The Myanmar Times
August 10, 2016

Aman Ullah 

RB Article
August 10, 2016

“If we want the nation to prosper, we must pool our resources, manpower, waelth, skill, and work together.’ General Aung San

We live in a time of great change, a time of new beginnings. We live in a time when many things are coming to an end.

In the evolution of democracy we are coming to the end of that phase of democracy that we think of as representative democracy. For centuries we have elected people to represent us, to give us voice in far-off forums, and then we have judged how well they represented us. Now the world is shifting from the long period of representative democracy to the direct democracy.

The world today is about the individual, not the state. It is about self-organization, just business has experienced the shift to self-management. The world is being run by the collective judgments and actions of individuals. The deployment of power is shifting from state to individual, from vertical to horizontal. Politics will reemerge as the engine of individualism. 

The world’s trends point overwhelmingly toward political independence and self-rule. The new era is an ear of self-rule for the peoples around the world. Self-rule is the pillar of democracy. People all over world are beginning to seize that opportunity. Many people of the world today want self-rule and everyday they see others getting self-rule, or moving toward it.

The Union of Burma was born on 4th January 1948 out of the joint efforts of all peoples of the country, on the basis of the Panglong Agreement signed on 12th February 1947 between General Aung San and leaders of ethnic nationalities to take independence together. The effort and contribution of every people, big or small, was equally important and great. Thus, the spirit of Panglong is very important for the perpetuation of a strong and stable Union of Burma. The Panglong Agreement was a Union Treaty to build an independent Burma — a Federal Union based on the agreed upon principle of “unity in diversity”. Unity in diversity means the people are different from one another. Their languages are different, their cultures are different, their religions are different, and their lifestyles are different. But they are all united to establish a union for a common purpose, for the common good, for sustainable development, and, above all, for the future of their people. “This Panglong Agreement assured the people of Burma of federal democracy, human rights, and equality. 

Unfortunately, a few months before Burma’s independence, General Aung San and almost all of his cabinet members were assassinated. Then, the Union of Burma was formed on the foundation of the 1947 semi-federal Constitution. And the rights the ethnic states which were granted were nominal than real. 

The identities and equality of the ethnic people were slowly eroded away. Nationalism, Burman control, and Buddhism have continued to be essential elements of political legitimacy and the endeavor to create national identity under all regimes. Almost immediately upon the independence, Burma was thrown into a series of brutal ethnic wars that have continued with varying intensity to this day. Thus, the Union of Burma today is facing unprecedented crisis- economic, social and political. Even the survival of the Union is also at stake.

The crisis in the Union of Burma today is rooted in political problem, specially a constitutional one that rooted in question of self-determination for non-Burman nationalities. Thus, these differences can be resolved through political means and through political process, i.e. through political dialogue, negotiations and compromise, and through establishing a genuine Federal Union of Burma, which will guarantee democratic rights for all citizens, political equality for all nationalities and the rights of self-determination for all member states of the Union. A federal system that combines and balances between “self-rule” for ethnic national homelands and a “shared-rule” for the Union is federal system.

General Aung San was a visionary leader who fully understood and accepted the aspirations of all the peoples of Burma including non-Burmans. The Union of Burma would not have been created without him. However, his assassination ended the vision he had. Now his daughter Daw Aung San Suu Kyi caught his vision and has said that we need a 3rd Panglong Conference. Now she is going to convene the 3rd Panglong conference which she terms as 21st Century Panglong Convention.

We, the Rohingya people warmly welcome this Convention and believe that in order to establish a stable, peaceful and prosperous nation, the process of rebuilding the Union must be based on a democratic process. We also believe that all political and democratic processes in Burma should be all-inclusive, and the Rohingya should be part of it. Time has come to practically revive and strengthen the Panglong spirit of ‘unity in diversity’ and diversity is strength not weakness. 

We, the Rohingyas, firmly believe that: 

1. The Rohingyas are an indigenous people characterized by objective criteria, such as historical continuity, and subjective factors including self-identification, which need to define an indigenous people, and entitled to have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Being indigenous peoples, they have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, economic, social and cultural characteristics, as well as their legal systems, while retaining their rights to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of State. They have not only the right to a nationality but also have the right to their lands, territories and resources, which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spirituals traditions, histories and philosophies. 
2. The Rohingyas are much more than a national minority. They are a nation with a population of 3.5 million (both home and abroad), having a supporting history, separate culture, civilization, language and literature, historically settled territory and reasonable size of population and area – they consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the society. They are determined not only to preserve and develop their ancestral history and their ethnic identity, but also to transmit to future generations as the basis of their continued existence as people, in accordance with their own cultural pattern, social institution and legal system. 
3. The individual rights is not enough for us; we need our collective rights as a people, as an ethnic group, as a nationality who speak different language, who practice different culture, who worship different religion and who also has different historical background and, above all, all of us have territorially clearly defined homelands and nations since time immemorial. 
4. We want to rule our homeland by ourselves. 
5. We have to find a political and legal system which will allow us to rule our respective homelands by ourselves, and at same time living peacefully together with others who practice different religions and cultures and speak different languages. In other words, we have to find a political system which can combine and balance between “self-rule” for different ethnic groups and “shared-rule” for all the peoples in the Union of Burma. 

The ethnic Rohingya is one of the many nationalities of the union of Burma. They are fighting for their very survival as a people. They are struggling for their “ Rights of self-determination”: which will guarantees their collective rights; the right to rule their homeland by themselves, the right to practice their religious teaching and culture freely, the right to teach, learn and promote their language freely, and the right to up-hold their identity without fear and live peacefully together with others.

We, therefore, claims that the ultimate goal of our struggle is to establish a genuine Federal Union of Burma, which will guarantee democratic rights for all citizens, political equality for all nationalities and the rights of self-determination for all member states of the Union including the ethnic Rohingya. 

