By Sara E. Davies & Jacqui True

IPI Global Observatory
June 4, 2016

Republica

June 4, 2016

By Paul Vrieze

Frontier Myanmar
June 4, 2016

U Kyaw Hla Aung, a renowned Rohingya leader, worked for decades as a clerk at Rakhine State Court, later becoming a lawyer. In the 1980s, he was debarred and imprisoned due to the military governments’ repressive policies towards the Muslim minority. He has now been jailed four times as a political prisoner; including two stints following the 2012 inter-communal violence.

In an April interview at his home in Thet Kel Pyin Village, next to the sprawling internally displaced persons camps in Sittwe, Kyaw Hla Aung spoke to Frontier about life for the Rohingya before they became stateless under the 1982 Citizenship Law, the groups’ hopes under the National League for Democracy government and recent developments in Rakhine State.

Do you think the NLD government will improve the situation for the Rohingya?

The future is not so good because Aung San Suu Kyi is not giving any green light to us. She is always denying and dodging journalists’ questions about the Rohingya people. She is afraid of her own community and also the Rakhine community. When the NLD won we were very happy, she said she would restore law and order, but now we don't know. She is very overburdened with so many challenges.

Also, when we were cancelled from the voting lists in 2015, she didn't say anything to journalists about this. In the 1990 elections [which the army annulled], we were among the elected parliament members. She knows many elected Rohingya, but now she didn't mention anything about them.

How does the community feel about the government revoking the white cards, the last official ID for Rohingya, and with it voting rights?

We had been voting since independence in 1948, up to the 2010 elections. Now they are denying all our votes. It’s a great loss for us, but we have no strength and we can’t even go to downtown Sittwe to complain to the government to tell them about our suffering. Because of this I’m telling it to you as a journalist.

Since 1960, I was a state court stenographer for 22 years and then I became a lawyer. But after my conviction I lost my lawyer’s license and also my pension. Now, I cannot even vote.

What do you think of the NLD decision in May to reportedly resume the controversial citizenship verification process? 

No one here will accept this process because on the survey form there are all sorts of questions that imply we are foreigners. It’s Form 65 for foreigners and has questions such as: which country did you come from, how many years have you been here, and how did you enter the country?

People are very sad now because the NLD did nothing for us yet and they have had no contact with us. And how can any party help us? No party can help because they cannot even get our vote, we have no voting rights.

You said you saw many Bangladeshis in Sittwe Prison, were they caught immigrating illegally to northern Rakhine?

They were arrested while they were fishing in Myanmar waters. This idea that many Bangladeshis are coming is not true, this is propaganda. No [Rohingya] who is from here can even travel from one township to another, so how could they come here? And why would they come here? This is a troubled place! If I could gather all my people and take them to live in another place, even an island, I would take them there!

I read you still have some of your original 1950s citizenship documents?

I have National Registration Cards that were issued in 1959 and 1963. My wife has them, and my parents had them too. My father was a government administrator working in the state court as a head clerk for 40 years. We lived in downtown Sittwe for 60 years, but now we have had to abandon our land and our mosque, and live here.

Since 30 years ago the government didn't issue any registration to our people. Now, they are alleging we are all here as illegal immigrants. (Kyaw Hla Aung searches in his home and returns with yellow, faded IDs of his family, his lawyer’s degree, old photos and official letters.)

They burned my house during the conflict on June 11, 2012, to destroy my law books, my files and my papers. But two days earlier, I could pass on my important papers to a Burmese lady living nearby, she passed it on to my son in Yangon, otherwise these would have been destroyed.

Can you comment on the argument over the term Rohingya and whether they are from here?

In 1948 so many East-Pakistanis [now Bangladesh] and Indians were living here, shopkeepers and so on. [The authorities] didn't call us Pakistani or Indian or Bengali—at that time they called us Rakhine or Arakan Muslims, or Rohingya. After 1962, all foreigners were driven back to their old countries, India, Pakistan and so on, and their properties were nationalised.

But we lived here as citizens and had our jobs. I applied in 1960 for a job with the state court, my father was also working there. At that time, so many government officials and policemen were Rohingya. But after General Ne Win ruled, bit by bit no more Rohingya were accepted into state jobs and only Buddhists were given their jobs.

Since 1982 the government did not issue any documentation to us, there were even no more birth certificates for Rohingya babies. So this allegation that Rohingya people are illegal immigrants from Bangladesh is not true.

Now, these people are suffering, they get no education, no healthcare, they need to get travel permits and then pay lots of bribes. Before we could stand for election, we had registration cards, with these we could get jobs and travel anywhere, now we cannot.

