The Myanmar Times
August 16, 2016

A supporter of nationalist group Ma Ba Tha speaks in Yangon on May 22. The line between free speech and hate speech can be hard to define. (Aung Htay Hlaing/The Myanmar Times)

Aung San Suu Kyi attends an event in Rangoon, Burma on July 19, 2016. © 2016 Reuters

By Sophie Richardson
Human Rights Watch
August 16, 2016

Leaders Should Discuss Refugees, Imprisoned Nobel Laureate

As Aung San Suu Kyi prepares for her first trip to China since her National League for Democracy party swept Burma’s elections last November, her to-do list could be impossibly long: managing a new and delicate era in bilateral relations, development aid, the resolution of the stalled Myitsone Dam project, and disputes about management of their shared border. There’s also the complex peace process involving the Burmese government, its military, and the country’s ethnic armed groups – some of them backed by China.

Suu Kyi should make sure two other issues get attention. In 2015, roughly 27,000 people displaced by fighting in Burma’s northern Shan State sought refuge in China. Additionally, thousands of Kachin refugees remain in China’s Yunnan province from the conflict that raged in Burma from 2011 to 2013. Another 100,000 internally displaced persons are in squalid camps in Kachin State. Nongovernmental organizations that have visited the camps in Burma and China have called conditions deplorable and cramped, with poor sanitation. Yet international aid is being reduced, and abuses by the Burmese military continue to be reported.

China has not allowed officials from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to visit the camps in Yunnan to assess conditions. While Suu Kyi no doubt plans discuss the peace process with Chinese leaders, it’s not clear that the status of refugees and internally displaced persons will make the agenda. If China wants to further the nascent peace process, it’s crucial that the fate of these people gets serious attention.

Suu Kyi should also use her platform and pro-democracy credentials to call for the release of fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo from prison in China. When she visited China in June 2015, as leader of the opposition, she did not publicly raise his case. This disappointed many Chinese democracy activists, particularly given that her release from years of house arrest was hastened by winning that same prize, and by having other Nobel laureates, heads of state, and prominent rights activists intervene on behalf of her freedom.

This is a new era in Burma-China relations. Burma and China are heading in different directions, with one country taking steps towards ending authoritarian rule, while the other makes it state policy. Will Suu Kyi demonstrate leadership in support of human rights beyond Burma’s borders? Will China, reflecting on its low standing in Burma after decades of support for the military junta, find a way to work with the new government to improve the lives of the Burmese people?

By Jiyoung Song

The Interpreter 

August 16, 2016

When Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy finally came to power in Myanmar last year, there was much scepticism among ethnic minorities as to whether the nobel laureate would speak up for their rights. So far, the new government has not done much to change this view, particularly among the Rohingya minority whose lack of citizenship and poor living conditions are a recurring theme in refugee movements around the region.

No-one in Myanmar has any doubts as to Aung San Suu Kyi's central role in government, even if she is constitutionally barred from becoming president. Her titles include state counsellor, foreign minister and minister of the office for president; her responsibilities include international relations and internal peace negotiations with ethnic minority groups.

Outsiders might assume such minority groups would include the Rohingya. After all, there are around 1.3 million Rohingyas in Myanmar (total population around 53 million), concentrated in Rakhine, one of Myanmar's poorest states located in the northwest of the country. However, while there was anger among Rohingyas that Aung San Suu Kyi has opted to treat them as foreigners staying unlawfully in Myanmar who have no role to play in the internal peace process, there was not much surprise. The new government has also decided to no longer use the term 'Bengali', instead favouring 'Myanmar Muslims'. This has been met with a mixed response. One Rohingya activist I spoke to based in the Myanmar capital of Yangon is pleased the pejorative 'Bengali' has also been dropped. A Rohingya leader based in the Rakhine capital of Sittwe, however, sees it differently. He claims that by grouping Rohingyas and other Muslim minorities in Myanmar together, the new government intends to discriminate against all minority Muslims in Myanmar. He cites as evidence the recent displacement of Kaman Muslim population in Rakhine.

About one third of the Rakhine population are Rohingya. The state's economy has been stagnant for some time; there are not enough jobs, and there are no substantial industries. The Chinese pipeline project at Kwaukpyu and the Indian company developing the Sittwe port are the only visible source of foreign investment; their actions have not benefited the local economy. The locals depend on fishing and agriculture for subsistence. Tourism may grow, but it would require Yangon to invest in infrastructure and training, which does not seem likely in the near future at least.

Rakhine streets are largely safe with no soldiers or police patrols. There are some areas where foreigners cannot go without permission, but otherwise they are allowed to move around as they please. Rohingyas, however, cannot. Much of what was once their land has been confiscated. Their mosques are abandoned. Most live in designated areas, largely in northern Rakhine, near the border with Bangladesh. These are highly restricted environments with little support from Yangon. Groups like the UNHCR, the UNDP and other NGOs try to fill the gaps in education, training and healthcare. Measured against a developed country standards, the IDP (internally displaced person) camp conditions are appalling.

