Following the historic 2025 multiparty democratic general election, widely regarded as free and fair and conducted using electronic voting machines, Myanmar has embarked upon a new chapter in its democratic journey. The general election was held in three phases: the first phase on 28 December 2025, the second phase on 11 January 2026, and the third phase on 25 January 2026. A total of 57 political parties and 86 independent candidates contested the election, including six political parties that competed nationwide and fifty-one political parties that participated in state- and regional-level elections.
As a result, 263 representatives were elected to the House of Representatives (Pyithu Hluttaw) and 157 to the House of Nationalities (Amyotha Hluttaw). Of those elected to the Pyithu Hluttaw, 230 were men, and 33 were women. While in the Amyotha Hluttaw, 133 men and 24 women secured seats. This election, widely regarded as free and fair, represents a significant step in strengthening democratic Hluttaw stands as a cornerstone of democracy, and this significance was reaffirmed governance in Myanmar.
After the historic 2025 election, Myanmar saw a pivotal moment as the Pyithu Hluttaw convened for the first time on 16 March 2026, and then on 18 March 2026, the Amyotha Hluttaw also held its first Hluttaw session, making another significant step for the country. During these inaugural sessions, U Khin Yi was elected the Speaker of the Pyithu Hluttaw, with U Maung Maung Ohn becoming the Deputy Speaker. In the Amyotha Hluttaw, U Aung Lin Dwe was elected the Speaker, and Jeng Phang Naw Taung was the Deputy Speaker.
The election itself was a vital milestone for democracy in Myanmar, as it gave the people a genuine voice.
As the Hluttaw now organizes its first standing committees, these bodies will play a key role in shaping policy, ensuring accountability, and fostering debate. The Hluttaw now moves forward with the formation of standing committees, which will play a crucial role in the legislative process, policy discussions, and ensuring accountability. As a primary pillar of democracy, the Hluttaw reflects the will of the people and strengthens democratic governance in Myanmar. In this way, the Hluttaw is not just a symbol, but a vital engine of democracy, propelling Myanmar forward as it embraces a new era of governance.
With the election of the Speakers and Deputy Speakers and the formation of standing committees, the Hluttaw has become vibrant and active. At the same time, questions have begun to arise about what takes place inside the Hluttaw and how its operations are processed. These questions reflect a growing interest in Hluttaw procedures, legislative functions, and the roles performed within the chambers.
Hluttaw serves as the legislative pillar of the state, with its primary responsibility being the enactment of laws. It plays a crucial role in maintaining the exercise of checks and balances across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Through mechanisms such as raising questions and submitting motions, Hluttaw reflects the voice of the people. In the process of Hluttaw questioning, Hluttaw representatives may raise both starred and unstarred questions. Starred questions require oral answers from the relevant Union ministers within the Hluttaw chamber, allowing for further clarification and supplementary questions. In contrast, unstarred questions are answered in writing by the respective ministries.
The principle of the separation of powers remains fundamental to democracy. Under this system, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches function independently while maintaining checks and balances. Among them, the legislative pillar, represented by the Hluttaw, plays a central role in lawmaking, representing the will of the people.
A strong and effective Hluttaw will be essential in consolidating democracy, upholding the rule of law, and ensuring that the voices of the people are reflected in national decision-making and ensuring accountable governance. This marks not only a political transition but also the beginning of a new era of democratic development for the nation.
As Myanmar move forwards, the strengthening of Hluttaw institutions will be essential in deepening democratic practice, upholding the rule of law, and ensuring accountable governance. A vibrant and responsive Hluttaw not only embodies the will of the people but also serves as the foundation upon which a stable, inclusive, and enduring democracy can be built. In this new era, the continued commitment to democratic principles will determine the nation’s path towards lasting peace and development.
gnlm
Following the historic 2025 multiparty democratic general election, widely regarded as free and fair and conducted using electronic voting machines, Myanmar has embarked upon a new chapter in its democratic journey. The general election was held in three phases: the first phase on 28 December 2025, the second phase on 11 January 2026, and the third phase on 25 January 2026. A total of 57 political parties and 86 independent candidates contested the election, including six political parties that competed nationwide and fifty-one political parties that participated in state- and regional-level elections.
As a result, 263 representatives were elected to the House of Representatives (Pyithu Hluttaw) and 157 to the House of Nationalities (Amyotha Hluttaw). Of those elected to the Pyithu Hluttaw, 230 were men, and 33 were women. While in the Amyotha Hluttaw, 133 men and 24 women secured seats. This election, widely regarded as free and fair, represents a significant step in strengthening democratic Hluttaw stands as a cornerstone of democracy, and this significance was reaffirmed governance in Myanmar.
After the historic 2025 election, Myanmar saw a pivotal moment as the Pyithu Hluttaw convened for the first time on 16 March 2026, and then on 18 March 2026, the Amyotha Hluttaw also held its first Hluttaw session, making another significant step for the country. During these inaugural sessions, U Khin Yi was elected the Speaker of the Pyithu Hluttaw, with U Maung Maung Ohn becoming the Deputy Speaker. In the Amyotha Hluttaw, U Aung Lin Dwe was elected the Speaker, and Jeng Phang Naw Taung was the Deputy Speaker.
The election itself was a vital milestone for democracy in Myanmar, as it gave the people a genuine voice.
As the Hluttaw now organizes its first standing committees, these bodies will play a key role in shaping policy, ensuring accountability, and fostering debate. The Hluttaw now moves forward with the formation of standing committees, which will play a crucial role in the legislative process, policy discussions, and ensuring accountability. As a primary pillar of democracy, the Hluttaw reflects the will of the people and strengthens democratic governance in Myanmar. In this way, the Hluttaw is not just a symbol, but a vital engine of democracy, propelling Myanmar forward as it embraces a new era of governance.
With the election of the Speakers and Deputy Speakers and the formation of standing committees, the Hluttaw has become vibrant and active. At the same time, questions have begun to arise about what takes place inside the Hluttaw and how its operations are processed. These questions reflect a growing interest in Hluttaw procedures, legislative functions, and the roles performed within the chambers.
Hluttaw serves as the legislative pillar of the state, with its primary responsibility being the enactment of laws. It plays a crucial role in maintaining the exercise of checks and balances across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Through mechanisms such as raising questions and submitting motions, Hluttaw reflects the voice of the people. In the process of Hluttaw questioning, Hluttaw representatives may raise both starred and unstarred questions. Starred questions require oral answers from the relevant Union ministers within the Hluttaw chamber, allowing for further clarification and supplementary questions. In contrast, unstarred questions are answered in writing by the respective ministries.
The principle of the separation of powers remains fundamental to democracy. Under this system, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches function independently while maintaining checks and balances. Among them, the legislative pillar, represented by the Hluttaw, plays a central role in lawmaking, representing the will of the people.
A strong and effective Hluttaw will be essential in consolidating democracy, upholding the rule of law, and ensuring that the voices of the people are reflected in national decision-making and ensuring accountable governance. This marks not only a political transition but also the beginning of a new era of democratic development for the nation.
As Myanmar move forwards, the strengthening of Hluttaw institutions will be essential in deepening democratic practice, upholding the rule of law, and ensuring accountable governance. A vibrant and responsive Hluttaw not only embodies the will of the people but also serves as the foundation upon which a stable, inclusive, and enduring democracy can be built. In this new era, the continued commitment to democratic principles will determine the nation’s path towards lasting peace and development.
gnlm
Definitions give shape to words, but nations give meaning to them.
Introduction
In approaching the three weighty terms – State, Sovereignty, and Armed Forces – it becomes clear that their meanings extend far beyond the confines of formal definitions. Yet, to appreciate their deeper implications for a nation and its people, it is essential to begin with how they are understood in global and local lexicons.
According to Oxford, a state is “a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government”, while Merriam-Webster describes it as “a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory”. In Myanmar’s commonly used English-Myanmar dictionaries, the word state is rendered as နိုင်ငံ, an entity defined not only by borders and administration but by the collective identity of its citizens.
The term sovereignty, as Oxford notes, is “supreme power or authority,” and Merriam-Webster similarly defines it as “freedom from external control” or “controlling influence”. Locally, it is translated as အာဏာလွတ်မြောက်ခြင်း or အာဏာပိုင်ခွင့်မြေပိုင်ခွင့်အပြည့်အဝ or (လွတ်လပ်သော) အချုပ်အခြာအာဏာ, emphasizing independence, self-rule, and the undivided authority of a nation to determine its own path.
As for armed forces, Oxford frames them as “the military organizations of a country”, while Merriam-Webster identifies them as “the combined military, naval, and air forces of a nation”. In Myanmar dictionaries, the term appears as လုံခြုံရေးအဖွဲ့အစည်းများ or more specifically တပ်မတော်, signalling not only the institutional structure but the profound national expectations placed upon it.
Yet, beyond these formal explanations, the nuances of these words – state, sovereignty, and armed forces – carry layers of collective sentiment, historical experience, and national consciousness. Their meanings shape how a people understand their identity, their place in the world, and their shared responsibility in upholding the integrity of their nation. In this essay, I seek to explore not only what these words define, but also what they imply, demand, and reveal when viewed through the lens of lived experience.
Historical Reflections: From Burma to Myanmar
When considering the ideas of state, sovereignty, and armed forces within our own national context, it becomes necessary to look across the arc of our history, from the era when the country was known internationally as Burma to the modern period in which it is recognized as Myanmar. Throughout these transitions, the essence of the state has remained anchored in the same foundational pillars: a land, a people, and the authority that binds them together.
During the period when the name Burma was widely used, the structure of the state was shaped by the challenges of colonial rule, the quest for self-determination, and the early attempts at nation-building. Sovereignty, in those years, was not merely a constitutional term but a longed-for condition – something to be reclaimed, defended, and redefined. The concept of armed forces likewise evolved during this time, emerging as a symbol of resistance, protection, and the aspiration towards national unity.
As the nation later adopted the name Myanmar, the idea of sovereignty became more than a historical achievement; it became a responsibility to be maintained amid changing political, social, and economic landscapes. The modern state had to navigate internal diversity, development priorities, and the pressures of an increasingly interconnected world. In this context, the role of the armed forces has continually been interpreted in relation to national security, territorial integrity, and the safeguarding of the state’s sovereign standing.
Across both periods – Burma and Myanmar – one constant is clear: the meaning of the state has always extended beyond administrative structures or constitutional texts. It has embodied the collective aspirations of its people, the preservation of its cultural and geographic identity, and the enduring determination to remain self-governing. Sovereignty, therefore, has not been a static achievement but a living, evolving principle, tested by circumstances and strengthened by the nation’s resilience.
The armed forces, likewise, hold significance not only as an institution but as one of the key components of the state’s architecture. Their role, whether in earlier decades or in the present era, is inseparable from the broader question of how a nation protects itself, maintains stability, and upholds its integrity.
