armed groups act heavy-handed. Supporters of the Spring Revolution counter that if the junta had shown up, the outcome would have been far worse; they argue the PDF youths showed restraint and that the homeowner and daughter were being defiant, dramatic, or provocative. Comment threads under news posts are full of these two competing viewpoints.
Viewed more broadly, the incident underlines the need to handle air-strike risks, security protocols, and local survival pressures with better discipline and communication. It also raises the question of how newly captured territories should be administered—how to create a civilian-leaning, rules-based system that avoids factional favoritism (even if fully civilian administration is unrealistic in wartime).
There is also a need to educate the public: phones on live networks can be counter-tracked by the junta; even with no voice service, data-only traffic (internet messengers, network flows) can be monitored to some extent; and numbers circulating within resistance areas—shared among activists or communities—can be logged and used to trace movements.
After decades under dictatorship, many people are unaccustomed to talking back to those who wield power. Some therefore view challenging the team that seized the equipment as unacceptable on legal or procedural grounds. Surprisingly, a few accuse the family that pushed back of being essentially on the military’s side because they dared to answer back to an armed group they ostensibly support. Other comments even say it was “lucky it didn’t end in gunfire.” But from any perspective, using firearms would have been indefensible here: only one side (the PDF/public security) was armed; the householders were unarmed civilians.
Some on social media present the ability to argue with authorities or to record video as proof of democratic space. There is some truth in that—but it does not mean everything done in this case was beyond reproach. The rhetoric resembles a line once used under President U Thein Sein: a minister claimed that simply seeing people protest showed there was freedom—an evasive talking point that dodged the substance of complaints instead of addressing them.
In this case, the administration teams should draw lessons and adopt better methods going forward.
One more observation: people in Upper Myanmar have a reputation for speaking without fear—not only toward the military but toward any group they deem unjust. Past clashes around the Letpadaung copper mine and the Letpadaung project in general reflect this mindset. Those who govern must therefore minimize mistakes, communicate clearly, follow established procedures, set rules that can be explained to the public, and act with the conviction that the people are the ultimate sovereigns.