Addendum: The UNGA Resolution of 29 December 2014 – text at http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/69/248 – does not in fact specifically mention the 1982 Citizenship Act. It calls on the Government of Myanmar “to allow freedom of movement and
equal access to full citizenship for the Rohingya minority”. That’s all. What is the source of your quotation?
Peter Nicolaus from Austria, the UNHCR Senior Repatriation Officer in 1995, has written: “In 1785 the Burmese conquered Arakan and during the following decades of guerilla warfare almost two-third of the population – Arakanese and most of the Rohingyas and Heins – left Arakan for the Chittagong area. This was the definite end of the Rohingya culture and language, since they could not maintain their social structure as minority in the diaspora. During the 1st Anglo-Burmese War (1824-26) the British conquered Arakan and annexed it to British India. During the British period many of the above mentioned refugees returned together with new settlers from Bengal who flowed into the depopulated country bringing with them Bengali culture and language.”
Nicholaus used the words “so-called Rohingya” when he first mentioned them. It should also be noted that many thousands of Arakanese and Muslims were deported as well to the Kingdom of Ava after the Burmese invasion.
From contemporary reports (Paton, Comstock) and modern writings (Charney) the British found only 100,000 people left in Arakan (which is twice the size of Wales) when they invaded. The old Muslim culture was all but wiped out, and the new culture was increasingly Bengali. By 1931, the British could identify only some 26,153 males and 25,462 females in the (pre-1785) indigenous group “Arakan Muslims” (Yakhain Kala) out of a total of 111,130 males and 86,430 females classified as “Indian Muslims” in Arakan, mostly “Chittagonians” and “Bengalis”, but not including Myedu, Kaman and other Burmese Muslims (or Zerbadis) living in Arakan.
As I interpret these figures, and taking into account post-war illegal Chittagonian immigration into Arakan which Thomson and Adloff had characterised already in 1955 as being “on a vast scale” , later thought to be in the region of tens if not hundreds of thousands, it seems doubtful to me that even as much as 10% of the present Muslim population of Rakhine State could seriously claim to trace their ancestry in Arakan back to 1785. These 10% can reasonably claim historical links. I do not see how the other 90% who have no links at all can possibly claim an indigenous ancestry or historical “identity” as you seem to imply.
You’re correct to say the idea of “Rohingya” identity is relatively recent. You’re also correct to say there was a Muslim population prior to the British rule. However, as recorded in British censuses, the community was completely overwhelmed by latter arrival of Chittagonian immigrants. The 1872 census shows Muslims were 13% in Rakhine, after five decades of British rule. There are some claims that the 1862 census shows they were only 5%. From these censuses, we can roughly estimate that if there were no intermarriages, about 15% of Muslims today can trace their origin back to pre-colonial period; the majority of about 55% to colonial period; and the remainder 30% came after the Burmese independence. So even according the “harsh” 1982 citizenship law, 70% of them may well be eligible for naturalized citizenship. Given a large number of so-called “Rohingya” in Bangladesh, we may think the Burmese government should say “hey Bangladesh, accept those guys on your side, we’ll accept those in our side”. But that won’t happen for reasons stated below.
(1) The “Rohingya” lobby.
Even scholars who accept “Rohingya” ethnicity still believe that they’re “Bengali” by race (or do we need genetic analysis?). But according to the “Rohingya”, they’re 8th century Arab seafarers. They were there before the Burmese or Rakhine. As one of their leaders said, “Rohingya have been in Rakhine from the creation of the world. Arakan was ours!” If accepting the term means accepting these rewritten histories, none in Myanmar will be persuaded to compromise. And by insisting on the term rather than proposing alternatives, their leaders have effectively used their people as hostages to advance a political agenda.
(2) The existential fear of Muslim takeover.