Are there any activities that you are currently involved with?

We set up an Education Committee in 2012 [and] I was its chairman. But the government destroyed it, so there is no proper education here in the camps and villages. Now in 2016, with the new government, we are trying to set it up again … We want to give education to children, otherwise illiteracy will be high.

This is more important than healthcare. If people cannot go to the hospital maybe 500 or 1,000 can die in a year, but after five years of no education the whole community will die … Only (INGO) Save the Children constructed schools village by village, but there are no teachers. There are some efforts to provide some teachers for schools in the IDP camps, but there are none in rural areas. So people there cannot send their children to school and travel to other schools [with teachers] is very difficult, especially in rainy season.

Title photo: Kyaw Hla Aung shows his original, laminated 1963 National Registration Card. (Paul Vrieze / Frontier)

By Nyan Hlaing Lynn & Thomas Kean

Frontier Myanmar
June 3, 2016

The government’s recent decision to resume citizenship verification in Rakhine State has generated fresh debate about the future and rights of the state’s Muslim community, most of whom are stateless.

Advancing the controversial project amid a climate of suspicion and intense nationalism will be among the most difficult challenges of the government’s five-year term.

For decades, many Muslims in Rakhine languished in a grey area as holders of temporary identity documents known as white cards, pending a decision on their eligibility for citizenship.

Many had evidence to prove they had previously been granted citizenship, but it was withdrawn in the 1980s and early 1990s. More than 1 million people in Rakhine are stateless, says the United Nations refugee agency, the UNHCR.

U Thein Sein’s government launched the pilot project to examine the credentials of citizenship applicants in Rakhine in June 2014. It was quickly suspended because of protests from the ethnic Rakhine community.

Under the pilot, more than 200 Muslims were granted citizenship. They were a mix of Kaman, a recognised ethnic group, and “Bengalis”, the term the government uses to refer to the community that identifies as Rohingya.

The program caused deep divisions in the Rakhine and Muslim communities. Many Muslims refused to participate because they did not want to identify as Bengalis. The decision to grant full citizenship to some of the Muslims incensed Rakhine nationalists, who said they were Bengalis masquerading as Kaman.

In mid-2015 the project resumed under another guise. Stateless residents were invited to apply for temporary ID documents known as green cards, introduced earlier that year to replace about 900,000 white cards declared invalid by presidential decree earlier that year. Green cards, like white cards, grant limited rights and are issued to those whose citizenship status remains unconfirmed.

It is this element of the citizenship verification process that the government resumed on May 1.

U Myint Kyaing, permanent secretary of the Ministry of Labour, Immigration and Population, said it was one of a number of projects in the ministry’s 100-day plan.

Those who apply for green cards will receive “many benefits” as it will be the first step on the path to citizenship, Myint Kyaing said.

Muslim leaders in Rakhine are disappointed by the move. They say it is unclear when those who apply for green cards will acquire citizenship and in the meantime, they will gain few benefits.

Applicants will continue to be required to acknowledge they are the descendants of recent immigrants, a stipulation many contest. They will also be required to identify as Bengali.

Their reluctance to participate is obvious. At least 500,000 white cards were cancelled in Rakhine, where only 100,000 residents have applied for a green card. Of those, fewer than 20,000 have collected their new identity documents, said Myint Kyaing.

The 1982 Citizenship Law is central to the issue. Some see it as the root of the problem, while others argue it is the solution – if enforced properly.

Although the law applies to all residents it is often discussed only in the context of Rakhine State and the Rohingya. This makes it politically sensitive for the government to amend the law as any changes seen as helping Rakhine’s Muslims to acquire citizenship would be fiercely opposed.

Change could be looming. U Tun Tun Hein, an NLD central executive committee member who sits on a parliamentary bill committee, told Frontier that the party was reviewing the law, but declined to elaborate.

He said it was one of 142 pieces of legislation that a commission headed by former parliament speaker Thura U Shwe Mann had recommended be reviewed.

The issue was raised in parliament on May 8, when Arakan National Party MP Daw Khin Saw Wai proposed that the government carefully scrutinize the credentials of citizenship applicants in line with the 1982 Citizenship Law.

She said Rakhine had been overrun by illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and the situation had been exacerbated by the large number of white cards issued in the state. Official figures showed that about 500,000 of the 600,000 white cards cancelled in 2015 were held by residents of Rakhine, she said, adding that hundreds of thousands more have no documentation at all.

