By Asian Correspondent
May 16, 2016

A MILITARY chief in Burma (Myanmar) has denied the existence of the term “Rohingya” and said the country refuses to accept the term during a press conference on Friday.

During the press conference, Burmese newspaper The Union Daily asked Commander-in-Chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing about unrest in the Rakhine State, as well as remarks made by the U.S. envoy about the Rohingya.

According to Eleven Myanmar, Min stated that there were no Rohingyas in Burma, only “Bengalis”, meaning people from Bangladesh who were sent to the Rakhine State after it was colonized by the British following the First Anglo-Burmese War of 1824.

Min was quoted saying: “They are large in number and have been called ‘Bengalis’. They were called Rohingyas under former prime minister U Nu to win their votes. It was illegal. The term Rohingya does not exist and we will not accept it.”

The commander-in-chief, who was formerly the regional commander of the state, emphasized the need for “unity” among Burma’s many ethnic groups, and said there could be no solution if conflict was not reduced.

When asked about the likelihood of a new Panglong conference, he said the army was ready to cooperate, adding: “We have to be united. It has to be a conference to show unity with good intentions and no attempt to gain political advantages.”

The Panglong conference refers to a historic conference that led to the Panglong Agreement, which was reached between the government of Aung San and the Shan, Kachin, and Chin peoples on 12 February 1947.

The agreement accepted “full autonomy in internal administration for the Frontier Areas” in principle and envisioned a federal union. It is celebrated as Union Day each year.

According to Min, the military will “not make problems if the ethnic armed groups stay in the places assigned to them”.

He added that the government “needs the army to protect it” and that the army would “fight anyone” if people’s lives or the government were put in danger.

Min also addressed the army’s position in Burma’s developing democracy, after five decades under military rule, saying the army is following the “guidance” of the government.

He said: “Although I am the military chief, the president is head of state. I am under the command of the president. I am not doing anything without his approval.

“The military is not in opposition and only pointed out the fact that Aung San Suu Kyi’s state counsellor role did not fit the rules and regulations … We will support Parliament if it is good for the country.”

By John Zaw
UCA News
May 16, 2016

More than a million Muslims remain oppressed and stateless as hard-line Buddhists hold sway

The Muslim minority in Myanmar's state of Rakhine self-identify as Rohingya, a term that the country's new civilian government refuses to acknowledge. 

The government instead insists on referring to the Rohingyas as Bengalis, implying that the minority group are instead illegal immigrants from neighboring Bangladesh. This is done despite the fact that vast numbers of the Rohingya have lived in Myanmar for decades. 

Last month, the U.S. embassy mentioned the Rohingya community in a statement of condolence for the more than 20 people who died after a boat sunk off the Myanmar coast. 

This sparked a protest outside the U.S. embassy in Yangon, which was led by nationalist groups, including hard-line Buddhist monks, who denounced the use of the word Rohingya. 

Myanmar's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where the country's de-facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi is also minister, asked the U.S. to refrain from using the term because it does not assist the country's national reconciliation efforts. 

This has escalated criticism of the Nobel Peace laureate whose once-sainted reputation has subsequently been tarnished. Observers say her National League for Democracy government are apparently bowing to nationalist groups who oppose the rights of the Rohingya in the predominantly Buddhist country. 

Hard-line Buddhism has emerged since violence occurred in Rakhine during 2012. Spearheaded by ultra-nationalist monks from the Committee of Protection of Race and Religion, known as Ma Ba Tha, they successfully lobbied the previous military-backed government impose laws that targeted the Rohingya. 

U Parmaukkha, a prominent nationalist monk from Magway Monastery in Yangon, said that the U.S. embassy's use of the term Rohingya impacts negatively on Myanmar's development because the Rohingyas are not included in the country's official 135 ethnic groups. 

U Parmaukkha said the U.S. is "interfering in Myanmar's sovereignty." 

"I call on the new government led by Aug San Suu Kyi to reveal publicly that the Rohingya are not in the country. There will be large protests if it fails to do it," U Parmaukkha who is also a member of Ma Ba Tha, told ucanews.com. 

Scot Marciel, the U.S. ambassador to Myanmar, said May 10 that the U.S. would continue to use Rohingya as it is international practice to recognize communities by the name they would prefer.

Khine Pyi Soe, vice president of the Arakan National Party, a popular hard-line Buddhist party in Rakhine state, said that the use of Rohingya as a term could fuel tensions within Myanmar. 

"I think that the U.S. might use Rohingya as it is familiar term among the international community but inside the country, it is a sensitive one," Khine Pyi Soe told ucanews.com. 

Khine Pyi Soe said that the National League for Democracy-led government has a lot at stake over the issue. 

"If the government makes missteps on the Rakhine issue, it may lose public support and affect the next election in 2020," claimed Khine Pyi Soe. 

Aung San Suu Kyi has been criticized for her silence on the Rohingya issue and for her lack of details on how the new government will protect the rights of the Muslim minority. 

Neither the military-backed previous government nor the National League for Democracy accepts the status of the Rohingya. Instead they have insisted that there are no Rohingya in Myanmar. 

Win Naing, a regional lawmaker with the National League for Democracy in the Thandwe constituency, Rakhine, acknowledged it is a complicated matter. 

"The new government would need to find a solution and consider how best we can deal with this delicate issue as it is not possible to push them [the Rohingya] out of the country," Win Naing told ucanews.com. 

Fear of nationalist groups 

Kyaw Hla Aung, a Rohingya activist from the Thetkaepyin refugee camp near Sittwe, voiced his concerns about the administration if it continues to bow to nationalists. 

"The truth may not prevail if the government ignores history. The new government's ignorance is tarnishing its reputation," Kyaw Hla Aung told ucanews.com. 

Kyaw Hla Aung insisted the Rohingyas are a part of Myanmar's history. He described how his father's identity card mentioned "Rohang" which means a person of the Rohang, an old Muslim term used in what is now the Arakan state of western Myanmar. 

Rohingya, are seen by rights group as one of the most persecuted minorities in the world. They have lived in Myanmar for generations but currently there are over 1 million of them who are stateless in Rakhine. They have been denied citizenship, freedom of movement, education and health care. 

More than 150,000 Rohingyas have been confined to camps in apartheid-like conditions since 2012 when sectarian violence between Rakhine Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims left scores of people dead. 