The Future of World Religions from PEW predicts that Islam will overtake all other religions by the 2050s mainly through high birth rates. In Rakhine, they were 29% in 1983, but now 40%. Given two times higher fertility (5.0 compared to Rakhine’s 2.4), I don’t think they will take until 2035 to become majority. This is happening in the context of long mutual distrust, active historical revisionism campaigns and communal violence on-and-off since 1942. Unless the root causes of their fear is solved, segregation and exclusion will be the preferred methods for Rakhine to prevent a real or perceived Muslim takeover.
With respect, none of the organs of the UN – General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Security Council – would presume to interpret the nationality law of any Member State. It is also a matter of international law that: “The law of each State primarily determines who are its nationals” [‘Handbook of International Law’ – Anthony Aust: Page 179].
Only a small fraction of those Member Countries (which included Myanmar) who agreed by consensus the non-binding UNGA Resolution of 24 December 2014 would have actually read the 1982 Citizenship Act, or indeed know anything about its contents. Had they read the Act, they would have noted that under Article 8 the Myanmar Government (Council of State in 1982) has full discretion to grant citizenship to anyone it chooses “in the interest of the State”. Under Article 4 the Government “may decide whether any ethnic group is national or not”. The 1982 Act does not specifically refer to the 135 ethnicities, a list of which was first published only on 26 September 1990 in the Burmese edition of the Working People’s Daily. Article 3 which lists the “Top Eight” ethnicities is illustrative and not definitive. It simply repeats what was already in Article 3(a) of the 1948 Act. The 1982 Act does not state, nor did the 1948 Act state, that only descendants of persons settled in Burma before 1823 may be citizens. It simply confirms that those who are such descendants are automatically entitled to citizenship, but not exclusively so.
In short, the Myanmar Government already has all the powers needed under the 1982 Act to grant citizenship forthwith to the Rohingya. The Act does not need amendment for this purpose.
After 1948 Arakan Muslims were citizens of Burma/Myanmar and this was internationally recognised. The British Ambassador, reporting in January 1964 on the visit of the ill-fated Pakistani Foreign Minister Bhutto (I was Burma Desk Officer in London at the time), observed : “The Moslems in that portion of Arakan which adjoins the border with East Pakistan number about 400,000 and have lived there for generations and have acquired Burmese nationality. But they are patently of Pakistani origin and occasionally some Pakistanis cross into Arakan illegally and mingle with the local population. As part of a drive to detect these illegal immigrants the local Burmese authorities have for some time employed extremely oppressive measures. The Pakistan Government are anxious that these Arakanese Moslems should not be goaded into leaving Burma and taking refuge in East Pakistan which cannot support them. Mr. Bhutto therefore urged the Burmese to modify their attitude towards these people and offered the maximum cooperation in dealing with any genuine illegal immigrants.”
When those Arakan Muslims – the majority – who held or were entitled to IDs prior to 1982 sought to exchange these for new IDs under the 1982 Act (Article 6 of which guaranteed that: “A person who is already a citizen on the date this law comes into force is a citizen”), they were fobbed off with temporary “White Cards” on the grounds that their entitlement needed to be checked. No serious action was ever taken to investigate entitlement to citizenship. The “White Cards” became permanent, and have now been invalidated.
In short, it was not the 1982 Act as such which has suspended the citizenship of tens of thousands of Arakan Muslims, but the actions of corrupt, obstructive and venal Rakhine State officials, with the passive acquiescence of the central government who must have known what was happening. Yet it would be foolish of us to pretend that there was not, and today continues not to be, a serious problem. The (West) German Embassy in Karachi, reporting on the visit of General Ne Win to Pakistan in February 1965, referred to some 250,000 illegal Bengali immigrants in Arakan. By 1975 the number had risen to 500,000, according to the (unreliable) Bangladeshi Ambassador, in conversation with the British Ambassador in Rangoon on 23 December 1975. No wonder these thousands of illegal Bengalis and their descendants currently in Arakan want to be classified as “Rohingya”.
How cautious we need to be when using the term “Rohingya”, when we cannot be sure precisely to whom we are referring and whether those concerned are legal or illegal residents.
