Robert Talcoth examines how competing narratives on the the Rohingya and human trafficking clash in Thai and Myanmar social media.
On 1 May Thai authorities found the bodies of 26 migrants in a detention camp in the jungles of Songkhla province, near the border with Malaysia.
The victims, believed to be Rohingya refugees from Myanmar and Bangladesh, had been held captive by human traffickers in the jungle. The camp served as a transit point where illegal migrants were held before being sold or shipped to other destinations in Southeast Asia.
Thailand has long served as a centre for human trafficking groups operating in Southeast Asia. Groups of people from neighboring countries come to Thailand to find work in factories, construction or the booming sex industry. But many also come to escape violence and persecution in their homeland. Human trafficking in the region has increased in recent years due to ethnic conflicts between Buddhists and the Rohingya Muslim minority in Myanmar’s Rakhine state. Thousands of ethnic Rohingya Muslim’s have left Myanmar to escape violence and persecution.
Human trafficking and the trail of broken people
The Rohingya, considered to be one of the largest groups of stateless peoples in the world, have suffered decades of discrimination and injustice in Myanmar. The Myanmar government has since independence in 1948 refused to acknowledge the Rohingya as one of the nation’s indigenous ethnic groups. The roughly one million Rohingya living in Myanmar have no citizenship and their legal rights are limited. The Myanmar government classifies them as intruders that have illegally entered Myanmar from Bangladesh.
The Rohingya claim to have a historical connection to Rakhine state in western Myanmar, where the majority of them still live. This claim is backed up by some scholars. Certain groups of Rohingya can trace their ancestry back to pre-colonial kingdoms in the region; others came to present day Myanmar from Bengal during the colonial era in the mid-1800s. When ethnic violence in Rakhine state intensified in 2012, large numbers of Rohingya fled Myanmar. Human Rights Watch accuses the Myanmar authorities of actively supporting and at times taking part in ethnic violence aimed at the Rohingya minority. The objective of the attacks appears to be to drive the Rohingya out of Myanmar.
Human traffickers have capitalised on the suffering and desperation of these refugees. The traffickers have received large sums of money to bring Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar to different destinations in Southeast Asia.
However, the Rohingya’s problems often do not end after leaving Myanmar. Once out of the country they can find themselves in the hands of human trafficking gangs whom in many cases do not fulfill their end of the bargain. According to several reports, human traffickers have held people hostage and demanded ransom money from their families, instead of delivering them to their promised destinations. In many cases the gangs have murdered the hostages after receiving money.
During the last couple of months Thai and Malaysian authorities have discovered several detention camps and mass graves in the deep jungles along the Thai-Malaysian border. People being held in these camps have been forced to live under horrible conditions. Survivors have given reports of regular beatings, rape and threats. Activists believe that there still could be more than 60 camps within the Thai-Malaysia border area. The majority of refugees found in the camps have paid traffickers to bring them out of Myanmar, but some survivors claimed to have been kidnapped from their hometown and held hostage by traffickers.
The discovery of the detention camps and mass graves came during a time when Thailand was already under pressure from the international community for not addressing human trafficking problems in the region. Detailed reports describing exploitation and violence against migrant workers in Thailand have received growing international attention. Human rights organisations have accused Thai authorities of being involved in human trafficking and profiting from the exploitation of migrant workers.
As a result of the government’s unwillingness to seriously address human trafficking issues, Thailand was downgraded to a tier 3 ranking, the lowest, on the human trafficking index in 2014. This placed the country in the same category as North Korea and Saudi Arabia.
There has been particular focus placed on the treatment of migrant workers in Thailand’s multimillion dollar fishing industry. Detailed reports on the horrific conditions of migrant workers, mainly from Myanmar and Cambodia, in Thailand’s fishing industry have been published in the international press. The reports state that the Thai fishing industry is partially built on slavery and systematic exploitation of migrant workers. In many cases migrant workers had paid middlemen to be taken to Thailand and start working in factories, but instead of the promised factory work they were sold to fishing boats where they were forced to work under slave like conditions.

Picture from a campaign by American NGO Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF).
A large number of workers on Thai fishing boats claimed to have been forced to work 20-hour shifts while receiving beatings by their superiors and earning practically nothing. The workers were in some cases only fed one meal per day and those that got sick or were unable to work were sometimes even thrown overboard. A 2014 report from Reuters detailing the persecution and trafficking of the Rohingya in Southeast Asia showed that Thai authorities do not only turn a blind eye to human trafficking and abuse, government officials are also often directly linked to human trafficking rings whom exploit migrant workers in the region.