By Tun Khin 

Huffington Post
August 10, 2016

Earlier this year the United Nations published a report ‘Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar’, which concluded that human rights violations against us could amount to crimes against humanity.

The report also stated that the government of Burma needed to take urgent action to end the anti-Rohingya policies of past governments. The response of the NLD led government and rest of the international community was silence. Once again, evidence of violations of international law have been provided, and once again no action has been taken. Our suffering goes on.

Worse, the day after the UN report was published, European Union diplomats based in Burma announced that in response to a demand by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to avoid using the word Rohingya, they would also not use the word Rohingya when talking about Rohingya people.

The denial of our ethnic identity is an integral part of the discrimination that we face. Nationalists and the government administration under former President Thein Sein have deliberately and tactically escalated controversy over the use of the name Rohingya as part of their campaign to say we are not an ethnic group in Burma and don’t belong there. They called us Bengali instead, claiming we are immigrants from Bangladesh. Instead of standing up to these people and their lies, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has said because the name is controversial, diplomats should call us ‘Muslims from Rakhine state’.

This is seen as a victory by nationalists. Rather than being pacified by this so-called compromise, they are now demanding the Burmese government officially call us Bengali. Not calling us Rohingya has encouraged them. In effect, the government of Burma and European Union have sided with racists and nationalists rather than with the oppressed and vulnerable.

My people are dying in the camps where they fled to four years ago after they fled mobs burning their homes and villagers. They are dying in part because the new government has kept in place severe restrictions on delivery of aid. In towns and villages my people live in poverty and fear, afraid of attack or arrest at any time. My people are denied the right to travel around the country, are denied citizenship, and denied the right to vote. We are denied access to healthcare. Our children are denied access to higher and university education. We had so much hope in an NLD government, but so far, since they came to power, things have continued to get worse, not better.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi says her government needs time and space to deal with this issue. As Rohingya we understand that there is much hatred against us in Burma. Fully addressing this will take time. But in the short term restrictions on aid can be lifted, action taken against those inciting hatred and violence, and the process of reforming the 1982 citizenship law which is at the root of depriving us of so many of our rights, could be started. My people are dying and suffering so much, we don’t have time. We need action now.

At the same time, violations of law don’t get much more serious than crimes against humanity. Yet having concluded that these crimes might be happening, no action is being taken by the UN or government of Burma. Imagine if a police force said a murder had been committed, but we are not going to investigate it. That’s the equivalent of what the United Nations are doing now.

At a time when there is so much hope for so many others in Burma, this is our most desperate hour. Pressure needs to be placed on the NLD led government to lift government restrictions on humanitarian aid to the Rohingya still living in squalid camps four years after being forced to flee their homes. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi must be made to live up to her previous statement that the discriminatory 1982 citizenship law should be reviewed. And the United Nations must establish an international investigation into human rights violations against my people. Next month’s UN General Assembly sessions are the opportunity to do this.

Report after report have concluded that multiple violations of international law are being committed against the Rohingya. No government can say they don’t know what is going on. It is to their shame that they allowed it to carry on.

Tun Khin is President of Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK and Leading voice of the Rohingya in Exile.

By Anadolu Agency
August 9, 2016

Outside of central planes, flooding across western Rakhine State - home to Rohingya Muslims - also affected 1000s of people

YANGON, Myanmar -- Around 360,000 people have been temporarily displaced in Myanmar as of Tuesday with the low-lying regions of the country continuing to see an increase in water levels.

Incessant downpours over the past five weeks have brought floods to eight regions along the three main rivers of the country, including the Ayeyawady -- the country's main inland waterway that flows from north to south.

Though the level of the Ayeyawady has gradually dipped, the numbers of flood victims have been on the rise as some regions in the central and southern parts remain underwater.

“Some relief camps in upper parts of the country are closed, but the dangerous water levels in the lower parts affect more and more people,” Soe Aung, the permanent secretary of Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement, told Anadolu Agency on Tuesday.

Geographically, Myanmar sees itself in two sections -- upper Myanmar (the north and central parts, and mostly higher regions) and lower Myanmar (the south and southeast, which are mostly low-lying areas).

Nearly 360,000 people have been displaced in Magway, Mandalay, Sagaing, Kachin, Ayeyarwady, Mon, Yangon and Bago regions by widespread flooding with heavy rains from a storm in the Bay of Bengal sweeping across the country, according to data from Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement

“About 200,000 displaced people are in central Magway regions,” said Soe Aung.

“However no casualties have been reported yet.”

After days of torrential rains early last month, flooding across Western Rakhine State -- the home to a majority of the country's Rohingya Muslims -- also affected thousands of people and forced more than 400 schools to suspend classes.

Floods are common in Myanmar during the monsoon period that begins May to June and runs to July and August.

Last year, almost 100 people died and around one million people were affected by flooding across the country, according to the government.

Reporting by Kyaw Ye Lynn; Writing by Marcus Brogden

By Radio Free Asia

August 8, 2016

Myanmar’s central government is demolishing Buddhist and Islamic religious structures across the country that were built on state-owned land without permission from state or regional officials, director of the Ministry of Culture and Religious Affairs Myint Win Zaw said Thursday.

“Every religion in Myanmar has to follow rules and regulations,” he told RFA’s Myanmar Service. “We announced this in newspapers to let people know that every person and organization needs permission to build religious buildings.”

The government grants permission to build mosques, temples, and pagodas called stupas to people who obtain proper documents, including recommendations or agreements from the state or regional governments and local organizations and residents, he said.

“If there are religious buildings that were built without permission, we will remove them, and we will take action against those who constructed them if they don’t listen to us when we tell them to remove them,” Myint Win Zaw said.

The government is now removing 173 Buddhist monasteries in lower Myanmar’s Yangon region and 86 monasteries in other states and regions that were constructed without official permission, he said.