Due to dire conditions in the camps, thousands of Rohingyas have taken perilous boat journeys in the hope of finding a new life in Malaysia and Thailand. Traffickers have subjected many of the refugees to horrific abuses. Hundreds, maybe thousands, have perished at sea.

Dr Habib Siddiqui

RB Opinion

May 16, 2016

Human rights groups say the Rohingya people are one of the most persecuted ethnic groups in the world. My own research work on endangered people has also shown that they are the most persecuted people in our time. More than a million people in Myanmar from the Muslim minority are currently stateless, and genocidal violence in the country's west has put nearly 140,000 of them in internment camps.

Although Myanmar has gone through a political change with an elected government running the state, it still doesn't want to recognize its Rohingya people whose ties to the soil of Arakan (Rakhine) state are older than others. This is a sad matter for all the human rights groups around the globe who expected better from a government that is now led by Suu Kyi. With her inexcusable silences to condemn the crimes of her Buddhist people against unarmed Rohingya and other minority Muslims living inside Myanmar she has been a disappointing icon since the latest genocidal pogroms started in 2012. But there was always that hope in the midst of hopelessness that she will eventually self-correct and do the right thing once put into power. 

Well, all such wishful hopes are evaporating fast. Suu Kyi does not want to recognize the existence of the Rohingya people, but more problematically doesn't want the U.S. to, either call this most persecuted people as the ‘Rohingya’. 

According to the New York Times, her government recently made an official request to the US ambassador to Myanmar to not even use the term “Rohingya.” “We won’t use the term Rohingya because Rohingya are not recognized as among the 135 official ethnic groups,” said Kyaw Zay Ya, a foreign ministry official quoted by the Times. “Our position is that using the controversial term does not support the national reconciliation process and solving problems.”

So, here is the problem. Though they’ve lived in Myanmar for centuries, the Rohingya are viewed by many in this Buddhist majority country, which has transformed into what I have been calling a den of unfathomable intolerance, as illegal immigrants from nearby Bangladesh because of their racial and religious similarities with them. The Myanmar majority (approximately 80%) practices Buddhism and supports anti-Muslim policies. Like their government, they refuse to use the term “Rohingya,” and instead use “Bengalis.” 

Suu Kyi supporters including the Dalai Lama had hoped she would defend the stateless Rohingya after her party’s big victory in elections last November. But this newest diplomatic request suggests an end to the crisis is perhaps even further away than expected.

Since mid-2012, the Rohingyas of the Arakan (Rakhine) state have been confined to concentration camps, where conditions are simply atrocious, and had their citizenship revoked. Some have attempted to flee by taking a dangerous ocean voyage in rickety boats, often with tragic results.

Last month’s tragic boat accident off the coast of Burma’s Arakan State killed an estimated 21 Rohingya Muslims, including nine children, and left another 20 missing. The government-controlled newspaper, Global New Light of Myanmar, made a rare admission that the tragedy, in which a packed boat capsized in heavy seas, resulted from government travel restrictions that prevent Rohingya from traveling overland, forcing them to travel by boat even when conditions are dangerous.

The accident underscores the serious plight of Burma’s long-persecuted Rohingya minority. The boat was making a regular trip from an internally displaced persons’ (IDP) camp in Pauktaw to the markets near camps around the state capital, Sittwe.

With the latest directive from the government of Suu Kyi banning the use of the ‘Rohingya’ term, it is highly doubtful that the deplorable condition of this most persecuted people will improve any time soon. 

The Buddhist monks of the fascist organization Ma Ba Tha are also making sure that there is no let down on the Rohingya problem whom they want either eliminated inside or forced out, thus making a mockery of their so-called peaceful religion. They have been behind the ethnic cleansing/ genocidal drives in Myanmar against the minority Muslims that resulted in internal displacement of nearly a million people since 2012, let alone the torching of hundreds of Muslim towns and villages, and deaths of thousands. They were the gay hound-dogs of the erstwhile Thein Sein's military regime and were very vocal against the NLD in the last election. Although their anti-NLD campaign failed to sway the voters away who elected Suu Kyi’s party with a landslide victory, as a powerful and revered group in this Buddhist majority country, the fascist monks continue to rekindle the flames of intolerance and hatred to create problem for the new government. Typical of the genocidal maniacs of the past, they deny the very existence of the targeted victim - the Rohingya people.

In recent weeks, hundreds of demonstrators, including Buddhist monks, denounced the United States for its use of the term Rohingya to describe Myanmar's stateless Muslim community during a protest outside of the U.S. embassy in Yangon on Thursday. The demonstration was sparked by a statement from the embassy last week expressing condolences for an estimated 21 people, who media said were Rohingya, who drowned off the coast of Rakhine State and came just a day after President Htin Kyaw accepted the credentials of the new U.S. Ambassador, Scot Marciel.

"Today, we, from here, want to declare to the U.S. embassy and the ambassador to Myanmar, to all the other countries, that there is no Rohingya in our country," Parmaukkha, a monk and member of the hardline Buddhist group Ma Ba Tha, told about 300 people who gathered on a busy road across from the embassy compound. "If the U.S. accepts the term 'Rohingya,' you (U.S.) should take them back to your country."

Just imagine the audacity of these fascist monks who have hijacked Buddhism!

A spokesman for the U.S. Embassy said the United States supports the right to demonstrate and added that "around the world, people have the ability to self-identify". 

More importantly, Ambassador Marciel said on Tuesday he will keep using the term Rohingya for the persecuted Muslim minority, even after the government controlled by Suu Kyi asked him to refrain from it. "Our position globally and our international practice is to recognize that communities anywhere have the ability to choose what they should be called... and we respect that," said Marciel, in response to a question on whether he intended to continue using the term Rohingya. 

He added that this has been Washington's policy before and that the administration intended to stick to it. It takes moral courage for a new ambassador to restate its government’s policy on such an ‘unpopular’ matter. My sincere appreciation and salutation to the Ambassador for his courage to stand for what is right.

The US Embassy’s stand on the Rohingya issue is morally right and laudable. Denial of the right to self-identify is tantamount to serious crime, e.g., genocide, and should never be taken lightly. 

In a recent interview with Frontier at his Yangon home on March 26, the former chief minister of Arakan State, Gen. Maung Maung Ohn, was quoted to have said that the 2012 violence should never be repeated. This is a delayed realization from a former top official of the government but a good one, nonetheless. If they are really serious to avoid a repeat of the genocidal crimes, they must understand that the Burmese government’s rejection of Rohingya claims to self-identification along with discriminatory citizenship and other laws fuels public animosity toward the group and encourages repressive local regulations.