“Although there is a just and fair law, sadly we are experiencing instability because the government has not been able to implement it properly,” Khin Saw Wai said.

The often repeated claim that the law denies citizenship for Rohingya is incorrect: it denies them automatic access to full citizenship. However, the process for acquiring citizenship is opaque and bureaucratic, and the government can deny it to those who meet eligibility criteria.

The law was introduced when the country was ruled by General Ne Win, who declared that it would “solve all [the] problems” caused by earlier citizenship laws.

Ne Win’s solution was controversial because it established classes of citizenship.

Residents whose ancestors were living in the country in 1824, the year of the first Anglo-Burma War, automatically qualified for full citizenship, as long as they were members of the 135 officially recognised ethnic groups.

Residents descended from immigrants who arrived after 1824 qualified as either associate or naturalised citizens, with fewer rights than full citizens, even in cases where they had qualified for full citizenship under the previous laws.

Ne Win characterised these groups – particularly those of Indian and Chinese descent – as untrustworthy, but said Myanmar had to accept them because it was unrealistic to send them back to their countries of origin.

“We will extend them rights to a certain extent,” he said. “We will give them the right to earn according to their work and live a decent life. No more.”

Ne Win said that over time the classes of citizenship would disappear as the grandchildren of associate citizens became full citizens.

This has clearly not occurred in Rakhine, and rights groups have called for the law to be amended to remove the tiers of citizenship that they say are designed to exclude some groups from full citizenship.

In a submission to the UN Human Rights Council in March, UN special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, Ms Yanghee Lee, said it was crucial the law be “brought into line with international standards”.

“In particular, provisions that provide for the granting of citizenship on the basis of ethnicity or race, which are clearly discriminatory, should be revised,” she said.

Lawyer U Yan Naing, the head of the legal department at the National Unity Congress Party that fielded some Muslim candidates in last year’s election, said the law needed amending because it was unconstitutional.

“The constitution doesn’t mention anything about associate citizens; they are only mentioned in the law. A lower form of citizenship is inconsistent with the constitution,” he said.

Those affected by the “associate citizen” designation have few obvious supporters in parliament, however.

Yan Naing said no Muslims were elected last year largely because the NLD did not field any Muslims among its 1100 candidates.

“We’ll have to watch the policy of the NLD party. One of their main policies is rule of law, after all,” he said.

Nationalist groups will be watching just as intently and they plan to respond if the law is weakened.

“It is difficult to comment without knowing what amendments [the NLD is considering],” said U Parmaukha, a prominent member of the Association for the Protection of Race and Religion, better known as Ma Ba Tha. “But the 1982 Citizenship Law is essential. We will protest if it is overhauled or scrapped.”

Some Muslims in Rakhine say the issue can be resolved by avoiding the Rohingya/Bengali terminology for something more neutral.

“The government doesn’t accept ‘Rohingya’ and the Muslims here don’t accept ‘Bengali’. We need to find a new name that can be accepted by both groups,” said Ko Tin Hlaing, a resident of the That Kae Pyin refugee camp in the Rakhine capital, Sittwe.

Ko Win Tun Soe, director of the Association of Development and Peace for the Rakhine Community, said it was a misperception that Rohingya wanted to be recognised as an official ethnic group.

“We don’t hope to be defined as ethnic nationals,” said Win Tun Soe, 36, a Yangon resident. “What we want is a better future for our children.”

It’s not only affected groups that support citizenship law reform. U Thein Than Oo, a member of the Myanmar Lawyers’ Network, said some sections in the law were “meaningless and illogical”.

He said previous governments had exploited the citizenship issue for political gain. Under Suu Kyi’s leadership, the new administration could draw a line in the sand and propose a real solution, he added. But it must also manage the political risks carefully.

“It is a good time to solve this problem when Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, an internationally respected person, is leading the country,” he said. “But she can also get into trouble – and there are some people who will try to use the issue to cause problems for her.”

In her press conference with US Secretary of State John Kerry on May 22, Aung San Suu Kyi said her government was focused on “practical solutions” in Rakhine.

“We are trying to find something, some way forward that would be acceptable to both. That is very difficult … [but] we will try to do the best we can to resolve the problem to the benefit of both communities.”

By Nyan Lynn Aung

The Myanmar Times
June 3, 2016

The Myanmar Times

June 3, 2016

Nationalists hold a protest in Mawlamyine, Mon State, yesterday. Supplied

By Tej Parikh

The Diplomat
June 3, 2016

To govern, Aung San Suu Kyi seems prepared to turn a blind eye to the Rohingya issue.

