Who is in real power in Myanmar?
 |
| President U Thein Sein delivers a speech in meeting with Interfaith Friendship Group and Myanmar National Human Rights Commission at Yangon Region Government Office on 21 July 2013, Sunday.(Photo: http://www.president-office.gov.mm/en/) |
U Kyaw Min
RB Opinion
August 24, 2013
President Thein Sein after his British and France trip on 21st of July met with some of his ministers, Myanmar Human Rights commission and interfaith trust building committee, where he emphatically declared zero tolerance for any racial and religious violence in the future. He said peace, stability and rule of law are the most important things. All should co-operate and take responsibility in this context. IDPs in Rakhine state should be resettled promptly, where by sustainable economic development program should be introduced. All should be treated equally. No further discrimination in the country. We know Rohingyas bore the brunt of the violence in Rakhine State. They principally suffered by the violence.
This notion of our president is a big change in the state policy. We appreciate it. A lot of kudos goes to the president.
But this anomalous and unexpected attitude of the president is challenged in the same meeting by some of his ministers and by Myanmar Human Rights Commission Chairman U Win Mra.
Union immigration minister U Khin Yee said so called Rohingya would be dealed in accord with 1982 citizenship Law. What we know is that Law is deliberately enacted to strip Rohingya of their citizenship after they had been repatriated in 1978. Almost all Rohingyas in the camps held National Registration Cards which at that time was nationality card. According to existing laws then no foreigners could hold NRCs. Foreigners were issued FRCs: Foreigner Registration Cards.
The possession of the NRCs by refugees compelled Burma to receive back the refugees as her citizens. Thenceforth U Ne Win got a second thought to make NRCs null and void. There came the 1982 new citizenship Law which implicitly abrogated the legal value of NRCs. There after NRCs holders are not recognized as citizens though these NRCs stood as genuine nationality cards until recently. In 1990 as well as in 2010 elections NRC holders could compete in the elections. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi contested in last year interim election with that NRC.
On the other hand NRC holding Rohingyas are alleged to be illegal immigrants. Their NRCs were seized and substituted with so called white cards, which has no legal value. If NRC of Rohingya is accepted as nationality cards as in case of others, all Rohingyas are entitled to obtain nationality scrutiny cards under 1982 citizenship law. But things in Myanmar are not going like this.
Formerly one without holding either NRC or FRC could not live freely in the country. A man without any registration cards would be arrested, imprisoned and lastly deported according to Myanmar immigration Law. It is a wonder how one million plus Rohingyas could live for generations in Myanmar if they are foreigners or illegal immigrants as Myanmar government accuses now.
U Khin Yee said in the above meeting that 1982 citizenship Law recognizes as citizens who formerly were naturalized, not those who hold NRCs. He further said Rohingya who could not prove three back generalizations could not have the right to apply for naturalization, but they will be issued white cards which actually have no legal value under any existing law. This dilemma is a creation of present government.
The core problem is there. For individuals it is difficult to show birth certificates or other residency related paper documents which really were not in existence in pre-independence period. The records of people would be only in the immigration and man power department offices in Myanmar.
U Ye Htut, deputy information minister most paradoxically said he learn there were thousands of Muslims in Rakhine during Myanmar King’s period. But they were Bangali whom we cannot recognize as indigenous race although our laws say a people who permanently live in our dominion before 1823 is indigenous race. He said descendents of those Bangali have the right for naturalization. Here this notion is not in accord with the existing laws but according to their whim.
The worse is what the Myanmar Human Rights commission Chairman, U Win Mra said, “We cannot give our citizenship to this Rohingya because they cannot speak our (Rakhine) Language”. Here U Win Mra (a Rakhine) forgets the fact that all Rakhine including their kings spoke Rohingya Language. All Rakhnie including U Win Mra himself were bilingual in the past. Rakhine kings had Muslim names. Rakhine courts use Bangali and Parsian (the language of Rohingya then) as official Language. Rohingya were not required to speak Rakhine Language. (See, Thibaut d Hubert and Jacques P. Leider; Traders and Poets at the Mrauk-U court, 2011)
Again what U Win Mra said is in disrespect of international Human Rights norms and standard. It is deplorable to here this notion from a Human Rights commission chairman. He does not deserve that post.
Since hundreds of scholars are unfolding through their vigorous research the historicity and ethnicity of Rohingya, U Win Mra’s assertion or condition for Rohingyas’ citizenship will fade away in the air. Here one of the renowned Scholar Nobel Laureate, Harvard Professor Amartya Sen perceptively observed: Rohingya did not come to Burma but Burma came to Rohingya (Land).
So I hope Myanmar government and extremist with chauvinistic mentality will reconcile themselves with reason and truth. They should have courage to accept the reality of Rohingyas historicity. 21st century is not a century of racialists and apartheid. Therefore my request here to them is “stop crying for segregation and separation”. It is the age of globalization, human rights and democracy.
