Everybody, Mingalaba! Today, I would like to inform our fellow citizens about the upcoming multiparty democratic general election in our country. All the people know that the first phase of the election will be held on 28 December. As of today, there are only 48 days to go until the first phase. The second phase will take place on 11 January 2026, and the third phase will be held two weeks after the second phase. Regarding the election, we have observed that some individuals who oppose it are spreading misinformation and encouraging misleading beliefs among the public. I am here today to provide clear information to ensure that citizens are well-informed and understand the facts.
In our country, under its own monarchy, there were no elections. However, during the colonial period, as the political awareness of the Myanmar people grew, the British colonial government had to introduce and reform administrative systems. In 1920, the GCBA (General Council of Burmese Associations) emerged and demanded Home Rule. Instead of granting full Home Rule, the British colonial authorities introduced and implemented a dual-administration system called Diarchy. Under the Diarchy system, elections for the Legislative Council were held on 11 November 1922. Historical records show that this was the first election in the history of Myanmar.
Looking back at the elections held in Myanmar, from 1922 to 1947 there were six elections, during the parliamentary period (1948-1962) there were three elections, under the era of the Myanmar Socialist Programme Party (1962-1988) there were four elections, during the State Law and Order Restoration Council/State Peace and Development Council period (1988-2010) there was one election, and in the democratic era (2010 to the present) there have been six elections, of which three were general elections and three were by-elections. These records show that the people of our country are not unfamiliar with the voting system and have had close experience with it. The government has held elections, and throughout different periods, citizens have exercised their rights by actively participating in voting and making their choices.
In our country, the multiparty democratic system that the people desire has been implemented according to the 2008 Constitution. The first multiparty democratic election was held on 7 November 2010, and the first Hluttaw session convened on 31 January 2011. The second general election under the multiparty democratic system took place on 8 November 2015, with the second Hluttaw session convening on 1 February 2016. The third general election was held on 8 November 2020, during which numerous electoral irregularities occurred. According to the official statement of the Election Commission at that time, there were about 38 million eligible voters, and the number of irregular votes identified was approximately 10.4 million. This is not a mere thousand, ten thousand, or even a million – it exceeds ten million, which accounts for roughly one-fourth of all eligible voters. For these irregularities, political parties and Tatmadaw initially called on the Union Election Commission to resolve the issues according to legal procedures. When this was rejected, they formally requested a special session of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw as a second step, which was also denied. Even when a third request was made to the government, Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, and the Union Election Commission to find a solution, it was again refused. After all these steps, even when there were two separate requests to convene a meeting of the National Defence and Security Council, no resolution or action was taken. Because of this lack of resolution, the third Hluttaw was convened, and an attempt was made to form a government through force, which led Tatmadaw on 1 February 2021, to assume the responsibilities of the state in accordance with the provisions of the state of emergency in the 2008 Constitution. The reason why all this is being recounted is to clarify history: who lawfully and properly requested legal remedies, and who ignored and violated the law. During this period, I personally, as part of Tatmadaw’s information team, repeatedly held press briefings and provided evidence-backed explanations in front of the international media. All the claims were supported by solid evidence. It was the NLD government and they appointed the Union Election Commission that, instead of resolving the electoral fraud through legal channels, attempted to seize state power unlawfully. They deliberately sabotaged the nationwide, lawfully conducted multiparty democratic system that the public desired. What we are doing now is systematically rebuilding that multiparty democratic system, which the people wanted and which had been deliberately destroyed.
Under the democratic system we practise, the people themselves elect the representatives who will serve in the Hluttaw. For the upcoming multiparty general election, I strongly encourage every eligible citizen to vote. Why is this important? It is because an election is the fastest and most effective mechanism to hear the voice of the people and fulfil the public’s wishes for their well-being. Let me repeat: an election is the fastest and most effective mechanism to hear the voice of the people and address their needs and aspirations. In this election, the people have the right to personally identify and choose candidates who share their views, can closely fulfil their desired goals, and will faithfully represent and work for the interests of the state and the welfare of the public. The representatives you elect can be monitored and held accountable to ensure they fully take responsibility for you and your community. When voters actively participate in elections, the elected representative becomes more responsible. From your personal needs and aspirations to the development and well-being of your neighbourhood, town, village, or region, the representative you choose acts as a direct channel to convey your requests and wishes to the government. I want to emphasize that all citizens should not miss or neglect this opportunity. At this point, I also want to speak about the international recognition and credibility of elections.
In the elections held worldwide in 2024, we can also observe instances where the international community interfered in existing governments, often applying strict and coercive measures. According to the annual election reports on the websites of international democracy and election support organizations, out of 74 elections conducted globally, only 22 were carried out peacefully. In the remaining elections, there were strikes, disputes over results, protests, and even some instances of violence. Criticism and intervention from the international community were also evident. The ability to conduct an election properly depends largely on the political maturity of the respective countries. Even countries that are considered strong democracies globally often face criticism, challenges, and scrutiny regarding the results of their elections.