“If we mix religion and politics then we offend the spirit of religion itself,” said Myanmar’s independence hero Aung San, addressing his Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League party in 1946.

Seventy years on, for his daughter and globally revered human rights icon, Aung San Suu Kyi, the doctrine has changed.

Deeply entrenched nationalism has blurred the line between religion and politics as Myanmar seeks to build a viable state. And it’s pitting the Nobel Peace Prize winner’s pragmatism against her principles—with the lives of the nation’s Rohingya minority at the center.

“[Aung San]…wanted the Buddhist Sanghas [associations] to retain their traditional roles and abstain from politics,” writes author Nilanjana Sengupta in her book A Gentleman’s Word. “Their contribution to nation building could be in spreading the message of brotherhood and freedom from fear but not in inflammatory communal politics.”

But since Aung San’s assassination in 1947 and independence the year after, xenophobia has been stoked by the successive nationalist agendas of Myanmar’s leaders. With the dominant Buddhist and ethnic Bamar population—estimated at 89 percent and 68 percent respectively today—minorities were considered a hindrance to nation building.

Attempts by the state to homogenize language, culture, and religion gained impetus among the nation’s monkhood, an institution with gargantuan civilian sway.

Nationalist Buddhist groups like the 969 Movement, championed by Ashin Wirathu (dubbed the “Buddhist bin Laden” by some) amassed a stronger platform for their xenophobic rhetoric under former-President Thein Sein’s censorship-loosening reforms since 2011.

The nation’s Muslims, four percent of the population, have been their top target. Rakhine state’s Rohingyas are subject to violence, discrimination, and economic exclusion. Numerous attempts to flee have seen hundreds drown at sea and thousands displaced in refugee camps, and the government afford humanitarians limited access. They are “one of the world’s most persecuted minorities,” says the UN.

And early last month, Suu Kyi’s government—once a glimmer of hope for the minority— requested the very term “Rohingya” be renounced, failing to recognize the community’s rights as part of Myanmar’s 135 official list of ethnic groups.

Suu Kyi’s stance is not new. Since violent riots broke out between ethnic Rakhine and Rohingya in 2012, she has remained passive, neutralizing questions by pointing out aggressions against Buddhists and downplaying the concern of international bodies.

For some, Suu Kyi was just straddling the political line, cautious not to alienate an electorate largely sold to an entrenched islamophobic narrative. In the lead up to the National League for Democracy’s landslide election victory in November, an Al-Jazeera source reported that she deliberately purged the party of its Muslim candidates.

For an election that received plaudits from U.S. President Barack Obama, the Rohingyas were ineligible to vote, and currently there is not a single Muslim parliamentary representative.

Suu Kyi not only had to pander to the electorate, but also to the military which traditionally bands around nationalism and is constitutionally entitled to 25 percent of seats. But it was assumed her humanitarian streak would return once in power, more willing to tackle electorally sensitive issues years before the next election. However, Suu Kyi’s latest constraint may be the pressures of state building.

After 27 years of playing the pro-democracy activist opposition, the NLD are in uncharted territory. In November, U Win Htein, a party spokesman, said the Rohingya would not be the party’s priority.

Suu Kyi inherits an inefficient, unskilled, and corrupt bureaucracy, alongside a promise to deliver economic development. Elevating the strife of an estimated 800,000 to 1.3 million minority may pale in comparison, particularly when factoring in a likely lengthy reconciliation process, financial resources, and potential for social instability.

Suu Kyi is aware of the sacrifice, diplomacy, and compromise that comes with taking office. “I’ve been a politician all along. I started in politics not as a human rights defender or a humanitarian worker,” she said in a 2013 CNN interview. She will have to negotiate shrewd deals with international suitors and make controversial decisions on large construction projects. Not all parties can be satisfied.

Bound by the realism of statecraft, Suu Kyi may be playing a long game. Forging peace between Buddhist and minority communities is likely to be more delicate, iterative, and convoluted than external observers can appreciate.

During U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s visit to Myanmar last month, Suu Kyi asked for “enough space” to address the “emotive” Rohingya issue. On May 31, it was announced she would lead a new Central Committee for Implementation of Peace and Development in Rakhine State, though the details remain sketchy.

The global community is growing impatient with a woman who has come to embody revolution and democratic values. Some have suggested her Nobel Prize be revoked for failing to act definitively on her sermons, while others fear Suu Kyi sees reason in the nationalist logic of Myanmar’s past.