The central government’s actions come as authorities in northern Myanmar’s Kachin state arrested five local villagers who led a Buddhist mob that burned down a mosque on July 1 in Lebyin Village of Lone Khin Village Tract of Hpakant township.

Several days prior to the incident, township authorities told trustees of the mosque that they would have to demolish the structure because it had not been legally authorized for religious purposes, according to a report in the online journal The Irrawaddy.

The trustees removed three extensions to the mosque, but refused to demolish one part because it had been funded by private donations, the report said.

Authorities charged the trustees with violating the Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Lands Management Law of 2012, but the mob burned down the structure before legal proceedings could begin, it said.

The five people responsible for the incident will be tried in court in Kachin state, Myint Win Zaw said.

Pagoda-building spree

Tensions between majority Buddhists and minority Muslims in various parts of the country flare up from time to time over the building of religious structures.

Buddhist monk Myaing Kyee Ngu, also known as U Thuzana, has been erecting stupas on the grounds of churches and mosques in eastern Myanmar’s Karen State since April in an act of defiance to supposedly reclaim ancient Buddhist lands.

Despite objections by religious authorities, Myaing Kyee Ngu and his supporters built several stupas on the grounds of St. Mark Anglican church in Kondawgyi village of Hlaingbwe township and elsewhere in the village.

In June, an angry mob of about 200 Buddhists destroyed parts of a mosque and a house belonging to a Muslim family following a disagreement between a Muslim man and a Buddhist over the building of a Muslim school in Thuye Thamain village in south-central Myanmar’s Bago region.

The Muslim man suffered head injuries during the attack, and 70 Muslim residents sought overnight shelter in a local police station.

Reported by Wai Mar Tun for RFA’s Myanmar Service. Translated by Khet Mar. Written in English by Roseanne Gerin.

By Scroll.in
August 7, 2016

Denied citizenship and persecuted in their home country of Myanmar, the Muslim minority group has found some semblance of acceptance in cities like Hyderabad.

A diminutive concrete structure on Hyderabad’s rocky fringes is home to the only school for Rohingya refugees in India. Here, from 9 am to 4 pm everyday, 110 children seated on thin, striped rugs, solve simple maths problems and recite the alphabet in halting Hindi and English.

“Hindi class is my favourite,” Muhammad Yacin, a lanky 10-year old in a flowing kurta told me before he darted out to play. Outside, unfinished construction sites and a stretch of patchy grass double as a playground.

The school – set up by Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, the Centre’s programme to ensure universal elementary education, Save the Children Foundation and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in June – is so far from the thrum of city life that a Rohingya student can walk a kilometer without seeing an Indian, said Srinivas Reddy, the school’s in-charge. But it guarantees each student a set of clothes, three square meals a day – and for most here, their first-ever experience of formal schooling.

Living without a state

The Rohingya, whom the United Nations groups among the most persecuted minorities in the world, are an ethnic Muslim group from the Buddhist-majority Rakhine state in Myanmar. A majority of Hyderabad’s 3,500 Rohingya arrived in India between 2012 and 2013 by boat, foot and train, after a wave of sectarian violence between Buddhists and Rohingya engulfed Rakhine and drove 1,40,000 Rohingya from their homes. They have been a stateless people since 1982, when the Burmese Citizenship Act labelled the Rohingya illegal Bangladeshi migrants, effectively stripping them of citizenship in Myanmar.

Nearly every Rohingya on foreign land has one – or multiple – tales of a harrowing escape. Yet the11,000-odd Rohingya, thousands of Afghan Muslims and others seeking shelter in India from war and persecution – were conspicuously absent from a list of persecuted minorities whom the Cabinet last month offered a host of concessions.

According to the announcement, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan staying in India on long-term visas may now open bank accounts, purchase residential and commercial property, and apply for a driver’s license as well as PAN or Aadhaar card.

The Cabinet also relaxed citizenship registration fees to a uniform Rs 100 (from upwards of Rs 3,000) and empowered district collectors in 16 districts across seven states to grant citizenship.

This stands in stark contrast to the lengthy series of interviews that other refugees and asylum-seekers, like the Rohingya, go through to obtain refugee status, a UNHCR refugee card and a long-term visa. While most of the Rohingya in Hyderabad live peacefully, uncertainty haunts their rebooted lives.

“Like anyone without work, we go to the adda – a place where unorganised labourers go to look for odd jobs daily. If we find something, we’ll do it. If I’m a builder, I’ll do construction work,” 27-year-old Muhammad Zubair said in a crowded tarpaulin tent in Camp 1, a hovel of around 100 families in the Balapur area of Hyderabad's Old City. Zubair said he works for 10 to 12 days each month.

Most of Hyderabad’s Rohingya live in makeshift camps and small settlements on donated land scattered across the city’s outskirts. Sizable Rohingya refugee populations also live in Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir, and West Bengal.

The Rohingya school in Balapur aims to pull its students – most of whose parents work as rag-pickers, laborers, and factory-workers – out of this penury. Whatever the children's legal status, (all 110 students have UNHCR refugee cards, which can be renewed every two years), the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan, which funds the school, sees reason to proactively help.

“We aren’t interested in their background," said G Kishan, the state project director of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. "We have to provide the [Rohingya] with minimum basic rights, like education. Otherwise they can grow up to become anti-social elements. They can create any kind of issue tomorrow."

India’s opaque refugee policy

For decades, rights activists and academics have criticised India’s treatment of refugees for being influenced by political priorities. India is anot a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol – which govern how 144 nations address refugees. And while the country has a long history of accepting refugees from South Asia and beyond, it has never formalised them within a national legal framework.

This has meant that while vast numbers of Sri Lankan Tamil and Tibetans have benefitted from direct aid either by state or Central governments, other refugee groups, who have been in the country for years, like Afghans, Rohingya, Somalis, Iraqis and others, are left to the limited purview of the UNHCR. This division persists with little explanation.