This long view, from Burma to Myanmar, reveals how these three terms have grown, shifted, and deepened within our national narrative. Their definitions may be found in dictionaries, but their true meanings live in the lived experiences of the country and its citizens.
Conclusion
In examining the terms state, sovereignty, and armed forces, it becomes clear that their meanings extend far beyond official definitions and historical timelines. Whether in the era of Burma or the present day of Myanmar, these words represent more than political structures or institutional arrangements. They embody the collective will of a people, the dignity of a nation determining its own course, and the mechanisms through which stability and security are preserved.
A state thrives not only on its territorial boundaries or administrative systems but on the shared understanding that its citizens belong to something greater than themselves. Sovereignty, likewise, is not simply declared; it is exercised through unity, protected through vigilance, and strengthened by mutual trust between the governed and those entrusted with authority. The armed forces, as part of this national fabric, hold a responsibility that is both practical and symbolic, serving as guardians of the country’s independence and as a reminder of the weight carried by those who defend the state’s integrity.
As we reflect on these intertwined concepts, it becomes evident that they form the foundation upon which a nation stands. To understand them is to recognize not only what a country is, but what it aspires to be. And to appreciate their nuances is to see, with clarity, the relationship between land and people, authority and responsibility, identity and continuity. In this sense, the strength of the state, the depth of its sovereignty, and the role of its armed forces reveal the enduring story of a nation navigating its path through history and into the future.
A nation endures when its people understand not only their land, but also the principles that hold it together.
gnlm
Definitions give shape to words, but nations give meaning to them.
Introduction
In approaching the three weighty terms – State, Sovereignty, and Armed Forces – it becomes clear that their meanings extend far beyond the confines of formal definitions. Yet, to appreciate their deeper implications for a nation and its people, it is essential to begin with how they are understood in global and local lexicons.
According to Oxford, a state is “a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government”, while Merriam-Webster describes it as “a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory”. In Myanmar’s commonly used English-Myanmar dictionaries, the word state is rendered as နိုင်ငံ, an entity defined not only by borders and administration but by the collective identity of its citizens.
The term sovereignty, as Oxford notes, is “supreme power or authority,” and Merriam-Webster similarly defines it as “freedom from external control” or “controlling influence”. Locally, it is translated as အာဏာလွတ်မြောက်ခြင်း or အာဏာပိုင်ခွင့်မြေပိုင်ခွင့်အပြည့်အဝ or (လွတ်လပ်သော) အချုပ်အခြာအာဏာ, emphasizing independence, self-rule, and the undivided authority of a nation to determine its own path.
As for armed forces, Oxford frames them as “the military organizations of a country”, while Merriam-Webster identifies them as “the combined military, naval, and air forces of a nation”. In Myanmar dictionaries, the term appears as လုံခြုံရေးအဖွဲ့အစည်းများ or more specifically တပ်မတော်, signalling not only the institutional structure but the profound national expectations placed upon it.
Yet, beyond these formal explanations, the nuances of these words – state, sovereignty, and armed forces – carry layers of collective sentiment, historical experience, and national consciousness. Their meanings shape how a people understand their identity, their place in the world, and their shared responsibility in upholding the integrity of their nation. In this essay, I seek to explore not only what these words define, but also what they imply, demand, and reveal when viewed through the lens of lived experience.
Historical Reflections: From Burma to Myanmar
When considering the ideas of state, sovereignty, and armed forces within our own national context, it becomes necessary to look across the arc of our history, from the era when the country was known internationally as Burma to the modern period in which it is recognized as Myanmar. Throughout these transitions, the essence of the state has remained anchored in the same foundational pillars: a land, a people, and the authority that binds them together.
During the period when the name Burma was widely used, the structure of the state was shaped by the challenges of colonial rule, the quest for self-determination, and the early attempts at nation-building. Sovereignty, in those years, was not merely a constitutional term but a longed-for condition – something to be reclaimed, defended, and redefined. The concept of armed forces likewise evolved during this time, emerging as a symbol of resistance, protection, and the aspiration towards national unity.
As the nation later adopted the name Myanmar, the idea of sovereignty became more than a historical achievement; it became a responsibility to be maintained amid changing political, social, and economic landscapes. The modern state had to navigate internal diversity, development priorities, and the pressures of an increasingly interconnected world. In this context, the role of the armed forces has continually been interpreted in relation to national security, territorial integrity, and the safeguarding of the state’s sovereign standing.
Across both periods – Burma and Myanmar – one constant is clear: the meaning of the state has always extended beyond administrative structures or constitutional texts. It has embodied the collective aspirations of its people, the preservation of its cultural and geographic identity, and the enduring determination to remain self-governing. Sovereignty, therefore, has not been a static achievement but a living, evolving principle, tested by circumstances and strengthened by the nation’s resilience.
The armed forces, likewise, hold significance not only as an institution but as one of the key components of the state’s architecture. Their role, whether in earlier decades or in the present era, is inseparable from the broader question of how a nation protects itself, maintains stability, and upholds its integrity.
This long view, from Burma to Myanmar, reveals how these three terms have grown, shifted, and deepened within our national narrative. Their definitions may be found in dictionaries, but their true meanings live in the lived experiences of the country and its citizens.
Conclusion
In examining the terms state, sovereignty, and armed forces, it becomes clear that their meanings extend far beyond official definitions and historical timelines. Whether in the era of Burma or the present day of Myanmar, these words represent more than political structures or institutional arrangements. They embody the collective will of a people, the dignity of a nation determining its own course, and the mechanisms through which stability and security are preserved.
A state thrives not only on its territorial boundaries or administrative systems but on the shared understanding that its citizens belong to something greater than themselves. Sovereignty, likewise, is not simply declared; it is exercised through unity, protected through vigilance, and strengthened by mutual trust between the governed and those entrusted with authority. The armed forces, as part of this national fabric, hold a responsibility that is both practical and symbolic, serving as guardians of the country’s independence and as a reminder of the weight carried by those who defend the state’s integrity.
As we reflect on these intertwined concepts, it becomes evident that they form the foundation upon which a nation stands. To understand them is to recognize not only what a country is, but what it aspires to be. And to appreciate their nuances is to see, with clarity, the relationship between land and people, authority and responsibility, identity and continuity. In this sense, the strength of the state, the depth of its sovereignty, and the role of its armed forces reveal the enduring story of a nation navigating its path through history and into the future.
A nation endures when its people understand not only their land, but also the principles that hold it together.
gnlm
Member of the State Security and Peace Commission and
Union Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar
Human civilization traces its origins to the great river basins, where early societies first took root and flourished. From a life of migration in search of greener pastures, early human communities gradually settled along river systems that offered both sustenance and connectivity. Over time, these settlements evolved into organized and harmonious societies, shaped by a dynamic balance and mutual interaction between humanity and nature, which in turn propelled the advancement of human history.
Among the world’s great river basin civilizations, the Mekong River Basin — shared by China, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam — is a region with a rich and long history of culture and development. As the people and nations relying on these basins need to collaborate in balancing sustainable development with ecosystem conservation, the leaders of our six nations, guided by a far-sighted vision, officially launched the Mekong-Lancang Cooperation (MLC) ten years ago. This was formalized through the Sanya Declaration during the first Mekong-Lancang Summit held on 23 March 2016 in Sanya, Hainan Province, China.
A Partnership Built on a Shared River
Originating from the snow-capped Tibetan Plateau, the Mekong River (known as the Lancang River in China) connects six countries: China, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam. The MLC mechanism, built upon this river, has become a vital regional framework.
In today’s global landscape, the growing interconnectivity and integration among the regional countries have become a key driver of international development. In this context, the Mekong-Lancang Cooperation (MLC), founded on mutual trust, shared benefit and sustainable development among its member countries, has achieved significant progress over the past decade. It has also embraced the goals of socioeconomic development and prosperity of the people across the region. For Myanmar, this cooperation — rooted in the existing “Pauk-Phaw” friendship with China — has strengthened the historic partnership between the two countries and helped it grow in line with the modern era. This progress is indeed a source of pride and satisfaction.
Shared Vision and Firm Principles
The MLC was founded with the vision of “Building a Community of Shared Future” to support regional socioeconomic development, enhance prosperity, narrow the development gap, support the ASEAN Community, implement UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and promote South-South cooperation.
Guided by the principles of consensus, equality, mutual consultation, voluntarism, collective engagement, shared benefit and respect for the Charter of the United Nations and international law, the MLC has become one of the most practical and efficient regional mechanisms.
A Decade of Achievements and Promising Future Prospects
As it transitions into a new decade, the MLC has now firmly evolved into a comprehensive sub-regional cooperation mechanism that encompasses multiple levels of engagement from people-to-people cooperation to the Leaders’ level. Throughout the past decade, member countries have consistently carried out cooperation aimed at regional peace, stability, and development while maintaining friendly and close relations among themselves. As a result, tangible progress has been achieved, generating positive outcomes that support the socioeconomic development of the people in the region.
Notably, since 2017, China’s initiative, the Lancang-Mekong Cooperation (LMC) Special Fund, has been instrumental in implementing people-centred development projects with a total budget of US$300 million. It is heartening to observe that over the past decade, a total of 991 projects have been approved across all member countries. These initiatives have significantly contributed to the socioeconomic development of the people residing along the Mekong River Basin.
Moreover, amidst the global economic challenges, the MLC stands as a driver for economic and trade cooperation among Member States. China remains the primary trading partner for the Mekong countries. It is encouraging to see the report that the total trade between China and the Mekong countries has been recorded at over US$500 billion in 2025.
The MLC has also proven its resilience against global crises. During the COVID-19 pandemic, “Fast Tracks” and “Green Lanes” initiatives were implemented to maintain regional trade. In addition, the joint efforts on combatting transnational crimes, particularly online scams and human trafficking through initiatives such as “Operation SEAGULL” and “Safe Lancang-Mekong 2025” Joint Operation (launched on 26 February 2025) have strengthened regional security. Myanmar, as a responsible member, has actively participated in these efforts.
In truth, our six nations are like “fellow travellers in the same boat,” navigating together towards a shared future under the banner of the Mekong-Lancang Cooperation. By rowing in unity and supporting one another, we can undoubtedly overcome any obstacle without wavering and reach our envisioned destination successfully. As we elevate the Mekong-Lancang Cooperation from its foundations to a more advanced stage of development — Mekong-Lancang Cooperation 2.0 (MLC 2.0) — we remain steadfast in our resolve to build a better community based on unity, mutual respect, and mutual benefit. We will accelerate our cooperation in existing sectors such as law enforcement, connectivity, trade and investment, energy, agriculture, water resource management, and human resource development while fostering our collaboration in emerging fields, including AI-based digital transformation, sustainable development, innovation, and combatting non-traditional security issues.
