By Nyan Hlaing Lynn 

Frontier Myanmar 

August 29, 2016

NAY PYI TAW — The government of Myanmar is underwriting the entire cost of its proposed Advisory Committee on Rakhine State, a spokesman said on Monday, in response to rumours spread on social media that the body would be funded by the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation.

U Zaw Htay, a spokesman for State Counsellor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, added that committee chair Kofi Annan, a former United Nations secretary-general, was working on a voluntary basis and would not be remunerated by either the Myanmar government or foreign donors.

“There is no foreign financial aid for the commission. Kofi Annan’s work is purely voluntary and at the request of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. The Myanmar government is bearing all the expenses for the Rakhine Commission,” he told Frontier.

He added that the program and expenses of the committee would be managed by the National Peace and Reconciliation Centre, the successor to the former government’s Myanmar Peace Centre, which is also charged with managing the country’s delicate peace process.

Announced on August 24, the committee will have 12 months to prepare a report on humanitarian, human rights and development issues to the government. Its first meeting will be held on September 5.

In recent years, Buddhist hardliners in Myanmar have railed against what they allege to be an effort by the OIC to undermine the traditions of the country’s Buddhist majority.

Plans for the OIC to open a representative office in 2012 were abandoned after protests, which also dogged subsequent visits by OIC officials.

In 2014, chapters of the Buddhist nationalist group Ma Ba Tha called for a boycott of Ooredoo, which was then preparing to enter the local market, after alleging the Qatari-based telecommunications company was affiliated with the OIC.

Speaking at a Friday press conference at the Ministry of Information building in Nay Pyi Taw, U Zaw Htay told journalists the committee was vital to brokering a peaceful settlement in Rakhine State, where more than 100,000 people remain displaced after an outbreak of communal violence in 2012.

Zaw Htay noted that the committee had a purely advisory role and would implement any recommendations in line with existing laws, including the 1982 Citizenship Law.

By AFP

August 29, 2016

Myanmar's new leadership must overcome discrimination and promote inclusive development with "full respect" for human rights, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Monday on the eve of a visit to the country.

Ban said elections last November, won overwhelmingly by Aung San Suu Kyi's political party, had opened the way to include various ethnic groups in Myanmar's newfound democracy.

The recent setting up of an advisory panel on Myanmar's troubled Rakhine state headed by former UN chief Kofi Annan is an "encouraging step", Ban said, speaking in Singapore at an event organised by the Singapore Management University at the start of a two-day visit to the city-state.

Annan will advise Myanmar's new government on resolving conflicts in Rakhine, a region divided on religious grounds and home to the stateless Muslim Rohingya.

"The new leadership must now overcome discrimination, ensure equality and promote inclusive development for all, with full respect for human rights," Ban added.

The UN chief will arrive in Myanmar on Tuesday for talks with Suu Kyi, the de facto prime minister who is leading reforms after decades of military rule.

He will address a peace conference organised by Suu Kyi that aims to bring ethnic rebel groups to the table to end decades of fighting.

Ban will also meet President Htin Kyaw, General Ming Aung Hlaing, commander in chief of Myanmar's armed forces, and other political and civil society representatives.

The United Nations has criticised Myanmar's treatment of its Muslim Rohingya minority, who are denied citizenship and have been living in squalid displacement camps.

Ban will call on Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Tuesday before flying to Myanmar.

By Shoon Naing

The Myanmar Times

August 29, 2016

By AFP

August 29, 2016

Myanmar's Aung San Suu Kyi faces what could be the toughest test of her leadership yet when she opens a major ethnic peace conference Wednesday aimed at ending wars that have blighted the country since its independence. 

The five-day talks will bring hundreds of ethnic minority rebel leaders to the capital, along with military top brass and international delegates such as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. 

The conference is Suu Kyi's flagship effort to quell the long-running rebellions rumbling across Myanmar's impoverished frontier states, fuelled in part by the illegal drugs, jade and timber trades. 

Myanmar is home to more than 100 ethnic groups and many minorities harbour deep seated historical suspicions of the Bamar majority group -- which includes Suu Kyi -- complaining that they have endured decades of discrimination.

Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, has made ending the nearly 70 years of fighting the first priority of her newly minted government, which took over from the military in March after sweeping the first free election in generations. 

"If you ask me what my most important aim is for my country, that is to achieve peace and unity among the different peoples of our union," she said during a recent visit to China.

"Without peace, there can be no sustained development."

The 71-year-old is hoping to expand a shaky ceasefire signed last year between some rebel armies and the military-backed government.

This week's conference will include both signatories to the ceasefire agreement and non-signatories, although some groups are still locked in intense fighting with government forces and their role in the talks remains unclear. 

Success also depends heavily on the military, which controls key levers of government and whose leaders are thought to have made billions from the vast natural resources of Myanmar's borderlands.

"Anyone who is suggesting there could be any sort of agreement in the coming days or weeks is dreaming," said Anthony Davis, a security analyst and writer for IHS-Jane's, predicting the negotiations could take "many years".

The conference has nevertheless been hailed as an important first step and one loaded with symbolism in a nation emerging from a dark military past. 

It is dubbed the '21st Century Panglong' -- a reference to a 1947 agreement signed by Suu Kyi's independence hero father that granted a level of autonomy to major ethnic groups.

The deal collapsed after Aung San was assassinated months later, precipitating half a century of brutal junta rule.

Suu Kyi has followed in her father's footsteps with similar pledges to form a federalist state -- though she has never spelt out the details.

- 'Grand opening ceremony' –

A spokesman for the UNFC, one of the rebel coalitions attending the talks whose 11 ethnic groups include both ceasefire signatories and non-signatories, said the conference would be "like a grand opening ceremony".

Ethnic groups will be allowed to give brief speeches, but there will be no time for follow-up debates and plans are already in the works to hold more talks every six months.

One rebel leader, who asked not to be named, put it more frankly.

"We will not get a solution from this conference because there will be no discussion or debate," he told AFP, adding that it will however be a rare chance to "talk openly" with the government. 

Myanmar's Muslim minority Rohingya population, who are subject to state-sponsored discrimination, have never taken up arms against the state and therefore are not included in Suu Kyi's peace process. 