The European Union has taken a clear stance against fishing products coming from unlawful practices, such as the usage of forced labor and fishing methods that harm the environment. Thailand’s failure to act on a number of issues related to the country’s fishing industry has led the EU to threaten a ban on seafood imports from Thailand. If Thailand doesn’t show improvement within a certain timeframe a ban might come into place. This is an issue that the Thai government is currently dealing with. A large amount of the county’s fishing boats are presently not allowed to leave harbour due to the lack of proper documents and failure to follow regulations.
The Thai military junta has tried to divert attention away from human trafficking s and they have on a number of occasions publicly warned local journalists not to write about its presence in Thailand and especially trafficking related to the fishing industry.
Silencing the media
When two local Thai journalists cited parts of a Reuter’s report that linked the Thai Navy to human trafficking networks they were arrested by police and charged with defamation. The case is still ongoing and the two journalists could face several years in prison if convicted.
In another case, a journalist from Channel 3 who reported on the conditions of workers in the Thai fishing industry was summoned by the military junta. In his television show ‘Bringing back happiness to the people’, General Prayuth Chan-ocha criticised the Thai media for writing negative things about Thailand and the government. He stated that anyone that loves the country should not write anything negative, and he wondered if the journalists that had published information about human trafficking and the fishing industry were really Thai.
The two separate incidents , can be viewed as attempts by the government to intimidate journalists and stop them from writing about the issue. It is clear that the military regime does not want the people to have access to information that details the hardship imposed on migrant workers and the corruption related to trafficking of people. The message sent out is that whoever brings up this issue will face consequences.
The prospects of losing hundreds of millions of baht as a result of the European Union’s potential ban on Thai fishing imports have forced the government to seriously address fishing practices and human trafficking. When it became clear that authorities were actually going to crackdown on human trafficking the trafficking gangs started to panic and illegal migrants kept in camps in the jungle and onboard boats in the sea were abandoned and left to fend for themselves.

Picture from the Facebook page of Songkla province’s Rohingya support group (р╣Ар╕Др╕гр╕╖р╕нр╕Вр╣Ир╕▓р╕вр╕Кр╣Ир╕зр╕вр╣Ар╕лр╕ер╕╖р╕нр╣Вр╕гр╕ор╕┤р╕Зр╕вр╕▓р╕Ир╕▒р╕Зр╕лр╕зр╕▒р╕Фр╕кр╕Зр╕Вр╕ер╕▓).
Pushing back the boats
In May thousands of Rohingya and other migrants were bounced around the region’s seas as Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand pushed back their boats. Many had fled persecution and poverty in Myanmar.
Thai authorities refused to allow the refugees to enter Thailand on the grounds that they lacked sufficient resources to take care of them. This sparked a wave of criticism from the international community who argued that the Southeast Asian nations have a common responsibility to address the humanitarian disaster.
As the issue received increasing attention in Thai media it also took centre stage on Thai social media. Some commentators criticised the government’s decision to turn away the refugees, but the most vocal group on social media supported it.
In the midst of the refugee crisis American Secretary of State John Kerry spoke to the Thai government about the possibility of Thailand providing temporary shelter for the Rohingya. This was interpreted by Thai netizens as an attempt by the US to pressure Thailand into sheltering the Rohingya boat refugees, and it sparked an outrage on Thai social media.
The US, which already had a tense relationship with the Thai government and its supporters after criticising the 2014 military coup, was accused of once again meddling in Thailand’s internal affairs. Thai netizens argued that if the US is so concerned about the welfare of the Rohingya they should take care of them and let them go to America.
Social media: telling or distorting the truth?
The vast majority of social media commentators appeared to support the Thai government’s initial decision not to let the Rohingya enter Thailand. The most common arguments were that Thailand already has enough problems of its own and that the refugees would be a financial burden. Many social media users also argued that the refugee crisis does not concern Thailand and therefore the country has no responsibility to assist them.
Since the Rohingya issue was brought into the spotlight a number of opposing narratives have appeared on social media. By following the different Facebook threads related to this issue it becomes clear that social media users face a situation where it becomes increasingly difficult to differentiate between fact and fiction.