MLC and Myanmar’s Strategic Role
In fact, Mekong and Lancang share the same river — upstream is called ‘Lancang’ in China and the downstream is called ‘Mekong’, which runs across Myanmar, Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam, spanning approximately 4,350 kilometres. Although Myanmar’s share of the river may be modest at just about 234 kilometres (three per cent of the total basin area), its strategic location connecting the upper and lower streams of the river and positioning as the heart of the Myanmar-Laos-Thailand “Golden Triangle” cements Myanmar’s role as an indispensable member of the MLC.
Throughout this decade-long journey, Myanmar, as a responsible Member State, has played a pivotal role in the MLC. In a significant historical milestone, Myanmar served as the Co-Chair of the MLC alongside China from 2020 to 2023. Grounded in the MLC’s shared vision, fundamental principles, and its three main pillars — Political and Security; Economic and Sustainable Development; and Social, Cultural, and People-to-People Exchanges — Myanmar focused its efforts on promoting cooperation in regional integration and addressing both traditional and non-traditional security issues, as well as strengthening collaboration in law enforcement, water resources management, science, technology, and innovation.
In addition to its co-chairmanship, Myanmar hosted the 4th MLC Leaders’ Meeting and the 7th MLC Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, and also co-chaired the 6th and 9th MLC Foreign Ministers’ Meetings in collaboration with China. The culmination of these efforts led to the adoption of key documents, namely the Nay Pyi Taw Declaration and the MLC Plan of Action (2023-2027), as well as a consensus among Member States to establish a meeting mechanism for the MLC Innovation Corridor.
As Myanmar attaches great importance to the MLC and has been actively participating in its activities, Myanmar celebrated the 10th anniversary of the MLC with a series of activities such as publishing commemorative articles and celebratory advertisement in state-owned newspapers alongside the broadcasting of documentary video, hosting a commemorative reception and a photo exhibition on 5 March 2026 at M Gallery Hotel in Nay Pyi Taw — which showcased the successful implementation of LMC Special Fund projects and brought together the Union Ministers and Senior Officials from the LMC Special Fund projects implementing ministries and Ambassadors and diplomats from MLC Member States.
Complementary of Myanmar-China Relations and MLC
Commenced in 1950, the diplomatic journey between Myanmar and China reached its 75th Anniversary (Diamond Jubilee) in 2025, and it was elevated to a Comprehensive Strategic Cooperative Partnership in 2011. This enduring relationship remains remarkably resilient today, characterized by a unique diplomatic model. Its longevity is anchored in several foundational pillars: the visionary leadership of both nations, a shared geography as close neighbours, and deep-rooted cultural affinities. Furthermore, the partnership continues to thrive on the bedrock of the “Pauk-Phaw” spirit and a steadfast commitment to the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, ensuring a bond that remains as firm as ever in the modern era.
It would not be an overstatement to suggest that the bilateral relationship between Myanmar and China and the MLC framework are fundamentally synergistic and reinforcing one another. The deep-seated trust and robust diplomatic ties shared by the two nations provide a firm political foundation for regional engagement. Conversely, the success of this regional cooperation further cements bilateral ties, allowing both nations to achieve their shared goals through collective strength and more effective implementation.
Projects implemented under the LMC Special Fund are those that directly enhance the socioeconomic lives of the populace. These initiatives play a vital role in supporting Myanmar’s national efforts toward socioeconomic development. Myanmar stands as one of the top recipients of projects among the MLC member states. From 2017 to 2025, the country was granted a total of 132 projects under the LMC Special Fund, with a cumulative value of over US$38.6 million. To date, over 100 of these projects have been successfully implemented, yielding substantial benefits across various sectors in Myanmar, including agriculture and livestock, rural development, infrastructure development, health, science and technology and MSMEs.
From a Decade to a Century
To summarize, the Mekong-Lancang Cooperation (MLC) continues to accelerate the Comprehensive Strategic Cooperative Partnership between China and the countries in the Mekong region. Furthermore, it serves as a mechanism that strengthens the robust bilateral ties and close collaboration between China and its regional neighbours. The mutual friendship and cooperation among these nations are the cornerstones of the MLC’s long-term sustainability and success. As a regional state, Myanmar remains an inseparable partner with China, committed to the interests of both peoples, as well as to the stability, peace, prosperity, and sustainable development of the region. In this regard, the Mekong-Lancang Cooperation — grounded in sincerity and goodwill — should continue to strive towards enduring from its golden decade into the century ahead. With this aspiration, this commemorative note is presented in honour of the 10th Anniversary of the Mekong-Lancang Cooperation.
(Views expressed in the article solely belong to the author.)
gnlm
Member of the State Security and Peace Commission and
Union Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar
Human civilization traces its origins to the great river basins, where early societies first took root and flourished. From a life of migration in search of greener pastures, early human communities gradually settled along river systems that offered both sustenance and connectivity. Over time, these settlements evolved into organized and harmonious societies, shaped by a dynamic balance and mutual interaction between humanity and nature, which in turn propelled the advancement of human history.
Among the world’s great river basin civilizations, the Mekong River Basin — shared by China, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam — is a region with a rich and long history of culture and development. As the people and nations relying on these basins need to collaborate in balancing sustainable development with ecosystem conservation, the leaders of our six nations, guided by a far-sighted vision, officially launched the Mekong-Lancang Cooperation (MLC) ten years ago. This was formalized through the Sanya Declaration during the first Mekong-Lancang Summit held on 23 March 2016 in Sanya, Hainan Province, China.
A Partnership Built on a Shared River
Originating from the snow-capped Tibetan Plateau, the Mekong River (known as the Lancang River in China) connects six countries: China, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam. The MLC mechanism, built upon this river, has become a vital regional framework.
In today’s global landscape, the growing interconnectivity and integration among the regional countries have become a key driver of international development. In this context, the Mekong-Lancang Cooperation (MLC), founded on mutual trust, shared benefit and sustainable development among its member countries, has achieved significant progress over the past decade. It has also embraced the goals of socioeconomic development and prosperity of the people across the region. For Myanmar, this cooperation — rooted in the existing “Pauk-Phaw” friendship with China — has strengthened the historic partnership between the two countries and helped it grow in line with the modern era. This progress is indeed a source of pride and satisfaction.
Shared Vision and Firm Principles
The MLC was founded with the vision of “Building a Community of Shared Future” to support regional socioeconomic development, enhance prosperity, narrow the development gap, support the ASEAN Community, implement UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and promote South-South cooperation.
Guided by the principles of consensus, equality, mutual consultation, voluntarism, collective engagement, shared benefit and respect for the Charter of the United Nations and international law, the MLC has become one of the most practical and efficient regional mechanisms.
A Decade of Achievements and Promising Future Prospects
As it transitions into a new decade, the MLC has now firmly evolved into a comprehensive sub-regional cooperation mechanism that encompasses multiple levels of engagement from people-to-people cooperation to the Leaders’ level. Throughout the past decade, member countries have consistently carried out cooperation aimed at regional peace, stability, and development while maintaining friendly and close relations among themselves. As a result, tangible progress has been achieved, generating positive outcomes that support the socioeconomic development of the people in the region.
Notably, since 2017, China’s initiative, the Lancang-Mekong Cooperation (LMC) Special Fund, has been instrumental in implementing people-centred development projects with a total budget of US$300 million. It is heartening to observe that over the past decade, a total of 991 projects have been approved across all member countries. These initiatives have significantly contributed to the socioeconomic development of the people residing along the Mekong River Basin.
Moreover, amidst the global economic challenges, the MLC stands as a driver for economic and trade cooperation among Member States. China remains the primary trading partner for the Mekong countries. It is encouraging to see the report that the total trade between China and the Mekong countries has been recorded at over US$500 billion in 2025.
The MLC has also proven its resilience against global crises. During the COVID-19 pandemic, “Fast Tracks” and “Green Lanes” initiatives were implemented to maintain regional trade. In addition, the joint efforts on combatting transnational crimes, particularly online scams and human trafficking through initiatives such as “Operation SEAGULL” and “Safe Lancang-Mekong 2025” Joint Operation (launched on 26 February 2025) have strengthened regional security. Myanmar, as a responsible member, has actively participated in these efforts.
In truth, our six nations are like “fellow travellers in the same boat,” navigating together towards a shared future under the banner of the Mekong-Lancang Cooperation. By rowing in unity and supporting one another, we can undoubtedly overcome any obstacle without wavering and reach our envisioned destination successfully. As we elevate the Mekong-Lancang Cooperation from its foundations to a more advanced stage of development — Mekong-Lancang Cooperation 2.0 (MLC 2.0) — we remain steadfast in our resolve to build a better community based on unity, mutual respect, and mutual benefit. We will accelerate our cooperation in existing sectors such as law enforcement, connectivity, trade and investment, energy, agriculture, water resource management, and human resource development while fostering our collaboration in emerging fields, including AI-based digital transformation, sustainable development, innovation, and combatting non-traditional security issues.
MLC and Myanmar’s Strategic Role
In fact, Mekong and Lancang share the same river — upstream is called ‘Lancang’ in China and the downstream is called ‘Mekong’, which runs across Myanmar, Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam, spanning approximately 4,350 kilometres. Although Myanmar’s share of the river may be modest at just about 234 kilometres (three per cent of the total basin area), its strategic location connecting the upper and lower streams of the river and positioning as the heart of the Myanmar-Laos-Thailand “Golden Triangle” cements Myanmar’s role as an indispensable member of the MLC.
Throughout this decade-long journey, Myanmar, as a responsible Member State, has played a pivotal role in the MLC. In a significant historical milestone, Myanmar served as the Co-Chair of the MLC alongside China from 2020 to 2023. Grounded in the MLC’s shared vision, fundamental principles, and its three main pillars — Political and Security; Economic and Sustainable Development; and Social, Cultural, and People-to-People Exchanges — Myanmar focused its efforts on promoting cooperation in regional integration and addressing both traditional and non-traditional security issues, as well as strengthening collaboration in law enforcement, water resources management, science, technology, and innovation.
In addition to its co-chairmanship, Myanmar hosted the 4th MLC Leaders’ Meeting and the 7th MLC Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, and also co-chaired the 6th and 9th MLC Foreign Ministers’ Meetings in collaboration with China. The culmination of these efforts led to the adoption of key documents, namely the Nay Pyi Taw Declaration and the MLC Plan of Action (2023-2027), as well as a consensus among Member States to establish a meeting mechanism for the MLC Innovation Corridor.
As Myanmar attaches great importance to the MLC and has been actively participating in its activities, Myanmar celebrated the 10th anniversary of the MLC with a series of activities such as publishing commemorative articles and celebratory advertisement in state-owned newspapers alongside the broadcasting of documentary video, hosting a commemorative reception and a photo exhibition on 5 March 2026 at M Gallery Hotel in Nay Pyi Taw — which showcased the successful implementation of LMC Special Fund projects and brought together the Union Ministers and Senior Officials from the LMC Special Fund projects implementing ministries and Ambassadors and diplomats from MLC Member States.