The Rohingyas of Myanmar expect better from the Suu Kyi’s government. They expect her to stand for what is right, away from the Buddhist mob culture of hatred and intolerance against the persecuted Muslim minorities. Before leaving office, outgoing President Thein Sein lifted the state of emergency in Arakan State that had been imposed following the outbreak of genocidal violence against the Rohingya and other Muslim minorities in 2012. Yet local authorities have maintained restrictions on the movement of Rohingya in IDP camps and in Maungdaw and Buthidaung townships that limit their access to health care and education, make it nearly impossible to work, and impinge on religious freedoms. Such restrictions must be lifted immediately. 

International attention has focused on Arakan State since an estimated 31,000 Rohingya fled the region by boat in the first half of 2015. But so far the feared resumption of the maritime exodus of Rohingya asylum seekers and migrant workers has not materialized, partly the result of limits on boat departures and harsh pushbacks from Bangladesh, Malaysia and Thailand. 

United Nations and European Union officials recently stated that the drop in maritime departures and a UN-backed government program to resettle 25,000 Rohingya in new homes heralds an improved situation. This is premature given the fact that Burmese government laws and policies that deny the stateless Rohingya their rights and basic freedoms remain. The latest maritime disaster again underscores the need to finding a genuine solution to the old Rohingya crisis urgently. The desperate humanitarian situation and the potential for anti-Rohingya violence needs to be urgently addressed. This is no time for complacency.

The new government of Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy could markedly improve the everyday lives of the Rohingya by removing the restrictions that led to last month’s boat accident, and from there establish the Rohingya’s genuine inclusion in a more rights-respecting Burma. As we have learned from history, a nonchalance attitude towards growing fascism can be disastrous. As such, if NLD is serious about stopping such fascistic trends, it must come hard on those fascist Ma Ba Tha monks and their supporters within the Buddhist country. Failing this, the country can revert back to days of targeted pogroms again, thus seriously tampering its much needed economic growth through investments from the international community. 

But will Suu Kyi tighten the screw against the criminal Ma Ba Tha? That question remains unanswered now. 

“Myanmar state policy to brutalize Rohingyas”

Min Khant
RB Opinion

May 16, 2016

On May 14th, 2016 issued in the Global New Light of Myanmar, the former brute President U Thein Sein’s name was mentioned by commander in chief of Myanmar, the senior general Min Aung Hlaing as a sensible man that he has already denied the existence of Rohingyas people in Myanmar. Every one of us from inside and outside of the world knows about President U Thein Sein’s and much of his created filthy incidents in all around the country in his ruling periods from 2011-2016. 

People have perceived what he was and how he has successfully managed his prearranged inner plans by the hands of Rakhine Buddhist racists to be drifting many Rohingyas in the Bay of Bengal and sent more than 140,000 innocent Rohingyas to IDP camps and rest of the Rohingyas are being kept in traps in their localities. Rohingyas reside in Maungdaw, Buthidaung, Rathedaung, Sittwe, Pauktaw, Mrauk Oo, Kyauktaw, Myaybone, and Min Bya townships. The movement restriction imposed on Rohingyas in their localities result 1.2 million innocent Rohingyas lives in unsafe position in regard medical treatment, livelihoods, constant education, and social activities. 

Saturday’s newspaper stated the Senior General Min Aung Hlaing has explained in press release yesterday: “Regarding the term Rohingyas, the senior general said there is no such ethnic group recognized in the country. Former USDP party president U Thein Sein also, in his time as president, shared this sentiment. ‘I would unambiguously say our country has no such ethnic group as the Rohingya. We have only Bengali. We call them so because they came from Bangladesh. The British brought these people into our country for different reason,’ said the Senior General.” 

This is not the time to convey the documents to neither the world community nor Myanmar Buddhist racists in regard Rohingyas’ reality because people both in local and international community have already received and understood about Rohingyas’ authenticity. 

In accord, the documents they (Rohingya) have already brought to the world and the incumbents in local, Rohingyas are originally neither from Bangladesh as per the idea of U Min Aung Hlaing nor were they brought by British power as laborers in Arakan. Actually, Rohingyas are the most senior citizens or earliest inhabitants of ancient Arakan state. After the birth of independence of Myanmar in 1948, the then Myanmar senior military leaders have unanimously recognized Rohingyas as indigenous citizens of the country.

But, Myanmar military brutes who have inherited U Ne Win’s policy to get rid of Rohingyas from their ancestral land did not accept and would not be going to recognize the legitimacy of Rohingyas as an indigenous though they with having a load of documents in their hands. Denial of Rohingyas’ existence by the consecutive military brutes has been a matter of policy to cleanse the Rohingyas people rather than any. 

At this point, the reason, they (military brutes) have been showing and presenting to the local and international community due to Rohingyas as fabricated identity or aliens or laborers or illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, should be challenged and clarified by the world community with a world-recognized convention to shut up their mouths once and for all. This becomes the last chance if they are sincere and clever to accept the convention in which facts will be brought and approved whether Rohingyas are indigenous or not. Take a decision. 

Senior Military men, who are currently in power, are being brain washed by their mentors, senior general Than Shwe and his colleagues to do all against the regime of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi who wants the state of Myanmar to be democratic system at least in equal for every ethnic group. The military brutes, Rakhine nationalistic racists and some Burmese nationalists are in a very annoying mood, if the democratic regime of Daw Suu would sincerely and rightfully approve the identity of Rohingyas to earn the lifting of economic sanctions and faces of the world by rendering rights to the oppressed community, Rohingyas. 

It is assumed that Ministry of Home affairs and Ministry of defense are ever ready to seize the flaw of the current regime at the cost of social instability through strong Buddhists racists, who are intellectually trained and paid sufficiently to employ as the squads to emerge the communal violence, instability, and to spoil the tumultuous situation wherever and whenever the military brutes want. So as the current government may face hardship in ruling the state and military persons find the way for a coup and take up again the state power. 

Now, with multi slogans due to Rohingyas identity, a disguised young monk association about a five hundred-head have started the fresh demonstration similar to previous staring from Mandalay and said that they have already formed several branches in almost every town of the country to demonstrate town after town in regard Rohingyas identity, which is aimed to attract many Buddhist racists who strongly hate Rohingyas and want to assault Muslims and Christians at large. 