The Bangkok Post has posted several articles about the Rohingya on their Facebook page. Each story has received a large amount of comments. Many of the comments were made by Facebook users from Myanmar, which is quite uncommon since the newspaper focuses on Thailand and the majority of its readers are either Thai or expats living in Thailand. By looking at the comments made by Facebook users from Myanmar it becomes clear that a majority of them believe that the international media has reported lies and distorted facts about the Rohingya and the situation in Rakhine state.
Their posts reflect the Myanmar government’s version of the story, which labels the Rohingya as illegal migrants from Bangladesh. The ethnic violence in Rakhine state is explained as being caused by Rohingya Muslim aggression towards Buddhists. In these threads, the Rohingya, at times referred to as “Bengali scum” or other derogatory terms, are frequently accused of being violent, lazy, of having too many children, and even of having links to international Muslim terrorist organisations. Several users have posted links to articles that portray the Rohingya in a negative light and images of what appears to be Rohingya committing crimes and behaving violently. In this narrative the Rohingya are not the victims, they are the aggressors.

Images of Buddhist statues and shrines claimed to have been destroyed by the Rohingya.
Many Thai social media users commenting on the issue have come to accept the Myanmar government and their supporter’s version of the situation concerning the Rohingya and the conflict in Rakhine state. This is interesting considering Thailand’s history of hostility towards Myanmar. In both Thai nationalist discourse and popular culture, Myanmar is often depicted as the nation’s enemy, but on this particular issue large numbers of Thais are rigorously defending its neighbour. The Thai narrative closely follows that of Myanmar; the Rohingya are not from Southeast Asia, they are from Bangladesh, and the conflict in Rakhine state was sparked by Muslim Rohingya terrorising Buddhist communities. This narrative contradicts independent reports on the situation in Rakhine state. Nevertheless, Thai social media users have to a large extent adopted the idea of the Rohingya as dangerous Muslims and there exists a fear that the Rohingya will harm Thai people and cause problems if they are allowed into the country.

Image shared on social media. The text reads “The majority of Thais don’t want the Rohingya in Thailand”.
There are even some groups that believe that the Rohingya are linked to international Muslim Jihadist groups and that they want to enter Thailand so that they can join the Muslim insurgency in Thailand’s three southern provinces. There is off course no evidence linking the Rohingya to Muslim insurgents in the South. The fear and hatred of the Rohingya based on their religious beliefs is to some extent shared by groups of Thailand’s expat community. Expats commenting on the issue often make groundless links between Islam and violence, the argument being that, the Rohingya are Muslims and Muslims will cause problems. Within the expat community one can find traces of ignorant Islamophobic sentiments that have spread throughout Europe and America in recent years.

Stop! Don’t let the Rohingya enter our country. We don’t want the Rohingya!
When reports about ethnic cleansing and violence against the Rohingya in Rakhine state are brought up on social media, people that are against the idea of helping the Rohingya are quick to claim that the reports are made up of lies and fabrications spread by Western media, who are also accused of distorting facts in order to damage the international reputation of Myanmar, Thailand and Southeast Asia in general. The criticism of Western media, its portrayal of Myanmar, and the refugee crisis contains anti-Western and anti-colonial rhetoric.
Western media and neo-imperialism
Western media as well as human rights organisations from the West are accused of being neo-imperialists that are trying to impose their will on Southeast Asia. This type of rhetoric is commonly used by authoritarian governments and their supporters to legitimise the actions of the government. The idea that the human-rights issue is being used by a handful countries as a pretext and tool to pursue selfish interest, and demonise the image of other countries is shared by many other, mainly, authoritarian states in Asia.
This anti-Western rhetoric is appealing to the Thai right-wing, the main supporters of Thailand’s military government, whom believe that Western media has also told lies and distorted facts about Thailand’s political conflict. The idea that Western media and academia along with international human rights organisations have a hidden agenda and that they produce lies and disinformation in order to exercise some form of control over Southeast Asia fits perfectly into the Thai right-wing understandings of the ongoing political conflict in Thailand and how it is presented in the West.
In their view the Rohingya situation is just another example of how Westerners are interfering in issues that do not concern them. One characteristic of Thai nationalists, whom constitute the majority of supporters of the military junta, is that they reject almost all criticism of the Thai state, and that they are extremely defensive towards, particularly foreign criticism of political and social matters in Thailand. It’s therefore not surprising that they are the most vocal defenders of the government on social media and that they reject all accusations of government wrongdoings.

Picture from anti-Rohingya Facebook page “No Rohingya”.