Complementary of Myanmar-China Relations and MLC
Commenced in 1950, the diplomatic journey between Myanmar and China reached its 75th Anniversary (Diamond Jubilee) in 2025, and it was elevated to a Comprehensive Strategic Cooperative Partnership in 2011. This enduring relationship remains remarkably resilient today, characterized by a unique diplomatic model. Its longevity is anchored in several foundational pillars: the visionary leadership of both nations, a shared geography as close neighbours, and deep-rooted cultural affinities. Furthermore, the partnership continues to thrive on the bedrock of the “Pauk-Phaw” spirit and a steadfast commitment to the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, ensuring a bond that remains as firm as ever in the modern era.
It would not be an overstatement to suggest that the bilateral relationship between Myanmar and China and the MLC framework are fundamentally synergistic and reinforcing one another. The deep-seated trust and robust diplomatic ties shared by the two nations provide a firm political foundation for regional engagement. Conversely, the success of this regional cooperation further cements bilateral ties, allowing both nations to achieve their shared goals through collective strength and more effective implementation.
Projects implemented under the LMC Special Fund are those that directly enhance the socioeconomic lives of the populace. These initiatives play a vital role in supporting Myanmar’s national efforts toward socioeconomic development. Myanmar stands as one of the top recipients of projects among the MLC member states. From 2017 to 2025, the country was granted a total of 132 projects under the LMC Special Fund, with a cumulative value of over US$38.6 million. To date, over 100 of these projects have been successfully implemented, yielding substantial benefits across various sectors in Myanmar, including agriculture and livestock, rural development, infrastructure development, health, science and technology and MSMEs.
From a Decade to a Century
To summarize, the Mekong-Lancang Cooperation (MLC) continues to accelerate the Comprehensive Strategic Cooperative Partnership between China and the countries in the Mekong region. Furthermore, it serves as a mechanism that strengthens the robust bilateral ties and close collaboration between China and its regional neighbours. The mutual friendship and cooperation among these nations are the cornerstones of the MLC’s long-term sustainability and success. As a regional state, Myanmar remains an inseparable partner with China, committed to the interests of both peoples, as well as to the stability, peace, prosperity, and sustainable development of the region. In this regard, the Mekong-Lancang Cooperation — grounded in sincerity and goodwill — should continue to strive towards enduring from its golden decade into the century ahead. With this aspiration, this commemorative note is presented in honour of the 10th Anniversary of the Mekong-Lancang Cooperation.
(Views expressed in the article solely belong to the author.)
gnlm
To understand parliament, let’s look beyond the walls and into the voices it carries.
In my I Say What I See series, I often begin by turning to definitions – both at home and abroad – to better understand the essence of a subject. According to English-Myanmar dictionaries, a “parliament” is described as a ပါလီမန်၊ လွှတ်တော် of elected representatives entrusted with making laws and voicing the concerns of the people. Likewise, the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries define parliament as the highest legislative body in a country, a formal institution where public issues are debated and decisions are made. Yet beyond these formal definitions, a parliament is more than a chamber of speeches and statutes; it is, in its truest sense, a platform, where the voices, hopes, and hardships of the people are expected to be transformed into tangible reality.
From what I see, the effectiveness of a parliament cannot be measured solely by the laws it passes or the debates it hosts. Its true value lies in how well it channels the aspirations and concerns of ordinary citizens into policies that shape daily life. Observing parliamentary sessions, one notices the delicate balance between rhetoric and action, between representing diverse voices and achieving consensus. In this sense, a parliament is both a mirror and a mould: it reflects the society it serves, and simultaneously, it moulds that society through the decisions it enacts. For citizens, understanding this dual role is essential, not only to appreciate the institution but also to engage with it meaningfully.
Consider, for instance, how public concerns about education, healthcare, or local infrastructure reach the parliamentary floor. Through petitions, discussions, and committee reviews, citizens’ voices are not merely heard – they are recorded, debated, and, ideally, translated into action. In my own observations, some proposals take months or even years to materialize, highlighting the patience required in democratic processes. Yet, when a community sees tangible improvements – a school built, a road repaired, or a new policy enacted – it becomes clear that parliament can indeed serve as a bridge between the people and practical change. It is in these moments that the abstract definitions found in dictionaries come alive, and the parliament transforms from a formal institution into a living, responsive platform for the public.
Ultimately, a parliament’s true measure lies not in its walls or procedures, but in its ability to translate the collective voices of the people into real, tangible outcomes. It is a living platform, sometimes slow, sometimes imperfect, but one that holds the promise of connection between citizens and governance. Observing it closely, one realizes that every debate, every motion, and every decision carries the potential to shape lives, communities, and the nation itself. For those who engage with it thoughtfully, a parliament is more than a legislative body; it is a reflection of society’s will and a stage where the aspirations of the people can, if nurtured carefully, become reality.
A parliament is not just an institution; it is the voice of the people in action.
gnlm
To understand parliament, let’s look beyond the walls and into the voices it carries.
In my I Say What I See series, I often begin by turning to definitions – both at home and abroad – to better understand the essence of a subject. According to English-Myanmar dictionaries, a “parliament” is described as a ပါလီမန်၊ လွှတ်တော် of elected representatives entrusted with making laws and voicing the concerns of the people. Likewise, the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries define parliament as the highest legislative body in a country, a formal institution where public issues are debated and decisions are made. Yet beyond these formal definitions, a parliament is more than a chamber of speeches and statutes; it is, in its truest sense, a platform, where the voices, hopes, and hardships of the people are expected to be transformed into tangible reality.
From what I see, the effectiveness of a parliament cannot be measured solely by the laws it passes or the debates it hosts. Its true value lies in how well it channels the aspirations and concerns of ordinary citizens into policies that shape daily life. Observing parliamentary sessions, one notices the delicate balance between rhetoric and action, between representing diverse voices and achieving consensus. In this sense, a parliament is both a mirror and a mould: it reflects the society it serves, and simultaneously, it moulds that society through the decisions it enacts. For citizens, understanding this dual role is essential, not only to appreciate the institution but also to engage with it meaningfully.
Consider, for instance, how public concerns about education, healthcare, or local infrastructure reach the parliamentary floor. Through petitions, discussions, and committee reviews, citizens’ voices are not merely heard – they are recorded, debated, and, ideally, translated into action. In my own observations, some proposals take months or even years to materialize, highlighting the patience required in democratic processes. Yet, when a community sees tangible improvements – a school built, a road repaired, or a new policy enacted – it becomes clear that parliament can indeed serve as a bridge between the people and practical change. It is in these moments that the abstract definitions found in dictionaries come alive, and the parliament transforms from a formal institution into a living, responsive platform for the public.
Ultimately, a parliament’s true measure lies not in its walls or procedures, but in its ability to translate the collective voices of the people into real, tangible outcomes. It is a living platform, sometimes slow, sometimes imperfect, but one that holds the promise of connection between citizens and governance. Observing it closely, one realizes that every debate, every motion, and every decision carries the potential to shape lives, communities, and the nation itself. For those who engage with it thoughtfully, a parliament is more than a legislative body; it is a reflection of society’s will and a stage where the aspirations of the people can, if nurtured carefully, become reality.
A parliament is not just an institution; it is the voice of the people in action.
gnlm
Myanmar has entered the dawn of a new state after years marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, internal armed conflict, and the expansion of illicit war economies. The successful conduct of multiparty general elections earlier this year marks a critical milestone in the country’s transition toward a new political and economic order. Against this backdrop, a high-level forum convened over the weekend in Nay Pyi Taw, bringing together regional thinkers, Myanmar scholars, and newly elected parliamentary representatives. The forum focused on identifying practical pathways towards trust, stability, and development. Participants examined how the incoming government can move beyond emergency, stability-oriented governance towards inclusive, market-driven development grounded in public trust.
In this transition, the new parliament will play a pivotal role. As elected representatives of the people, lawmakers are uniquely positioned to rebuild public confidence by translating citizens’ priorities into a people-centred economic agenda and a citizens’ budget. While political and diplomatic challenges remain, the economic front offers a clear and pragmatic path forward, particularly through deeper cooperation with neighbouring countries. Scholars from China, India, Thailand, and Europe emphasized that Myanmar can transform its geography from a site of conflict into a hub for regional connectivity and food security. The forum’s participants shared a common aspiration: to move beyond stopgap policies and build a resilient, integrated economy at the dawn of the new state.
As Myanmar relied heavily on agriculture for community survival during years of instability, the forum underscored the urgency of revitalizing rural livelihoods. Participants explored ways to establish food security corridors that support inclusive growth while rebuilding trust in conflict-affected rural areas. More than 60 per cent of Myanmar’s agricultural export earnings come from pulses, corn, and seafood traded with India, China, and Thailand. The resilience of these supply chains through five years of pandemic and conflict highlights a clear opportunity for regional partners to guarantee restriction-free trade and secure logistics. Such cooperation could deliver tangible peace dividends, as many of these crops are grown and transported through conflict-affected regions. Over time, this partnership could catalyze a shift from subsistence farming to agro-processing, positioning Myanmar as a reliable food corridor – a “guaranteed pantry” for some of the world’s largest populations.
A shared vision among regional scholars emphasized Myanmar’s strategic location at the crossroads of China, India, and ASEAN. Elected representatives discussed how the country can serve as a gateway linking landlocked Northeast India and Southwest China to Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean. While Myanmar offers the shortest physical routes for the movement of goods and people, participants stressed that connectivity must go beyond infrastructure. True connectivity also requires “software”: knowledge exchange, technology transfer, labour mobility, and a functioning digital economy.
Several practical ideas emerged to accelerate comprehensive connectivity. First, while large-scale infrastructure development takes time and depends on improved security, partnerships can begin immediately through capacity building in governance, technology, and skills relevant to connectivity projects. Second, even as low-intensity conflicts persist in some border areas, pilot projects can be launched in central hubs such as Mandalay towards the periphery, alongside ongoing post-earthquake reconstruction. This approach would signal to conflict-affected regions that peace brings tangible development dividends.
The forum also recognized Myanmar’s progress in dismantling cyber-scam centres and illicit networks in formerly ungoverned areas. However, participants agreed that deeper multilateral cooperation is now essential to address emerging threats, including cyber insecurity and illicit financial flows. National speakers and lawmakers also highlighted the urgency of labour shortages and brain drain. Proposed solutions included promoting circular migration to achieve brain gain, expanding affordable legal migration pathways, and strengthening formal remittance channels to leverage domestic development. Additional partnership opportunities were identified in the digital economy, financial inclusion, and human capital development – all addressing the dangers of decentralizing cyber scam centres. Discussions also touched on ASEAN’s Five-Point Consensus, with calls to move beyond a narrow focus on conflict management toward a stability-to-development continuum and renewed economic cooperation, as today’s conflict dynamics are increasingly shaped by war economies rather than political grievances.