Aman Ullah

RB Analysis

May 16, 2016

“The 1982 Burma Citizenship Law was not fair” Daw Aung San Suu Kyi

Daw Khin Saw Wai, a Pyithu Hluttaw representative from Rathedaung township, submitted a proposal on May 6 calling on the government to address the citizenship status of Muslims living mainly in Rakhine State whom she referred to as “Bengali”, but who self-identify as Rohingya. According to her, “Bengalis, who are not a national race of Myanmar and come from the Myanmar-Bangladesh area, have illegally entered the country and that causes unrests in the state.” The MP added that she thought it was time to re-start the citizenship scrutinizing process that has been on hiatus since the former government revoked temporary white-cards.

Daw Khin Saw Wai called it “sad” that, despite the enactment of the 1982 Citizenship Law, the citizenship issue has remained unaddressed.

“I firmly believe that we can identify who are fake or real [citizens] if we start inspection under the 1982 Citizenship Law. Otherwise, it allows all illegal residents to move in and out of the country without restriction,” she said.

What is 1982 Citizenship Law?

The Chairman of the Council of State, on 15 October 1982, promulgated a citizenship law as Pyithu Hluttaw law No. 4/1982, which was approved and passed by third session of the Third Pyithu Hluttaw after long six years deliberation within the top echelons of party and state as well as extensive consultations with officials and party leaders of all levels. As it was approved and passed in 1982, it was called “Burma Citizenship Law 1982”. It contains 8 Chapters and 76 sections recognizes three categories of citizens, namely citizen, associate citizen and naturalized citizen, Under that law, citizenships is decided based on prescriptions of laws, not on racial and religions.

In other words we can say that, under the 1982 Citizenship Law there are two types of citizenship: (1) Native Citizenship and (2) Legal Citizenship. 

(1) Native Citizens: Nationals such as Kachin, Kayah, Kayin, Chin, Bamar, Mon, Rakhine, Shan & other ethnic groups who have been settled in the territory of Myanmar since 1823 and their descendants. No one can revoke their citizenship without a strong reason. A "Certificate of citizenship" is issued to them. 

(2) Legal Citizen: Citizens who are not nationals but qualify to become a Myanmar citizen according to the legal framework. The 3rd generation of residents who arrived before 1948 will be issued “Certificate of Citizenship” automatically even though they are not ‘nationals’. 

Within the legal citizenship category there are of two sub-types: 

(2.1) Associate Citizens: People who became Myanmar citizen according to the 1948 citizenship law. A “Certificate of Associate Citizenship” is issued for this category. 

(2.2) Naturalized Citizens: People who had been residing in Myanmar before independence (4th Jan, 1948) and their descendents who have strong supporting evidence and documents that they were eligible for citizenship under the 1948 citizenship law. A “Certificate of Naturalized Citizenship” is issued for this category. 

According to this law, only a person whose parents have had their naturalization of citizenship or a certificate of citizenship or a certificate of guest citizenship can be a citizen. So, apart from these criteria, no one can be a citizen. The 3rd generation of residents who do not have these qualifications cannot be a citizen either. 

Why 1982 Citizenship Law?

Arakan which already is one of the poorest provinces of the country became bad to worse after the military coup. The economical life of the people is intolerable and a large number of Arakanese peoples, Buddhists and Muslim a likes, migrated into Burma Proper such as Rangoon and parts of Lower Burma. When Ne Win Saw a large number of Muslims of Arakan scattered bout in Rangoon and Delta area he imposed a law in 1964, which restricted the movement of Muslims of Arakan especially prohibiting the movement out of Akyab District towards east. Thus, the Muslims of Arakan were put into a sort of imprisonment since 1964.

The authorities, however, could not stop all migration effectively as all routes could not be closed. The late 60s saw a sharp decline in economy; bring about large-scale smuggling across the Burma-Thai border. As Arakan became the poorest province in the country, the Arakanese were forced to leave for the new green pastures which were rising in eastern Burma such as the Shan and Karen States and Moulmein area. 

In 1973 census the authorities again found that Arakanese Muslims had spread up to these eastern borders and other commercially mobile areas such as Mandalay, Pegu, Prome, Maolmein, Bassein, etc. Ne Win did not want that. The Muslims should be in Arakan only so that the Arakanes Buddhists and Arakanese Muslims could use against each other. This was the best way to keep the Arakanese national liberation movement of the Arakanese checked.

But the scenario was not like that, since 1967 rice crisis where Muslims and Buddhist jointly participated in the anti-junta protest march and lost both of their people’s lives, the Arakanese came to realize that they need to forge unity between Buddhists and Muslims to oppose the military regime together. With this vision many Muslims joined the Arakan National Organization led by Bo Gri Kra Hla Aung during 1967. Similarly the Rohingyas librations groups also made alliance with the Arakan National Liberation Party led by U Maung Sein Nyunt. 

Such an alliance alarmed the Rangoon regime. Meanwhile the emergence of the Arakan Independence Organization/Army and Arakan Libration Party under the collaboration with KIO and KNU receptively added much worry to the junta. In 1977 the Ne Win forces wiped out the main army of AIO and ALP, killing their leaders San Kyaw Tun and Khaing Moe Lung respectively along with about 300 men including Muslims. 

This event spread a cloud of misery over the Arakanese population. At the same time, a coup attempt by the Arakanese was foiled. This coup had been planned by Aung Sein Tha, Htin Lin and Kyaw Hla (a) Mustafa Kamal. The Burmese Intelligence openly implicated the Military Attaché in the Bangladesh Embassy in Rangoon in the plot that was expelled and declared persona non grata. 

General Ne win get a chance to teach a lesson not only to the Rohingya but also Bangladesh Government. He launched an anti-Rohingya military operation in the Code name of King Dragon in the guise of checking illegal immigrant in 1978. About 300,000 Rohingyas had sought refuge across the border in southern Bangladesh amidst widespread reports of army brutality, rape and murder. Under international pressure, Burma agreed to "take back" the Rohingyas in the repatriation agreement with Bangladesh.

However, as the Plan-A of Ne Win was not success then he started with his Plan-B that is a legal instrument which may made all the Rohingya illegal status. Then he tried to draw a citizenship law which later known as the citizenship law 1982.

Ne Win completed this law with the help of Dr. Maung Maung before October 1982. This law was approved and passed by the third session of the Third Pyithu Hluttaw and promulgated by the Chairman of the Council of State, on 15 October 1982. As Ne Win became only Party head since 1981, U San Yu was the then Chairman of the State Council and President.