The refugee crisis took centre stage on Thai social media for a moment, but it has provided us with a good example of a long-term challenge; that is how social media can help us increase our knowledge and understanding of the world, but also create confusion, fear, hatred, and distrust. Social media allows people to access information that they might not have been exposed to in other ways. For example, a link to an article appearing on your news feed with content the local press cannot publish, or discussions on sensitive political and social matters.
Social media can help us broaden our understanding of complex global and local issues, but it can also increase levels of confusion and a lack of clarity. The amount of information and the lack of control over what is being posted and shared on social media constitutes a problem. The large amount of available information makes it difficult for social media users to determine what information can and cannot be trusted. Naturally, this is the case with all forms of mass media, but a major difference is that social media makes it possible for private citizens to anonymously post information that has the potential of reaching millions of people in a short period of time.
Social media, new technologies and the state
In recent years we have also seen instances of social media being used for political purposes. Political groups have used it as a tool to fight against authoritarian regimes that are trying to control the flow of information. Social media provides citizens with the opportunity to openly share ideas and opinions with millions of people in real time. This new technology poses a threat to states that try to control the flow of information and wish to minimse people’s exposure to alternative ideologies and ways of thought that might threaten or undermine its power.
Censorship, like blocking websites containing “harmful” content is one way governments can deal with this problem. Another method that is increasingly used by governments and various political groups is to use social media to spread opposing narratives and to actively question and undermine those that challenge the power and position of the elite.
Social media is increasingly being used as a tool to counter information that is viewed as harmful to the state. A large number of competing narratives creates confusion amongst readers and it makes it difficult for them to grasp what is happening. This confusion often serves the interest of the state.
This phenomenon can be found in the current reports on the Rohingya issue and human trafficking in Southeast Asia. The competing narratives raise questions among readers. What is the actual situation of these people? Are they really persecuted or is it just a product of Western propaganda? Do they actually come from Myanmar or are they illegal Bengali immigrants trying to take advantage of the “goodwill” of Southeast Asian nations? Are they really victims? Is this another case of westerners not understanding the complexities of Southeast Asian politics or do the local governments have something to hide?

Image claiming that fake images of Burmese Buddhists killing Rohingya have been spread online.
In mainstream international media the Rohingya are presented as an ethnic group that is subjected to persecution, discrimination and ethnic violence. They are victims of injustice. They have fled from persecution in Myanmar only to find themselves in even more desperate situations, being sold as slaves by human traffickers and left to starve in remote jungle camps. They have been beaten, raped, and like many other migrant workers living in Thailand, forced to work under inhumane conditions. While this has been going on the Southeast Asian governments have looked the other way and in many cases directly profited from exploitation of laborers.
This narrative presents the Southeast Asian governments in a very negative light. Myanmar is accused of state-sponsored violence against an ethnic minority and Thailand is accused of allowing human trafficking gangs to profit from the suffering and oppression of refugees and migrant workers. The Southeast Asian nation’s response to the humanitarian crisis has generally been portrayed as cruel and inhumane.
In both Myanmar and Thailand’s counter-narratives the illegality of the Rohingya is emphasised, while issues such as persecution and exploitation are either downplayed or denied. Social media users from Myanmar often even deny the existence of the Rohingya as an ethnic group. According to them, the term Rohingya is a social construct created by people with a particular political goal. They object to the portrayal of the Rohingya as victims.
In order to justify the treatment of the Rohingya, they try to dehumanise them. Racist slurs, accusations and hate-speech are used to do this. If the population views them as being sub-human then the conditions they are forced to live under becomes acceptable. It becomes easier to ignore them and to avoid solving the issues that cause their problems.

The text on the top picture says “they come to Thailand and they’re not satisfied with the food they get. They demand to be given beef. They receive 75 baht per day for doing nothing. They entered our country illegally. Now they are demanding rights!” The picture below states “the dogs are happy with whatever they are given”. The image seems to follow the argument that it’s better to use money and resources to help Thai street dogs then to help the Rohingya.
The Thai government’s attempt at preventing journalists from writing about the issue and even prosecuting journalists quoting Western media shows their determination to prevent the population from getting access to information dealing with the treatment of migrant workers and the exploitation and suffering that is embedded in Thailand’s economy. The less the population knows about the issue the easier it is for the government to ignore it, and the easier it is for them to turn the migrant workers and refugees into faceless statistics.