Private-sector voices pushed the discussion further. One speaker argued that reaching the “full light of day” requires a return to fundamentals – macroeconomic stabilization and policy coherence. Interventions highlighted the urgent need to address inflation, exchange-rate volatility, and policy uncertainty driven by conflict. A seasoned observer called for stronger alignment between laws, policies, and practices across key sectors – agriculture, manufacturing, services, and banking – to rehabilitate the economy and transition from restrictive, conflict-era controls to open-market operations.
Finally, the forum addressed the week’s most pressing global concern: energy security amid escalating tensions in the Middle East. With risks to supply routes such as the Strait of Hormuz, participants explored how Myanmar, like its regional peers, can proactively manage potential energy shocks. Proposed measures included fuel conservation, electricity demand and tariff management, and transparent digital rationing mechanisms, drawing lessons from regional experiences. The discussion also reinforced the importance of a long-term energy transition strategy, expanding renewable energy, strengthening grid resilience, and diversifying energy sources, to unlock Myanmar’s potential within the region’s broader push towards sustainable energy transformation.
gnlm
Myanmar has entered the dawn of a new state after years marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, internal armed conflict, and the expansion of illicit war economies. The successful conduct of multiparty general elections earlier this year marks a critical milestone in the country’s transition toward a new political and economic order. Against this backdrop, a high-level forum convened over the weekend in Nay Pyi Taw, bringing together regional thinkers, Myanmar scholars, and newly elected parliamentary representatives. The forum focused on identifying practical pathways towards trust, stability, and development. Participants examined how the incoming government can move beyond emergency, stability-oriented governance towards inclusive, market-driven development grounded in public trust.
In this transition, the new parliament will play a pivotal role. As elected representatives of the people, lawmakers are uniquely positioned to rebuild public confidence by translating citizens’ priorities into a people-centred economic agenda and a citizens’ budget. While political and diplomatic challenges remain, the economic front offers a clear and pragmatic path forward, particularly through deeper cooperation with neighbouring countries. Scholars from China, India, Thailand, and Europe emphasized that Myanmar can transform its geography from a site of conflict into a hub for regional connectivity and food security. The forum’s participants shared a common aspiration: to move beyond stopgap policies and build a resilient, integrated economy at the dawn of the new state.
As Myanmar relied heavily on agriculture for community survival during years of instability, the forum underscored the urgency of revitalizing rural livelihoods. Participants explored ways to establish food security corridors that support inclusive growth while rebuilding trust in conflict-affected rural areas. More than 60 per cent of Myanmar’s agricultural export earnings come from pulses, corn, and seafood traded with India, China, and Thailand. The resilience of these supply chains through five years of pandemic and conflict highlights a clear opportunity for regional partners to guarantee restriction-free trade and secure logistics. Such cooperation could deliver tangible peace dividends, as many of these crops are grown and transported through conflict-affected regions. Over time, this partnership could catalyze a shift from subsistence farming to agro-processing, positioning Myanmar as a reliable food corridor – a “guaranteed pantry” for some of the world’s largest populations.
A shared vision among regional scholars emphasized Myanmar’s strategic location at the crossroads of China, India, and ASEAN. Elected representatives discussed how the country can serve as a gateway linking landlocked Northeast India and Southwest China to Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean. While Myanmar offers the shortest physical routes for the movement of goods and people, participants stressed that connectivity must go beyond infrastructure. True connectivity also requires “software”: knowledge exchange, technology transfer, labour mobility, and a functioning digital economy.
Several practical ideas emerged to accelerate comprehensive connectivity. First, while large-scale infrastructure development takes time and depends on improved security, partnerships can begin immediately through capacity building in governance, technology, and skills relevant to connectivity projects. Second, even as low-intensity conflicts persist in some border areas, pilot projects can be launched in central hubs such as Mandalay towards the periphery, alongside ongoing post-earthquake reconstruction. This approach would signal to conflict-affected regions that peace brings tangible development dividends.
The forum also recognized Myanmar’s progress in dismantling cyber-scam centres and illicit networks in formerly ungoverned areas. However, participants agreed that deeper multilateral cooperation is now essential to address emerging threats, including cyber insecurity and illicit financial flows. National speakers and lawmakers also highlighted the urgency of labour shortages and brain drain. Proposed solutions included promoting circular migration to achieve brain gain, expanding affordable legal migration pathways, and strengthening formal remittance channels to leverage domestic development. Additional partnership opportunities were identified in the digital economy, financial inclusion, and human capital development – all addressing the dangers of decentralizing cyber scam centres. Discussions also touched on ASEAN’s Five-Point Consensus, with calls to move beyond a narrow focus on conflict management toward a stability-to-development continuum and renewed economic cooperation, as today’s conflict dynamics are increasingly shaped by war economies rather than political grievances.
Private-sector voices pushed the discussion further. One speaker argued that reaching the “full light of day” requires a return to fundamentals – macroeconomic stabilization and policy coherence. Interventions highlighted the urgent need to address inflation, exchange-rate volatility, and policy uncertainty driven by conflict. A seasoned observer called for stronger alignment between laws, policies, and practices across key sectors – agriculture, manufacturing, services, and banking – to rehabilitate the economy and transition from restrictive, conflict-era controls to open-market operations.
Finally, the forum addressed the week’s most pressing global concern: energy security amid escalating tensions in the Middle East. With risks to supply routes such as the Strait of Hormuz, participants explored how Myanmar, like its regional peers, can proactively manage potential energy shocks. Proposed measures included fuel conservation, electricity demand and tariff management, and transparent digital rationing mechanisms, drawing lessons from regional experiences. The discussion also reinforced the importance of a long-term energy transition strategy, expanding renewable energy, strengthening grid resilience, and diversifying energy sources, to unlock Myanmar’s potential within the region’s broader push towards sustainable energy transformation.
gnlm
The people of a State are the source of its sovereign power. The Members of Parliament, who are chosen by the people, use this authority. In a democracy, the people themselves hold the power and can use it directly or through representatives they have freely chosen. A parliament, which is made up of elected and occasionally appointed representatives, is the highest legislative body and is in charge of representing the people. Although it is known as Parliament in the majority of States, it goes by other names in some, including Diet in Japan, Congress in the United States, the National People’s Congress in China, and Duma in the Russian Federation. Bicameral Parliaments, which have two chambers, exist in certain States. Certain States have Unicameral Parliaments, meaning they only have one chamber. Pyithu Hluttaw and Amyotha Hluttaw make up Myanmar’s Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, a bicameral parliament. Furthermore, the 2008 Constitution also establishes Region and State Hluttaws. The qualifications and quantity of Members of Parliament are provided in the respective constitutions.
The three main powers of State sovereignty are legislative, executive, and judiciary. Parliament, primarily referred to as the legislature, is responsible for granting legislative power. It is referred to differently by the Constitution in some countries. The legislatures are made up of either People’s Representatives or Members of Parliament (in Myanmar, Hluttaw Representatives). Pyidaungsu Hluttaw is the term used to describe it in Myanmar. Parliament is made up of the people’s elected members who serve in the legislature. The primary duty of Parliament is legislation. The process of legislation is conducted in accordance with the Constitution and the relevant laws and regulations. Once a bill is approved by the legislature (in Myanmar, Pyidaungsu Hluttaw), the President formally signs the bill and subsequently enacts it as a law.
Although their duties are generally the same, members of Parliament have slightly different responsibilities depending on their respective constituencies.
Legislation
A member of Parliament’s primary responsibility is to enact laws. A member of parliament is required to propose new laws that are necessary for the nation. It is necessary for the parliament to discuss, debate, and vote on the proposed laws. Additionally, they review and supervise the current laws and make any necessary amendments, repeals, or replacements.
Representation
Members of Parliament ensure that the needs and concerns of their local constituency are brought up in Parliament by representing their voters and serving as their voice.
Check and Balance
In order to maintain checks and balances between the legislative, administrative, and judicial branches of government, the majority of nations in the world implement the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Members of Parliament are responsible for monitoring the government and public services as well as reviewing government policies.
Committee Work
Parliaments create committees and commissions in accordance with their respective constitutions. For example, the Human Rights Committee, the Bill Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, the Health and Sports Committee, and so forth. It is the duty of members of parliament to take part in their committees and commissions.
Party Responsibilities
The majority of Parliamentarians are representatives of political parties, but some are independent candidates. Parliamentarians from various political parties collaborate with their party to develop consensus and shape policy.
Myanmar Hluttaw Representatives
According to the 2008 Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, Pyidaungsu Hluttaw is made up of Amyotha and Pyithu Hluttaw. Making laws is Pyidaungsu Hluttaw’s primary duty. The Pyidaungsu Hluttaw has the authority to enact laws for the entire nation or for a specific region in accordance with the Constitution. It is within the rights of these Hluttaws’ Members of Parliament to present draft legislation to their respective Hluttaws. Therefore, passing legislation is one of the Hluttaw Representatives’ primary duties.
According to the 2008 Constitution, state sovereignty is separated into judicial, administrative, and legislative branches, which serve as mutual checks and balances. Thus, through submitting committee reports, introducing motions, and posing questions, Hluttaw Representatives serve to check and balance the executive and judicial branches.
It is imperative that Hluttaw representatives stay in contact with the electorate and actively participate in the constituency’s development.
Both Amyotha Hluttaw and Pyithu Hluttaw have standing committees, including the Undertaking Vetting Committee, Government’s Guarantees, Pledges, Bill Committee, Public Accounts Committee, and Hluttaw Rights Committee.
Additionally, Hluttaws will establish issue committees to look at issues for a limited period of time that pertain to foreign affairs, economics, finances, social crimes, governance, legislation, and ethnic nationality. These committees are mandatory for the designated Hluttaw Representatives.
According to the 2008 Constitution, State and Region Hluttaws are established. The respective laws govern how State and Region Representatives carry out their responsibilities.
Role of the Members of Parliament
The separation of powers is established and practised in democratic nations by their own constitutions. Parliament and other legislatures are empowered to exercise legislative power. As per the Constitution, the people freely elect the members of parliament. The Head of State (President) is chosen by the parliamentarians. The President of some nations is chosen by popular vote. Members of the Parliament elect the Cabinet and Authorities as well.
The primary responsibilities of members of Parliament are legislation, oversight and representation. That is why the members of Parliament are essential in every country. To that end, the role of members of Parliament and their responsibilities are briefly presented in this article.
gnlm
The people of a State are the source of its sovereign power. The Members of Parliament, who are chosen by the people, use this authority. In a democracy, the people themselves hold the power and can use it directly or through representatives they have freely chosen. A parliament, which is made up of elected and occasionally appointed representatives, is the highest legislative body and is in charge of representing the people. Although it is known as Parliament in the majority of States, it goes by other names in some, including Diet in Japan, Congress in the United States, the National People’s Congress in China, and Duma in the Russian Federation. Bicameral Parliaments, which have two chambers, exist in certain States. Certain States have Unicameral Parliaments, meaning they only have one chamber. Pyithu Hluttaw and Amyotha Hluttaw make up Myanmar’s Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, a bicameral parliament. Furthermore, the 2008 Constitution also establishes Region and State Hluttaws. The qualifications and quantity of Members of Parliament are provided in the respective constitutions.