The National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB) states that the 1982 citizenship law was designed specifically to deny citizenship to the Rohingya. According to the Benjamin Zawacki , a Senior Legal Advisor for Southeast Asia,“The system anchor is the 1982 Citizenship Law, which in both design and implementation effectively denies the right to a nationality to Rohingya people.” 

Reportedly, since the draft law was published in April 1982, at least six members of the 475 strong People’s Assembly—selected in 1982—have resigned because of their foreign ancestry they perhaps feared state appraisal if their origin was exposed later. Under the Section 18 of this Law the penalty for falsifying racial identity is up to ten years of imprisonment and fine of kyats fifty thousand.

It was said that, this law is ingeniously designed to preserve the purity of the Burmese nationality although General Ne Win himself and many of his deputies were Chinese or Chinese origin.

However, before that election, in 1985 the government published and distributed to the peoples of Burma a form called ‘Nain-2’, a 25 pages form including 5 appendix pages. This form has three Chapters; Chapter-1 for at the age of 10 year to 18 year, Chapter-2 for at the age of 18 year and Chapter-3 for at the age of 30 year and 45 year. The applicant needs to give all the particulars information including the history of his/her education and occupation and submit the form with his/her fingerprints of both hands and toe prints of both legs. He/she has to give the particular information of his/her siblings; his/her parents and their siblings, his/her grandparents of both fraternal and maternal sides and their siblings, the parents of all their grandparents and their siblings, the applicant’s children and their children. The particulars, including name, date of birth, place of birth, race & type of citizen, identity card No., and if death-- date and place of the death.

Each and every one of the Rohingya of Arakan timely submitted to the concerned authorities after completely filling the form with Rohingya as their identity. However, no action or reaction was made by the government. But the Rohingyas had enjoyed the right to vote and the right to be elected as people’s representatives to the Organ of State power at different levels in that election in the said election of 1986.

What kind of Law it is?

1. “Every Act shall be promulgated by the President of the Union by publication under his direction in the Gazette.” According to the Article 2 (24) of the Burma General Clauses Act 1898, “Gazette shall mean the Official Gazette for the Union of Burma.” Promulgation is to ensure that a newly enacted law becomes widely known by the public. In other words, it is an act whereby the people are enabled to know the law. A law must be promulgated before it actually takes effect. When a law is promulgated, it is given a serial number and signed by both the state minister responsible for the law and the Prime Minister/President. But This Burma Citizenship Law 1982 did not follow such procedure. Before enacting, it was drafted for many times. On 4th July 1980 in the Government Daily Guardian Newspaper, an official communiqué was published, under the caption: Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma-Law Commission-Paper on Solicitation of Public Opinion Regarding the Drafting of the Citizenship Law. However when actual promulgation was done By U san Yu, the then Chairman of the State Council and President, on 15 October 1982, the law was only published the next day at the state own Working People’s Daily, without under direction of any body or signed by any one.

2. A law is said to "come into effect" or "come into force" when it generally and actually takes effect and starts to apply. Laws usually stipulate in their attached clauses when they come into effect. Most of the laws and acts were attached clauses about the about commencement. For example: -

· The Registration of Foreigners Act 1940, As per article 1, This act shall come into force on the 28th arch 1940.

· The Burma Immigration (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1947, as per article 1 (2) It shall come into force at once. 

· The Union Citizenship Act, 1948, as per Article 2 (1) it shall extend to the whole of the Burma and shall be deemed to have come into force on the 4th day of January, 1948.

· Not only that, at the article 6 of this 1982 Citizenship Law there mentioned that,” A person who is already a citizen on the date this Law comes into force is a citizen. The term “the date this Law comes into force” are mentioned in the articles 38, 43, 45, 52, and 61 of this 1982 citizenship law also. Thus, mentioning when the law or the act come into effect of into force is very much essential parts of this Law. Without this one cannot say that this Law is in force or not and it will remain as silent law. This 1982 Citizenship Law, Pyithu Hluttaw law No. 1982/4, neither mention the date of commencement as the part of this law nor there were enactment or resolution regarding this in any next sessions of parliament.

3. The Citizenship Law contravenes several international human rights standards, including Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Insofar as its application condemns large numbers of people to second-class status and is grossly discriminatory against ethnic minorities, it infringes the prohibition against discrimination on the grounds of race, religion or national or social origin. The law also violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Burma under the SLORC has ratified, and under which States are obliged to "respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality..." and for every child immediately after birth to have the right to acquire a nationality.

4. This law, which was promulgated o deliberately deny the citizenship of the persons who had previously been recognized as citizen, is even more objectionable in so far as it was applied in an ex-post facto manner in contradiction to the international legal standards. 

5. This law was most controversial, vague, randomly interpreted and arbitrarily applied.

6. Although the 1982 Citizenship Law was enacted in 1982, the authorities never show their serious concern to implement it during Ne Win times or SLORC and SPDC period. However, after coming to the power by the present government became very serious on this matter. 

7. They try to implement the Citizenship Law only on the Rohingya. Although, there are more than a half million of Bangladeshi Buddhist who have entered in Arakan, during post independent day, they government did nothing against them. There are more than 20 million Chinese legally and illegally entered into Burma since SLORC regime. They are super class citizens of the country. They can do and can’t do anything they want. The whole Burma is now their father-in-law’s home.

8. U Khin Yi, the Union Minister for Immigration and Population Affairs, in his speech in Parliament on 18 June 2013, he mentioned that, “Even though they are Kachin, Kayah, Kayin, Chin, Burma, Mon, Rakhine and Shan, they are not national races if they permanently live in other countries, not in Myanmar. Same national races who have settled in Myanmar after 1824 are not indigenous races. So they are not citizens by birth. The law also states that national races who acquire citizenship of other countries and persons born of parents, both of whom are those foreign citizens cannot become Myanmar citizens”. But he and his government do not make any concern to these Chinese and Bangladeshi Buddhists issue. Their only interest is to wipe out the identity and existence of Rohingya from the soil of Arakan. 

Press Release 

NLD government Must Protect Rohingya People

We, the undersigned Rohingya organizations express our serious concern that the security, honour and dignity of the Rohingya population continue to be at stake due to growing anti-Rohingya sentiment at the behest of the powerful and influential groups in the Myanmar.