This is part of the dehumanisation process. The stories of the migrant workers and the refugees are silenced. They are reduced to statistics and numbers symbolising profits and expenses; the human suffering and exploitation that lie behind these numbers are hidden. The refugees cost money, they are a burden to the nation, the migrant workers in the fishing industry generate money, they help the nation become richer. For the government, this seems to be the only thing that’s important. The accumulation or loss of capital dominates the government’s presentation of the issues while the exploitation and violence that produces the wealth is forcibly removed from the public eye.
The Rohingya issue is still not resolved. It is unclear what will happen to the thousands of refugees that have left Myanmar. Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia have all been pressured by the international community to temporarily accept the refugees, but it is still not known what the future holds for these stateless people. Thousands of illegal fishing boats have been prevented from going out to sea. The Thai fishing industry is currently trying to pressure the government into allowing them to continue fishing without proper documents and equipment. They argue that the new regulations will cost the country too much money. A number of government officials have been arrested on human trafficking charges but details surrounding the cases are murky and it’s still too early to speculate about what’s going to happen to them.
One thing is certain. We can’t rely solely on social media to provide answers to what is a murky situation, made even murkier by competing narratives which are further empowered by this new technology’s ability to go viral and reach massive audiences.
Robert Talcoth is a graduate of Chulalongkorn University’s Southeast Asian Studies program.
Perception is not Reality. The real truth about this “Rohingya disaster” might never be told. People (not just in Burma and Thailand) are easily brain-washed by fake propaganda, which nowadays is effectively done through social media (Facebook is a big deal in Burma). In my opinion, there is a lot of racial profiling and social pecking-order based on skin-colour in many Asian countries. Skin whitening creams are very popular. Just look at the entertainment industry and the advertisements in countries like Burma and Thailand. The Chinese/Korean lighter-skinned look is the preferred “norm” in Southeast Asia (of course, “whites” are also “admired”). It is ironic to see how Asians so blatantly discriminate against each other and at the same time like to complain about how “white people” are racist against Asians. Isn’t that rather hypocritical?
(disclosure: I was born in Burma and I can read Burmese)
0
0
So Europe has got its Muslims fleeing Libya and other North African countries and Thailand/Malaysia has got its Rohingya Muslims doing the same.
Like Europe, Thailand does not want these people because they are of a different culture and a culture that does not wish to integrate into the host environment.
They may not be terrorists today but you can bet the farm that once they have their feet through the door, the jihadists will be converting them to terrorism. Lot’s of fertile experience to work on.
If they want to leave Burma then the Rohingya should be heading north not south. Back to their roots in Bengal.
Thailand’s stance, as much as I loathe the Junta, is the correct one.
0
0
You’re right. A lot of refugees from places like Burma have a hard time adapting to the “local culture” in places like Bergen, Norway or Fort Wayne, Indiana, etc. (I don’t know how well they adapt to Australia). UNHCR should stop “displacing” asylum seekers (many of them fake) to far away places where the culture is so different, LOL
Donald Trump is saying the same thing about all these “illegal” Mexican immigrants in the US, but pretty soon Latinos will form the majority in California!
0
0
Credit is due to Mr Talcoth for indicating the social media as a factor as well as human trafficking, for present quagmire.
Hopefully your next article will examine the contribution of the Kalar in Yakhine not as victims but as co conspirator albeit in a minor way, as well as more indepth look at human trafficking.
The camps b/t Myanmar and Malaysia require considerable effort, from the traffickers and trafficked.
Considering the distance b/t the camps and Upper west Yakhine which almost all claimed they are from.
Truthfulness of placing blames where due:
1) The glaring truth of truth of “Bangladesh” “Malaysia” responsibility must also be made clear.
2) The original of all sins, the colonization and unmitigated promotion of Indian must be made known and emphasized.
Last of all but the most important is the possible solutions, to begin solving this quagmire.
As example, instead of re litigating the now western inspired useless careless “Legitimacy of ROhingya” issues research and BOLDLY advocate for statue to have the stateless have a status with stipulations, backed by the west and all others (EU, USA and OAS) economic power.
Hopefully this will help present untenable situations. toward a better objective other than throwing good money toward the bad, the NGO (UN HRW included) that benefit from status quo.