@SWH: I’m specifically responding to your second point, specifically the work of Jacques Leider, who talks about the construction of the Rohingya identity.
His work is empirically correct – the idea of a “Rohingya” identity is very new. That being said, so is the idea of a “Thai” national identity – so, should all Thais have to leave Thailand? So is the idea of a Malaysian national identity – so should all Malaysians have to vacate Southeast Asia? So is the idea of an Indonesian identity. Should the entire population of Indonesia be expelled?
Saying that an identity did not exist before a certain date is an invalid argument. The question is, whether or not the people who claim that identity lived there. And, the evidence shows a Muslim population in Rakhine State long before the colonial period. Whether or not they had a modernized political identity (they didn’t – neither did anyone else) is beside the point.
There are two ways to extract gold, unless it is mostly ‘pure’ placer gold (sometimes occurring naturally, alloyed with silver). Both are dangerous. You mention one, which is the formation of an amalgam of gold and mercury (very toxic) which forms a stable complex. Once used as amalgam filings for tooth cavities. Other than liquid Aqua Regia (concentrated nitric acid mixed with fuming sulfuric acid), there are very few organic or inorganic compounds that can chelate gold ore deposits (and fewer poor Indonesian miners walk around with acid in their pockets). The one compound used extensively (and is cheap) in the gold mining industry is NaCN or KCN, sodium or potassium cyanide, which has a unique ability to chelate with gold (Au) and form a complex. As everyone is aware, all cyanide compounds are toxic by accidental ingestion, inhalation or skin contact. Moreover, the mines in West Kalimantan (and elsewhere) are acidic, due to acidic accessory minerals and “acid rain” from log burning. The sulfuric acid, present at mine tailings and gangue (mineral waste detritus) and in the smoggy air, combines with cyanide salts to form the deadly and odourless HCN (hydrogen cyanide) which is lethal in very small concentrations; in fact more lethal than mercury (Hg) which tends to build up and effects the central nervous system, over a long time. As they say, HCN is quick, odourless and painless, acting in minutes.
Of course, all commercial gold mines are generally equipped with safety mechanisms to reduce exposure, either to cyanide or trace metals, present with gold, that are also toxic (usually in hydrothermal gold deposits), like mercury, cadmium and thallium (rare). Naturally, Indonesian miners who are working deposits on their own, have no access to gas masks, gas chromatographs, safety clothing or antidotes to mercury or cyanide poisoning. Finally, gold itself is toxic in the form of inorganic gold compounds, even though gold compounds were once used (in the West and in China) to treat gout. Today, organic-based drugs are used, most of the gold used for ornamentation or in the electronics industry (gold is a moderate conductor).
I have great memories of doing exactly what you did here back in 2010 – indeed some of your photos are identical to ours. It is a unique corner of the country to be sure, with a fascinating history to boot. Interesting religious syntheses too.
am happy for the improvement on interesting after the Malay government’s ability to upgrade in so many products (rubber for example), that they haven’t been able to exhibit much innovation in rice production more wisdom.
When Obama brings up human rights, why don’t the Vietnamese mention the US massive child poverty- and outrageous incarceration rates for Blacks? Two can play this sport and I hope the US gets more push-back than it has to date.
SWH, Have I even mentioned Thein Sein in any of my posts? The quote you included is interesting though. Thein Sein has spent most of his life being part of an army that has massacred and incarcerated its own people for wanting to elect political representatives, the army has forced people into slave labor, they have used rape as a weapon of war, and the generals have enriched themselves and their families while the majority of the population lived in poverty. Their human rights record is horrific and should be condemned.
I came from Mawlamyine. My parents are village farmers. Back in the 1990s, when you were happy screaming for sanctions, the poor Burmese were dying to make a living. I know how your brain works, exactly because I had a brain like yours in the past. Would you believe two years ago, I was someone like you screaming for “Rohingya rights”.
The quote comes from Thein Sein himself. So UN or Western governments know more about Thein Sein than Thin Sein himself? You are trying to assert authority in a country for which you know nothing.