In this arbitrary system, the UNHCR operates out of Delhi and in other cities via partner organisations to issue refugee cards to those to whom it grants refugee status. The card improves a refugee’s access to basic services like education and healthcare while providing some protection from detention and deportation, said Ipshita Sengupta of the UNHCR. It is also a launching point to apply for long-term visas.

In 2011, the UNHCR said there were more than 2,00,000 refugees and asylum seekers in India, most of whom are Sri Lankan Tamils and Tibetans. Others claim the number is higher. As of June 2016, only 36,500 refugees and asylum-seekers in the country were registered with the UNHCR.

Consonant with the BJP’s 2014 election manifesto that declared the country “a natural home for persecuted Hindus,” last week’s Cabinet move, first introduced in 2015 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, not only skirts the issue of inconsistency, it expands it by dividing refugees in India by religion.

"While India has accepted several refugees from countries in the region, it is important that it end the ad-hoc nature of its refugee policy and the uncertainty and arbitrariness in the treatment of asylum-seekers and refugees,” said Shailesh Rai, senior policy advisor at Amnesty International India to Scroll.in via email.

To Rohingya refugees like Zubair, India is somewhere to stay. He reached Hyderabad in 2013 after crossing the Naf River from Rakhine state into Bangladesh. There, he stayed in Cox’s Bazar, where 35,000 Rohingya live in squalid government-run camps, for two days before he left for the Indian border. Distant family that was already here told him that Hyderabad was friendly to the Rohingya.

“I became a refugee in India,” he said, pointing to his UNHCR card on the floor. “Here, we’re getting a ration, sometimes work and we have this card. Why would I leave?”

1990 Multi-Party Democracy General Elections And

The Rohingyas’ Enfranchisement 

Aman Ullah

RB Article

August 7, 2016

“The elections of 1990 are an important landmark in the modern history of Burma. After three decades... almost three decades...of military dictatorship, finally the people of Burma were going to be able to vote for a government of their choice. The elections of 1990 were free and fair. It was one of the freest and fairest that had taken place in this region at that time. But unfortunately, the results of the elections were not honoured”.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi 

1990 Multi-Party Democracy General Elections, contested by 93 political parties, was sponsored by the military junta on 27 May 1990 after it took over the power of state on 18 September 1988. The people of Burma voted overwhelmingly for a democratic Parliament. It was free and fair and affirmed as such by the Burmese people and the world.

The people exercised their right to freely choose candidates to represent them in a Pyithu Hluttaw (People’s Parliament)in keeping with the democratic principles that “sovereign power lies with the people which is transferred by way of elections “.

In accordance with Article 2 (a) of the Pyithu Hluttaw Election Law (State Law and Order Restoration Council, Law No.14/89 of 31 May 1989), the elections held on 27 May 1990, is for the Pyithu Hluttaw (People’s Parliament) and not for a Constituent Assembly.

The Article 21 (3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that, “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures”. The will of the Burmese people has been obviously expressed in the May 1990 elections in Burma.

In this election, among the 492 constituencies election was held in 485 constituencies where more than two thousand candidates participated. There were 20,818,313 eligible voters in 485 constituencies and 15, 112,524 votes casted where 13,253,606 votes were valid.

In this election the Rohingyas were not only allowed to vote but also, in their exercise of franchise, elected four Rohingya members of Parliament. U Chit Lwin (a) Ebrahim, Mr. Fazal Ahmed, U Kyaw Min (a) Shomshul Anwarul Haque, and U Tin Maung (a) Nur Ahmed have been elected as members of the Parliament.

National League for Democracy fielded 447 candidates. Of them, 392 got elected. There were altogether 485 constituencies. Shan Nationalities League for Democracy (SNLD) won 23 seats. Arakan League for Democracy (ALD) won eleven. National Unity Party (NUP) won ten. Mon National Democratic Front (MNDF) won five and National Democratic Party for Human Rights won 4 seats. 

In Arakan State NLD won in 9 seats; Arakan League for Democracy (ALD) won 11 seats; National Democratic Party for Human Rights (NDPHR) won 4, Kamans National League for Democracy and Mro or Khami National Solidarity Organization won 1 seat each. The total votes for NLD winners were 1,77, 999; the total votes for ALD and othe Rakhine Parties were 1,97,536; the total votes for NDPHR and other Rohingya parties including Kamans one were 2,05,367, and The Mro get 28,500 votes.

The candidates who won in 1990 election from the National Democratic Party for Human Rights (NDPHR) are as follows : -

1. U Kyaw Min

U Kyaw Min (aka) Shamsul Anowarul Hoque was elected from Buthidaung (1) Constituency with 30,997 valid votes from 41,668 valid votes, where 58, 449 eligible voters and 46, 065 voters were casted in the 1990 elections. The SLORC banned the NDPHR under order No. 8/92 on 18 March 1992, and at the time U Kyaw Min was a member of the party’s Central Executive Committee.

U Kyaw Min, son of Fazar Rahman, was born in the village "Mikyanzay" under Buthidaung Township in Arakan State of Burma in 1944. He was graduated from the Rangoon Institute of Economics in 1968 with a Bachelor of Economics degree and in 1983; he received a Diploma in Education from the Institute of Education Rangoon.

He joined to the Education Department of Burma in 1969 and served there as a Senior Assistant Teacher (SAT) up to 1985 in various state schools in Arakan. He was promoted to Headmaster of State Middle School in TanBazaar, Buthidaung, in 1985. However, he was dismissed from his post in 1989 due to his involvement in the August 1988 uprising. 

He joined the Committee Representing the People's Parliament (CRPP) in 1998 at the invitation of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to represent the Rohingya ethnic minority. The National Unity Party (UNP) also invited him to join NUP to support military backed national convention after resigning from CRPP. But he did not agree and this has caused serious wrath of the military rulers and the ultimate consequence was the handing of 47 years imprisonment. 