The country's diverse patchwork of ethnic groups make up a third of the population, but the government and military have long been dominated by members of the majority Bamar ethnicity.

Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) -- also mostly Bamar -- surprised observers when it won a strong support from ethnic minority voters in November's polls. 

Yet distrust of the military runs deep in rebel regions where there have been many documented cases of torture, rape and forced labour by state troops.

Hundreds of thousands have fled to Thailand and China, while those that remain live in communities devastated by drugs, forbidden from teaching in their own language and stigmatised for not being Buddhist.

Experts say the military's limited ceasefire pact has also driven a wedge between groups that signed and those that did not.

Richard Dolan, an independent researcher who works with the Karen people, warned minorities outside the peace process could start to see the NLD and military as forming a "united Burman front", using another term for the Bamar.

"If it is not careful in how it proceeds, the NLD risks fuelling suspicion that it is a Burman-Buddhist party which does not understand the sufferings of non-Burman people," he said.

By Htet Naing Zaw

The Irrawaddy

August 29, 2016

Amid criticism of former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan’s appointment to chairman of the new Arakan State Advisory Committee, the deputy-director general of the State Counselor’s Office said the choice was made in response to international pressure.

Deputy director-general U Zaw Htay told reporters at a press conference on the government’s 100-day plan in Naypyidaw on Friday that the decision to include international representatives followed outside pressure, after previous local commissions failed to resolve the Arakan State issue.

The nine-member team includes three international representatives, including Kofi Annan, and six from Burma—including two Buddhist Arakanese members, two Rangoon-based Muslim members and two government representatives.

“The commission must include impartial, respected and experienced people. We planned to form the commission with three international representatives and six local representatives. The three international representatives we have selected are very seasoned,” U Zaw Htay told reporters.

Burma’s main opposition party—the Union and Solidarity and Development Party (USDP)—and nationalist forces have criticized the National League for Democracy (NLD)-led government’s decision to involve international representatives in the Arakan State issue, stating that the move “neglects national security.”

The USDP released a statement that criticized “bringing an internal issue into the international spotlight.”

U Zaw Htay said the Arakan State crisis was not merely an internal issue, adding that the international community was already involved through the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

“No matter how unwilling we are to accept it, international pressure does exist. International involvement could clearly be seen in the previous boat people crisis,” said U Zaw Htay.

He said the government understands the concerns of political parties over the formation of the advisory commission but that they should not worry given that its mandate only allows for recommendations, submitted to the government via State Counselor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

The State Counselor’s Office and the Kofi Annan Foundation have yet to sign a memorandum of understanding to form the advisory commission. A draft MoU has been submitted to the attorney general’s office to seek further advice, U Zaw Htay said.

“We have heard what [critics] say about Kofi Annan. But we appointed him not because he is the former UN secretary-general. He adopted the Millennium Development Goals, won a Nobel Peace Prize and helped resolve many conflicts—including issues in Syria,” he said.

The Arakan National Party (ANP) previously demanded the cancellation of the committee, stating that the non-Burmese members would not be able to understand the background of the current situation in Arakan State.

The region saw significant violence in 2012 and 2013, largely affecting the stateless Muslim Rohingya community. The ANP does not recognize the self-identifying Rohingya minority and instead refers to them as interlopers from Bangladesh.

Regarding the issue of citizenship and the Rohingya, U Zaw Htay said that decisions going forward would be made in accordance with the contentious 1982 Citizenship Law—which defines eligibility in racial terms and renders stateless most Rohingya.

“The government does not necessarily have to follow the commission’s recommendations. It is the government’s choice. The issue is not an international issue but draws huge international interest and therefore is politically sensitive,” he said.

Dr Habib Siddiqui

RB Opinion
August 28, 2016

On Friday, 19 August 2016, the first World Rohingya Day demonstrations took place around the world. Rallies and demonstrations took place in London, UK; Washington DC, Toronto, Canada, New York, Chicago; Stockholm, Sweden; Boston; Los Angeles; and many other places. The speakers demanded end to the ongoing genocide of Rohingya people who are indigenous people of Myanmar (formerly Burma) living in their ancestral lands.

The Rohingyas of Myanmar are a stateless people who are the most persecuted people in our time. They have been facing genocidal campaigns, especially since 2012, which saw a series of ethnic cleansing drives by the Rakhine Buddhists of Arakan – planned and aided by the local and central government and organized and mobilized by racist politicians and bigoted monks. It was a national project put into practice for the elimination of the Rohingya, who differ in ethnicity and religion from the majority Buddhists in this country of 55 million people. As a result, probably thousands were lynched to death, a quarter million lost their homes, tens of thousands were forced to choose exodus from this Buddhist den of intolerance and hatred, and an estimated 140,000 Rohingya internally displaced persons were caged in concentration camps in and around Sittwe (formerly Akyab). 

So evil was this proto-Nazi criminal eliminationist policy that anytime a fact-finding international aid agency or an NGO tried to voice its concern on deplorable inhuman condition of the Rohingya people, it was not only silenced by hateful Buddhist mobs that quickly rallied with hateful banners and posters, but was also barred from visiting the place next time. In this series of government sponsored pogroms, Ma Ba Tha – the terrorist organization of Buddhist monks, led by Wirathu – naturally played the role of Thein Sein’s hound dogs, and made the life of Muslims, living both inside and outside the Arakan state, unlivable. In essence, the world saw Buddhist Nazism in practice in much of Myanmar, especially in the western state of Arakan (Rakhine), bordering Bangladesh, where the Rohingyas have been living for centuries. 

Even the Nobel Laureate for peace, the much hyped democracy icon, Suu Kyi, chose to ignore the serious existential plight of this unfortunate people. An official census taken last year purposefully excluded the Rohingya denying them the voting right in country’s general election. All the political organizations that once represented the Rohingya people were disallowed from contesting in the election, and so were the former elected Rohingya MPs. It was all part of a very sinister plan to eliminate the Rohingya politically, socially and economically. 