How long is it going to take for the rakyat to realise the putric stench covering the nation and increasing every second is coming from the gigantic pile of crap coming out from all the PM’s bootlickers. All this pile of crap is just waiting for the huge pile of worthless legislation blocking the toilet to be flushed down the toilet first so they can follow suit. Simple. Why have legislations that are blatantly ignored or enforced at the whim and fancy of the PM and his bootlickers. They are not even worth the paper they are written on. Thats how toilet papers are and meant to be used as such.
It is the hypocrisy of some people that strikes me. For decades, refugees of all “ethnic stripes and colours” from “Myanmar” fleeing the “evil” Burmese military regime will go out of their way to get the help of organisations like the UNHCR to get political asylum and refugee status in Western countries (not China, mind you!), but when Rohingyas ask for the same treatment, some people, even the ones who left Burma to live in a democratic and tolerant Western country, get upset and start blaming Western countries for this “ugly illegal Bengali problem”. Go figure!
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
I was going to leave a comment, but I knew it would be censored by the disgusting hypocrites at New Mandala. What else could you expect from the descendants of criminals? Bad DNA, I guess…
Is that what you think it is a “Myth” or is it part of ‘mythical’ all these historical facts about the rape/colonization of Myanmar that started this quamire?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Social media, Rohingya and damn lies
Addendum: The UNGA Resolution of 29 December 2014 – text at http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/69/248 – does not in fact specifically mention the 1982 Citizenship Act. It calls on the Government of Myanmar “to allow freedom of movement and
equal access to full citizenship for the Rohingya minority”. That’s all. What is the source of your quotation?
The gold farmers
Powerful! Peluso captures the world of gold mining like Sebasti├гo Salgado!
Social media, Rohingya and damn lies
Peter Nicolaus from Austria, the UNHCR Senior Repatriation Officer in 1995, has written: “In 1785 the Burmese conquered Arakan and during the following decades of guerilla warfare almost two-third of the population – Arakanese and most of the Rohingyas and Heins – left Arakan for the Chittagong area. This was the definite end of the Rohingya culture and language, since they could not maintain their social structure as minority in the diaspora. During the 1st Anglo-Burmese War (1824-26) the British conquered Arakan and annexed it to British India. During the British period many of the above mentioned refugees returned together with new settlers from Bengal who flowed into the depopulated country bringing with them Bengali culture and language.”
Nicholaus used the words “so-called Rohingya” when he first mentioned them. It should also be noted that many thousands of Arakanese and Muslims were deported as well to the Kingdom of Ava after the Burmese invasion.
From contemporary reports (Paton, Comstock) and modern writings (Charney) the British found only 100,000 people left in Arakan (which is twice the size of Wales) when they invaded. The old Muslim culture was all but wiped out, and the new culture was increasingly Bengali. By 1931, the British could identify only some 26,153 males and 25,462 females in the (pre-1785) indigenous group “Arakan Muslims” (Yakhain Kala) out of a total of 111,130 males and 86,430 females classified as “Indian Muslims” in Arakan, mostly “Chittagonians” and “Bengalis”, but not including Myedu, Kaman and other Burmese Muslims (or Zerbadis) living in Arakan.
As I interpret these figures, and taking into account post-war illegal Chittagonian immigration into Arakan which Thomson and Adloff had characterised already in 1955 as being “on a vast scale” , later thought to be in the region of tens if not hundreds of thousands, it seems doubtful to me that even as much as 10% of the present Muslim population of Rakhine State could seriously claim to trace their ancestry in Arakan back to 1785. These 10% can reasonably claim historical links. I do not see how the other 90% who have no links at all can possibly claim an indigenous ancestry or historical “identity” as you seem to imply.