The three main powers of State sovereignty are legislative, executive, and judiciary. Parliament, primarily referred to as the legislature, is responsible for granting legislative power. It is referred to differently by the Constitution in some countries. The legislatures are made up of either People’s Representatives or Members of Parliament (in Myanmar, Hluttaw Representatives). Pyidaungsu Hluttaw is the term used to describe it in Myanmar. Parliament is made up of the people’s elected members who serve in the legislature. The primary duty of Parliament is legislation. The process of legislation is conducted in accordance with the Constitution and the relevant laws and regulations. Once a bill is approved by the legislature (in Myanmar, Pyidaungsu Hluttaw), the President formally signs the bill and subsequently enacts it as a law.
Although their duties are generally the same, members of Parliament have slightly different responsibilities depending on their respective constituencies.
Legislation
A member of Parliament’s primary responsibility is to enact laws. A member of parliament is required to propose new laws that are necessary for the nation. It is necessary for the parliament to discuss, debate, and vote on the proposed laws. Additionally, they review and supervise the current laws and make any necessary amendments, repeals, or replacements.
Representation
Members of Parliament ensure that the needs and concerns of their local constituency are brought up in Parliament by representing their voters and serving as their voice.
Check and Balance
In order to maintain checks and balances between the legislative, administrative, and judicial branches of government, the majority of nations in the world implement the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Members of Parliament are responsible for monitoring the government and public services as well as reviewing government policies.
Committee Work
Parliaments create committees and commissions in accordance with their respective constitutions. For example, the Human Rights Committee, the Bill Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, the Health and Sports Committee, and so forth. It is the duty of members of parliament to take part in their committees and commissions.
Party Responsibilities
The majority of Parliamentarians are representatives of political parties, but some are independent candidates. Parliamentarians from various political parties collaborate with their party to develop consensus and shape policy.
Myanmar Hluttaw Representatives
According to the 2008 Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, Pyidaungsu Hluttaw is made up of Amyotha and Pyithu Hluttaw. Making laws is Pyidaungsu Hluttaw’s primary duty. The Pyidaungsu Hluttaw has the authority to enact laws for the entire nation or for a specific region in accordance with the Constitution. It is within the rights of these Hluttaws’ Members of Parliament to present draft legislation to their respective Hluttaws. Therefore, passing legislation is one of the Hluttaw Representatives’ primary duties.
According to the 2008 Constitution, state sovereignty is separated into judicial, administrative, and legislative branches, which serve as mutual checks and balances. Thus, through submitting committee reports, introducing motions, and posing questions, Hluttaw Representatives serve to check and balance the executive and judicial branches.
It is imperative that Hluttaw representatives stay in contact with the electorate and actively participate in the constituency’s development.
Both Amyotha Hluttaw and Pyithu Hluttaw have standing committees, including the Undertaking Vetting Committee, Government’s Guarantees, Pledges, Bill Committee, Public Accounts Committee, and Hluttaw Rights Committee.
Additionally, Hluttaws will establish issue committees to look at issues for a limited period of time that pertain to foreign affairs, economics, finances, social crimes, governance, legislation, and ethnic nationality. These committees are mandatory for the designated Hluttaw Representatives.
According to the 2008 Constitution, State and Region Hluttaws are established. The respective laws govern how State and Region Representatives carry out their responsibilities.
Role of the Members of Parliament
The separation of powers is established and practised in democratic nations by their own constitutions. Parliament and other legislatures are empowered to exercise legislative power. As per the Constitution, the people freely elect the members of parliament. The Head of State (President) is chosen by the parliamentarians. The President of some nations is chosen by popular vote. Members of the Parliament elect the Cabinet and Authorities as well.
The primary responsibilities of members of Parliament are legislation, oversight and representation. That is why the members of Parliament are essential in every country. To that end, the role of members of Parliament and their responsibilities are briefly presented in this article.
gnlm
It was an emotional and inspiring morning to see thousands of people waving Myanmar national flags, under the February sunshine, welcoming home our bravest and most gentle warriors from the frontline.
On 1 February 2026, the team of Myanmar Agent led by Union Minister U Ko Ko Hlaing and Union Minister and Union Attorney-General Dr Thida Oo arrived back at Yangon International Airport at around 9 am. The team’s return home was saluted with a big respect and a warm welcome by thousands of Myanmar nationals from different walks of life, enthusiastically, voluntarily and respectfully.
The togetherness of the people in the crowd by singing Myanmar’s national anthem while waving the national flags that morning was a perfect match that signals the solidarity of all Myanmar citizens in dealing with the genocide accusation.
Bravest and most gentle warriors with full respect and honour
The Agent of Myanmar and the legal team led by Lead Counsel Mr Christopher Staker, including Professor Alina Miron, Mr Stefan Talmon, Ms Chiara Cordone, and Ms Leigh Lawrie represented the Republic of the Union of Myanmar at the Public Hearings in the Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia versus Myanmar) before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
They defended not only the truth and justice, as well as the pride and prestige of our country against the accusation of the utmost gravity with their professional skills, honour and unparalleled courage before the ICJ with solid evidence, historical facts and records from 12 to 29 January 2026.
Since the case is extremely significant for Myanmar, the people of Myanmar from various backgrounds are not only closely monitoring the follow-ups and the proceedings but also standing back together with the team.
The Agent of Myanmar Union Minister U Ko Ko Hlaing and the legal team presented truths and facts of what had really happened in Rakhine State in 2016 and 2017, which the world is not able to deny and refuse, while The Gambia made accusations based on emotions and make-up narratives. Within three weeks, the Gambia failed to present the evidence objectively or failed to meet the required legal evidentiary standards.
What is more, the Gambia insisted on using the self-claimed name for the Bengalis. We, our country and our people respect human rights, but we firmly reject the groundless accusations and demands.
Accordingly, the Agent of Myanmar and Myanmar’s Counsels contended, with a very detailed presentation as per the historical facts, that those populations are culturally, ethnically and religiously part of the same group as the population living immediately across the border in Bangladesh.
Citizenship status
It goes without saying that there are differences and conditions between the statuses of ‘National’ and ‘Citizen’ all over the world. Those who immigrated and lived in a country for a certain period of time, as prescribed by the specific laws, here in Myanmar, after three generations, with no violation nor breaching the laws of the host country, may have the right to naturalize their citizenship. Still, they must obey and abide by the Constitutional provisos and the host country’s existing laws.
The Gambia unreasonably demanded a guarantee for the citizenship of the Bengalis in the country, which they claim they are being genocided. Such ridiculous and absurd demands made by The Gambia in the hearings are unprofessional and out of reason. The citizenship matter, as a matter of fact, is under Myanmar’s supreme authority and thus, The Gambia or any other nation is not even qualified to criticize the 1982 Citizenship Law of Myanmar.
However, Agent of Myanmar Union Minister U Ko Ko Hlaing calmly explained with respect before the court about verification and scrutiny processes for citizenship statuses of Bengalis. “There are around two hundred thousand Bengalis holding citizenship cards across the country, and fifty thousand Bengalis holding NVCs in Rakhine State alone. Those who apply for an NVC and are found not to be entitled to citizenship can continue to live lawfully in Myanmar as holders of an NVC (National Verification Card),” said U Ko Ko Hlaing in the presentation.
Furthermore, “Despite this, many Bengalis in northern Rakhine State refuse to engage with the NVC process. Some refuse on political grounds. Some refuse because they are pressured by activists not to do so, or have received false information from activists that anyone who applies for an NVC will never be granted citizenship. All this has nothing to do with genocide,” he added in the hearing.
Argument for the nation’s pride
Dr Naing Swe Oo, senior advisor to Myanmar Institute of Strategic and International Studies, expressed his view and gratitude to the Myanmar Agent team as follows: –
“The Agent of Myanmar, led by Union Minister U Ko Ko Hlaing, argued for the pride of our country. We, all Myanmar citizens, are confident that we did not commit genocide. As a think tank personnel, I also monitored the case and observed that the Gambia only relied on the reports of FFM and IIMM (Fact-Finding Mission and Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar). But the team led by the Union Minister presented very detail in the appeal. I am very proud of and thank the Agent of Myanmar and the legal team.”
This article is dedicated to honouring the team of Myanmar Agent led by Union Minister U Ko Ko Hlaing and Union Minister and Union Attorney-General Dr Thida Oo, the legal team led by Lead Counsel Mr Christopher Staker, including Professor Alina Miron, Mr Stefan Talmon, Ms Chiara Cordone, and Ms Leigh Lawrie, and every member involved in the teams who defended the truth and justice for, and the pride and prestige of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar and its people.
The people of Myanmar value and respect every single effort of both the Agent of Myanmar and Myanmar’s Counsels as the bravest but the gentlest warriors ever.
gnlm
It was an emotional and inspiring morning to see thousands of people waving Myanmar national flags, under the February sunshine, welcoming home our bravest and most gentle warriors from the frontline.
On 1 February 2026, the team of Myanmar Agent led by Union Minister U Ko Ko Hlaing and Union Minister and Union Attorney-General Dr Thida Oo arrived back at Yangon International Airport at around 9 am. The team’s return home was saluted with a big respect and a warm welcome by thousands of Myanmar nationals from different walks of life, enthusiastically, voluntarily and respectfully.
The togetherness of the people in the crowd by singing Myanmar’s national anthem while waving the national flags that morning was a perfect match that signals the solidarity of all Myanmar citizens in dealing with the genocide accusation.
Bravest and most gentle warriors with full respect and honour
The Agent of Myanmar and the legal team led by Lead Counsel Mr Christopher Staker, including Professor Alina Miron, Mr Stefan Talmon, Ms Chiara Cordone, and Ms Leigh Lawrie represented the Republic of the Union of Myanmar at the Public Hearings in the Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia versus Myanmar) before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
They defended not only the truth and justice, as well as the pride and prestige of our country against the accusation of the utmost gravity with their professional skills, honour and unparalleled courage before the ICJ with solid evidence, historical facts and records from 12 to 29 January 2026.
Since the case is extremely significant for Myanmar, the people of Myanmar from various backgrounds are not only closely monitoring the follow-ups and the proceedings but also standing back together with the team.
The Agent of Myanmar Union Minister U Ko Ko Hlaing and the legal team presented truths and facts of what had really happened in Rakhine State in 2016 and 2017, which the world is not able to deny and refuse, while The Gambia made accusations based on emotions and make-up narratives. Within three weeks, the Gambia failed to present the evidence objectively or failed to meet the required legal evidentiary standards.
What is more, the Gambia insisted on using the self-claimed name for the Bengalis. We, our country and our people respect human rights, but we firmly reject the groundless accusations and demands.
Accordingly, the Agent of Myanmar and Myanmar’s Counsels contended, with a very detailed presentation as per the historical facts, that those populations are culturally, ethnically and religiously part of the same group as the population living immediately across the border in Bangladesh.