The fact that she may be carefully treading the line between religion and politics is a bitter pill to swallow for her followers who feel short-sold, particularly when the Rohingya “face the final stages of genocide,” according to an 18-month study by the U.K.-based International State Crime Initiative, published last year. “The marked escalation in State-sponsored stigmatization, discrimination, violence and segregation, and the systematic weakening of the community, make precarious the very existence of the Rohingya,” it adds.

The clock is ticking on Suu Kyi, with her legacy deeply intertwined with the fate of Myanmar’s long-persecuted minority.

Tej Parikh is an international affairs journalist and recently received his master’s degree from Yale University, with a focus on state building, ethnic politics and fragile states. He has published for Reuters, The Diplomat, The Cambodia Daily, the Guardian and Global Politics Magazine. He tweets at @tejparikh90.

By Kyaw Ye Lynn

Anadolu Agency
June 3, 2016

Official says withheld religion data from 2014 census to be released by August, but no date set for that on ethnicity

YANGON, Myanmar -- After being withheld for over a year for political reasons, controversial census data on religion in Myanmar is set to be released by August, a government official told Anadolu Agency on Thursday.

For the first time in 30 years, the government had conducted a Population and Housing Census in 2014 -- only to postpone the release of ethnic and religious data until after the general election in November last year due to the sensitivity of the issues.

The permanent secretary of the Labor, Immigration and Population Ministry said Thursday that region-by-region data on religion will be published by August.

“The data would demonstrate number and percentage of each religion region by region as well as for the whole country,” Mya Kyaing told Anadolu Agency by phone. “We hope to publish it by August.”

Mya Kyaing added that preparation of the remaining data on ethnicity and religion had been finalized under the previous administration, which handed power over to a government led by Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy in late March.

The ministry, however, has yet to set a date for releasing data on ethnicity as it is -- according to Mya Kyaing -- “more complicated than any other issues in the country”.

“We need to discuss with ethnic representatives for the ethnic categories before releasing the data,” he said.

Myanmar’s first census in 31 years was conducted between March 30 and April 10, 2014 and included 41 questions, the most controversial of which regards ethnicity -- providing a list of 135 answers to choose from.

The list, dating back to the 1982 Citizens’ Act that defined indigenous ethnic groups, is confusing, dividing the main ethnic groups into scores of sub-groups that sometimes indicate different clans, dialect groups or just different spellings of the same group.

However, more than one million Muslims in troubled western Rakhine state had been excluded from the tally, as the government did not officially recognize Rohingya term, instead asking them to choose the “other” option that enabled them to describe their ethnicity in their own words.

Muslims account for just around four percent of the country’s overall population, according to a census in 1983.

The actual figure, however, is expected to be much larger.

Min Khant

RB Opinion

June 2, 2016

The new democratic government of Myanmar which is led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi could not stop the Rakhine Buddhist dirty politicians from spoiling political situation of Rakhine state, that leading the new government to form the ‘formation of Central Committee on Implementation of Peace, Stability and Development of Rakhine State on 30 May, 2016. The central committee was formed with 27 ministries and several working committees in which some former military brute think- tanks are attached to blemish the interaction of promising scrutiny process.

Ostensibly, though aim and object of the processes are striking and interesting, one of the actions in regard Rohingyas who are needed to be scrutinized by the 1982 citizenship law is totally unjust and backtracking process. 

The then U Thein Sein’s government has cleared that there are no immigrants infiltrated into Rakhine state except Buddhist Rakhine Bangladeshi. But the local Rohingyas have been fleeing steadily from their localities to foreign lands to escape the suppression of ordinary Rakhine people, of the authorities and the Burmese Army. 

Forceful exertion of 1982 citizenship law against Rohingyas is unreasonable and foolish while Rohingyas residents in Rakhine have already become the legitimate citizens of the state in accord the citizenship acts that were existed before 1982 citizenship law. Rohingyas are neither needed to be verified to prove as the citizens of the state nor to be scrutinized repeatedly whether or not they have documents, papers in their hands at this time.

Expression about the process of scrutiny is alarming after thoroughly examining the Ministry of immigration officer’s. The immigration officer explained: “the central government will only issue either the scrutiny cards or naturalized citizenship cards to people after thoroughly examining their relevant papers, documents and others which the people belong in their hand currently now.” The sound is very understandable that there would be clear fighting on Rohingyas people at this time again. 