Social media, Rohingya and damn lies
You’re correct to say the idea of “Rohingya” identity is relatively recent. You’re also correct to say there was a Muslim population prior to the British rule. However, as recorded in British censuses, the community was completely overwhelmed by latter arrival of Chittagonian immigrants. The 1872 census shows Muslims were 13% in Rakhine, after five decades of British rule. There are some claims that the 1862 census shows they were only 5%. From these censuses, we can roughly estimate that if there were no intermarriages, about 15% of Muslims today can trace their origin back to pre-colonial period; the majority of about 55% to colonial period; and the remainder 30% came after the Burmese independence. So even according the “harsh” 1982 citizenship law, 70% of them may well be eligible for naturalized citizenship. Given a large number of so-called “Rohingya” in Bangladesh, we may think the Burmese government should say “hey Bangladesh, accept those guys on your side, we’ll accept those in our side”. But that won’t happen for reasons stated below.
(1) The “Rohingya” lobby.
Even scholars who accept “Rohingya” ethnicity still believe that they’re “Bengali” by race (or do we need genetic analysis?). But according to the “Rohingya”, they’re 8th century Arab seafarers. They were there before the Burmese or Rakhine. As one of their leaders said, “Rohingya have been in Rakhine from the creation of the world. Arakan was ours!” If accepting the term means accepting these rewritten histories, none in Myanmar will be persuaded to compromise. And by insisting on the term rather than proposing alternatives, their leaders have effectively used their people as hostages to advance a political agenda.
(2) The existential fear of Muslim takeover.
The Future of World Religions from PEW predicts that Islam will overtake all other religions by the 2050s mainly through high birth rates. In Rakhine, they were 29% in 1983, but now 40%. Given two times higher fertility (5.0 compared to Rakhine’s 2.4), I don’t think they will take until 2035 to become majority. This is happening in the context of long mutual distrust, active historical revisionism campaigns and communal violence on-and-off since 1942. Unless the root causes of their fear is solved, segregation and exclusion will be the preferred methods for Rakhine to prevent a real or perceived Muslim takeover.
Social media, Rohingya and damn lies
With respect, none of the organs of the UN – General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Security Council – would presume to interpret the nationality law of any Member State. It is also a matter of international law that: “The law of each State primarily determines who are its nationals” [‘Handbook of International Law’ – Anthony Aust: Page 179].
Only a small fraction of those Member Countries (which included Myanmar) who agreed by consensus the non-binding UNGA Resolution of 24 December 2014 would have actually read the 1982 Citizenship Act, or indeed know anything about its contents. Had they read the Act, they would have noted that under Article 8 the Myanmar Government (Council of State in 1982) has full discretion to grant citizenship to anyone it chooses “in the interest of the State”. Under Article 4 the Government “may decide whether any ethnic group is national or not”. The 1982 Act does not specifically refer to the 135 ethnicities, a list of which was first published only on 26 September 1990 in the Burmese edition of the Working People’s Daily. Article 3 which lists the “Top Eight” ethnicities is illustrative and not definitive. It simply repeats what was already in Article 3(a) of the 1948 Act. The 1982 Act does not state, nor did the 1948 Act state, that only descendants of persons settled in Burma before 1823 may be citizens. It simply confirms that those who are such descendants are automatically entitled to citizenship, but not exclusively so.
In short, the Myanmar Government already has all the powers needed under the 1982 Act to grant citizenship forthwith to the Rohingya. The Act does not need amendment for this purpose.
After 1948 Arakan Muslims were citizens of Burma/Myanmar and this was internationally recognised. The British Ambassador, reporting in January 1964 on the visit of the ill-fated Pakistani Foreign Minister Bhutto (I was Burma Desk Officer in London at the time), observed : “The Moslems in that portion of Arakan which adjoins the border with East Pakistan number about 400,000 and have lived there for generations and have acquired Burmese nationality. But they are patently of Pakistani origin and occasionally some Pakistanis cross into Arakan illegally and mingle with the local population. As part of a drive to detect these illegal immigrants the local Burmese authorities have for some time employed extremely oppressive measures. The Pakistan Government are anxious that these Arakanese Moslems should not be goaded into leaving Burma and taking refuge in East Pakistan which cannot support them. Mr. Bhutto therefore urged the Burmese to modify their attitude towards these people and offered the maximum cooperation in dealing with any genuine illegal immigrants.”