Often Rohingyas have no option but to travel to Bangladesh for basic services including health. Yangon is highly suspicious of these cross-border movements which it believes could provide entry points for Islamic radicalism into Myanmar. Rohingya leaders reject such allegations. UNHCR Myanmar staff also doubt the government claim, saying the harsh living conditions make radicalisation unlikely; even basic resources are scarce.

The Rakhine Rothingya in poverty with no official state and appear to have no means of support beyond international aid. The reality, however, is a little more complicated.

Rohingya communities are very hierarchical. Their leaders are all men, highly revered, internationally connected, and well-organised. Some are quite entrepreneurial. Rohingyas who are settled in developed countries can connect to Rohingya in Myanmar through social media and by phone. They can even guide foreigners through tours of the camps, with or without state authorisation; a half-day visit costs around 110,000 kyats (US$100). At every checkpoint, visitors pay 10,000 kyats.

Always, it seems, there are people who can make money out of misery and in this case some Rohingyas are among those making money out of Rohingya misery. This obviously poses a moral dilemma for those who work with refugees; some of those who appear to be in need of international protection are also corrupt, abusive, law-breaking and dismissive of gender equality.

Some in Yangon believe that if Rohingyas’ movements remain restricted, their citizenship revoked, and their lands confiscated, they will either move en masse to Bangladesh (where many believe they originated from), or their ethnic identity will fade eventually. In fact, the opposite is likely to occur. The Rohingya population will continue to grow and, with no basic healthcare, there will be more irregular movements to Bangladeshi, Malaysia and Thailand, and more illicit activities in and out of the semi-permeable boundaries. This could create serious security challenges for Myanmar and beyond.

Myanmar is now in transition to democracy after decades of military dictatorship. It could still choose to recognise Rohingyas as citizens (or at least permanent residents with rights equal to those of citizens), and offer proper education and training while seeking a regional solution for those in Malaysia and elsewhere. In the longer term, this could lead to economic opportunities for the state of Rakhine and for the country as a whole.

There would be plenty of global support for such move. Myanmar’s institutionalised discrimination against Rohingyas has prompted international campaigns that have spurred considerable and widespread sympathy. The UN has identified them as one of the most persecuted groups in the world. With their stateless status, they have been able to apply for asylum in many developed countries which actively promote Rohingyas’ right to identity. However only a tiny number have been accepted as refugees. The majority remain internally displaced. This too could change, with some considerable acts of collective will.

In Malaysia for example, as of June 2016, there were about 55,000 Rohingya asylum seekers. Since Malaysia treats them as illegal migrants, they don’t have a right to work. The UNHCR Malaysia office receives 600 applications every day, many from self-claiming Rohingyas, and has suggested the Malaysian government allow Rohingyas to work. This would seem to be a win win as Malaysia's fast-growing cities need manual labour in industries such as construction. Empowering the Rohingya diaspora in Malaysia could also help Myanmar’s marginalised Muslim communities, and eventually contribute to regional development. This would be a sensible, realistic and mutually beneficial solution for both the state and asylum seekers. Whether Malaysia has the necessary political will remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, the Rohingya remain a long way down Myanmar's to-do list. One retired government official in Yangon said Aung San Suu Kyi 'has a very difficult job to do. She’s better sort out the easy ones first, and the most difficult last'. He thinks Rakhine and Rohingyas should stay in the too hard basket. .

However, Aung San Suu Kyi has a huge reservoir of goodwill to draw on. Inside the new Myanmar, many are hoping for compassionate, inclusive and democratic leadership. She also has strong international support. Judicious combinations of foreign aid, direct and joint investment, with more relaxed trade regulations and visa restrictions could see Myanmar become a leading country in Southeast Asia once again.

Photo courtesy of European Commission DG ECHO

By Moe Myint
The Irrawaddy
August 15, 2016

RANGOON – After meeting with local farmers on Saturday, Arakan State Chief Minister Nyi Pu has ordered a halt to fencing around the perimeter of an industrial ward located outside Set Yoe Kya village near the state capital of Sittwe.

According to a post from Nyi Pu’s official Facebook page, farmers told the Chief Minister that their lands had been confiscated 15 years earlier, and that they had been informed the area was under the ownership of senior and former government officials.

Nyi Pu said that the National League for Democracy-led (NLD) government would investigate the allegations of land grabbing, and uncover whether land could have been taken legally in the interest of development, or seized for personal gain.

“If they confiscated land for personal benefit, we will take action against them according to the existing laws. If the land was grabbed in the public [interest] we will address the farmers’ losses in line with current laws,” Nyi Pu stated.

According to Nyi Pu, since 2001, the Industrial Land Committee has designed 466 estates and sold just over 400 yards of land at the price of 250,000 kyats (US$210) in 2015. Another 65 estates were used as camps for displaced communities in the region.

Arakan National Party lawmaker Kyaw Zaw Oo submitted a question to the regional parliament last Wednesday, inquiring whether the Arakan State government’s quick allocation of the land to develop an industrial zone near Set Yoe Kya’s creek was enacted legally.

He told The Irrawaddy on Thursday that the previous Arakan State chief minister, Mya Aung, the Border and Security Affairs Minister Htein Lin, as well as around 50 high-ranking bureaucrats were implicated in the alleged confiscation of 515 acres of land in Sittwe District.