0
0
@Marayu, Yes, it is hypocritical of the elite and their supporters to speak of racism and colonialism as soon as they receive criticism. The anti-colonial rhetoric, the idea that the international communities push for democracy and human rights is an act of neo-colonialism, is practically only used by those that support authoritarian governments, and believe in limitations on freedom of speech and democracy. They tend to ignore the fact that there are large groups of people within their country that are fighting for democracy and political reforms. In their narrative, democracy, freedom of speech and human rights are foreign concepts that are imposed on Asia by outsiders. The argument is used by the conservatives to legitimize various forms of human rights abuse and state-sponsored violence.
@Jake, I think the refugee situation in Southeast Asia and Europe is very different. In terms of cultural differences, Thailand already has a large Muslim population, and the Rohingya have lived in an area that is culturally not that much different from Thailand. Therefore, I believe the “integration issue” might not really be a problem. The situation in countries like Norway or the United States is naturally very different. Why do you think the Rohingya would become terrorists? Is it because they are Muslim? I haven’t come across any reasonable arguments to why the Rohingya should be viewed as a threat to Thailand.
0
0
I wanna know how government treat if they catch illegal entering to their country? (Any country Europe or Asia) I believe they put in jail and even stroke in Singapore.
Why so special about Rohingyas whether they come from Myanmar or Bangladesh?
Does international human rights care for origin people’s human right scenario?
0
0
Following is the translated extract from an old Myawaddy Magazine published in 1980.
“Back then in 1942 the large village of Ah-le-than-kyaw, now the biggest Rohingya village with a large UNHCR supply depot and their area-HQ, was the main Buddhist village with a small police station.
On that day in May 1942 twenty thousand armed-Bengali-Muslims raided the Ah-le-than-kyaw police station and brutally killed all the policemen who surrendered and then all the Yakhine men from the villages.
The blood-thirsty Bengali-Muslims then burned down the village monastery together with more than 500 Buddhist women, children, elders, young Buddhist novices, and the Buddhist monks taking refuge inside the main monastery building. All 500 odd Buddhists inside were burned alive that day by the Bengali-Muslims who want their village and their fertile land and their fishing ground for good. The same fate had fallen also on the nearby village of Tart-htone-byin.
Basically none of the hundreds of thousands of Yakhin-Buddhist living in the villages at the South of Maungdaw Town escaped the warlike wholesale slaughter. Not even a single mongrel dog escaped the slaughter let alone a human being. And all their properties and lands taken by the newcomers from the Islamic-land now called Bangladesh.”
0
0
The population of Australia has also changed quite substantially over the last 500 years (and no one knows what will happen in the next 500). Humans do move around this planet and often kill each other for “Lebensraum” and because of racial/religious prejudices. History is full of such examples. The question is: do we continue behaving like this or do we try to share this planet earth fairly and peacefully in a sustainable rational manner without greedily destroying the fragile ecosystem (sometimes I feel like I’m ready for Mars!)
0
0
Better we don’t fuel so international communities are.
Sometimes, blowing the air could creat more flame while they have enough heat.
Recent cases are more or less on due to international fueling.
Appreciate if not mention about this Rohingya’s problem again as it can become fuel.
With Regards,
0
0
This post #6.1 is wrong at so many level that the label “Rohingyas Apologists’ does not do justice.
1)Using 500 years of Aussie history as comparison to massacring Yakhine villagers. Ludicrous at best ridiculous at the worst. The Aussie has atoned many time over albeit not enough. WHere is the offocial apology of the Kakar?
2) Lebensraum, a word that remind one of reckless, ruthless akin to the Mongol expansion in the recent time, as a matter of factly.
3) All for moving on but with stipulations to strengthen ROL, including NOT brushing past atrocities as well as atoning by all the parties involved to include the west and its NGO as well as Bangladesh and OAS.
0
0
I am not a “Rohingya apologist”.
King Marayu was the founder of the mythical Dhanyawadi Dynasty of Arakan in BC 3525, a long time before Buddha was born (so there were no Buddhists or Musilms yet in those days!).
0
0
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?
0
0
You are a human. You are an end product of complex interactions between genes and environment. Those little brown-skinned natives are also humans. Evolutionarily speaking, you are in no way better than anyone of them out there. But for those in the West, by believing in fairy tales called human rights, they are automatically right; their views are the best, perfect and deserving of special treatment; and their way of thinking should override those of all other peoples and cultures. In the past, we heard the same story that justified colonization “to civilize poor natives”. Now we hear that story again “to spread human rights”. Because not believing in human rights is often considered as close to being Nazi, let it be clear that I, a stout “defender” of so-called “Rohingya” rights two years ago, am in no way against betterment of all human beings.