The fate of the Rohingya refugees did not fare well in the next-door Bangladesh either; not only were they unwelcome there but aid organizations that provide a modicum of relief to Rohingya continue to be doggedly harassed by government agencies. 

With the election win of Suu Kyi’s NLD in the general election last year, a flicker of hope emerged within the international community who expected that she would self-correct her inexcusable role and do the needful towards improving the lot of the persecuted Rohingya. She had her own problems, too. Constitutional roadblocks were put on her way by Thein Sein’s quasi-civilian government that denied her the right to become the president of the country. But she was able to outmaneuver USDP’s intent smartly by creating a new post with more power. 

However, as days turned into months, nothing positive happened even as Suu Kyi took the reign of the government in Myanmar earlier this year. More problematically, she came under widespread international criticism for refusing to even mention the name “Rohingya” and rebuked an American diplomatic who did. Equally disturbingly, she revealed her own prejudice when after a heated interview with BBC’s veteran journalist, Mishal Husain, she was reportedly heard to say angrily, “No one told me I was going to be interviewed by a Muslim.” The case of the Rohingya looked utterly hopeless!

Then like a lightning bolt came the latest news: Suu Kyi has solicited the aid of Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the UN, to lead an “Advisory Commission on the Rakhine State.” The Annan-led commission includes both national and international officials who will recommend “lasting solutions to complex and delicate issues” in Rakhine state. 

What brought this change of heart? Is it because Suu Kyi’s government has realized that for Myanmar to move forward it must loosen its ties with her problematic past that had earned only bad reputation from the international community? Is it because of the realization that the ongoing abuse and discrimination of the Rohingya is also threatening to undermine Myanmar’s historic opening and democratic transition, let alone delaying the needed economic prosperity? 

Whatever may be the true intent of Suu Kyi’s government, there is little doubt that this decision was a timely one, and it was a bold one, too. Many Buddhists inside Myanmar, esp. in the Rakhine state, are die-hard racists and bigots. They resent this decision. They would rather see Rohingya and other religious minorities eliminated altogether from their country one way or another. Decades of falsification of historical truths and hateful propaganda that were propagated by the military government and hate provocateurs like (late) Aye Kyaw and Aye Chan have turned them into killers, justifying and allowing them to do savage crimes against the Rohingya and other Muslims. Forgotten in that lacunar worldview was the hard fact that the forefathers of today’s Rohingya people had settled in Arakan before those of the Rakhine people. 

Myanmar needs the necessary foreign investment to move up economically, and cannot allow a delay of that process until investors’ perception of human rights of the country improves significantly. The international community has been dissatisfied with Suu Kyi’s slow response to ensuring protection, fairness, and justice for all of its people, esp. the Rohingya people whose plight is simply inhumane and unacceptable. Human rights groups have long been demanding donors to leverage their aid, and for the broader international community to pressure the Suu Kyi government to end the repression. They have been demanding that Myanmar respect international law, end its complicity in violating Rohingya rights and punish those promoting and carrying out ethnic cleansing whatever their motivation.

Suu Kyi, thus, had to find someone like Mr. Annan with a prudent track record that would provide the necessary positive publicity for her government, let alone infusion of the needed foreign money. 

After leaving the UN, Mr. Annan has undertaken a few of these missions. In 2007, a disputed election in Kenya lead to widespread communal violence and threatened to unravel and otherwise thriving country. He mediated between the two parties and helped establish a commission of inquiry that investigated post-election violence, turning its findings over the International Criminal Court. He mediated a power sharing agreement that ended the prospect of further violence. It was no accident that groups like the Amnesty International have welcomed the decision. “Today’s announcement is a sign that Myanmar’s authorities are taking the situation in Rakhine state seriously. But it will only have been a worthwhile exercise if it paves the way for the realization of human rights for all people in the state,” said Rafendi Djamin, Amnesty International’s Director for South East Asia and the Pacific said in a statement released earlier.

The formation of the advisory commission should be a matter of celebration. However, as hinted above, many Buddhists, esp. Rakhines (e.g., Arakan National Party – a racist group) are opposed to the Annan commission. They don’t want to solve the Rohingya problem. [The ANP has lately objected to the granting of citizenship of 29 white-card holding Muslims in Buthidaung in the Rakhine state. Prior to the 2015 election, the ANP had thrown its weight behind a successful push to disenfranchise white-card holders. It is worth noting here that according to government figures supplied, there were nearly 800,000 white-card holders in Myanmar at the time they were revoked last year, with over 660,000 in Rakhine State. White cards were first issued as a stop-gap measure in the early 1990s, with many of the state’s Muslims being assured it would pave the way to full citizenship.]

For years, the official Burmese mantra has been that "no foreigner can possibly understand Rakhine's problems". Thus, for the first time, the Burmese government is seeking international expertise to try and solve one of the country's most complex problems. It is a big shift for the government in Myanmar. 

Many human rights are also concerned because of the inclusion of Daw Khin Saw Tint - a known racist and bigot - in the commission. She is a Rakhine Buddhist who chairs the Rakhine Literature and Culture Association (Yangon), responsible for promoting intolerance against the Rohingya people. As Burmese human rights activist, Dr. Maung Zarni has shown in his blog, Ms. Khin Saw Tint remains a very hostile, anti-Rohingya zealot who falsely considers that Rohingyas have no history prior to the Burma's independence from Great Britain. I wish Suu Kyi had been more careful in selection of the members of the Advisory Commission. 

After being named in the commission, Khin Saw Tint said she believes working together with independent and highly respected international figures will present a clear image of what is happening in Rakhine State to the international community. “The problem can only be solved with a bilateral approach,” she said. I pray that she is not speaking with a forked tongue and does not torpedo the needed task of the commission, which does not include a single Rohingya. 

The Annan commission is expected to start work in September and will release a full report, including a set of recommendations on “conflict prevention, prevention, humanitarian assistance, rights and reconciliation, institution building and promotion of development of Rakhine state” by the second half of 2017. However, as we all know too well, the litmus test going forward is whether or not the government will accept and implement those recommendations.