We are worrying that the ruling National League for Democracy (NLD) government seems to have inclined to yield to the demand of the extremists calling for “Rohingya ethnocide”. Following a protest in late April in Yangon by about 300 ultra-nationalists, including Buddhist monks, publicly denouncing the United States of America for using the word Rohingya, the Myanmar Foreign Ministry, headed by State Counselor-com-Foreign Minister Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, had surprisingly advised foreign embassies in Myanmar avoid using “Rohingya”, although the Rohingya people have the right to self-identify. 

In addition, in a press conference on 13 May, the Commander-in-Chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing had denied the existence of the word Rohingya in Myanmar by lying that “they were called Rohingyas under former prime minister U Nu to win their vote” although history testifies that Muslim Arakanese are called Rohingya. 

Such actions of the government have, to all intents and purposes, encouraged the extreme racist nationalists, and since then protests have grown and spread in Myanmar by stirring up prejudice against Rohingya and Muslims in general. But no action is taken against those inciting hatred and violence.

The Aung Mingalar Ghetto, the only Rohingya quarter left in the heart of the Rakhine State capital Sittwe with 4350 people, is now under threat and the decision of the Rakhine State government to conduct house to house check under the pretext of looking for so-called 20,000 people from outside are living in it is unjustified. 

We respect the right to freedom of expression and protest, but it needs to be within the framework of the democratic norms and principle. We are very much concerned that the current waves of protest spreading hate speech and Islamophobia against Rohingya in particular could lead to violence against them. Round the clock senses of utter insecurity and abject helplessness on the part of the persecuted and traumatized Rohingya people are prevalent in squalid segregated concentration camps, confined villages and ghettos under siege in Rakhine State. 

The government should not allow people to disturb the law and order situation with threat of violence that could amount to a breach of the peace. The NLD government has “the responsibility to protect” the defenceless Rohingya people. It has also the responsibility to uphold the internationally recognized principle of having the right to self-identify. 

We urge the NLD led government to take the following immediate measures: 

1. To allow Rohingya people to self-identify their ethnic name “Rohingya” 

2. To take action against those spreading hate speech against Rohingyas and Muslims in Myanmar. 

3. To end ghettoization and allow all internally displaced persons to return to their community, places and properties. 

4. To end persecution against Rohingya, including restrictions on their basic human rights and freedoms.

5. To lift all restrictions on the operations of international aid agencies in Rakhine State and take action to ensure the security of aid workers.

6. To amend 1982 Citizenship Law to conform it to international human rights law and citizenship standards ensuring full citizenship and all accompanying rights to Rohingya?

We also call on the international community, including US, UK, EU, ASEAN, OIC, to support the establishment of a United Nations Commission of Inquiry into the situation and human rights violations in Rakhine State and the government policies and laws targeting the Rohingya.

Signatories;

1. Arakan Rohingya National Organisation 

2. Bradford Rohingya Community in UK

3. Burmese Rohingya Community in Denmark

4. Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK

5. Rohingya Community in Netherlands 

6. Rohingya Community in Germany

7. Rohingya Community in Switzerland

8. Rohingya Organisation Norway

9. Rohingya Community in Finland

10. Rohingya Community in Italy

11. Rohingya Community in Sweden

For more information please contact:

Tun Khin +44 7888714866

Nay San Lwin +49 6926022349

Ko Ko Lin +880 1726068413

Dated: 16th May 2016

Aman Ullah

RB Opinion

May 15, 2016

“Animosity does not eradicate animosity, 

Only by loving kindness is animosity dissolved, 

This law is ancient and eternal” Words of Buddha

The Burmese foreign ministry led by Aung San Suu Kyi has told foreign diplomats to stop using the word “Rohingya”, prompting accusations that it has abandoned the minority Muslim community.

The foreign ministry sent an advisory to embassies in Rangoon this week warning them against the term, which is used by the stateless Muslim group to self-identify, but is rejected by the country’s nationalist Buddhist wing who view the Rohingya as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.

“We won’t use the term Rohingya because Rohingya are not recognized as among the 135 official ethnic groups,” “Our position is that using the controversial term does not support the national reconciliation process and solving problems” said Kyaw Zay Ya, a retired lieutenant-colonel who was elected as an MP for Ms Suu Kyi’s party last year and now serves in the foreign ministry. But he added that “it is not possible to enforce” the directive, and would be up to foreign governments to decide.

Here questions arise about ‘which really is a controversial term’. It is clear that, he means the word ‘Rohingya’ as a controversial term. Actually Rohingya is not a controversial term rather these people are trying to controvert it with an ulterior motive. Rohingya is a name or identity of a people in their own language. It is neither a term in Rakhines language nor Burmese language nor of any other language. These people called themselves their land as Rohang or Roang and the native that land is called in their own language as Rohingya or Roangya. It is a self-identification of a people, which is one of the indispensable rights of them as a member of human family. Why there needs to controversy about. 

Suppose Kaw Zay Ya is the personal name of that gentle man in his own language that is his personal identity or self-identification, no one has right for controversy on it. The noblel Laureate, the icon of democracy, the mother of the nation, the leader of NLD, the Minister of Foreign affairs, the State Counselor all these are not the identities of our beloved leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, these are her glories honored by others and adjectives given by others. But Aung San Suu Kyi is her personal identity that was given by her parents and a self-identification to which she prefer most. No one has a right to say that Aung San is her father’s name, Suu is her grandmother’s name and Kyi is her mother’s name so where is her name? No, none has the right to make any controversy on it because it is her personal identity, an identity that she prefers most; an identity to which her parents love to call her; an identity by which all of her relatives, her nears and dears known her, even the whole world recognize her with this identity. So, why did the term Rohingya be a controversial?

Let’s us go to the term ‘the 135 official ethnic groups’, how is it an official?

Myanmar is one of the most culturally diverse countries in the region, and ethnicity is a complex, contested and politically sensitive issue where ethnic groups have long believed that the Government manipulates ethnic categories for political purposes. Myanmar’s ethnic minorities make up an estimated 30 - 40% of the population, and ethnic states occupy some 57% of the total land area along most of the country’s international borders. The Constitution makes no reference to ethnic minorities. It instead uses the term “national races”. However this term is not defined by the Constitution, and is generally interpreted by applying the 1982 Myanmar Citizenship Law, which defines the 135 national races in its 1983 Procedures.

The “official" categorization of 135 ethnic groups is at odds and mystery with the history of categorization itself. For example, a 1960 publication by the Ministry of Culture estimated ethnic groups to be about 50, but the manual from the Department of Immigration and Manpower published in 1972 listed 144 so-called national races.