Now the so-called “damn lies” (let’s put it “d-lies”) have about 30 “likes” and a few “shares”, but are studied by countless Western scholars and regularly featured in Western media as evidence for how racist Burmese or Thai are. These studies are textbook examples of confirmation bias and reflect more about Western tendency to highlight others’ weakness, judge with their standards and assert superiority than about the nature of Burmese or Thai in general. On the other side, there are far worse lies (let’s use a worse description: “f-lies”) which are tolerated, encouraged and shared by millions in both Islamic and Western countries (try googling “fake pictures about Rakhine conflict”), but are nonetheless, never studied and silently swept under the carpet. Similarly, when Western scholars look at Ashin Wirathu’s facebook page, they want to “feel good” by confirming how “racist” he is. But comments under his posts are some of the most offensive remarks I have ever seen. “I want to chop off the heads of Gautama and Wirathu and f*** their a***” says one Muslim. Or something like this “Cho Cho сА▒сАВсАлсАРсАЩсА▒сАЬсАмсААсА╣сАШсА╖сА▓сАЫсА╜сАнсАБсАнсАпсА╕сАРсАмсАСсАДсА╣сА▒сАФсАРсАмсВПсА╝сАмсА╕сААсАнсАпсАЬсАКсА╣сА╕сАЦсАДсА╣сААсАпсАФсАлсА╕сАРсАмсАШсА╖сА▓сААсАнсАпсА╕сАЮсАРсА╣сАСсАмсА╕сА╗сАХсАосА╕сАЮсАмсА╕сА▒сАРсА╢сАбсАЮсААсА╣сА╗сАХсАФсА╣сАЮсА╝сАДсА╣сА╕сА▒сАХсА╕сАЦсАнсАпсВФсАЬсАмсА╕сАЩсАЮсАнсАШсА░сА╕сАТсАосАРсАФсА╜сАЕсА╣сАбсАЩсА▓сАбсАЕсА╣сААсА║сАЫсАДсА╣сАбсАЩсА▓сАЮсАмсА╕сАЬсАнсАпсААсА╣сА▒сАРсАмсАДсА╣сА╕сАРсВФсА▓сАЧсАЩсАмсА▒сАРсА╝сАбсАРсА╝сААсА╣сВПсА╝сАмсА╕сАЬсАосА╕сАФсА▓сА╢сВПсА╝сАмсА╕сА▒сАШсАмсАСсАмсА╕сА▒сАХсА╕сАСсАмсА╕сА╗сАА сАЬсА░сАШсА╖сА▓сАЩсА║сАнсА│сАЩсА║сАнсА│ сАЦсАДсА╣сАСсА▓сАСсАКсА╣сВФсАСсАКсА╣сА╖” (That’s from a Muslim woman and too vulgar that I won’t translate). No doubt, Wirathu’s daily routine includes deleting death threats and listing to vulgar calls. The level of hatred and jihadist comments is astounding given Muslims are just 4%.
Yet the worst lies of all are “killer lies” eagerly spread by Western media. Some old people in Mawlamyine remember that in 8888 when BBC Burmese was airing “military gunships shooting everyone in Mawlamyine”, the truth was that some radical students were **beheading** dozens of innocent people accused of being government spies, after BBC aired “government inserted spies into protests”. How many killer lies are replicated in this article? Many but a good start is “Myanmar government’s version of the story labels the Rohingya as illegal migrants from Bangladesh.” Official position of Myanmar government is, according to Derek Tonkin and official document itself, President Thein Sein did not suggest to the UNHCR Antonio Gutteres on 12 July 2012 “handing over the Rohingya community to the UNHCR.” What he did suggest was that those who came to Myanmar illegally could not be accepted, but that those who were bought over to Burma during British rule between 1824 and 1948 were welcome to stay. “Before 1948, the British brought Bengalis to work on the farms…..According to our laws, those descended from those who came before 1948, the ‘Third Generation’, CAN BE CONSIDERED AS CITIZENS”. So? Don’t be surprised if you see a Western journalist interviewing dozens of Muslims until he gets his “desired” version of the conflict.
One thing that is very clear is that these “lies” will not set anyone free. They will entrench status quo just like all Burmese have suffered from 1988 to 2011. The West is good at letting people die to make a point. Go on West. In countries where anti-depressant are widely popular, good vs evil narratives must be consumed as much as Prozac and other reuptake inhibitors.