Citizenship status
It goes without saying that there are differences and conditions between the statuses of ‘National’ and ‘Citizen’ all over the world. Those who immigrated and lived in a country for a certain period of time, as prescribed by the specific laws, here in Myanmar, after three generations, with no violation nor breaching the laws of the host country, may have the right to naturalize their citizenship. Still, they must obey and abide by the Constitutional provisos and the host country’s existing laws.
The Gambia unreasonably demanded a guarantee for the citizenship of the Bengalis in the country, which they claim they are being genocided. Such ridiculous and absurd demands made by The Gambia in the hearings are unprofessional and out of reason. The citizenship matter, as a matter of fact, is under Myanmar’s supreme authority and thus, The Gambia or any other nation is not even qualified to criticize the 1982 Citizenship Law of Myanmar.
However, Agent of Myanmar Union Minister U Ko Ko Hlaing calmly explained with respect before the court about verification and scrutiny processes for citizenship statuses of Bengalis. “There are around two hundred thousand Bengalis holding citizenship cards across the country, and fifty thousand Bengalis holding NVCs in Rakhine State alone. Those who apply for an NVC and are found not to be entitled to citizenship can continue to live lawfully in Myanmar as holders of an NVC (National Verification Card),” said U Ko Ko Hlaing in the presentation.
Furthermore, “Despite this, many Bengalis in northern Rakhine State refuse to engage with the NVC process. Some refuse on political grounds. Some refuse because they are pressured by activists not to do so, or have received false information from activists that anyone who applies for an NVC will never be granted citizenship. All this has nothing to do with genocide,” he added in the hearing.
Argument for the nation’s pride
Dr Naing Swe Oo, senior advisor to Myanmar Institute of Strategic and International Studies, expressed his view and gratitude to the Myanmar Agent team as follows: –
“The Agent of Myanmar, led by Union Minister U Ko Ko Hlaing, argued for the pride of our country. We, all Myanmar citizens, are confident that we did not commit genocide. As a think tank personnel, I also monitored the case and observed that the Gambia only relied on the reports of FFM and IIMM (Fact-Finding Mission and Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar). But the team led by the Union Minister presented very detail in the appeal. I am very proud of and thank the Agent of Myanmar and the legal team.”
This article is dedicated to honouring the team of Myanmar Agent led by Union Minister U Ko Ko Hlaing and Union Minister and Union Attorney-General Dr Thida Oo, the legal team led by Lead Counsel Mr Christopher Staker, including Professor Alina Miron, Mr Stefan Talmon, Ms Chiara Cordone, and Ms Leigh Lawrie, and every member involved in the teams who defended the truth and justice for, and the pride and prestige of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar and its people.
The people of Myanmar value and respect every single effort of both the Agent of Myanmar and Myanmar’s Counsels as the bravest but the gentlest warriors ever.
gnlm
Voting is one of the most important ways that citizens can participate in shaping the future of their country. Yet, some people decide not to vote because they think their one vote will not matter, while others are simply not interested in politics. Some feel they do not know enough about politics or politicians and do not have the time to learn before an election. Finally, some citizens choose not to vote because they do not like any of the candidates. These reasons may seem personal and harmless, but in reality, the absence of voting represents a significant loss of chances for both the individual and the society they live in.
When a citizen does not vote, they lose the opportunity to have their voice heard in decisions that directly affect their lives. Policies on education, healthcare, employment, and civil rights are shaped by elected leaders, and abstaining from voting means surrendering influence over these critical areas. Even if one vote seems small, elections are often decided by narrow margins, and the collective power of many individuals who think their vote does not matter can change the outcome. By not voting, citizens allow others to decide for them, weakening their own agency and representation.
The absence of voting also erodes collective power. Democracy depends on participation, and when large numbers of citizens abstain, the balance of representation shifts toward groups that consistently vote. This often results in policies that favour certain demographics while ignoring others. For example, younger citizens who fail to vote may find their concerns about education or employment overlooked, while older generations who vote regularly see their priorities reflected in government decisions. Thus, non-voting contributes to inequality in representation and strengthens entrenched elites who benefit from low participation.
Beyond personal and collective losses, not voting reflects a weakening of civic responsibility.
Voting is not only a right but also a duty that sustains democratic culture. When citizens abstain, leaders are less accountable, and democratic institutions lose legitimacy. This opens the door to authoritarian tendencies, corruption, and policies that serve narrow interests rather than the public good. The absence of voting also leads to stagnation, as governments face less pressure to innovate or address pressing issues.
Citizens who do not vote miss the chance to demand change, leaving outdated policies in place.
There are also psychological and social consequences of non-voting. Citizens who abstain often feel alienated from their communities and governments, reinforcing cycles of disengagement. They lose the sense of empowerment that comes from participating in democracy and may begin to believe that politics is irrelevant to their lives. This alienation weakens solidarity within communities, as voting is a collective act that affirms shared values and responsibilities. Moreover, when parents abstain, they often model disengagement for their children, perpetuating cycles of non-participation across generations.
History teaches us that widespread non-voting can have grave consequences. In societies where citizens disengage, authoritarian leaders often exploit the vacuum, consolidating power without resistance. The absence of voting undermines freedoms and disregards the sacrifices made by those who fought for the right to vote. It diminishes a nation’s moral authority and weakens its voice on the global stage, as policies shaped by disengaged electorates lack legitimacy. In many countries, hard-won rights to vote were achieved through struggle, protest, and sacrifice.
To abstain from voting is to ignore these struggles and to waste the opportunities they created.
The reasons people give for not voting — whether believing their vote does not matter, disinterest in politics, lack of knowledge, or dissatisfaction with candidates — are understandable but ultimately harmful. Each reason represents a missed opportunity to influence the future. Citizens who abstain lose the chance to be part of change, to hold leaders accountable, and to affirm their place in the democratic community. The absence of voting is therefore not just a personal choice but a collective loss that weakens democracy itself.
Reclaiming the duty to vote is essential. Citizens must recognize that voting is both a right and a responsibility. Governments and civil society should invest in civic education to address ignorance and apathy, while making voting more accessible through technolo-
gy and inclusive policies. Most importantly, societies must cultivate a culture where voting is valued as a shared duty, reinforcing its importance across generations.
By embracing this duty, citizens can reclaim their lost chances, strengthen democracy, and ensure that their voices contribute to shaping a future that reflects the will of the people.
Ultimately, the absence of voting is not only about missing a single election. It is about missing the chance to be part of history, to influence the direction of society, and to stand alongside fellow citizens in shaping a collective destiny. Each ballot cast is a statement of belonging, a declaration that one’s voice matters, and a contribution to the ongoing story of democracy. When citizens abstain, they silence themselves, leaving gaps in the narrative of their nation. The loss of chances is therefore profound: it is the loss of agency, of representation, of solidarity, and of the opportunity to shape a better future.
By choosing to vote, citizens affirm their role in democracy and reclaim the opportunities that are lost when they abstain. Voting is not perfect, nor is it the only form of civic engagement, but it remains the most direct and powerful tool citizens possess to shape their future. To abstain is to relinquish this tool, to forfeit the chance to be heard, and to weaken the democratic fabric that binds societies together. The duty to vote is, therefore, not only a personal responsibility but also a collective necessity. By embracing it, citizens reclaim their lost chances and strengthen the promise of democracy for generations to come.
gnlm
Voting is one of the most important ways that citizens can participate in shaping the future of their country. Yet, some people decide not to vote because they think their one vote will not matter, while others are simply not interested in politics. Some feel they do not know enough about politics or politicians and do not have the time to learn before an election. Finally, some citizens choose not to vote because they do not like any of the candidates. These reasons may seem personal and harmless, but in reality, the absence of voting represents a significant loss of chances for both the individual and the society they live in.
When a citizen does not vote, they lose the opportunity to have their voice heard in decisions that directly affect their lives. Policies on education, healthcare, employment, and civil rights are shaped by elected leaders, and abstaining from voting means surrendering influence over these critical areas. Even if one vote seems small, elections are often decided by narrow margins, and the collective power of many individuals who think their vote does not matter can change the outcome. By not voting, citizens allow others to decide for them, weakening their own agency and representation.
The absence of voting also erodes collective power. Democracy depends on participation, and when large numbers of citizens abstain, the balance of representation shifts toward groups that consistently vote. This often results in policies that favour certain demographics while ignoring others. For example, younger citizens who fail to vote may find their concerns about education or employment overlooked, while older generations who vote regularly see their priorities reflected in government decisions. Thus, non-voting contributes to inequality in representation and strengthens entrenched elites who benefit from low participation.
Beyond personal and collective losses, not voting reflects a weakening of civic responsibility.
Voting is not only a right but also a duty that sustains democratic culture. When citizens abstain, leaders are less accountable, and democratic institutions lose legitimacy. This opens the door to authoritarian tendencies, corruption, and policies that serve narrow interests rather than the public good. The absence of voting also leads to stagnation, as governments face less pressure to innovate or address pressing issues.
Citizens who do not vote miss the chance to demand change, leaving outdated policies in place.
There are also psychological and social consequences of non-voting. Citizens who abstain often feel alienated from their communities and governments, reinforcing cycles of disengagement. They lose the sense of empowerment that comes from participating in democracy and may begin to believe that politics is irrelevant to their lives. This alienation weakens solidarity within communities, as voting is a collective act that affirms shared values and responsibilities. Moreover, when parents abstain, they often model disengagement for their children, perpetuating cycles of non-participation across generations.
History teaches us that widespread non-voting can have grave consequences. In societies where citizens disengage, authoritarian leaders often exploit the vacuum, consolidating power without resistance. The absence of voting undermines freedoms and disregards the sacrifices made by those who fought for the right to vote. It diminishes a nation’s moral authority and weakens its voice on the global stage, as policies shaped by disengaged electorates lack legitimacy. In many countries, hard-won rights to vote were achieved through struggle, protest, and sacrifice.
To abstain from voting is to ignore these struggles and to waste the opportunities they created.
The reasons people give for not voting — whether believing their vote does not matter, disinterest in politics, lack of knowledge, or dissatisfaction with candidates — are understandable but ultimately harmful. Each reason represents a missed opportunity to influence the future. Citizens who abstain lose the chance to be part of change, to hold leaders accountable, and to affirm their place in the democratic community. The absence of voting is therefore not just a personal choice but a collective loss that weakens democracy itself.
Reclaiming the duty to vote is essential. Citizens must recognize that voting is both a right and a responsibility. Governments and civil society should invest in civic education to address ignorance and apathy, while making voting more accessible through technolo-
gy and inclusive policies. Most importantly, societies must cultivate a culture where voting is valued as a shared duty, reinforcing its importance across generations.
By embracing this duty, citizens can reclaim their lost chances, strengthen democracy, and ensure that their voices contribute to shaping a future that reflects the will of the people.