By Kyaw Ye Lynn

Anadolu Agency

August 27, 2016

Ex-government, nationalists claim Rakhine State - home to country's Rohingya Muslims - national issue, not international

YANGON, Myanmar -- Myanmar's former ruling party has said it will closely monitor a newly-formed commission set up to advise the government on resolving conflicts in western Rakhine state.

On Friday, the Union Daily -- owned by the ex-general led-main opposition USDP -- published a party announcement claiming the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State would solely focus on human rights and humanitarian needs in the state while neglecting state interests.

Rakhine houses a majority of the country's Rohingya Muslim population, whom nationalists do not see as Myanmar nationals, rather interlopers from neighboring Bangladesh.

The USDP accused the government -- led by Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) -- of viewing Rakhine as a regional or international issue, as the commission includes three people from outside the country.

“Therefore all citizens of Myanmar would need to closely monitor [the commission] for the national interest and national security,” it said.

Since since mid-2012, nearly 100 people have been killed and some 100,000 people displaced after communal violence broke out in the region between ethnic Rakhine Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims -- described by the United Nations as among the most persecuted minority groups worldwide.

State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi has subsequently formed the commission -- chaired by former United Nations head Kofi Annan -- to finding lasting solutions to the “complex and delicate issues” in western Rakhine -- home to around 1.2 million Rohingya.

But the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) say that the commission -- composed of three international members and six from Myanmar, including representatives from the Buddhist and Muslim communities -- should not include foreign nationals, claiming the Rakhine issue as Myanmar's own internal problem.

On Thursday, Amnesty International described the commission as the most credible and independent attempt yet to address longstanding human rights violations in Rakhine.

“The inclusion of international members should highlight how the situation goes beyond Myanmar’s borders," it highlighted in a statement.

Since 2012, Rohingya have been fleeing Myanmar in droves, terrified of violence that some human rights groups consider to be state sponsored.

Rights groups estimate that as many as 10 percent of the million-strong ethnic group have fled the country in search of better opportunities in Muslim-majority Indonesia and Malaysia -- many of them paying people smugglers to help them achieve their goals.

On Friday, USDP central executive committee member Khin Yi -- who served as the immigration minister under former President Thein Sein -- also underlined to Anadolu Agency that the commission should not include foreign nationals.

“It would make Myanmar people hard to accept the commission’s findings for Rakhine issues,” he said.

The announcement comes a day after a powerful nationalist party in Rakhine demanded the government abolish the commission, stating that non-Burmese members would not be able to understand the background to and the current situation on the ground in Rakhine.

The Arakan National Party (ANP) -- which won the majority of seats in the state in last year’s election -- said the commission would ignore ethnic people's stance, and claimed it would be biased against them, citing that the commission would also examine international aspects of the situation, including the background of those seeking refugee status abroad.

“Therefore we have no confidence in the commission,” the ANP said in a statement.

The commission is scheduled to deliver a report on its findings and recommendations to the Myanmar government within twelve months of its establishment, according to an announcement from Suu Kyi’s office Wednesday.

This will involve consultations with all relevant stakeholders, international experts and foreign dignitaries, it added.

Since her party's victory in the Nov. 8 election, Suu Kyi has been placed under tremendous international pressure to solve problems faced by Rohingya but has had to play a careful balancing act for fear of upsetting the country's nationalists, many of whom have accused Muslims of trying to eradicate the country's Buddhist traditions.

Suu Kyi has, however, enforced the notion that the root of many of the impoverished region's problems are economic, and is encouraging investment in the area, which in turn the NLD hopes will lead to reconciliation between the Buddhist and Muslim communities.

RANGOON – Arakan National Party lawmakers have raised objections to a Muslim woman in Arakan State’s Buthidaung Township being issued full citizenship earlier this month—an act which they say was carried out against existing regulations.

Kyaw Zaw Oo, an ANP regional parliamentarian, said that his claim that the woman’s citizenship status was granted wrongfully is backed by the head of the immigration department, Win Lwin, and the Arakan State security border affairs minister Col. Htein Lin, a statement which The Irrawaddy could not confirm at the time of publication.

On Wednesday, four ANP representatives and the state governing body held a public meeting to discuss the objection of Buthidaung Township’s Buddhist Arakanese residents to the national verification committee’s recommendation for 31 of the township’s Muslim residents to be granted citizenship.

Burma’s 1982 Citizenship Law allows for three levels of citizenship with diminishing rights: full, naturalized and associate. Of the 31 individuals who applied under the category of “Bengali,” in Buthidaung Township, it was reported that “two or three” of the applicants obtained full citizenship and the rest were recommended for naturalized citizenship.

After anti-Muslim violence spread throughout Arakan State in 2012 and 2013, an “Action Plan” for the region was introduced under the administration of ex-President Thein Sein in 2014. Included was a citizenship verification drive aimed at stateless Muslims in Arakan State—some of whom have other ethnic affiliations, such as the Kaman, an officially recognized group. Those self-identifying as ethnic Rohingya were required to register as “Bengali” in their application—an assertion that they are migrants with origins in Bangladesh, rather than Burma—or not be considered for citizenship.

Kyaw Zaw Oo, the ANP MP, said that in Wednesday’s discussion, Col. Htein Lin—the minister for border affairs and security—and Win Lwin of the Arakan State immigration department openly debated the issuing of a “pink card” to the Buthidaung Township woman in question, a gesture indicating the granting of full citizenship.

The provision of the pink card was traced to her parents’ status as holders of “tri-fold cards,” the officials said. These documents were issued starting in 1958 and originally entitled holders to equal rights as other Burmese citizens, until the 1982 Citizenship Law re-defined citizenship eligibility along ethnic lines.

Kyaw Zaw Oo claims that there are two short sentences on the tri-fold card stating that it must not be regarded as identification for citizenship; by issuing a pink card, or full citizenship, to the woman in question, he said, the government would be legally recognizing the now-defunct tri-fold cards as a basis for the citizenship of its bearers.

“So, why should they give a pink card to her?” he said, describing the officials’ action as “daring to contravene the law.”

Many of the applications for citizenship by Muslims in the area are based on possession of tri-fold cards.