In 1992, he was put in detention for 3 months in the custody of the military intelligence during operation Pye Thaya. In 1994, then the military intelligence again put him in detention for 45 days. Finally, in March 2005, he was arrested from his residence in Rangoon and was charged under Section 18 Citizenship Law 1982 and section 5(j) Anti State Emergency Law. He has been sentenced to 47 years imprisonment and at the same time his wife Daw Tiza, his two daughters Kin Kin Nu and Way Way Nu and his son Maung Aung Naing have also been sentenced to 17 years imprisonment respectively. 

2. U Tin Maung (aka) Nur Ahmed

U Tin Maung (aka) Nur Ahmed was elected from Buthidaung (2) Constituency with 20,045 valid votes from 40,143 valid votes, where 55,095 eligible voters and 46,037 voters were casted in the 1990 elections. U Tin Maung was the Chairman of the NDPHR when the SLORC banned the party in 1992.

U Ting Maung, son of U Saiful Mulluk , was born in 1928 in Phone Nyo Lake village of Buthidaung. His early education was at Buthidaung State High School. After matriculation he attended to the two years Health Assistant Training Course in Insein, Rangoon from 1954-1956. After the training he joined to the department Anti-Malaria Unit in Buthidaung as Unit Head. Later he served as a Health Assistance Officer in Buthidaung and Sandoway Township till 1968. Then he abandoned his job and joined to the Rohinya Independent Force (RIF) as a full time member but back to Buthidaung 1n 1978. 

3. U Chit Lwin (aka) Ibrahim

U Chit Lwin (aka) Ibbrahim was elected from Maungdaw (1) Constituency with 20,045 valid votes from 64,019 valid votes; where 87,174 eligible voters and 73,633 voters were casted in the 1990 elections. U Chit Lwin was Vice-Chairman of the NDPHR when the SLORC banned the party in 1992.

U Chit Lwin, son of Master Siddique Ahmed, was born in 1946 in Myuthugyi village of Maungdaw. His early education was at State High School Maungdaw. He was graduated with a Bachelor of Commerce degree from the Rangoon Institute of Economic, in 1967. He also received a Post-Graduate Diploma of Economic Planning in 1977 from the Institute of Economics in Rangoon. Later he pursued Register of Account and Register of Law (RL) also. He is a certified accountant and auditor also.

He joined t the Ministry of Planning and Finance and served there from 1967-1983. Since 1984, he practices law as an advocate at the High Court.

4. U Fazal Ahmed 

U Fazal Ahmed was elected from Maungdaw (2) Constituency with 24,881 valid votes from 58,230 valid votes; where 84,166 eligible voters and 58,230 voters were casted in the 1990 elections. . He was a Central Executive Committee member of the NDPHR when the SLORC banned the party in 1992.

U Fazal Ahmed, son of U Mohammed Kalu, was born in 1941 in Basuba village of Maungdaw. His early education was at State High School Maungdaw. After finishing his High School education, in 1960, he joined to Deputy Commissioner’s Office in Maungdaw as a clerk and he served in various offices in Maungdaw, Buthidaung, Kyauk Taw, Kaukpyu, Taungup, and Sittwe in Arakan State. Later he passed the higher grade pleader (HGP) examination and he started working as a private lawyer.

KAMANS NATIONAL LEAGUE FOR DEMOCRACY (KNLD)

U Shwe Ya

U Shwe Ya was elected from Akyab / Sittway (1) Constituency with 9,821 valid votes from 30,332 valid votes; where 49,899 eligible voters and 36,441 voters were casted in the 1990 elections. The SLORC banned the KNLD on 11 March 1992. Following the 1990 election, the ALD candidate for Sittwe 1, U Maung Thazan, accused U Shwe Ya of cheating in the election. The Election Commission subsequently launched an investigation into the matter but the case was dismissed.

U Shwe Ya, son of U Shwe Maung, was born in Akyab town in 1955. He is a Kaman Muslim. His early Education was at State High School Kyaukpyu. After Matriculation he joined in the General Administrative Department in Myebon , Arakan State, in 1974. Later he pursued his L.L.B degree as a correspondent student from Rangoon Art and Science University. After obtaining his LLB degree he joined to the court as a lawyer. 

The elections of 1990 were free and fair. It was one of the freest and fairest that had taken place in this region at that time. But unfortunately, the results of the elections were not honoured. The people exercised their right to freely choose candidates to represent them in a Pyithu Hluttaw (People’s Parliament)in keeping with the democratic principles that “sovereign power lies with the people which is transferred by way of elections“.

The Rohingyas were not only permitted to vote but also to form their own political parties during the May 1990 election. Two parties were formed the Students and Youth League for Mayu Development and the National Democratic and Human Rights (NDPHR).The NDPHR won all four seats in Maung Daw and Buthidaung constituencies, and in each constituency votes for the two parties counted for 80 per cent of the total votes cast. Moreover, the turnout in both constituencies equaled the national average, at 70 per cent of eligible voters. The NDPHR also fielded candidates in four other constituencies; Kyuk Taw-1, Minbya-1, Mrauk U -2 and Sittwe -2, and they gained an average of 17 per cent of the votes while the Government- backed National Unity Party got only 13 per cent. 

Although the name of Rohingya was not permitted to use in the party title, the NDPHR was allowed to produce a booklet in Burmese called ‘Arakan and the Rohingya people: a short History’ on August 31, 1991. According to the NDPHR sources, the permission to print this booklet was rescinded two months later. 

This election was held under the Constitution of 1974 and according 1982 Citizenship Law. Under the1989 election law ‘all citizens, associate citizens and naturalized citizens are permitted to vote, but only the citizens are allowed to stand for election. No foreign residents were allowed to vote.’ Thus, allowing taking part in the national elections was clearly indicated that these people were eligible voters and full citizens. In other words we can say that the then government clearly recognized these Rohingyas as citizens till 1990 in accordance with the Constitution of 1974 and 1982 Citizenship Law. 