Minister Kyaw Lwin, the NLD appointee for mining, agriculture and livestock within the Arakan State cabinet, explained that the shift in land ownership was carried out legally by the previous government. When he spoke with The Irrawaddy by phone last week, he described the problem as “complicated” and not easy to solve, as people had constructed houses on the farmland.

He declined to comment on whether action has been taken against those involved in the reported land grabbing, or if the land is required to be returned to the original owners or if compensation will be allocated.

In a letter to parliamentarian Kyaw Zaw Oo, Minister Kyaw Lin explained that before former president Thein Sein transferred administrative power to NLD, in March he ordered the transformation of the contested land into residence quarters in Sittwe, specifying the names of owners.

According to articles 29, 30 and 31 of 2012’s farmland laws enacted by Thein Sein, confiscated land for a project must be developed within six months of the proposal’s specifications. If it fails to be carried out during the project’s timeframe, the applicants must return the land to the original owners. In the case of the contested land in Arakan State, it has been 15 years since the land was reportedly taken and it still lacks any basic infrastructure, said MP Kyaw Zaw Oo.

He pointed out that since there had been no fence around the land, the farmers from Set Yoe Kya had continued cultivating their rice paddies there until 2015, and regularly registered with the government’s land department until 2012.

Kyaw Zaw Oo suggested that since the new government is planning to construct a bridge connecting Set Yoe Kya and Sittwe, the land price had risen; thus, he alleged that the previous Arakan State government had exploited the unused land confiscation order to avoid returning it to farmers before the administrative handover to the civilian-led government earlier this year.

When The Irrawaddy spoke with MP Kyaw Zaw Oo, he said that some influential figures in Sittwe had been named in the list of beneficiaries of the confiscated land, including known Arakanese nationalists, former members of the Rakhine Nationalities Development Party and a former Sittwe District administrator now serving in the office of the state government.

Maung Htun Thein, a farmer from Set Yoe Kya village who has had 12 acres of his land confiscated since the early 1990s, confirmed that he and up to 16 other villagers and some from the surrounding area had not received any compensation from the government. He recalled that one acre was valued at approximately 150 kyats—or $0.13—and now each acre is priced at up to 15 million kyats ($12,600).

“I want my land back if they continue to construct an industrial zone,” he said, demanding that the government should “compensate in line with the local real estate market price.”

Myanmar Times
August 15, 2016

By Sally Kantar

The Irrawaddy

August 15, 2016

In a conference held in Los Angeles on Saturday by the Burmese American Muslims Association (BAMA), an international panel of speakers condemned the ongoing persecution of Burma’s Rohingya minority, placing it within the framework of genocide, and calling on the country’s current government to restore the marginalized group’s rights.

The event, entitled Myanmar Muslims Genocide Awareness Convention 2016, was broadcast live online and featured speeches by Shwe Maung, a former Rohingya member of Burma’s Parliament, civil rights activist Htay Lwin Oo, and Maung Zarni, a scholar and non-resident research fellow with Cambodia’s Sleuk Rith Institute.

Former United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Burma, Tomás Ojea Quintana, and president of Genocide Watch, Gregory Stanton, delivered pre-recorded talks.

“Many scholars and experts believe that the conditions and elements of a genocide in process have been present in Myanmar against the Rohingya, especially during the military government,” said Quintana, who served as rapporteur from 2008-2014. “But they’re also saying that those conditions are not changing with this civilian government.”

“The situation needs to urgently be addressed by the Myanmar government,” he continued, citing limitations to an estimated 140,000 displaced Rohingyas’ freedom of movement, a lack of food and access to healthcare, and episodes of violence against the community.

“It has already been 100 days since the new government took over and we haven’t seen clear and concrete measures to reverse the trend against the Rohingya,” Quintana said, referring to the National League for Democracy (NLD) administration headed by state counselor and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.

Talks at the conference were marked by heavy criticism of Burma’s 1982 Citizenship Law, which defines citizen status along ethnic lines, and does not recognize the Rohingya as one of the country’s ethnic groups. In order to be granted even subordinate forms of citizenship, those belonging to “unrecognized” groups are instead forced to prove their family’s presence in Burma dating back multiple generations—a near-impossible task since such residency often predates the use of the documentation required for such verification.

“The Rohingya are victims of a classification system in Myanmar that literally classifies them out of citizenship,” said Gregory Stanton in his talk. In 1996, he created a model for the US State Department identifying eight—and later, ten—stages of genocide, the first of which is “classification” of “us versus them” along ethnic, national, racial or religious lines.

“If you stop using the name that the people have chosen, you are trying to classify them out of the system,” Stanton added, referring to the widespread use of the term “Bengali,” over “Rohingya,” which implies that the group—which has an estimated population of 1.3 million in Burma—are migrants from neighboring Bangladesh.

The insinuation that Rohingya are Bengali “is absolutely not true,” said Shwe Maung, a Rohingya who served as a member of parliament representing Arakan State’s Buthidaung Township from 2011 until 2016. He was barred from running for re-election in 2015 after authorities alleged that his parents were not Burmese citizens, a claim which, in a 2015 op-ed for the New York Times, he dismissed as “laughable,” considering he had been eligible to represent his constituency in the previous election.