According to Aye Nu Sein, the vice chairperson of ANP who participated in Wednesday’s meeting, security and border affairs minister Htein Lin promised the ANP representatives that the government would adhere to existing laws, but he remained vague on whether they would terminate the township level committee’s recommendations for citizenship in the case of the group of 29 of the 31 Muslim residents in question, as the ANP has demanded.

On Aug. 17, around 400 Arakanese Buddhist residents of Buthidaung Township gathered at the Aye Zedi monastery to denounce government officials and launch a poster campaign in response to the recent citizenship recommendations. “For sale” signs were placed in front of their homes and businesses, suggesting that they would leave the township if ineligible “Bengalis” started being recognized as citizens, which they say has led to a rise in crime and disputes over land.

By Abdul Malik Mujahid

Huffington Post

August 27, 2016

Rights Groups Doubt that Systemic Discrimination against Rohingya Will Be Resolved

As manifested in the United States, race and religion are extremely delicate topics for politicians to explore. And eradicating widespread endemic prejudices against certain racial and religious groups is a notoriously explosive proposition. However, that is exactly what is required in Burma, where a slow-burning genocide against the Rohingya people is becoming an urgent priority for the international community. On Aug. 23 2016 Burma’s Nobel Peace Laureate and de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi announced the establishment of a 9-member Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, where the Rohingya primarily live, as “a national initiative to resolve protracted issues in the region”. This sounds, at first blush, like a promising step — considering that the peaceful Rohingya were not invited to the Norway peace conference with other ethnic organizations (EAOs).

Burma Task Force welcomes Ms. Suu Kyi’s belated response to the persecution of Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State and the conditions of poverty and oppression that instigated it. But we are extremely troubled by signs that this Commission has already been compromised by inclusion of staunch defenders of the previous military regime as well as deniers of mass atrocity crimes. The inclusion of former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan cannot restore the balance to this advisory commission — especially since Secretary Annan himself has expressed regret at not doing a better job to handle the Rwandan genocide of 1994. We can pray that he will apply the lessons he learned from Rwanda throughout his work on this Commission, but I fear his voice may be drowned out by the extremist Buddhist nationalists who have expressed quite hostile views of the Rohingya. Most importantly, no Rohingya representatives have been included! I am profoundly dismayed by Ms Suu Kyi’s failure to appoint a single Rohingya leader to a commission tasked to discuss their fate. What could be more damning?

While the presence of two Christians on the Commission will hopefully add a breath of fresh interfaith air, two Rakhine members — namely U Win Mra (Chair of the National Human Rights Commission) and Saw Khin Tint (Chairperson, Rakhine Literature and Culture Association and Vice-Chairperson of the Rakhine Women’s Association) have engaged in denial of mass atrocity crimes committed by the extremist Buddhist nationalists. It’s easy to doubt the comment one of the newly appointed Commission members, Aye Lwin, made to the Democratic Voice of Burma: “This is very impartial third-party intervention.”

An ethnic Rakhine, Win Mra is the chair of the Myanmar Human Rights Commission (MHRC), an organization whose name could not be more misleading. The MHRC officially refuses to accept or utter the name of the Rohingya in blatant disregard for the international norm that any group has the right to self-identify. In fact, established by the previous President and ex-General Thein Sein on whose watch two separate waves of violent pogroms against the Rohingya and other Muslim communities took place, MHRC has been in the fore-front of denying the existence, identity, and history of the Rohingya people.

Mrs Saw Khin Tint is an even more unconscionable choice. A nationally-known Rakhine leader who is on the record condoning the slaughter of all Rohingya as early as December ‘12, within 2 months of the second wave of organized and state-sanctioned killing and community destruction of the Rohingya people, she gave a speech in which she remarked:

“Seeing their [non-Rohingya natives of Myanmar] great anger and compassion, and hear them say, ‘We just want to go and kill all of those Bengali people with our own hands!’ we’ve now got the advantage of gaining the support of all the national races all over Myanmar on the incidents that we’ve sacrificed so far.” (The bi-lingual English-Burmese transcript of the speech delivered by Saw Khin Tint at the gathering of the Rakhines in Yangon on 22 December 2012.)

“Bengali” is the inflammatory and insulting term extremist Buddhist nationalists use to imply that Rohingya do not belong to Burma, but rather are illegal interlopers from Bangladesh. This false narrative is the prime excuse the genocidaires have been using to facilitate the Rohingya’s extermination.

International experts have unequivocally agreed with Burma Task Force’s strong designation of the Rohingya persecution as ‘genocide’ — including Professor Amartya Sen, Suu Kyi’s teacher at Delhi University and a close friend of her late husband Michael Aris. Professor Gregory Stanton, President of the Genocide Watch and past President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, is in accord with this assessment. So are two widely publicized studies by Queen Mary University of London and Yale University Human Rights Law Clinic. It appears that, in the choice of her Commission members, Suu Kyi is far more interested in pleasing the ubiquitous monks than in heeding the warnings of trustworthy international scholars. Peace will not come to Rakhine State, let alone development, if pandering is a higher priority than good policy.

Despite 4 consecutive years of deafening silence, evasion, and dismissal of the concern as “exaggeration”, Suu Kyi should not be able to ignore the mounting criticisms from across the worldwide political spectrum — voices including Pope Francis, the Dalai Lama, George Soros, and Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi—alarmed that 150,000 Rohingya Muslims live in concentration camps and other “conditions calculated to bring about their destruction”. Nor, fortunately, can she prevent the international community, particularly the United States government, from respecting the group right of the Rohingya to self-identify. In brave opposition to the powerful monks’ hate groups, United States Ambassador to Burma Scot Marciel has held to the international norm of self identification & insisted that the Rohingya do exist. Around the globe, World Rohingya Day rallies were held last Friday, 19 August, to demonstrate the Rohingya’s positive existence and clear desert for equal rights in their home country.