Due to documents, which Rohingyas people firmly kept in their hands for many years, but during the last two decades of the military rulings particularly in north Rakhine state, all the relevant documents, which were in the hands of Rohingyas people were either being confiscated, looted, and torn apart by the consecutive ferocious military authorities. The military authorities who have purposely intended not to be able Rohingyas IN ANY TIME to show off or prove with documents as the citizens of the state while the concerning authorities may possibly ask to show off the relevant documents again that are not in their hands now, OR the previous authorities have done such the cynical action to extend helping hands for next coming government after government. 

What is the dirty game of the entire Burmese people whether they are military regimes or the regime of prominent noble laureate! Once Rohingyas have had the documents in their hands, then they were taken out again by the military forcefully and then again from where they (Rohingyas) will show the related documents which are not in their hands now. 

Once Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, now state counselor of Myanmar has already agreed and declared that the 1982 citizenship law, which was drafted by the dictator Ne Win, was very excessive and should be fitted in line standard of international outlook. Amid from the international outcry, advice and appeal to revoke the 1982 citizenship law to the respective government of Myanmar, the process and application of 1982 law by this democratic government on Rohingyas people is nothing more than a plain silliness of laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi led democratic government.

There are many Bangladeshi Buddhist Rakhine infiltrators in Rakhine state and they were then resettled in Rohingyas lands and different townships along Rakhine state. How many of illegal Rakhine Bangladeshi were verified under the Myanmar immigration process and made them as naturalized citizens in the course of Rakhine/Myanmar immigration department? If not why?

Rohingyas people along the nation are totally being upset BY today newspaper’s explanation and details about the national scrutiny process on Rohingyas in Rakhine and elsewhere in the nation. Even though, Rohingyas community has been so much impressive over the political carrier of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, right now they have got a question that “whether Daw Suu Kyi is intentionally committing such a crime against Rohingyas people or she has no other way except to be dancing as per the tone of Commander in Chief of Senior General Min Aung Haling?

By Aung Hla Tun

Reuters

May 31, 2016

Suu Kyi's reluctance to speak out against the Rohingya's plight has been sharply criticized by rights groups

YANGON -- Myanmar's Aung San Suu Kyi will lead a new effort to bring peace and development to Rakhine State where violence between majority Buddhists and minority Muslims in recent years has cast a cloud over progress on democratic reforms.

More than 100 people were killed in violence in the western state in 2012, and some 125,000 Rohingya Muslims, who are stateless, took refuge in camps where their movements are severely restricted.

Thousands have fled persecution and poverty in an exodus by boat to neighbouring South and Southeast Asian countries.

Suu Kyi, who holds the office of state counsellor, will lead a new Central Committee for Implementation of Peace and Development in Rakhine State, the President's Office said in an online announcement on Tuesday.

The group will consist of 27 officials, including all cabinet ministers.

The announcement, dated Monday, gave only the names of those in the committee and offered no details on how the group would go about addressing the state's multitude of problems.

The minister of border affairs, appointed by the commander-in-chief, and the state's chief minister, a member of Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy party, will both be vice-chairmen of the committee.

Zaw Htay, spokesman at the state counsellor's office, said the group would make a research trip to the state "very soon" but did not give a date or say if Suu Kyi be in the delegation.

Suu Kyi campaigned in the south of the state before a November election that her party won, but she avoided the state capital, Sittwe, and has never visited the camps for people displaced in the violence.

Her reluctance to speak out against the Rohingya's plight has been sharply criticized by rights groups.

There is widespread hostility towards Rohingya Muslims in the Buddhist-majority country, including among some within Suu Kyi's party and its supporters.

This month, Suu Kyi said the country needed "enough space" do deal with the issue and cautioned against the use of "emotive terms", that she said were making the situation more difficult.

The term Rohingya is itself contentious, as the group is not one of the country's 135 officially designated ethnic groups.

The previous military-dominated government referred to the group as Bengalis, insinuating that they are illegal immigrants from neighbouring Bangladesh.

Nationalist organisations and monks, have denounced people who use the name Rohingya.

In addition to the problems facing the Muslim minority, the state has seen a recent increase in clashes between the army and members of the Arakan Army, a Buddhist-dominated Rakhine nationalist guerrilla group.

(Editing by Timothy Mclaughlin, Robert Birsel)

By Ainur Rohmah

Anadolu Agency

May 31, 2016

Hundreds have fled shelters since Indonesia offered temporary shelter during boat people crisis a year ago

TUBAN, Indonesia -- One year after Indonesia offered temporary shelter for hundreds of Muslim Rohingya, those who remain in camps are seeking employment and clarity regarding their status.

Hundreds of refugees have even fled northern Aceh province in hopes of reaching Malaysia and meeting relatives and acquiring jobs in the neighboring country, the chief of the National Committee for Rohingya Solidarity (KNSR) said Monday.