Good to read before you rant…
1. General Ne Win: A Political Biography by Robert H. Taylor
http://mizzima.com/news-opinion/%E2%80%98-issue-ethnicity-myanmar-politics-now-not-being-resolved-rather-encouraged%E2%80%99
2. Rohingya: The name, the movement and the quest for identity by Jacques Leider
3. Analysis and countless other original sources by Derek Tonkin from Network Myanmar
http://www.networkmyanmar.org/index.php/rohingyamuslim-issues/events-during-2015
4. The Righteous Mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion by Jonathan Haidt
0
0
Once again we come across the argument that the idea of international human rights is an expression of westerners sense of superiority, and that the ‘human rights issue’ is used as a tool by the West to impose their will on others. There is even a comparison between colonialism, the West’s will to “civilize natives” and “spreading human rights”. These types of arguments are reoccurring, and they are usually made by the elite and their supporters, who have in various ways benefited from the existing unequal distribution of wealth and power. These groups try to legitimize state violence, and wish to maintain unjust social structures.
Regarding the Rohingya citizenship SWH writes that “President Thein Sein did not suggest to the UNHCR Antonio Gutteres on 12 July 2012 “handing over the Rohingya community to the UNHCR.” What he did suggest was that those who came to Myanmar illegally could not be accepted, but that those who were bought over to Burma during British rule between 1824 and 1948 were welcome to stay. “Before 1948, the British brought Bengalis to work on the farms…..According to our laws, those descended from those who came before 1948, the ‘Third Generation’, CAN BE CONSIDERED AS CITIZENS”.
Well, the United Nations clearly interpret the law differently.
“On December 29, 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on the Burmese government to amend the 1982 Citizenship Law so that it no longer discriminates against the Rohingya. Successive Burmese governments, including the current administration of Thein Sein, have used the law to deny citizenship to an estimated 800,000 to 1.3 million Rohingya by excluding them from the official list of 135 national races eligible for full citizenship.”
0
0
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”
0
0
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.
0
0
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?
0
0
The source appears to be the article “Burma: Amend Biased Citizenship Law” from HRW.
“On December 29, 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on the Burmese government to amend the 1982 Citizenship Law so that it no longer discriminates against the Rohingya. Successive Burmese governments, including the current administration of Thein Sein, have used the law to deny citizenship to an estimated 800,000 to 1.3 million Rohingya by excluding them from the official list of 135 national races eligible for full citizenship.”
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/01/13/burma-amend-biased-citizenship-law
0
0
Many thanks. Normally HRW check their sources carefully, but sometimes they get carried away. On the whole, HRW are doing an excellent job, but in this case they got it wrong. We all make mistakes.
Chinese nationality law likewise states (Paragraph 2) that “……Persons belonging to any of the nationalities in China shall have Chinese nationality”, but they also have in Paragraph 6 a provision to grant Chinese nationality to any persons born in China and whose parents are stateless or of uncertain nationality and have settled in China.
There are many Burmese who are not happy with a nationality law based on race/ethnicity. One day they hope to see it changed. The “three generations” principle (the first generation which settled, the second and third which were born in Myanmar) has been enunciated on several occasions. It broadly reflects the Indo-Burma Agreement of 1941 which assured domicile for Indians and their descendants who had settled in Burma.
The political problem for the Myanmar Government is how to give effect to this principle in the face of local opposition to any supposed concession to Arakan Muslims and in a situation where most families have lost all their family documentation and cannot prove how long they have been resident in Myanmar.
If anyone is interested in how the Rohingya got into their current predicament, they need only read the declarations by their Jamiatul Ulema in 1947 and 1948, on which I could write volumes.
0
0
Very interesting opinions and facts presented in the discussion section. I would like to clarify that the main point of this article was not to discuss Rohingya origins and ancestry, but to highlight the exploitation and ill-treatment of migrants and refugees, and how it is legitimized and justified by the government and their supporters. The article discusses the role of social media in the Rohingya issue, and the role social media has played in shaping an understanding of the situation. The origin and history of the Rohingya, although important, is of secondary importance. What is important is to highlight and discuss the cruelty and brutality these people have been exposed to, and the attempts by some groups to justifying the violence. The problem of the Rohingya is not primarily their ancestry but how they are treated in Myanmar and in the neighboring countries.
0
0
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.
0
0
@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.
0
0
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.
0
0
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.
0
0
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.
0
0
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.
0
0