Ultimately, the absence of voting is not only about missing a single election. It is about missing the chance to be part of history, to influence the direction of society, and to stand alongside fellow citizens in shaping a collective destiny. Each ballot cast is a statement of belonging, a declaration that one’s voice matters, and a contribution to the ongoing story of democracy. When citizens abstain, they silence themselves, leaving gaps in the narrative of their nation. The loss of chances is therefore profound: it is the loss of agency, of representation, of solidarity, and of the opportunity to shape a better future.
By choosing to vote, citizens affirm their role in democracy and reclaim the opportunities that are lost when they abstain. Voting is not perfect, nor is it the only form of civic engagement, but it remains the most direct and powerful tool citizens possess to shape their future. To abstain is to relinquish this tool, to forfeit the chance to be heard, and to weaken the democratic fabric that binds societies together. The duty to vote is, therefore, not only a personal responsibility but also a collective necessity. By embracing it, citizens reclaim their lost chances and strengthen the promise of democracy for generations to come.
gnlm
Myanmar, the nation living with Buddha’s teachings, is globally famous as “The Golden Land” for its abundance of golden pagodas, stupas and temples across the land. People of Myanmar innately borne a peaceful mind and a non-aggressive life since ancient. Peaceful coexistence, generosity, kindness, and love are the typical characteristics of the Myanmar people.
King Anawrahta firstly united the diverse people into a common faith and cultural identity, and established the very first Myanmar nation – the Bagan Empire – in AD 1044. Since then, daily life, ritual and traditional activities, festivals, perspectives, beliefs and cultures of the Myanmar people have been primarily associated with Buddha’s thoughts and teachings.
Gifted by nature, Myanmar is one of the most beautiful countries, possessing rich natural resources and picturesque scenes from icy mountains, colourful hill ranges, seasonal forests, and beaches and archipelagos. The land is also a gateway linking the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. Such a precious heritage given by nature and founded by our ancestors is our home.
Rakhine State
Rakhine State is situated on Myanmar’s western coast and is territorially connected with Chin State, Magway Region, Bago Region, and Ayeyawady Region, and the Bay of Bengal and Bangladesh to the west. Indigenous ethnicities living in Rakhine State include Rakhine, Kaman, Bamar, Mro, Khami, Thet, Maramagyi, and Dinat.
Looking back at the bygone era in the 19th century, Myanmar could not avoid the external shocks of colonialism. Invasion by the coercive forces of British imperialism left the country in chaos with many misfortune inheritances. British imperialists brought many consequences to the people of Myanmar that they had never experienced in the land before colonial rule. Instability, armed revolutions, conflicts and crises, and political disunity among ethnicities were the results of exercising divide and rule tactics by the imperialists.
The Bengali immigrant issue became one of the unfortunate consequences. British imperialists imported Bengalis from neighbouring areas to employ them in cultivation and plantations in Myanmar during the colonial rule. Since then, people with different physical features, different facial appearances, different spoken languages, different belief and different traditional outfits started arriving in Myanmar’s western land. Those people from neighbouring territory (today Bangladesh) were never brothers and sisters of ours.
Rakhine State in 2016
The ongoing court trial at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which Myanmar is facing for committing genocide the Bengalis can be traced back in October 2016 in Rakhine State when the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) terrorists raided Myanmar’s borderline security outposts, where only approximately ten police personnel were deployed in each outpost, with disproportionately larger numbers around 400 ARSA terrorists in the attack. It was part of their plan to create the plot “Myanmar troops killing civilians” as a forerunner of genocide.
In the terroristic assaults committed by the ARSA terrorists, at least 20-40 Myanmar police personnel were brutally killed, and some were dismembered. In response, the Myanmar Tatmadaw launched a military operation of counter-terrorism measures. It truly was a counter-terrorism measure taken against the armed terrorists by the national armed forces (Tatmadaw) in the sphere of defending the country’s sovereignty. In fact, the crackdown only targeted the armed terrorists (ARSA) who attacked the country’s sovereignty.
Following the October 2016 outrage, the ARSA terrorists, within Rakhine State, especially in the borderline villages, not only committed terroristic offences against small security outposts but also killed indigenous Rakhine, Mro, and Kaman ethnics, and Hindu people who had been living with peaceful coexistence in the area throughout history. The incidents resulted in the 2017 bloodshed in Rakhine State.
There were many solid reports that the ARSA terrorists killed more than 150 Hindus, including women, men, and children, and abducted several Hindu villagers in August 2017. Such an atrocity committed by the ARSA terrorists is deemed to be a crime against humanity. It certainly was the genocide. However, the massacre of the Hindus killed by ARSA terrorists did not receive international attention or widespread condemnation at that time. Rapes, brutal killings, forcibly occupying the villages and fields, and setting houses and villages ablaze are the techniques usually used by terrorists against other communities in Rakhine State territory, especially in the borderline areas.
No motive to commit genocide
U Khin Maung Zaw, joint-secretary of Myanmar Institute of Strategic and International Studies, remarked in a talk show about Myanmar versus The Gambia at the ICJ held at MRTV on 17 January that “We have no reason or intention to commit genocide against them (Bengalis). The land is ours. We do not need to occupy the land by force. We do not need to get rid of the locals (Rakhine, Mro, Kaman, Thet, Daingnet and Hindus). They are our people,” giving an example by contrasting the situation when the Americans discovered and invaded the American continent.
A rational argument
U Ko Ko, Chairman of the Myanmar Narrative Think Tank group, posed a logical question in the same talk show, “If we committed genocide, why is the population of those people steadily increasing over the years? Figure of their population keeps growing over the years.”
Defending the motherland is not a crime
Attacking a country’s Tatmadaw, security outposts, and border guard police, and mass killing the indigenous natives is one hundred per cent humiliating the sovereignty and threatening the country’s national security. It is crystal clear that defending or protecting sovereignty and national security is not a crime nor genocide. There is a line between advocating human rights and defending national security in the debate of national interest. It was purely a passive defence to protect the motherland.
(Views expressed in the article solely belong to the author.)
gnlm
Myanmar, the nation living with Buddha’s teachings, is globally famous as “The Golden Land” for its abundance of golden pagodas, stupas and temples across the land. People of Myanmar innately borne a peaceful mind and a non-aggressive life since ancient. Peaceful coexistence, generosity, kindness, and love are the typical characteristics of the Myanmar people.
King Anawrahta firstly united the diverse people into a common faith and cultural identity, and established the very first Myanmar nation – the Bagan Empire – in AD 1044. Since then, daily life, ritual and traditional activities, festivals, perspectives, beliefs and cultures of the Myanmar people have been primarily associated with Buddha’s thoughts and teachings.
Gifted by nature, Myanmar is one of the most beautiful countries, possessing rich natural resources and picturesque scenes from icy mountains, colourful hill ranges, seasonal forests, and beaches and archipelagos. The land is also a gateway linking the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. Such a precious heritage given by nature and founded by our ancestors is our home.
Rakhine State
Rakhine State is situated on Myanmar’s western coast and is territorially connected with Chin State, Magway Region, Bago Region, and Ayeyawady Region, and the Bay of Bengal and Bangladesh to the west. Indigenous ethnicities living in Rakhine State include Rakhine, Kaman, Bamar, Mro, Khami, Thet, Maramagyi, and Dinat.
Looking back at the bygone era in the 19th century, Myanmar could not avoid the external shocks of colonialism. Invasion by the coercive forces of British imperialism left the country in chaos with many misfortune inheritances. British imperialists brought many consequences to the people of Myanmar that they had never experienced in the land before colonial rule. Instability, armed revolutions, conflicts and crises, and political disunity among ethnicities were the results of exercising divide and rule tactics by the imperialists.
The Bengali immigrant issue became one of the unfortunate consequences. British imperialists imported Bengalis from neighbouring areas to employ them in cultivation and plantations in Myanmar during the colonial rule. Since then, people with different physical features, different facial appearances, different spoken languages, different belief and different traditional outfits started arriving in Myanmar’s western land. Those people from neighbouring territory (today Bangladesh) were never brothers and sisters of ours.
Rakhine State in 2016
The ongoing court trial at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which Myanmar is facing for committing genocide the Bengalis can be traced back in October 2016 in Rakhine State when the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) terrorists raided Myanmar’s borderline security outposts, where only approximately ten police personnel were deployed in each outpost, with disproportionately larger numbers around 400 ARSA terrorists in the attack. It was part of their plan to create the plot “Myanmar troops killing civilians” as a forerunner of genocide.
In the terroristic assaults committed by the ARSA terrorists, at least 20-40 Myanmar police personnel were brutally killed, and some were dismembered. In response, the Myanmar Tatmadaw launched a military operation of counter-terrorism measures. It truly was a counter-terrorism measure taken against the armed terrorists by the national armed forces (Tatmadaw) in the sphere of defending the country’s sovereignty. In fact, the crackdown only targeted the armed terrorists (ARSA) who attacked the country’s sovereignty.
Following the October 2016 outrage, the ARSA terrorists, within Rakhine State, especially in the borderline villages, not only committed terroristic offences against small security outposts but also killed indigenous Rakhine, Mro, and Kaman ethnics, and Hindu people who had been living with peaceful coexistence in the area throughout history. The incidents resulted in the 2017 bloodshed in Rakhine State.
There were many solid reports that the ARSA terrorists killed more than 150 Hindus, including women, men, and children, and abducted several Hindu villagers in August 2017. Such an atrocity committed by the ARSA terrorists is deemed to be a crime against humanity. It certainly was the genocide. However, the massacre of the Hindus killed by ARSA terrorists did not receive international attention or widespread condemnation at that time. Rapes, brutal killings, forcibly occupying the villages and fields, and setting houses and villages ablaze are the techniques usually used by terrorists against other communities in Rakhine State territory, especially in the borderline areas.
No motive to commit genocide
U Khin Maung Zaw, joint-secretary of Myanmar Institute of Strategic and International Studies, remarked in a talk show about Myanmar versus The Gambia at the ICJ held at MRTV on 17 January that “We have no reason or intention to commit genocide against them (Bengalis). The land is ours. We do not need to occupy the land by force. We do not need to get rid of the locals (Rakhine, Mro, Kaman, Thet, Daingnet and Hindus). They are our people,” giving an example by contrasting the situation when the Americans discovered and invaded the American continent.
A rational argument
U Ko Ko, Chairman of the Myanmar Narrative Think Tank group, posed a logical question in the same talk show, “If we committed genocide, why is the population of those people steadily increasing over the years? Figure of their population keeps growing over the years.”
Defending the motherland is not a crime
Attacking a country’s Tatmadaw, security outposts, and border guard police, and mass killing the indigenous natives is one hundred per cent humiliating the sovereignty and threatening the country’s national security. It is crystal clear that defending or protecting sovereignty and national security is not a crime nor genocide. There is a line between advocating human rights and defending national security in the debate of national interest. It was purely a passive defence to protect the motherland.
(Views expressed in the article solely belong to the author.)
gnlm