Mustafa Tiba told Anadolu Agency that Rohingya “hope there is work to support their families who still live in Myanmar."

He said most of the refugees in Aceh instead spend their days at camps attending classes, farming and taking care of livestock, as few of them have employment.

In May 2015, thousands of Rohingya and Bangladeshi migrants were stranded at sea after Thailand launched an anti-trafficking crackdown after discovering the bodies of dozens of migrants near its border with Malaysia.

After initially turning back boatloads of migrants, Indonesia and Malaysia agreed to take Rohingya in for one year, accommodating those deemed to be refugees on the condition that the international community then resettle them.

Data from KNSR shows that only around 320 refugees remain in shelters in Aceh, down from 1,000 a year ago.

Tiba said that of those still in the province, “some even worked as vendors and then in the afternoon, they return again to the refugee camp."

He underlined that those who ran away from Aceh did so “because from the beginning, their goal was not to arrive in Aceh."

The volunteer group’s chief stressed the need for Indonesia’s government to create a space in which local agencies can participate in helping Rohingya fulfill their needs.

He criticized regulations stating that only immigration authorities, such as those from the United Nations’ refugee agency and the International Organization for Migration, are authorized to assist in immigration matters.

Some of the refugees at Aceh shelters marked the one-year anniversary of their arrival in Indonesia in the middle of this month by writing of their concerns to a number of UN agencies, international bodies and Indonesia’s president.

Tribunnews.com reported that they conveyed their anxieties about the approaching deadline given by Indonesia’s government for their resettlement in third countries.

Suriyatno, a representative of a government task force working with the Rohingya, was quoted as saying, “these letters contain a request that state leaders including President Joko Widodo provide clarity on their fate and their future."

Some of the refugees accommodated in Langsa city requested that the government allow them to remain in Aceh longer, citing the hospitable treatment the locals had shown them.

They also expressed gratitude for the major changes experienced by their children, who could attend school alongside Indonesian peers, due to the support of local governments and humanitarian organizations.

Many Rohingya have for years been fleeing Myanmar by sea to escape alleged persecution from both the authorities and extremist Buddhists. In the process, many have fallen prey to human traffickers.

By Jack Healey

Huffington Post

May 30, 2016

In Burma, the urgency for just leadership is intensifying. Leadership defines a nation. Some leaders take their country higher and some take their country lower. Those on the lower side are forgotten and those on the high side are remembered; legacy counts. I strongly believe that Aung San Suu Kyi (ASSK) is coming to a fork in the road for her career. In the last election, she won every district. Her nation believes in her. Despite her house arrest, her people stayed with her for 16 years and never wavered. Her numerous international honors, including the Nobel Peace Prize, prove the world believes in her. But moments come that define leadership. No one asks for these moments but they do come. Nelson Mandela chose a positive path and Robert Mugabe took the lower path. I hope ASSK takes the higher path. Let me explain.

In my time as a Peace Corps director in Lesotho, 1977-1981, two prominent leaders existed in southern Africa, Mandela of South Africa and Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Although both men would eventually lead their nations, during my time in Lesotho, they faced disenfranchisement by their respective governments. Mandela was in jail and the Mugabe was in exile, fighting from Mozambique to topple Ian Smith of Rhodesia. Despite their perilous positions, both men had devout people behind them, including their militaries. While Mandela and Mugabe would rise to power, the decisions these men made polarized their legacies. Mandela moved his new government to the West and Mugabe pushed his government to the East. Depending on where you were living in southern Africa, the UK and the USA became friend or foe.

Mandela died with the world weeping in respect. When Mugabe goes, Zimbabwe will be weeping as well but in infamy, not respect. Mandela stayed for one election and he was determined to use his time to improve South Africa as best he could. To the contrary, Mugabe ran for himself in multiple elections, which have drawn opposition from critics who claim the elections were undemocratic. He has been in office since 1987. History will remember Mandela kindly but will shun the long serving Zimbabwean President.

Under Mugabe, Zimbabwe has almost become a failed state, while South Africa limps along under poor leaders like Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma. Despite these recent failures, South Africa will always have the legacy of Mandela to be proud of and a standard worth remembering, set by the likes of Rovina prisoners from theAfrican National Congress (ANC). Thus, the southern African example displays the two kinds of leadership. Mandela a success and Mugabe a failure. Although Burma is a world away, ASSK will be judged in exactly the same manner as the likes of Mandela and Mugabe.