When those Arakan Muslims – the majority – who held or were entitled to IDs prior to 1982 sought to exchange these for new IDs under the 1982 Act (Article 6 of which guaranteed that: “A person who is already a citizen on the date this law comes into force is a citizen”), they were fobbed off with temporary “White Cards” on the grounds that their entitlement needed to be checked. No serious action was ever taken to investigate entitlement to citizenship. The “White Cards” became permanent, and have now been invalidated.
In short, it was not the 1982 Act as such which has suspended the citizenship of tens of thousands of Arakan Muslims, but the actions of corrupt, obstructive and venal Rakhine State officials, with the passive acquiescence of the central government who must have known what was happening. Yet it would be foolish of us to pretend that there was not, and today continues not to be, a serious problem. The (West) German Embassy in Karachi, reporting on the visit of General Ne Win to Pakistan in February 1965, referred to some 250,000 illegal Bengali immigrants in Arakan. By 1975 the number had risen to 500,000, according to the (unreliable) Bangladeshi Ambassador, in conversation with the British Ambassador in Rangoon on 23 December 1975. No wonder these thousands of illegal Bengalis and their descendants currently in Arakan want to be classified as “Rohingya”.
How cautious we need to be when using the term “Rohingya”, when we cannot be sure precisely to whom we are referring and whether those concerned are legal or illegal residents.
Social media, Rohingya and damn lies
@SWH: I’m specifically responding to your second point, specifically the work of Jacques Leider, who talks about the construction of the Rohingya identity.
His work is empirically correct – the idea of a “Rohingya” identity is very new. That being said, so is the idea of a “Thai” national identity – so, should all Thais have to leave Thailand? So is the idea of a Malaysian national identity – so should all Malaysians have to vacate Southeast Asia? So is the idea of an Indonesian identity. Should the entire population of Indonesia be expelled?
Saying that an identity did not exist before a certain date is an invalid argument. The question is, whether or not the people who claim that identity lived there. And, the evidence shows a Muslim population in Rakhine State long before the colonial period. Whether or not they had a modernized political identity (they didn’t – neither did anyone else) is beside the point.
The gold farmers
Thoroughly enjoyed the vivid and informative photo essay – a great addition to the article
The gold farmers
There are two ways to extract gold, unless it is mostly ‘pure’ placer gold (sometimes occurring naturally, alloyed with silver). Both are dangerous. You mention one, which is the formation of an amalgam of gold and mercury (very toxic) which forms a stable complex. Once used as amalgam filings for tooth cavities. Other than liquid Aqua Regia (concentrated nitric acid mixed with fuming sulfuric acid), there are very few organic or inorganic compounds that can chelate gold ore deposits (and fewer poor Indonesian miners walk around with acid in their pockets). The one compound used extensively (and is cheap) in the gold mining industry is NaCN or KCN, sodium or potassium cyanide, which has a unique ability to chelate with gold (Au) and form a complex. As everyone is aware, all cyanide compounds are toxic by accidental ingestion, inhalation or skin contact. Moreover, the mines in West Kalimantan (and elsewhere) are acidic, due to acidic accessory minerals and “acid rain” from log burning. The sulfuric acid, present at mine tailings and gangue (mineral waste detritus) and in the smoggy air, combines with cyanide salts to form the deadly and odourless HCN (hydrogen cyanide) which is lethal in very small concentrations; in fact more lethal than mercury (Hg) which tends to build up and effects the central nervous system, over a long time. As they say, HCN is quick, odourless and painless, acting in minutes.