Ms Suu Kyi must not shy away from her responsibility with regards to the Rohingya genocide. She must end the wide spread suffering and honor the Rohingya’s legitimate and verifiable claim to full and equal citizenship rights as Burmese citizens. International partners must not be fooled by empty or misleading gestures. Instead, to be true friends of Burma, local and international stakeholders must demand that more appropriate members be added to this Advisory Commission, and that the Commission be fully transparent in its deliberations on this urgent issue. The MaBaTha, the society established by extremist monks to “protect race and religion”, has been disbanded; this is an excellent first step, but will in no way stamp out the hateful prejudices of many Rakhine and other Burmese against the defenseless Rohingya minority. It is imperative that Suu Kyi include Rohingya voices on this Commission, and that concrete steps be taken to restore balance, equality & human decency in Rakhine State.

Follow Abdul Malik Mujahid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/malikmujahid

By Moe Myint

The Irrawaddy

August 25, 2016

RANGOON — The Arakan National Party (ANP) has demanded that the government cancel the new Arakan State Advisory Commission formed on Wednesday, of which former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan will serve as the chairman.

The nine-member team includes three international representatives, including Kofi Annan, and six from Burma—including two Buddhist Arakanese members, two Rangoon-based Muslim members and two government representatives.

In a letter to the government, the ANP expressed objection to the three non-Burmese members selected to serve on the commission, stating that they would not be able to understand the background of and the current situation on the ground in Arakan State.

The region saw significant violence in 2012 and 2013, largely affecting the stateless Muslim Rohingya community and displacing 140,000 civilians. The ANP does not recognize the self-identifying Rohingya minority as belonging to Arakan State, instead describing them as “Bengali” migrants from neighboring Bangladesh.

The ANP announcement stated that the formation of the new commission would likely harm the rights of indigenous people—a reference to the Buddhist Arakanese—and national sovereignty. The problems of the state, said the ANP, is a matter of “internal affairs” which previous governments have failed to resolve in line with current laws.

Muslim commission member Al Haj U Aye Lwin, founder of the interfaith group Religions for Peace, told The Irrawaddy that he finds the involvement of international committee members acceptable and does not believe that the new commission will interfere with Burma’s sovereignty, as the ANP alleged. The work of the committee, he explained, is to make recommendations to the government based on their findings, rather than to take action themselves.

The Burmese government, U Aye Lwin said, needs to take into account the international community’s perspective, because the challenges facing Arakan State have grown beyond those of a domestic issue and have become the focus of global concern.

“So many government experts have tried several times to explain to the international community what is happening. However, they haven’t solved the problem yet. That’s why the government seeks a third party’s perspective,” he said. “We will explain [this situation] to the rest of the world.”

Some members of Burma’s Muslim community also reportedly expressed concern over rumors that the advisory commission had not two, but three Arakanese Buddhist representatives, but U Aye Lwin said that this did not come as a surprise.

“We expected this kind of complaint before the formation,” he said, referring to worries from both Buddhist and Muslim communities regarding the make-up of the commission. “Everybody can share their own opinion in a democratic society. They have the right to criticize. It doesn’t matter.”

The Buddhist Arakanese members of the commission include U Win Mra, who chairs Burma’s National Human Rights Commission, and Daw Saw Khin Tint, who chairs the Arakan Literature and Cultural Association and is the vice-chair of the Arakan Women’s Association.

In addition to Al Haj U Aye Lwin, U Khin Maung Lay, a member of the National Human Rights Commission, will be serving on the commission as a Muslim representative.

The Burmese government’s delegation includes two doctors: Thar Hla Shwe, president of Burma’s Red Cross Society, and Mya Thida, President of the Obstetrical and Gynecological Society of Burma.

There are no Rohingya members on the commission.

U Aye Lwin added that the three international members come from high profile backgrounds, and are believed to be Christian—rather than Buddhist or Muslim. In addition to Kofi Annan, the non-Burmese members are Ghassan Salamé, a scholar from Lebanon and once-advisor to Mr. Annan, and Laetitia van den Assum, a diplomat from the Netherlands and a UN advisor.

The Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) also released a statement of its own about the advisory commission on Thursday, pointing out that the committee’s “endeavors” were “humanitarian” and “ignore the state security issue” in the region.

According to a government announcement, within the next month there will be a signing ceremony between the Kofi Annan Foundation and the Burmese government, initiating the commission’s work.

By Jonah Fisher

BBC News

August 25, 2016

There haven't been many good moments for Myanmar's Rohingya Muslims in the last four years.

This country's dramatic political changes have passed them by. Greater democracy has not brought greater respect for the stateless Rohingya's human rights.

But the formation of an Advisory Commission on Rakhine State represents a rare glimmer of hope.

For the first time, the Burmese government is seeking international expertise to try and solve one of the country's most complex problems.

It's a significant shift. For years, the official Burmese mantra has been that "no foreigner can possibly understand Rakhine's problems".

Now Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary general, has been tasked with taking a fresh look at the issues as head of nine-member commission. His report could just add to the mountain of papers written about Rakhine and the Rohingya, or it just might be a game-changer.

So what's Aung San Suu Kyi up to?

Well, first a cynical take. Next week the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is due in the Burmese capital Nay Pyi Taw and in September Ms Suu Kyi will head to the United States for the UN General Assembly and talks with President Obama.

The Nobel laureate was no doubt bracing herself for awkward questions about why she wasn't doing more to help Myanmar's Muslim minority and in particular the 800,000 or so Rohingya. Those questions can now be easily deflected with reference to this new commission.

But there's more at play than that. By setting up the commission, Ms Suu Kyi is signalling that she is open to new ideas, and doesn't have all the answers.

Kofi Annan may be 78 but, as you'd expect from a former UN secretary general, he's his own man.

The final report, due to be delivered by the end of August 2017, is likely to contain suggestions that many Burmese consider unpalatable. 

Almost certainly it will insist that the Rohingya's basic human rights are respected, perhaps recommending that Myanmar offer them a better route to citizenship.

In Myanmar's current political climate it's hard for Ms Suu Kyi to bring those ideas to the table. She'd be attacked not just by hardline Buddhists but many within her own party. 

So Kofi Annan and his report could be the "Trojan Horse" that brings this sort of proposal into the national debate.

There are of course plenty of caveats.

Problems as deeply entrenched as those between the Buddhist and Muslim communities in Rakhine State will not be solved overnight. The animosity between them has built up over decades with many in the Buddhist majority seeing the Rohingya as illegal immigrants from across the border in Bangladesh.