By Benar News

August 5, 2016

Thai authorities said they plan to charge and deport 62 undocumented migrants from Myanmar, including five Rohingya Muslims, who were arrested after human smugglers left them in a house near Thailand’s southern border with Malaysia.

The 62 were waiting to cross into Malaysia illegally but were taken into Thai custody Tuesday after being found at a townhouse in Padang Besar, a subdistrict of Songkhla province, officials said.

Padang Besar is the same area where dozens of graves of trafficked Rohingya and Bangladeshi migrants were found in the jungle in May 2015. That discovery precipitated a Thai crackdown on human smuggling that contributed to a regional migration crisis.

Meanwhile, some 139 graves of other victims of human-smuggling were discovered on the other side of the border in northern Malaysia’s Perlis state.

At around that time, thousands of Rohingyas and Bangladeshis came ashore in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia after being abandoned in smugglers’ boats adrift in the Andaman Sea and Strait of Malacca.

“The 62 immigrants have been detained and questioned at Padang Besar police station. The police have been interrogating them, and will press charges of illegal entry. They intend to deport them to where they came from,” Lt. Col. Prapan Areebambud, deputy chief of the police station in Padang Besar, told Benar News on Thursday.

Police were notified about the group of undocumented foreigners by a woman from Myanmar who was being kept in the same house but managed to sneak out, according to the superintendent of the Thai police anti-human trafficking branch in Songkhla.

“We interrogated a Myanmar woman who escaped from the house to seek help from authorities. She said Thai and Malaysian brokers brought them from border checkpoints in Mae Sod district, in Tak province, and the border in Ranong province, and they each paid them 200,000 kyats (U.S. $168.50),” said the superintendent, Police Col. Narong Tedwiboon, referring to Thai provinces along the border with Myanmar.

“They were kept there for five days, waiting for the next brokers to take them into Malaysia, but no one came. They were afraid that they were cheated, so she sneaked out to seek help from authorities,” Narong told BenarNews.

‘Way too small’

Malaysia, a predominantly Muslim and relatively prosperous country, has been a prime destination in Southeast Asia for Rohingyas, with southern Thailand serving as an overland transit route for many.

Rohingyas belong to a stateless minority in Buddhist-dominated Myanmar whose members have been fleeing ethnic and religious persecution in Rakhine state, in search of better employment and educational prospects abroad.

Last year’s crackdown on human-smuggling in Thailand resulted in arrests warrants being issued for 153 suspected members of a transnational ring linked to the jungle graves in Padang Besar. Ninety-two of the suspects, including an army general, police officers, and some local officials, are standing trial in Bangkok on human-trafficking charges.

Nu Muhammad, a Rohingya expat who has lived in Thailand for more than 10 years, said human-smuggling into the country from Myanmar will go on on because operators at the ground level have not been caught, he said.

“The traffickers are using land routes because they can no longer go by sea,” he told BenarNews.

A trafficker in Padang Besar, who declined to reveal her real name, indicated that many more people were being trafficked through the area on their way to Malaysia.

“The arrest of 62 is way too small. To traffic [such] a small number is not worth the economy of scale,” she said, adding that human trafficking in the area was bouncing back after a lull that followed last year’s crackdown.

By The Editor

RB Opinion

August 4, 2016

When asked to seek the truth behind the current arrests concerning an alleged meeting between a Saudi National, a Bangladeshi MP and the "RSO leader", my immediate thought was; the truth is hard to come by. My next thought was of the possible implications that renewed talks of RSO activity can have on Myanmar's troubled Rakhine (Arakan) state. 

Let's just touch on the RSO for a minute. The RSO stands for the Rohingya Solidarity Organization and is a group regarded as a terrorist organisation on both sides of the Bangladesh/Myanmar border. In 1982 the RSO was said to have emerged as a sort of military wing from local groups fighting for Rohingya citizenship. The reality is, other than some old allegations of attacks against Myanmar defence posts, group at the height of its activity was not that serious of threat of terrorism. After the early 2000's, Myanmar political parties began exchanging information with the USA as there were rumours of the RSO being in contact with Al-Qaeda. At which time operations went into action and the scattered militants were largely believed to have been disarmed/arrested in Rakhine state and there hasn't been any real evidence of militant training or arms caches in the name of the RSO in Myanmar since then. So, why should the RSO name be popping up now? Probably because it's convenient for governments on both sides of the border. Here's some things that you should consider: 

In Myanmar, one of the most effective arsenals of anti-Muslim hate groups such as the notorious 969 have been stoking fears of terrorism and Islamic militants in Rakhine state for many years. After the Rohingya lost their citizenship, local fears of the RSO as a militant group was no doubt part of the justification of what started the crackdown on the Rohingya's right of movement. This of course eventually escalated to the massive Rohingya IDP crisis currently in Rakhine state. The RSO still a sensitive subject in Rakhine state, so much that the Rohingya community shuddered at the recent news coming out of Cox's Bazar. 

In Bangladesh, the country is seeing an unprecedented amount of attacks being claimed by militant groups over the past year. The ruling Government has come under international pressure to address what is being portrayed in the media as a rise of Islamic terrorism in the country. Bangladesh is has a population of around 160 million people and over 80% of them Muslim and led by a secular government. The Political situation is not good here and deteriorating. The Awami League, are notorious for calling for the arrest of BNP opposition members and leaders. They have recently been executing leaders of the main Islamic Political Party the Jamaat - e - Islami (conviction of war crimes during the War against Pakistan that claimed Bangladesh’s independence. The JI fought against independence with Pakistan at the time.) The government ever fearful of renewed ideas of Islamic party coalitions seek to discredit Islamic political parties as terrorist threats. Keep in mind, both the JI and BNP have proven more sympathetic to the Rohingya refugee crisis in Cox’s Bazar. During Ramadan, Bangladesh government arrested well over 11’000 people in the name of investigating terrorism and targeted many members of Islamic Political Parties. 