Our country, by both historical and political context, is a sovereign and independent nation. The authority of our country stems from the people of Myanmar and exists throughout the entire Republic of the Union of Myanmar. Moreover, our country’s foreign policy is conducted independently, actively, and non-aligned. Myanmar has never, and will never, interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Similarly, our country’s electoral processes, carried out according to our domestic affairs, national context, and history, are matters that concern only our internal affairs and our citizens. I want to make it absolutely clear that no foreign influence or interference can disrupt or alter the course of Myanmar’s elections. We are the people of Myanmar, and it is only the people of Myanmar who have the right to shape the future of Myanmar. Decisions concerning Myanmar must be made by us, the citizens who cast our votes in the elections. That is sufficient.
In Myanmar, a free and fair general election will be conducted under the Constitution, led by the Union Election Commission. In the upcoming election, a total of over 5,000 candidates will compete, representing 57 political parties and 95 independent candidates. To ensure broad representation of ethnic groups and all social strata in the Hluttaw, the election will use the FPTP system for the Pyithu Hluttaw and a mixed-member proportional system (MMP) for the Amyotha Hluttaw and the State/Region Hluttaws. Although there are varied international reactions to Myanmar’s elections, support from partner countries remains strong and solid. The country’s election processes are widely recognized and acknowledged. Because Myanmar’s elections are conducted transparently and securely, partner countries, international organizations, and other nations are invited to observe and study the election process. Domestic and international media are also invited. Modern technology, including MEVM machines, is being used to prevent election fraud. As a result, the parliament formed from this election will be able to demonstrate to the world that it is a legitimate and credible legislature.
A genuine, disciplined multiparty democratic system will only become strong – and a union based on democracy and federal principles can only be built – if the government, the people, Tatmadaw, and all relevant organizations work together in unity towards that common political goal. Therefore, I would like to urge all citizens across the nation to actively participate and cast their votes in the upcoming multiparty democratic general election to be held in December this year and in January next year, so that it can be successfully and smoothly completed. The 2025 multiparty democratic general election must be a definite success. Thank you all.

GNLM

Dr Yin Yin Nwe
Hearings related to the case between the Republic of The Gambia and the Republic of the Union of Myanmar are being held at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, from 12 to 29 January.
In connection with the hearings, the following are the statements made by Dr Yin Yin Nwe, a member of the advisory team to the Acting President of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, and American writer Mr Rick Heizman.

Dr Yin Yin Nwe
Member, the Advisory Team to the Acting President
First of all, I would like to say that at the ICJ, a delegation led by Union Minister U Ko Ko Hlaing, with the participation of Union Minister Dr Thida Oo, has gone to present explanations. An adviser from our office, Daw Khin Oo Hlaing, is also included in the delegation. I fully support their presentation. The reason is that, regarding the allegations that the events of 2016 and 2017 constituted genocide against Bengalis, this is the first time that the facts which occurred before the current government came to office have been presented to the international community with evidence. Therefore, this is the first time under this government that the events have been explained accurately and in a proper process. It is the first time that presentations have been made with supporting evidence from our own perspective, from the State’s perspective, from the perspective of national sovereignty, and from the perspectives of ethnic nationalities. Under the previous government, the presentation did not reach this level. I listened at that time as well, and it did not go as far as presenting accurate facts of what actually happened.
To continue, I would like to talk about the ICJ case currently taking place in The Hague. Myanmar is involved in a case brought by The Gambia. It is a case based on allegations made by The Gambia. As this is the first section and an important aspect of the case, I would like to briefly explain the Kofi Annan Commission. I myself previously worked at the United Nations, and I have also spoken with Kofi Annan. He was the seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations and served from 1996 to 2007.
The first point I would like to make is that I do not really understand why he was selected to lead the report. The reason is that, whether one looks at Kofi Annan’s personal biography or the biography issued by the United Nations, I would have to assess him as a Secretary-General who did not place much emphasis on the sovereignty of UN member states. For example, take Serbia. It is a sovereign country in its own right. During the conflicts between Serbia and Kosovo, this was considered an internal issue. Many countries regarded it as an internal conflict. The reason was that Kosovo, being a province with a Muslim-majority population, sought to secede. Because it sought to secede, many European countries supported that secession, whereas Serbia and, for example, many Asian countries did not support it.
At that time, there was no consensus within the UN to forcibly intervene in Serbia. Since agreement could not be reached, what happened was that, with the authorization and orders of Kofi Annan, NATO aircraft – especially US warplanes – bombed Serbia. In 1999, when he was serving as Secretary-General, the bombing campaign lasted from March to May. During the air strikes, the Chinese embassy was hit. When the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, the capital of Serbia in the former Yugoslavia, was struck, three Chinese journalists were killed, and about 21 Chinese nationals at the embassy were injured. This was not a bombing campaign authorized by the United Nations. Many countries viewed it as a unilateral act of coercion. As a result, Europe supported Kosovo’s secession. Under the pressure of the bombing, Serbia did not agree to allow Kosovo to break away, but it ultimately did so. Even today, the number of governments worldwide that do not recognize Kosovo as an independent country is greater, while Western countries do recognize it.