“A lot of Myanmar Muslims and Rohingya Muslims have sacrificed for the NLD,” Shwe Maung said. “[We] expected a little relief from the NLD…[but] not a single Rohingya was able to vote because they were disenfranchised.”

The organizers of the convention made public a resolution demanding that the NLD government restore the citizenship rights of the Rohingya, guarantee the security of non-governmental organizations working in Arakan State, facilitate unrestricted access for international investigators to conflict areas, return property to the displaced, and allow the Rohingya the right to self-identify as such.

While calling for public support for Yanghee Lee, his successor as the special rapporteur for Burma, Tomás Ojea Quintana pointed out that the most recent UN report on the Rohingya “does not refer to the risk of genocide even one time,” saying that this was “something we need to consider.”

The term “genocide” has been contested in Burma; Reuters reported in March that the US State Department had released a report to Congress stating that while the US government remained “concerned” about the persecution of the Rohingya, they “did not determine that it was on the level of genocide.” They did, however, call for “comprehensive and just solutions” to abuses against the group, including improved access for aid agencies and the restoration of citizenship rights to stateless populations.

A report published in October of last year by the Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic at Yale Law School for the NGO Fortify Rights concluded that both action and inaction from the Burmese government towards the Rohingya satisfied the criteria of genocide as defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention.

In his talk at the conference, delivered via video, Stanton drew parallels between the Holocaust—in which 6 million European Jews were killed under Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime during World War II—and the persecution of the Rohingya in Burma. 

“The Jews were classified out of their citizenship, their businesses were taken away, their homes were confiscated, their property was confiscated—they were eventually sent to concentration camps. All of these parallels are like what is happening to the Rohingya,” Stanton said. “We must make the world pay attention.”

BAMA was founded in 2013, and has since held annual conventions addressing violence against the Rohingya. Many of this year’s speakers also participated in a conference at the University of Oxford in May to address the persecution of the Rohingya in the context of democratization in Burma. A year earlier, in May of 2015, the “Oslo Conference to End Myanmar’s Persecution of the Rohingya” was hosted by the Norwegian Nobel Institute; there, the oppression was also described as genocide.

By Larry Jagan

Bangkok Post
August 14, 2016

The NLD continues to urge patience as it starts to transform Myanmar, but critics see little evidence of change after its first 100 days in power

It is now more than four months since Aung San Suu Kyi took power -- forming the country's first civilian government for more than 50 years. 

But the public euphoria that followed her National League for Democracy's overwhelming electoral victory last November has subsided. There is increasing criticism of the lack of change and the absence of clear policies during her first 100 days of official governance.

The promises that followed victory at the polls have left many people confused and irritated.

"The main change I've experienced in the last three months is that the price of eggs has jumped from 100 kyat each to 150 kyat," complained May Kyi, an 80-year-old pensioner who voted for the NLD, although she preferred to blame the previous government for this rather than Ms Suu Kyi.

Food prices have risen significantly since April and the Central Bank of Myanmar recently put the Consumer Price Index at 12.14%.

Inflation since the new government took over is running at over 10%, according to bankers, like Soe Thain, the deputy general manager of the Asia Green Development Bank.

Consumers believe the figure is closer to double that. Hanthar Myint, an NLD economic adviser and member of the party's central executive committee, acknowledged prices were rising significantly and that the government had no clear handle on the actual situation, which in turn hampers policy decisions. "We don't have reliable figures or data," he told Spectrum.

POLICY VACUUM

This is seen as symptomatic of a general malaise in government. Critics say the country is directionless, amid an acute policy vacuum.

"There are no policies, plans or strategy," said KK Hlaing, owner of the Smart group of companies and a political commentator.

As a result there is an intense inertia in government administration, with the business community in particular frustrated by the government's repeated delays in announcing the new economic policy. When it was finally unveiled at the end of July, it left many business people disappointed as it was too general and failed to give details of how the new government was going to boost economic growth and further liberalise the economy.

In the meantime, Ms Suu Kyi as State Counsellor, the key position she created for herself in April which effectively makes her the equivalent of the prime minister, is distracted by the peace process, to the exclusion of all else, according to some analysts.

"But she should not neglect the economy," said KK Hlaing. "If business grows, the country grows. Otherwise there is a danger of social and economic unrest, which would certainly threaten the country's stability."

"The government is rudderless," said a Myanmar businessman who deals directly with several ministers, on condition of anonymity. "It's like a ship without a helmsman."

CABINET RESHUFFLE?

Part of the problem, according to many Myanmar academics and business people, is the cabinet.

"These ministers lack credibility," said Nay Zin Latt, a former political adviser to president Thein Sein and founder of the National Development Party which did not win a seat in the November elections. "It's a team of nobodies, idealess and docile."

Most observers believe many of the ministers are only temporary, meant to pacify the bureaucracy and start to develop a plan of action for each ministry.

After only four months in office, a major cabinet reshuffle seems to be in the pipeline. According to NLD insiders, the selection of the ministers was part of a deliberate strategy. All the ministers are in their sixties and seventies -- many with previous government experience as bureaucrats.