After the violence of 2012, more than 100,000 Rohingya were forced from their homes into camps. In the years that have followed there's been no real effort to help them return. 

Rakhine has become increasingly segregated, with some comparing it to South Africa's apartheid. Things have become quieter but there's been little reconciliation.

Whatever the commission ends up concluding, any move to give the Rohingya greater rights will be hugely controversial not just in Rakhine State but across the country.

Vocal parts of the Buddhist community are openly hostile towards international aid agencies and the UN. They're unlikely to welcome Kofi Annan's team, no doubt anticipating the sort of recommendations he might make. 

Implementing any "solution" will be even harder. 

But the formation of this advisory commission is something new. However small, it's the first bit of positive news that the Rohingya have had for a long time.

Aman Ullah 

RB History

August 25, 2016

The ethnic Rohingya is one of the many nationalities of the union of Burma. And they are one of the two major communities of Arakan; the other is Rakhine and Buddhist. The Muslims (Rohingyas) and Buddhists (Rakhines) peacefully co-existed in the Arakan for many centuries. In addition to Muslim (Rohingya) and Buddhist (Rakhine) majority groups, a number of other minority peoples also come to live in Arakan, including the Chin, Kamans, Thet, Dinnet, Mramagri, Mro and Khami who, though many are Christians today, were traditionally animists. The Kamans are Muslims and the Mramagri (Baurwa) are Buddhists. Some ethnic Burman also comes to live in Arakan since 1784 after invasion and occupation by the Burman.

Rohingyas, who trace their ancestry to Arabs, Moors, Pathans, Moguls, Bengalis and some Indo-Mongoliod people, are living in Arakan generation after generation for centuries after centuries. Their arrival in Arakan has predated the arrival of many other peoples and races now residing in Arakan and other parts of Burma. Early Muslim settlement in Arakan dates back to 7th century AD. They developed from different stocks of people and concentrated in a common geographical location from their own society with a consolidated population in Arakan well before the Burman invasion in 1784. 

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.

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.

Since Burmese independence in 1948, the Rohingyas have been struggling for their right of self-determination upholding the principle of peaceful co-existence within Burmese federation. They have long been trying to identify themselves with the Union of Burma on the basis of equality and justice. They think that the individual rights is not enough for them; they need their 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. 

That’s why they want to rule their homeland by themselves They are trying to find a political and legal system which will allow them to rule their respective homelands by themselves, and at same time living peacefully together with others who practice different religions and cultures and speak different languages. In other words, they are trying 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. 

For this reason the Muslims of Arakan rendered their support to the British against the Japanese occupation in order to strengthen their standing in the region and encourage Muslim loyalty, the British had published a declaration granting them the status of a Muslim National Area. This entire area was re-conquered by the British at the beginning of 1945. The British set up Peace Committees and organized civilian administrations which functioned until Burma was granted independence in January, 1948. Most of the office-holders were local Muslims, Rohingya, who had previously cooperated with the British. 

The principal political effect of the ‘Peace Committee of North Arakan’ was that it made the Muslims of Arakan autonomy conscious. The promise of British to create a Muslim national area doubled their desire for Muslim state. However, when the demand of Muslim State was put to Rees William Commission, the result was not good.

For this consciousness they went to Mohammed Ali Jinnah in 1947 either to fight for including north Arakan within Pakistan or pressurize General Aung San to grant autonomy to the Muslims of north Arakan. To form an autonomous Muslim State, they took arms and was demanded “To form an autonomous Muslim State in north Arakan, comprising Buthidaung, Rathedaung and Maungdaw townships from the west of Kaladan River upto the eastern part of the Naf River that will remain under the Union of Burma.”

For this reason they joined hands with Arakanese Communist Party led by U Tun Aung Pru to fight together until the fall of the AFPFL’s government with the understanding that Muslims would take the western side of Kaladan whereas the rest of Arakan would be under the control of Arakan Communist Party. 

For this reason they took arms and demanded that all the injustices against the Muslims of Arakan be corrected and that they be allowed to live as Burmese citizens, according to the law, and not be subject to arbitrariness and tyranny.

For this reason the Muslims objected to the demand of the Arakan Party for the status of a state for Arakan within the framework of the Union of Burma. The large majority of the Muslim organizations of the Rohinga of Maungdaw and Buthidaung demanded autonomy for the region, to be directly governed by the central government in Rangoon without any Arakanese officials or any Arakanese influence whatsoever. Their minimal demand was the creation of a separate district without autonomy but governed from the center. The Muslim members of the Constituent Assembly, and later the Muslim M.P’s from Arakan raised this demand also during the debates in Parliament and in the press.

In the years 1960 to 1962, the Rohinga organizations and the respective Arakanese Muslim organizations initiated frantic activities with reference to the Muslim status in Arakan, and especially in the regions of Maungdaw and Buthidaung. This was in response to the promise made by U Nu on the eve of the general elections of 1960, that if his party won, he would confer the status of a “State” upon Arakan, within the framework of the Union of Burma, on a par with the “statehood” of the other integral states of the Union. After winning the elections, U Nu appointed an enquiry commission to study all the problems involved in the question of Arakan. 

The Rohinga Jamiyyat al-'Ulama’ submitted to this enquiry commission a long and explanatory memorandum on the position of the Muslims of northern Arakan. The memorandum stated that the Muslims of this region constitute a separate racial group which is in absolute majority there; it called for the creation of a special district to be directly subject to the central government in Rangoon. The memorandum also demanded that the district have a “district council” of its own which shall be vested with local autonomy. As a compromise solution, the authors of the memorandum agreed to the district being a part of the Arakan “State”; however, they insisted that the Head of “State” was to be “counseled” by the Council in the appointment of officials and in all matters concerning the district and its problems. The appointed officials would also be briefed and advised by the Council. The district would also receive direct allocations for its needs and would enjoy particular attention in matters of culture, economies, and education.