In February of 1999, my partner and I were admitted into the headquarters of the National League for Democracy, a little wooden home really, and met ASSK. Like Mandela and Mugabe, ASSK had been disenfranchised from her government. She had been placed under house arrest, where she remained for over a decade. Due to her situation, everyone told us we would be unable to meet with her. My taxi driver whispered to me “she gives out rice once a week” and drove us past the NLD headquarters. My partner sat inside in a sarong. She waited and waited. Finally, a white Toyota drove up close to the entrance. Quickly, a woman in white jumped out and dashed inside. There were many soldiers around the general area. My partner waited as ASSK met her followers and discussed matters. Finally her opportunity came, and she asked ASSK if she would meet me. Fortunately, she agreed.

My partner came out and got me. I spent about 15 to 20 minutes speaking with ASSK. I got her autograph and a few photos. Her words were simple and clear, “tell everyone to keep unity and strength. If we stay as one movement, we will do fine.” Leaving Rangoon that night felt awfully good. Not many beyond the diplomats had even seen her for years, and thus I felt our trip had been wonderfully successful.

The next month I sent a delegation with Ebet Roberts and Nancy Anderson to do the same visit, except this time to record. They did and brought back rare footage. I tried to give that footage to CNN as news but the producer told me “you are making news,” we do not make news we cover it. I asked him how would she call for a press conference to accommodate him since she was under house arrest? No answer and no coverage on CNN.

Now 17 years later, the Nobel winner and leader of Burma (I call it Burma until the 25 percent of military in parliament are no longer automatically part of the legal and legislative process) who won every district is struggling to get a hold of the vast government and deal with the people’s problems like education, health, housing and so on.

In part, her problems stem from Burma’s ethnic diversity. Historically, the tribes along the Thai border have resisted the Burman majority government. These tribes would like at least a “Montreal” type arrangement with their government. They have faced military abuse for years. Soldiers have become infamous for raping and killing tribe members. Despite their marginalization by the Bamar majority, the tribes threw in their support for ASSK. The political hopes of these tribes run high, and it will not be easy to meet those expectations by Rangoon’s new government.

Recently, when Secretary Kerry was in Rangoon, ASSK asked for time when it came to the issue of the Rohingya. In fact, she asked that that name Rohingya might be avoided so as to give her time to set this situation with the Rohingyas. All this sounds good until you dig into the facts of how the Rohingyas are treated on a daily basis.

The Rohingyas are a Muslim minority that has existed in Burma for centuries. This is a historical fact, though much of the Burman majority resist this fact. Buddhist monks are part and parcel of the opposition that are attacking, killing and relocating these people. The Buddhists feel that the Rohingyas are outsiders that threaten the sovereignty of the Burman people. Due to the opposition they face, the Rohingyas live in squalor. They do not possess papers and are not citizens because the government refuses to issue them passports. Simply put, they are poor and unprotected. Thousands have attempted to escape Burma by sea to avoid rape, regular beatings, burning of villages, and starvation. Unlike 17 years ago, when I attempted to give CNN the recordings of ASSK under house arrest, the Western press is on the case. Secretary Kerry raised this basic issue of human rights with ASSK.

Her response was lackluster. Instead of taking action, she wanted more time to address the issue. Furthermore, she asked the nations of the world to stop referring to the Rohingya, which can be seen as a concession to national extremists. I have been one of those urging space and time; however, we have simply run out of time. Human rights of the Rohingya must be protected. Not tomorrow but today. She must demand an end to the violence led by the Buddhist monks; the military and vigilantes need to step back. She must arrange with the United Nations to get foodstuff into this northeast area of Burma.

With their nutritional concerns cared for, ASSK must begin a process, legal and fair, to find out who is and who is not a citizen. National and international scholars must settle on criteria. The world’s decency cannot wait any longer. Steps to improve Burma can be taken immediately. These steps are normal and ASSK could get help from around the world if she chose. Although she is highly respected, if the human rights concerns of the Rohingya are not addressed, she is about to lose the halo given to her for her courage and determination to deliver freedom and democracy to her people. Before her lie two paths, one leads to a Mandela-like legacy and the other to infamy of Mugabe.

To travel towards the path taken by Mandela, ASSK needs to give herself the advice she gave to me and my partner... unity and strength. Stay united...Human Rights Now is not a slogan. It is a necessity for a democratic leader and a Nobel winner. The world is asking Aung San Suu Kyi to address this issue with compassion and decency. Despite the decades of abuse, these qualities will guarantee an eventual solution for Rohingyas.

Jack Healey is founder of Human Rights Action Center