Critics charge they are likely to be cautious in their policy approaches and the pace of change.

Stability, for the moment, appears to be the government watchword.

"Ministers must have a passion for the country, passion for the people and initiate dramatic change," said KK Hlaing. "This lot are too worried about doing something wrong, being reprimanded or sacked."

Many Myanmar academics, businessmen and social activists fear the new government has chosen stability over development.

One key consequence of the NLD's failure to grapple with the problems facing the country, is that government administration remains paralysed, with no clear policy positions in most sectors and most ministers and bureaucrats waiting to be told what to do.

"The public servants are sitting at their desks doing nothing while waiting for instructions from above," Hanthar Myint said.

Since the cabinet was sworn in, Ms Suu Kyi has continued to be careful not to upset the bureaucrats.

The former parliamentary speaker, Shwe Mann -- who was the third most important general in the regime before the 2010 elections -- has been a key adviser to Ms Suu Kyi and counselled her early on to be careful not to pick unnecessary fights or antagonise the bureaucracy.

She has followed that advice stringently. Ms Suu Kyi warned her MPs not to criticise the country's public servants and told senior party officials to be patient and not put pressure on them to change just yet.

RULED BY FRUSTRATION

Originally, the permanent secretaries -- the top public servant in each ministry and appointed by the previous government some 18 months ago -- were seen by the NLD as essential for the continuity of management and policy, something Hanthar Myint confided shortly after the elections. Uncertainty dominates all the positions in Myanmar public service, but it is even more unsettling for the top ranks of the ministries: directors-general and directors.

Most ministers are unable to provide leadership, leaving much to the permanent secretaries. In most ministries this has resulted in inactivity and confusion.

There is no incentive to perform even the perfunctory tasks of the job. As a result there are bottlenecks in the system.

A senior official in the agriculture ministry recently summed up the situation: "Before, top government officials were ruled by fear, now we're ruled by frustration."

Businessmen complain that nothing is happening, that ministers seem loathe to make decisions and that the government generally is overwhelmed. The Myanmar Investment Commission -- which approves foreign investment projects and joint ventures -- was recently reconstituted and only met for the first time in June. It has met twice since then -- though few joint ventures and foreign investment projects have been approved.

Foreign direct investment -- a significant part of the government's economic strategy -- has fallen to a trickle, according to government officials. MIC figures show foreign investment stood at $381 million (13.3 billion baht) for the first quarter of this fiscal year, about a sixth of the previous year when Myanmar attracted a total of $9.48 billion.

But there have been reasons for this hiatus, as businessmen -- especially foreign investors -- are quietly waiting for the government to announce its policies and priorities. There are exceptions of course, with Asian entrepreneurs, especially from Japan, Thailand and Vietnam, anxious to increase their toehold in the country.

SAME OLD PROBLEM

Another key issue re-emerging is corruption: though not among the ministers, but bureaucrats, especially in the state and regional governments.

"Things haven't changed," said one Myanmar businessman.

"Corruption is endemic," complained KK Hlaing. "Corruption is evident in every sector and every region. The higher the position, the greater the corruption."

But most Myanmar businessmen believe Ms Suu Kyi's uncompromising stand on corruption has set an example for all her ministers.

"Corruption remains a huge challenge for the government," said Maung Maung Lay, vice-chairman of the Union of Myanmar's Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry.

"What is needed is a master plan for how the government intends to stamp out corruption, and as yet nothing concrete has been done, though the intention is there."

RELIGIOUS DIVIDE

In the meantime, the NLD is carefully choosing its battles in the post-election period: ones that are seen as crucial to the government's long-term strategy. For some years there has been a festering battle between the NLD and the Buddhist nationalist movement -- Ma Ba Tha, or the Committee for the Protection of Race and Religion.

In government, the Union Solidarity and Development Party used them as a battering ram against the NLD -- particularly Ms Suu Kyi -- accusing her of being pro-Muslim. The NLD struggled with the issue last year -- and took every step to avoid any direct confrontation with the movement, especially the firebrand monk Ashin Wirathu.

The NLD went as far as to ban the selection of Muslim candidates in last year's election for fear of inflaming religious tensions, according to a senior NLD leader.

The NLD's massive electoral victory was a shock and rebuff to the movement, which thought it had captured the minds of the Buddhists at least -- which make up the vast majority of the country.

Recently Ashin Wirathu seemed to be making a cautious comeback, holding several high-profile rallies in Yangon and Mandalay -- his home base. But the NLD took on Ma Ba Tha, calling for it to be disbanded because it had no religious authority.

In this battle, the party seems to be winning. The Buddhist ruling body has declared that it was never sanctioned or agreed to. In an important ruling, it said that Ma Ba Tha had no official Buddhist status and the Sangha may even disband it altogether in the near future. This has been greeted with approval by many Myanmar citizens, and has been a significant win for the NLD, and for the time being at least has reduced the group's influence.

THE LONG PEACE

Also on the positive side, a recent series of meetings between Ms Suu Kyi and the leaders of ethnic armed groups -- who have been fighting for autonomy for more than 60 years -- has increased the likelihood that planned 21st Century Panglong Peace Conference will take place at the end of this month, after which the renewed peace process could bring an end to hostilities in ethnic areas -- especially in Kachin and Shan state -- and provide an impetus for political dialogue, which envisages making Myanmar a federal state.