The Rohinga Youth Association held a meeting in Rangoon on July 31, 1961, where the call was issued not to grant the status of “State” to Arakan because of the community tensions still existing between Muslims and Buddhists since the 1942 riots. A similar resolution was taken by the Rohinga Students Association, with the additional warning that if it is decided, despite all protest, to set up the “State”, this would require the partition of Arakan and the awarding of separate autonomy to the Muslims.

Muslim Members of Parliament from Maungdaw and Buthidaung likewise petitioned the government and the enquiry commission not to include their regions in the planned Arakan “State”. They had no objection to the creation of such a state, but only without the districts of Buthidaung, Maungdaw, and part of Rathedaung, where the Muslims were in the majority. These districts must be formed into a separate unit in order to ensure the existence of the Rohinga. Forcing the creation of a single state upon all of Arakan would be likely to lead to the renewed spilling of blood.

The problem of the Muslims of Akyab and the other regions of Arakan, where the Muslims were in the minority, were more complicated and their position led to tensions among the Rohinga organizations. There were those who deemed it pointless to object to U Nu’s plan of “Statehood” and therefore supported the granting of the status of “State” to the whole of Arakan, including the Muslim regions. They feared that separation of these regions would redound to the detriment of the Muslims in the rest of Arakan. They of course demanded guarantees and assurances for the protection of the Muslims; to this end they insisted that Muslims be co-opted to serve as members of the preparatory committee which would deal with the creation of the “State”. In the memorandum submitted to the enquiry commission by the organization of Arakanese Muslims (of Sultan Mahmud), it was explained that they would support the “State” only on two conditions: if the Arakanese Buddhists would support their demands; and if the constitutions of the “State” would include, specifically, religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative, and educational guarantees for Muslims. The Head of State of the new “State” of Arakan would alternate: once a Muslim and once a non-Muslim. When the Head of State was a Muslim, the Speaker of the State Council would be a non-Muslim, but his deputy, a Muslim; and vice versa. The same arrangement would also be in effect in the appointments, committees and other bodies. No less than one-third of the “State’s” ministers were to be Muslims. No law affecting Muslims would be passed unless and until the majority of the Muslim Members of the Council voted for it. In the matter of appointments to jobs in Muslim areas, the Chief of State would act on the advice of the Muslim Members of his Cabinet. In all appointments to government posts, to public services, to municipal positions and the like, Muslims would enjoy a just proportion in accordance with their percentage in the population. In filling the appointments allotted to Muslims, the Muslim candidates would compete among themselves. The government would attentatively meet the educational and economic needs of the Muslims. No pupil would be forced to participate in religious classes not of his own religion. Every religious sect would be allowed training in his own religion in all institutions of learning. Every and any religious sect would be permitted to set up its own educational institutions that would be recognized by the government. Muslims would be completely free to develop their own special Rohinga language and culture, and to spread their religion. A special officer for Muslim Affairs would be appointed whose job it would be to investigate complaints and obstructions, and to report on them to the Chief of State. For a period of ten years from the date of the establishment of the “State”, the right would be reserved to every district - and especially to those of northern Arakan - to secede from the “State” and transfer itself to the direct jurisdiction of the central government in Rangoon. Those supporting these demands suggested bearing in mind the examples offered by the viable arrangements existing between the Muslims and Christians in Lebanon, between the Greeks and Turks in Cyprus, and among the Chinese, Malays, Indians, and Pakistanis in Singapore; only such just arrangements between Muslims and Buddhists could vouch for the success of the State of Arakan. 

At long last, it was on the first of May, 1961, in the provinces of Maungdaw, Buthidaung and the western portion of Rathedaung the government set up the Mayu Frontier Administration (MFA). It was not an autonomy, for the region was administered by Army officers; since it was not placed under the jurisdiction of Arakan, however, the new arrangement earned the agreement of the Rohinga leaders, especially as the new military administration succeeded in putting down the rebellion and in bringing order and security to the region.

At the beginning of 1962 the government prepared a draft law for the establishment of the “State” of Arakan and, in accordance with Muslim demand, excluded the Mayu District1. The military revolution took place in March, 1962. The new government cancelled the plan to grant Arakan the status of a “State”, but the Mayu District remained subject to the special Administration that had been set up for it.

By Kofi Annan Foundation

August 24, 2016

Geneva – At the request of State Counsellor Daw Aung San Su Kyi, Kofi Annan will chair an advisory commission on Rakhine State. The overall objective of the Commission, which will be assisted by the Kofi Annan Foundation, is to provide recommendations on the complex challenges facing Rakhine.

The Commission will initiate a dialogue with political and community leaders in Rakhine with the aim of proposing measures to improve the well-being of all the people of the State.

In its work, the Commission will consider humanitarian and developmental issues, access to basic services, the assurance of basic rights, and the security of the people of Rakhine.

It will submit its final report and recommendations to the Myanmar government in the second half of 2017.

“I am pleased to support the national efforts to promote peace, reconciliation and development in Rakhine”, Mr Annan said. “I look forward to listening to the leaders and people of Rakhine and to working with the State and central authorities to ensure a more secure and prosperous future for all.”

The Commission will convene for the first time on Monday, 5 September 2016 in Yangon, Myanmar.

The commissioners are:

• Kofi Annan (Chair), Chair of the Kofi Annan Foundation, Secretary General of the United Nations (1997 – 2006), Nobel Peace Laureate (2001)
• Mr U Win Mra, Chair of the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission,
• Dr Thar Hla Shwe, President of the Myanmar Red Cross Society
• Mr Ghassan Salamé, Lebanese Minister of Culture (2000-2003), UN Special Advisor to Secretary General (2003-2006)
• Ms Laetitia van den Assum, Special Advisor to the UNAIDS (2005-2006), the Netherlands’ Ambassador to the United Kingdom (2012-2015)
• Mr U Aye Lwin, Core Member and Founder of Religions for Peace, Myanmar
• Dr Mya Thida, President of Obstetrical and Gynecological Society of Myanmar Medical Association, Member of the Myanmar Academy of Medical Science
• Mr U Khin Maung Lay, Member of the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission
• Ms Daw Saw Khin Tint, Chairperson (Rakhine Literature and Culture Association, Yangon) and Vice-Chairperson (Rakhine Women Association)