Not long before all of this talk of terrorism, the main issue at the Myanmar/Bangladesh border wasn’t militants or even for refugee hopefuls attempting to gain entry into Bangladesh. The issue has been Drugs. Specifically, the trafficking of Yaba (methamphetamine) tablets from Myanmar into Bangladesh. Once in the country, drug dealers enlist from an unlimited supply of vulnerable undocumented Rohingya girls to sell the product in Cox’s Bazar. Arrested refugee females filling the local prisons and no laws written to protect them in the country.

The local and international NGO community have also been targeted in the long list of government led arrests. Several foreign nationals have been arrested on separate occasions in the weeks leading up to this alleged RSO related arrest. All parties and their local helpers were arrested in an attempt to distribute money or aid to unregistered Rohingya refugees in the Teknaf area. Over 200’000 undocumented Rohingya live in this area alone and as they are undocumented they cannot be registered for aid. Small foreign NGO’s who cannot acquire permission often attempt to bring some aid to these people, but as of late, any foreign NGO workers outside of those invited by Bangladesh’s Government controlled UNHCR are arrested while visiting the target areas.

So, what seems to have happened in Cox’s Bazar these Teknaf and alleged border arrests seemed to be a perfectly timed opportunity. An MP, notorious for being involved in the Yaba drug trade in the same general area as a foreign national visits a makeshift refugee area near Myanmar’s border with a man dubbed as a terrorist because of ties with an Islamic political party with the intention of distributing unapproved aid. The MP says he was in Inani (that’s a good hour’s drive from Teknaf, when he said he heard of the arrest) when decided to visit to inquire about the situation. Meanwhile, the BGB are reporting of arrests at the border and that they are investigating the connection between the three incidences as a possible meeting or operation for terrorism. 

The product of this is that the Bangladesh government gets a few more opposition members and a (rumoured to be corrupt, but most likely peaceful local people) attempting to help a foreign national offer some relief to some poor people. Any connection between the MP and the arrested men at the border is most likely drug deal related. That’s if the arrest there actually happened. Local news between border guards on both sides of the border shows sharp contrast. Frequent announcements on the Bangladesh side of repatriating small pockets of refugees, in an effort to taunt the Registered Refugee community at pick at the wounds of the history of forced repatriation by the hands of the BNP who were the ruling government at the time. The next week the Myanmar side will reply to the allegation and deny the occurrence taking place. We may never get full details or concrete proof this border arrest indeed happened.

Having a man listed to be RSO in these arrests further strengthens the government’s argument for their harsh stance against unapproved aid serving the Rohingya community while at the same time sparks rumours in Myanmar and generating a fear that often leads to tense situations in Rakhine resulting in further Mobility crackdown on the Rohingya. It leaves the Rohingya on both sides of the border vulnerable to random searches from authorities in the name of investigating terrorism. These searches, like most things in these affected areas are corrupt. It gives the lower level police an additional means to extort the Rohingya for money.

That’s pretty much my take on it. I can’t offer you the truth about the men involved. As I said, at this point the truth is hard to come by. Will hope that more information surfaces through investigation of the foreign national. The main thing is not to panic and the RSO are most likley not a threat to anyone, other than the problems that a story about their existence can create for the Rohingya of Arakan.

Written by RB Editor based in Bangladesh.

By Radio Free Asia

August 3, 2016

The Myanmar government is arranging more security for State Counselor and Foreign Affairs Minister Aung San Suu Kyi after her name appeared on a hit list sent by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militant group to police in Malaysia, a government spokesman said Wednesday.

Her name was listed along with those of Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, the attorney general, inspector general of police, and three ministers. The list was sent on Monday to a police station in the town of Nilai in the Seremban district of Sembilan state on the western coast of peninsular Malaysia, according to Malaysian media reports.

“After hearing the threat information, we have to be very careful and work on checking, investigating, and preparing [additional] security,” said Zaw Htay, spokesman of the President’s Office.

“We don’t need to worry too much, but we also can’t underestimate it,” he said.

Malaysian police are trying to identify the sender, while forensics experts are examining the letter, which also claimed that there could be more than 700 ISIS members in Negeri Sembilan. Police received a similar letter two months ago, but did not provide any details, the reports said.

About 61 percent of Malaysia’s population of more than 30 million people are Muslim.

The Myanmar government provides its state VIPs with four types of security in the form of bodyguards, close protection, executive protection, and escorts, Zaw Htay said.

The country’s security officials have already studied the operational methods of ISIS terrorists, and they remain concerned about the possible penetration of ISIS terrorist attacks in Myanmar, he said.

“Although they [ISIS militants] are based in Iraq and Syria, they usually carry out attacks with home- grown networks of terrorist cells,” he said. “We have to check for home-grown terrorist cells very carefully.”

Even though it is difficult for terrorist organizations to take root in Myanmar, security officials are not underestimating ISIS, he said.

“It is especially important for young people not to be persuaded to serve in terrorist organizations,” he said. “Religious leaders, people, and government are responsible for seeing to it.”

Earlier death threat

Aung San Suu Kyi’s security detail was beefed up in February after a man posted a death threat on Facebook, alluding to her presidential ambitions after her National League of Democracy (NLD) party won national elections in November 2015.

The man named Ye Lwin Myint threatened to shoot anyone who attempted to change a clause in the constitution that bars Aung San Suu Kyi from the nation’s top office because her two sons are foreign nationals, as was her late husband, Agence France-Presse reported.

She is nevertheless viewed as Myanmar’s de facto leader under the administration of her close friend and aide President Htin Kyaw.

ISIS, which controls areas of war-town Iraq and Syria, routinely makes threats against national leaders of other countries who are “non-believers” of Islam or who govern areas where Muslims are said to be suppressed.