This is still somewhat precarious, but it has also revealed that the relationship between the NLD and the military has improved since the "tug-of-war" immediately after the election.

Ms Suu Kyi has held several secret meetings with army commander-in-chief Sen Gen Min Aung Hlaing -- largely about the peace process and constitutional change. Several public meetings between the two also highlight the growing warmth and understanding between them -- which also augurs well for the country's future.

So as the government completes its first four months in office -- or first hundred days, which the NLD dates from the beginning of May rather than April -- the conventional honeymoon period, there seems to have been little change so far. Be patient, is the mantra of senior government officials.

But the growing public unease is unlikely to be placated until the government announces its plan of action for all the ministries -- which was expected to be the key results of the first "100 days" of government.

"Nothing is actually worse now, and at best much has been done, is ready to go and will be unveiled in detail in the near future," said Sean Turnell, an expert on Myanmar's economy at Sydney's Macquarie University and an informal adviser to Ms Suu Kyi, in an email interview.

"Above all, the entire system is much more stable and predictable. Fifty years of arbitrary and irrational decision-making has been replaced by, whatever the complaints about the pace of change, with something that is essentially just 'normal' political economy."

Comedian and political activist Zaganar said, "We should be cautiously optimistic."

What is clear is that while the middle classes -- academics, businessmen and professionals -- may be disappointed and frustrated, the mass of the population which voted the NLD into power, remain hopeful and supportive.

"It's best to be safe, slow and sure," said Win Lwin, a 40-year-old taxi driver in Yangon who voted for the NLD. "We trust Auntie and are confident she will succeed in making the country better for everyone."

But for how long will they be patient?

"We have a year to meet their expectations," senior NLD leader and patron Tin Oo said shortly after the election results.

By Lawi Weng
The Irrawaddy
August 14, 2016

One country run by two persons: this is Burma. On the one hand, there is State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi; on the other, there is army chief Snr-Gen Min Aung Hlaing. If one were to ask who is ultimately in charge, they might find no clear answer.

Suu Kyi is Burma’s de-facto political leader, with her power coming from the people who elected her party—the National League for Democracy (NLD)—in the country’s 2015 general election. But among the checks on her authority is the capacity to make decisions relating to the Burmese army. Only Snr-Gen Min Aung Hlaing has that privilege.

The senior general has shown support for almost every action taken by Suu Kyi since the NLD took office earlier this year. Yet, in his own arena, it seems that Min Aung Hlaing has taken little initiative to rein in his military: fighting has recently broken out against the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) in Kachin State and against the Ta’ang National Liberation Army (TNLA) in northern Shan State.

Additionally, Min Aung Hlaing will not allow three of the country’s non-state armed groups—the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA), the Arakan Army (AA) and the TNLA—to join Burma’s upcoming Union Peace Conference starting on August 31. These groups are currently under pressure over demands to disarm, which they so far have continued to resist.

As can be expected in a country arguably run by two people with different visions, there is a divide. Suu Kyi’s earlier stated plan was to invite all ethnic armed groups to join her “21st century Panglong” conference, modeled after one held in 1947 by her father, independence leader Aung San. With that aim not shared by the Burma Army, what will Suu Kyi will do next, given that she has said she wants an all-inclusive event?

In the latest attempt to bring all of the stakeholders together, the NLD government’s National Reconciliation and Peace Center’s (NRPC) delegation met twice with the three armed groups in the region of Mongla, in June and again in August.

During the first meeting in June with the AA, MNDAA and the TNLA, there was reportedly high tension when the NRPC’s Khin Zaw Oo, a former Burma Army general, allegedly pointed his finger at the leaders of the armed groups, saying, “you guys have to disarm.” He asked the groups to issue an initial statement to the effect that they intended to give up their weapons.

In an informal conversation with an Irrawaddy reporter, Tar Bong Kyaw, the TNLA’s general secretary, recalled his annoyance at Khin Zaw Oo in the meeting. “He disrespected our chairman by pointing his finger at him. His action was not appropriate,” he said.

Dr. Tin Myo Win, the head of the NRPC delegation, did not attend the most recent meeting with the three armed groups. Instead he sent Aung Kyi—a former army general like Khin Zaw Oo. Again, no agreement was reached.

At an ethnic armed group summit in Mai Ja Yang, Kachin State in late July, organizations who opted out of signing the 2015 nationwide ceasefire agreement (NCA)—and are members of the ethnic armed alliance, the United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC)—said that they remain unsure about whether to participate in the upcoming Union Peace Conference.

No concrete decision about their attendance emerged from that gathering. No decisions emerged about any future signing of the NCA, either.

Nai Hong Sar, vice chairman of UNFC, went as far as telling reporters at a press conference on July 29 that if it were made clear that the groups did not have to sign the NCA in order to participate in the conference, they would happily attend.

The conference is a step preferable to the NCA, he said.

Which brings us back to how we began: who is in charge here? And is it not time for the Burma Army to give fresh thought to the issue, namely who is the head of the country, Aung San Suu Kyi, or Snr-Gen Min Aung Hlaing?