Of course, all commercial gold mines are generally equipped with safety mechanisms to reduce exposure, either to cyanide or trace metals, present with gold, that are also toxic (usually in hydrothermal gold deposits), like mercury, cadmium and thallium (rare). Naturally, Indonesian miners who are working deposits on their own, have no access to gas masks, gas chromatographs, safety clothing or antidotes to mercury or cyanide poisoning. Finally, gold itself is toxic in the form of inorganic gold compounds, even though gold compounds were once used (in the West and in China) to treat gout. Today, organic-based drugs are used, most of the gold used for ornamentation or in the electronics industry (gold is a moderate conductor).
Southeast Asia’s Uighur dilemma
One Belt, One Road, One Whip, One Boss!
The view from Bandarban
I have great memories of doing exactly what you did here back in 2010 – indeed some of your photos are identical to ours. It is a unique corner of the country to be sure, with a fascinating history to boot. Interesting religious syntheses too.
Agriculture in Malaysia’s economic and social transformation
am happy for the improvement on interesting after the Malay government’s ability to upgrade in so many products (rubber for example), that they haven’t been able to exhibit much innovation in rice production more wisdom.
Uncle Sam and Uncle Ho
When Obama brings up human rights, why don’t the Vietnamese mention the US massive child poverty- and outrageous incarceration rates for Blacks? Two can play this sport and I hope the US gets more push-back than it has to date.
Thailand’s thieves in uniform
But you don’t understand, Thaksin is a royalist. Every educated people agree on that.
Social media, Rohingya and damn lies
SWH, Have I even mentioned Thein Sein in any of my posts? The quote you included is interesting though. Thein Sein has spent most of his life being part of an army that has massacred and incarcerated its own people for wanting to elect political representatives, the army has forced people into slave labor, they have used rape as a weapon of war, and the generals have enriched themselves and their families while the majority of the population lived in poverty. Their human rights record is horrific and should be condemned.
Social media, Rohingya and damn lies
Sorry Mr Talcoth,
I came from Mawlamyine. My parents are village farmers. Back in the 1990s, when you were happy screaming for sanctions, the poor Burmese were dying to make a living. I know how your brain works, exactly because I had a brain like yours in the past. Would you believe two years ago, I was someone like you screaming for “Rohingya rights”.
The quote comes from Thein Sein himself. So UN or Western governments know more about Thein Sein than Thin Sein himself? You are trying to assert authority in a country for which you know nothing.
The law in Malaysia is an ass
How long is it going to take for the rakyat to realise the putric stench covering the nation and increasing every second is coming from the gigantic pile of crap coming out from all the PM’s bootlickers. All this pile of crap is just waiting for the huge pile of worthless legislation blocking the toilet to be flushed down the toilet first so they can follow suit. Simple. Why have legislations that are blatantly ignored or enforced at the whim and fancy of the PM and his bootlickers. They are not even worth the paper they are written on. Thats how toilet papers are and meant to be used as such.
Social media, Rohingya and damn lies
It is the hypocrisy of some people that strikes me. For decades, refugees of all “ethnic stripes and colours” from “Myanmar” fleeing the “evil” Burmese military regime will go out of their way to get the help of organisations like the UNHCR to get political asylum and refugee status in Western countries (not China, mind you!), but when Rohingyas ask for the same treatment, some people, even the ones who left Burma to live in a democratic and tolerant Western country, get upset and start blaming Western countries for this “ugly illegal Bengali problem”. Go figure!
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
Malaysia’s opposition is not dead: Nik Nazmi
I was going to leave a comment, but I knew it would be censored by the disgusting hypocrites at New Mandala. What else could you expect from the descendants of criminals? Bad DNA, I guess…
Social media, Rohingya and damn lies
Ashin Wirathu
If only a westerner realize how difficult it is to obtain the “Ashin” status in Buddhism.
May be all his admonishment might be interpreted more appropriately.
One Example:
1)Prostituting vs whoring, which all western media insist on repeating, as he spoke about UNHRC Chair person decision.
Burmese language, #6.1.1 says it quite well.
Social media, Rohingya and damn lies
Is that what you think it is a “Myth” or is it part of ‘mythical’ all these historical facts about the rape/colonization of Myanmar that started this quamire?