The origins of the now frequently mentioned list of the 135 ethnic groups living in Myanmar anterior to 1823 remains unknown, though General Saw Maung, then the head of the ruling military government, in 1989 said he had received it from ‘the census department’.

The list was mentioned first in a speech by Senior General Saw Maung on 5 July 1989, State Law and Order Restoration Council Chairman Commander in Chief of the Defence Services General Saw Maung’s Addresses and Discussions in Interview with Foreign Correspondents {(Yangon: Ministry of Information, 1989), pp. 182-183, p. 247 in English translation.} The list was eventually published more than a year later apparently only in Burmese in the Loktha Pyithu Neizin (The Working People’s Daily) on 26 September 1990. {International Crisis Group, “Myanmar: The Politics of Rakhine State,”}

Following this proclamation, the government institutionalized the number 135 as an expansion of the eight official races. Another, even more arbitrary, suggestion is that because General Ne Win’s favourite number is nine, the government devised 135 sub-categories, as one plus three plus five is nine.

However, one might reasonably speculate that it was derived from the last published British census of Burma taken in 1931. “Imperial Table XVIII – Race, Part I – Provincial Totals of Races by Religion” provides a list 135 ethno-linguistic groups which could be considered as being extant within Burma’s borders at that time. The 1921 British census21 provides a list of 125 groups listed by language groups. Some, which appear in both of the last British period censuses and the 1990 Working People’s Daily list, are remarkably small. Whatever the case, it would appear that in 2015, 67 years after independence, people are still discussing a nearly hundred year old list created by British colonial officials and amateur linguistics and ethnographers.

The national races are never identified, nor the claim that there 135 of them established, in the 2008 constitution or any other official document at least prior to the 2014 census.

The 2008 constitution compounds the problem of politicised ethnicity, which would allow expressions of ethnic wishes to be routed through peaceful channels. First, the constitution maintains the seven ethnically designated states as well as seven geographically designated regions and devolves certain limited powers to governments of the states and regions. It also established six autonomous zones with ethnic designations. In addition “race affairs” ministers are to be elected when at least 0.01 per cent of an ethnic group exists which is not otherwise nominally represented in the nomenclature of the state or region. There are currently 29 such race affairs ministers in state and regional governments who are elected on the basis of their respective ethno-linguistic group. How one is determined to be a member of such a group is not clear, but presumably this is on the basis of self-identification as indicated on national registration certificates.

Scrutinizing the list, one can find numerous inconsistencies. For example, some groups are listed according to exogamous names, whereas others are listed by endogamous names. Many are listed according to the name of their language, while others are named based on their location or principal town. The preponderance of group names, arguably, has unnecessarily subdivided some races. For example, Kachin political leaders have argued that there are six Kachin groups, not twelve. The same case has been made for the Karen/Kayin race, with the government scheme placing the number of sub-groups as nine, but Karen leaders saying that there are five. Within the total Chin population of an estimated one million people, the government list specifies 53 sub-groups, but these listed groups are, in some cases, merely alternative spellings of the same name, the name of a variant dialect of one language, or again, clans within another sub-group.

In addition to recognized groups finding themselves incorrectly identified or subdivided, the list of 135 excludes a number of groups. A few of the groups not included in the list are: Panthay Chinese Muslims, Overseas Chinese (speakers of Hokkien and Cantonese), Anglo-Burmese (Eurasians of mixed Burmese and European background), Burmese Indians, Gurkha, Pakistanis, and Rohingyas. 

Among many concerns, the 2014 census will collect ethnicity and identity information based upon a much disputed list of 135 “national races”. The current list is almost identical to one first deployed during the Socialist era (1962-1988) and resurrected during the early years of the previous military government (1988-2011). These, in turn, were derived from a flawed British census in 1931. Furthermore, in the 2014 census each individual may be recorded as one and only one of the highly suspect race categories. As a result, not only will the common experience of mixed ethnic identities not be recorded but leaders of some ethnic political groups also fear that their followers will not be counted by the identities or ethnicities that they self-report. Technical decisions about enumeration procedures like this one could have adverse impact on political representation and, in some cases, citizenship

During the early years of the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC; renamed SPDC in 1997), however, Gen. Saw Maung and the military intelligence chief, Lt.Gen. Khin Nyunt, proffered a more complex taxonomy of taingyinthar lu-myo. In a characteristically rambling speech in July 1989, the SLORC chairman Gen. Saw Maung referred to the “Census Department,” from which he discovered “135 categories” of “national race groups”. At the time, with constitutional government suspended, this was widely perceived as a confusing but tactical attempt to weaken non-Bamar solidarity around identity in a new game of “divide and rule”. Nevertheless, the seven ethnic states were subsequently retained in the 2008 constitution, and new “self-administered zones” and a “selfadministered division” were demarcated for six smaller national races that were not previously recognized in territorial-administrative terms: i.e. Danu, Kokang, Naga, Palaung (Taang), Pa-O and Wa. A further constitutional innovation resulted in seven other taingyinthar lu-myo gaining electoral representation, among 29 such reserved seats, in the 2010 election in the legislatures for states and regions where they were smaller minorities. These were Akha, Bamar, Intha, Kayan, Lahu, Lisu and Rawang. In consequence, the implementation of the 2008 constitution has so far given legal status to 20 national race identities for administrative or representative purposes.

Despite this emergence of a more complex legal and bureaucratic landscape of ethnicity, the Ministry of Immigration and Population (MOIP) has fallen back on the “SLORC-SPDC’s controversial “135” list of ethnic groups” for processing identity card applications and coding the 2014 Population and Housing Census. As a result, MOIP activities, with the full support of international donors and UN agencies, are promoting citizenship and identity practices that, over the years, have adversely affected many peoples. At root, identity regulation has always been a matter of law enforcement and security, rather than a neutral, technical procedure.

Thus, it is crystal clear that, the term Rohingya is not a controversial one, the SLORC-SPDC’s so-called the 135 official ethnic groups, is actual controversial terms, which may ruin the national reconciliation process and solving problems. 

During the SPDC regime, it was said that, prior meeting of any foreign dignitary with U Than Shwe, he/ she was advised to avoid using the name of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. The reason behind was that U than Shwe hated her and did not want to hear her name and not because of that the name of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is controversial. 