Suu Kyi may know some things about how to bring peace to this country, based perhaps partly on the ideas of her father Gen Aung San. But those ideas and plans could fail again, if she is not permitted to put them into action.

iPolitics
August 12, 2016
And why we shouldn’t rush to open the trade floodgates

By Logan Connor 

Southeast Asia Globe
August 12, 2016

From “disproportionate” restrictions on minority religious groups in Laos to unfair targeting of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, the US is highly critical of religious freedom in Southeast Asia

Every country in Southeast Asia has come in for criticism in the US State Department’s 2015 report on religious freedoms, an annual global assessment of people’s ability to exercise their faith.

Thailand’s military junta was accused of using martial law provisions to “conduct arrests, detentions and warrantless searches” in Muslim-majority provinces in the country’s south, where ethnic and religious separatists have waged a long-running insurgency.

Discrimination against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar was highlighted as a key concern, citing the former government’s passing of “Protection of Race and Religion” bills, which critics say unfairly target Muslims. Myanmar has been listed as a “country of particular concern” by the state department since 1999, although there are some hopes of improvement under Aung San Suu Kyi’s leadership.

In Communist-ruled Laos, “restrictions on minority religious groups remained disproportionately high in certain provinces”, the report said.

David N. Saperstein, US ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, said during a report briefing on Wednesday that Indonesia was one of several “tragic stories” due to its lack of religious freedom, citing the country’s enforcement of blasphemy laws.

Saperstein also positioned the report as an important source of information for NGOs, governments and members of civil society. “In the pages of this report,” he said, “we’re able to put a human face on this incredibly important issue [of religious freedom] that touches so many lives and remains a value of such concern in the hearts of the American people.”

Despite ongoing challenges in Vietnam with respect to human rights, the report said “most leaders of religious groups agree that religious freedom is gradually expanding” in the country, citing national-level recognition of religious groups such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Gwen Robinson, a senior fellow at the Institute of Security and International Studies at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University, said that while the report was to be welcomed for highlighting injustices surrounding religious freedom, it was not likely to prove “particularly powerful”.

“I think it does invite some resentments,” Robinson said, “which add to all the other complaints about American standards being applied to criticised countries that have their own religions and cultures.”

Cambodia was cited in the report as containing “barriers to the complete integration” of the country’s Cham Muslim population. Phay Siphan, spokesperson for Cambodia’s Council of Ministers, said the state department’s assessment was not representative of “actual customs in Cambodia”.

“We try our best to harmonise,” said Siphan. “That’s why everyone, even though they have different beliefs in their own religion, they are living in peace together in Cambodia.”

Aman Ullah

RB Article

August 12, 2016

“Muslims of Arakan certainly belong to one of the indigenous races of Burma, which you represent. In fact, there are no pure indigenous races in Burma and that if you do not belong to indigenous races Burma; we also cannot be taken as indigenous races of Burma.” President Saw Shwe Thaik,

The International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, celebrated each year on 9 August, marks the day of the first meeting, in 1982, of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Sub-commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

This year, the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples is devoted to indigenous peoples' right to education, given the persistent gaps between indigenous and non -indigenous students in terms of access to education, school retention and graduation rates in all regions of the world. 

“On this International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, I call on Governments everywhere ... to improve access to education for indigenous peoples and to reflect their experiences and culture in places of learning," said United Nations Secretary -General Ban Ki -moon, adding, "Let us commit to ensuring indigenous peoples are not left behind as we pursue the vision of the Sustainable Development Goals.” 

The right of indigenous peoples to education is protected by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which in Article 14 states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning.” 

The adjective indigenous is derived from the two Ancient Greek words indo= endo/ "ενδό(ς)", meaning inside/within, and genous= (γέννoυς), meaning birth/born and also race, etymology meaning "native" or "born within".

James Anaya, former Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, has defined indigenous peoples as "living descendants of pre-invasion inhabitants of lands now dominated by others. They are culturally distinct groups that find themselves engulfed by other settler societies born of forces of empire and conquest". 

They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system. 

In 1972 the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP) accepted as a preliminary definition a formulation put forward by Mr. José R. Martínez-Cobo, Special Rapporteur on Discrimination against Indigenous Populations. This definition has some limitations, because the definition applies mainly to pre-colonial populations, and would likely exclude other isolated or marginal societies.

“Indigenous communities, peoples, and nations are those that, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems.”

Thus, Indigenous peoples were the descendants of those peoples that inhabited a territory prior to colonization or formation of the present state.

The Rohingyas are Muslims who are living in Arakan generation after generation for centuries after centuries. They are nationals as well as an indigenous community of Burma. They are equal in every way with other communities of the country. Their arrival in Arakan has pre-dated the arrival of many other peoples and races now residing in Arakan and other parts of Burma. They developed from different stocks of peoples and concentrated in a common geographical location forming their own society with a consolidated population in Arakan well before the Burman invasion in 1784.

Mr. M.A. Gaffer, from Buthidaung, was a member of 1947 Constitutional Assembly, an Upper House MP from 1951 to 1960 and also a Parliamentary Secretary in Health Ministry. 