Myanmar’s Muslim minority group is often on the receiving end of hate speech and other forms of persecution in the predominantly Buddhist country.

About 120,000 Rohingya Muslims currently live in displaced persons camps in western Myanmar’s Rakhine state following communal violence between them and Buddhists in 2012. Thousands of others have fled persecution on rickety boats headed to other Southeast Asian countries in recent years.

The government does not consider the Rohingya to be full citizens of Myanmar and denies them basic rights, freedom of movement, and access to social services and education.

Reported by Kyaw Thu for RFA’s Myanmar Service. Translated by Khet Mar. Written in English by Roseanne Gerin.

By bdnews24.com

August 3, 2016

Foreign Minister AH Mahmood Ali has stressed “voluntary repatriation” of Myanmar refugees back to their homes in the Rakhine State.

This is the “durable solution” to the protracted refugee situation in Bangladesh, he told the newly appointed Country Representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Shinji Kubo.

Kubo met him on Wednesday to present his credentials, the foreign ministry said.

Mahmood Ali told him the senior official that his government highly appreciated the UNHCR’s continued support to Myanmar refugees living in Bangladesh.

“The foreign minister alluded to the positive momentum generated by the recent change in the leadership of Myanmar,” the ministry said in a statement.

He also mentioned the visit of the foreign secretary to Myanmar as a goodwill envoy.

The country representative acknowledged efforts of the government in dealing with a large number of refugees.

Kubo promised that the UNHCR would continue to work with the government of Bangladesh to find a durable solution to the refugee issue.

Bangladesh gives shelter to thousands of Myanmar refugees who have fled sectarian violence in the Rakhine State. 

However, Myanmar authorities are denying them citizenship.

The Interpreter 

August 3, 2016

By Faisal Kutty

The Star

August 1, 2016

Hate movement led by Buddhist Monk Wirathu has significant support in Burma and the acquiescence of the government.

“They are trying to transform Myanmar into a Muslim state,” says Ashin Wirathu, a Buddhist monk dubbed by Time as the “The Face of Buddhist Terror.” Human rights activists claim Wirathu and his group, called 969, are the main forces behind riots that have killed scores and displaced thousands of Rohingya (a million strong ethnic Muslim minority living among more than 50 million Buddhists) since 2012.

Disturbingly, evidence suggests his hate movement has significant support in the country and even the acquiescence of the government. In fact, decades before Wirathu, described by some as the “Buddhist Bin Laden,” came on the scene, various state policies existed singling out the Rohingya.

The Canadian government may be finally forced to take a serious look.

A few weeks ago, a Parliamentary Subcommittee on International Human Rights issued a report titled “Sentenced to a Slow Demise” highlighting the plight of these stateless persons. Among the 12 recommendations are: Reassess the effectiveness of economic sanctions against the military, demand that authorities repeal discriminatory laws, restore full citizenship and rights to the minority, and calling on the government to end its complacency and allow humanitarian groups access.

Global and Canadian reaction appears to be too little, but hopefully not too late. Some attribute the hesitation on disbelief about the religious identity of the perpetrators. “In the reckoning of religious extremism — Hindu nationalists, Muslim militants, fundamentalist Christians, ultra-Orthodox Jews — Buddhism has largely escaped trial,” notes Time. But as the cover story went on to state, “Every religion can be twisted into a destructive force poisoned by ideas that are antithetical to its foundations. Now it’s Buddhism’s turn.”

As with most violence attributed to religious causes, the nuances of political and social influences are mostly minimized. In any event, whatever the impetus, their victims are real.

Earlier this month, the European Parliament became the latest international body to highlight what it termed as the “brutal repression” and “systematic persecution” of this group. The Resolution also noted that the Rohingya are “one of the world’s most persecuted minorities.” The U.S. State Department also downgraded Burma to Tier 3 (lowest) on its annual Trafficking in Persons report.

In a 2015 report, the International State Crime Initiative at the University of London alleged the Rohingya were facing the final stages of state-sponsored genocide. While most shy away from the term genocide, rights groups, include Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations have suggested the pogroms may amount to ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

While debate rages about whether they are indigenous or migrants from Bangladesh, the undisputed fact is that they have lived in Burma for hundreds of years. Indeed, a British survey confirmed a population of 58,255 in just the state of Arakan (now Rakhine) dating back to 1891.

Repressive government initiatives (forced labour, sexual assault, two child policy, etc.) and hate from fellow countrymen have had serious consequences. 

An Association of Southeast Asian Nations-linked human rights group noted in 2015, “The long-standing persecution of Rohingya has led to the highest outflow of asylum seekers by sea [in the region] since the U.S. war in Vietnam.” 

Meanwhile, Matthew Smith, executive director of human rights group Fortify Rights, says 150,000 live in internal displacement camps, while 500,000 asylum seekers live in squalor in Bangladesh, with little to no help from the already strapped Dhaka government.

As if to assist the efforts of Wirathu and those of his ilk to single out victims, Burma banned its officials from using the name “Rohingya,” insisting that they be called “people who believe in Islam.”

Months after democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi won the country’s first national elections, calls to end the mistreatment of the Rohingya fall on deaf ears. In fact, the Nobel Laureate herself refuses to use the name “Rohingya.” More disturbingly, her own prejudices were revealed when, after a heated interview with BBC reporter, Mishal Husain, she was reportedly heard angrily saying, “No one told me I was going to be interviewed by a Muslim.”

Burma should be about more than democratization, it should also be about ensuring protection, fairness, and justice for all its people. It’s high time for donors to leverage their aid, and for the broader global community to pressure the Suu Kyi government to end repression. 

The subcommittee report calls on our government to submit a formal response within 120 days. Ottawa must do better and demand that Burma respect international law end its complicity and punish those responsible.

Faisal Kutty is counsel to KSM Law, an associate professor at Valparaiso University Law School in Indiana and an adjunct professor at Osgoode Hall Law School. @faisalkutty.