In the same sense, rejecting and trying to controvert the term Rohingya by the country’s nationalist Buddhist wing not because of the term Rohingya is controversial but because of hatred. Most certainly is some vested quarters are trying to scapegoat the Rohingya case to destabilize the country and to make the present democratic government not to success. 

“He abused me, mistrusted me, defeated me, robbed me.” Harboring such thoughts keeps hatred alive.

“He abused me, mistrusted me, defeated me, robbed me.”Releasing such thoughts banishes hatred for all the time.

By Asian Correspondent

May 12, 2016

A CARTOON published by Burmese magazine The Irrawaddy has been slammed by critics as “disgusting”, “xenophobic” and “dangerous”.

The offending cartoon features a dark-skinned individual with a sign saying “BOAT PEOPLE” hanging on his back cutting in front of a queue of Burmese ethnic minority groups.

Many believe the individual climbing into the queue purportedly depicts an undocumented Rohingya Muslim. The minority Muslim group is a subject of contention in Burma (Myanmar), with many accusing the government of systematically persecuting them.

Rohingya activist Wai Wai Nu has reportedly weighed in on the conversation, calling the cartoon “dangerous” and “insulting”.

According to Coconuts Yangon, Nu said in an interview today: “It’s like boat people are coming into the place of the ethnic people. It’s a bad image and the depiction is wrong. Because boat people are just going out of the country, they are not coming in. It’s insulting and dangerous because it is giving the wrong message to people.”

She called for the government to regulate cartoons which “discriminate against Muslims” in order to avoid conflicts.

Nu also called into question The Irrawaddy’s editorial judgement in publishing the cartoon, a sentiment echoed by several critics on Twitter.

Some say The Irrawaddy’s cartoon, which is strikingly similar to some published by French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, accurately portrays how many Burmese locals feel about the Rohingya.

Charlie Hebdo – whose Paris office was attacked in 2015 by Islamist gunmen, killing 12 people – has published cartoons in the past that have been labelled “Islamophobic” in nature.

Among them is a cartoon depicting dead Syrian toddler Alan Kurdi as a woman-groping adult, with the caption: “What would little Aylan have grown up to be? A groper in Germany.”

The cartoon was a response to a series sexual attacks conducted against women on New Year’s Eve last year in Cologne, Germany.

The cartoonist who created the image for The Irrawaddy, Maung Maung Fountain, declined to comment on the issue.

All posts of the cartoon appear to have been removed from The Irrawaddy’s social media and website.

Former MP Ro Shwe Maung's Speaking Notes for the Conference on “Myanmar democratic transition and persecuted Rohingya” at the Wolfson College, University of Oxford on 11 May 2016.

Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity to speak at this important event via Skype.

Let me introduce myself. This before my name was U Shwe Maung. On 8 May 2016, I changed my name to Ro Shwe Maung. It means Rohingya Shwe Maung. I am a Rohingya. Please call me Ro Shwe Maung. I am a former Member of Parliament in Myanmar from 2010 to 2015. Authority denied my right to run for office again in 2015 General Election although I was a sitting MP. I was denied the right to contest the election because authority falsely claimed my parents were not citizens of Myanmar when I was born. I would like to say this is the most laughable joke in the 21st Century. I am not only one. All Rohingya candidates were targeted for exclusion. Dozens of Burmese Muslims candidates had also been rejected by election authorities. And make no mistake: it is because of our ethnicity and religion. 

On 10 June 2012, I saw face of ethnic cleansing and genocide against Rohingya from helicopter in Sittwe city of Arakan. I saw blaze of Rohingya and Kaman Muslim houses. I felt I was seeing a holocaust from the sky. On July 16, 2012, I went to Sittwe and talked to relatives of victims of violence, which caused 140,000 IDPs. A mother saw her 11 years old daughter was being burnt. A father saw his son was beheaded by the Rakhine terrorists and there were so many horrible stories.

I changed my name to “Ro Shwe Maung”. Because, denial of Rohingya identity is at maximum now although we have an elected civilian government, led by State Counsellor, President’s Office Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar. The Foreign Affairs Ministry advised US Embassy to avoid using the term “Rohingya” in the future after a large demonstration backed by the nationalist activists and monks against US Embassy Rangoon and US Government for the use of the term “Rohingya” on April 28, 2016. 

Now State Counsellor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is trying her best to reform the country’s old system with a momentum. We appreciate her steps for a new system for the good of Myanmar people. But she has been constantly silent about the plight of Rohingya. She and governing party NLD have been denying existence of Rohingya people in Myanmar. In the context of Rohingya and Muslim issues, USDP Party and NLD Party have been exercising with same political pattern although they have a huge number of differences in other areas. Rohingya issue becomes a political toy among the players of political game in Myanmar. We Rohingya become political victims of Burma and persecuted in various forms in daily life. 

Therefore, I would like to suggest the international community to press the Myanmar government in four key areas: 1) access to citizenship, 2) access to rights and livelihoods, 3) combating extremism, and 4) political reconciliation. In this regard, international actors should call on State Counsellor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar President U Htin Kyaw and Myanmar Military Chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing to do followings immediately:

1) Access to Citizenship

a. Amend 1982 Citizenship Law to provide Rohingya with equal access to full citizenship, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

b. Recognize Rohingya as an indigenous ethnic group of Myanmar and ensuring our right to self-identification

2) Access to Rights and Livelihoods

a. End freedom of movement restrictions on Rohingya in Rakhine State and beyond

b. Ensure Rohingya in Rakhine State have access to basic services, including education and healthcare

c. Release all Rohingya political prisoners, falsely imprisoned after the 2012 violence

d. Facilitate the resettlement and reintegration of Rohingya into their original homes in Rakhine State

3) Combating Extremism

a. Punish, through proper legal channels, individuals who promote hate speech and incite violence

b. Promote pluralism and inclusiveness in political decision-making and society more broadly

4) Political Reconciliation

a. Include Rohingya representatives at the forthcoming 21st Century Pinlone Conference

b. Work with all groups in Rakhine State to formulate an inclusive roadmap to a durable solution to the state’s challenges

c. Amend the 2008 constitution to move toward true democracy

Thank you.

Ro Shwe Maung

Former Rohingya MP in Myanmar (2010 - 2015)

Board Member of ASEAN Parliamentarian for Human Rights (www.aseanmp.org) 

Founding Member of International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief (www.ippforb.com)

President, Arakan Institute for Peace and Development (AiPAD)

By Bill O'Toole

Democratic Voice of Burma