He wrote, in his Memorandum, which was presented to the Regional Autonomy Enquiry Commission dated the 24th May, 1949, that,

“We the Rohingyas of Arakan are a nation. We maintain and hold that Rohingyas and Arakanse are two major nations in Arakan. We are a nation of nearly nine lakhs more than enough population for a nation; and what is more we are a nation according to any definition of a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of value and proportion, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions aptitude and ambitions, in short, we have our distinctive outlook on life and of life. By all canons of international law the Rohingyas are a nation in Arakan." 

Mr. Sultan Ahmed, from Maung Daw, was a member of 1947 Constitutional Assembly, a Member of Parliament from 1951 to 1960 and was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Minorities, Ministry of Relief and Resettlement, and the Ministry of Social and Religious Affairs, with the status of Deputy Minister. He was one of the longest serving parliamentary secretaries. 

According to him, “when section 11 of the constitution of the Union of Burma was being framed, a doubt as to whether the Muslims of North Arakan fell under the section of sub-clauses (I) (II) and (III), arose. In effect an objection was put in to have the doubt cleared in respect of the term ‘indigenous’ as used in the constitution. But it was ithdrawn on the understanding and assurance of the President of the Constitutional Assembly, at present His Excellency the President of the Union of Burma, who, when approached for clarification with this question, said, ‘Muslims of Arakan certainly belong to one of the indigenous races of Burma, which you represent. In fact, there are no pure indigenous races in Burma and that if you do not belong to indigenous races Burma; we also cannot be taken as indigenous races of Burma.’ Being satisfied with his kind explanation, the objection put in was withdrawn.”

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. Not only have they had the right to a nationality but also the rights to their lands, territories and resources, which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spirituals traditions, histories and philosophies. 

Under any cannons of international law and human civilization the Rohingyas are much more than a national minority. They are a nation with a population of more than 3 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 share a public culture different from the public culture of those around them. They are determined not only to preserve and develop their public culture, 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. 

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. Not only have they had the right to a nationality but also the rights to their lands, territories and resources, which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spirituals traditions, histories and philosophies. 

Thus, during the colonial rule the British recognized the separate identity of the Rohingyas and declared north Arakan as the Muslim Region. Again there are instances that Prime Minister U Nu, Prime Minister U Ba Swe, other ministers and high- ranking civil and military official, stated that the Rohingyas people like the Shan, Kachin, Karen, Kaya, Mon and Rakhine. They have the same rights and privileges as the other nationals of Burma regardless of their religious beliefs or ethnic background.

Being one of the indigenous communities of Burma, the Rohingyas were enfranchised in all the national and local elections of Burma. Their representatives were in the Legislative Assembly, in the Constituent Assembly and in the Parliament. As members of the new Parliament, their representatives took the oath of allegiance to the Union of Burma on the 4thJanuary 1948. Their representatives were appointed as cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries. They had their own political, cultural, social organizations and had their programme in their own language in the official Burma Broadcasting Services (BSS). As a Burma’s racial groups, they participated in the official “Union Day’ celebration in Burma’s capital, Rangoon, every year. To satisfy part of their demand, the government granted them limited local autonomy and declared establishment of Mayu Frontier Administration (MFA) in early 60s, a special frontier district to be ruled directly by the central government.

In spite of that the Rohingya are the worst victims of human rights violations in Burma. They were displaced. Their identity was polluted. Their population was diluted. Their right to nationality was arbitrarily deprived. Since 1948, expelling the Rohingyas from their ancestral land and properties has become almost a recurring phenomenon. About 2 million uprooted Rohingyas have taken shelters in many countries of the world since the anti-Muslim pogrom of 1942 in Arakan. 

Since 1942, the Rakhine Buddhists pushed the Muslims from the southern Arakan to the northern Arakan. 

Since 1962, successive military regimes denied their citizenship right by labeling that they are illegal immigrants from Bangaladesh.

Since 1982, the regimes completely denied the citizenship rights of the Rohingyas by enacting the most controversial Citizenship Law -1982.

Since 2012, the Thein Sein regime rejected their identity and forcefully making them Bengali. 

Since then, the Rohingya have been backed into a corner, their lives made so intolerable that tens of thousands have fled by sea, seeking safety and a sense of dignity elsewhere. Surviving the perilous journey to Bangladesh, Thailand or Malaysia is, too often, seen as the only way to finally be free from persecution. 

Campaigns of terror, crimes against humanity and extermination have been perpetrated against the Rohingya in a systematic and planned way. The restrictions on freedom of movement, marriage and education have dashed any future hope of development for the Rohingya, including forming families, all while they live in subhuman conditions amidst abject poverty. Humiliating restrictions on movement—even on travel from place to place within the same locality—have affected all normal activities in all fields, crippling the Rohingya socially, economically and educationally. The Rohingya have been singled out for systematic destruction.

Today, this group is increasingly jobless, homeless, without land of their own and the most illiterate section of Burma’s population. They are not tolerated and are systematically excluded and rendered ‘stateless’ in their own homeland because of their religious belief and ethnicity. They are not only denied their nationality but also their citizenships rights. They are now a people without a country dying alive and facing ‘slow-burning genocide’.