So what I mean is that in the case of Kosovo and Serbia, ordering such unilateral bombing without considering Serbia’s needs as a sovereign state, or its legal framework, must be regarded as a lack of respect for that country. It was a failure to respect Serbia’s sovereignty. Since this happened in 1999, Kofi Annan was already serving as Secretary-General at that time, a position he held until 2007. Frankly speaking, I never thought that in matters that touch on our country’s sovereignty, such as secession issues within our country, demands for secession by Bengalis, or the use of alternative terms instead of the official designations defined by the state on ethnic grounds, a commission would be formed, and Kofi Annan would be appointed as its chair. That is because we believed that all of his actions demonstrated that he did not place importance on the sovereignty of a state.
At that time, when the Myanmar government proposed forming a commission that included Kofi Annan, the Rakhine National Party (ANP) and the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) objected in Hluttaw. They said it should not be done and that they did not agree. However, those objections were not heeded. Without seeking a decision from Hluttaw, the national leaders at the time went ahead and had Kofi Annan form the commission, instructing it to conduct inquiries and investigations, and then to produce a report.
As for the second part, I need to explain what happened after the Kofi Annan Commission was formed, carried out field visits, and issued its report. The first point is that while conducting fieldwork, the commission went to Bengali families and Bengali villages and carried out face-to-face interviews and on-site investigations. While they were conducting these interviews, phone calls came in, and immediately afterward they began referring to themselves not as Muslims, but as Rohingya. From this, it appears that someone from outside was directing or influencing the use of that name.
The third point is that once the report was released, it contained recommendations that were extremely difficult for the state to implement. I would like to briefly mention what some of those points were. But before doing so, when we say they are difficult to implement, what happens if they are not implemented is that the state comes under criticism. Because it was a report endorsed by such a prominent figure as Kofi Annan, a report in which he himself was directly involved, questions arose as to why the state did not act in accordance with those recommendations. As a result, at that time, the country’s leaders said they would implement them and gave such assurances. Now, however, a great deal of time has passed, and the situation in Rakhine State has changed significantly. Whether those recommendations are easy or difficult to implement under current conditions is something citizens must judge for themselves.
The first difficulty in implementing it is the citizenship law. The law currently in effect is the 1982 Citizenship Law, which governs the state today. According to that law, anyone who wants to be recognized as a citizen must apply under the framework of the citizenship law and submit a registration application. This law does not target any particular religion or ethnicity. For example, I myself grew up in Shan State. At that time, in the border areas between Shan State and China, Chinese people also had to follow this law, no matter what they said. Some wanted to have a citizenship card, but whether they got it depended on whether their father had one. It was that kind of situation.
So, regarding the Kofi Annan Commission’s report, it stated that Myanmar’s citizenship law, which it criticized, does not meet international standards or global norms. The report recommended that the law be reviewed and amended as necessary. The main point, as I see it – and anyone can also evaluate this – is: what are international standards? Does the citizenship law meet international standards? For example, to be a British citizen, there are clear criteria. To become an American citizen, there are also defined criteria: what conditions must be fulfilled. The same is true for Thai citizenship. When it comes to becoming a Myanmar citizen, there are many requirements. One very obvious requirement is that a person must be proficient in a native ethnic language. This particular requirement cannot be compared to international standards. Therefore, reviewing and changing it to align with international norms is not simple. This illustrates why implementing it is extremely difficult in practice — it’s a very complex and challenging issue.
The second point is that the Kofi Annan Commission also didn’t like that there are different levels or categories of citizen ship. Other countries also have different types of citizenship – it’s not unique to Myanmar. But compared to Myanmar, other countries usually have fewer complicated criteria. If you look at Myanmar’s citizenship law, the definition of “citizen” is applied only within a certain group: it doesn’t include people who aren’t citizens. In other words, it only applies to those who are already considered citizens. One category is “full citizen by birth”, which applies to those who have been citizens by birth. These are ethnic groups whose ancestors – parents, grandparents, great-grandparents – arrived in Myanmar before 1823; their families have long been established here. All of them are considered full citizens by birth. Another category is “associate citizen”. This was created under the 1948 Citizenship Act. According to that act, a person who becomes a citizen through the law is called a associate citizen.
The next category is “naturalized citizen.” Under the 1982 Citizenship Law, there are different types of people who can apply. These are also just parts of our citizenship law. If we were to change these as well, it would mean removing the categories entirely – but that is different from how other countries do it. Some countries simply have citizens and non-citizens. Some countries have levels or categories within citizenship. From these two points, international standards suggest how it should ideally be. The main idea is that there shouldn’t be separate types of citizens – it should be implemented as such. Right now, the situation in Rakhine State is urgent. For Myanmar, the situation concerning Rakhine State is also critical. Under these circumstances, there is no way the 1982 Citizenship Law can be changed. This is what I want to emphasize clearly.
The third point is about access to and from Rakhine State. According to the report, journalists – from local reporters to international correspondents – and international figures should be allowed full access in and out of Rakhine State, without any security restrictions. That was part of the recommendation. At that time, as I mentioned earlier, the situation was urgent and extremely tense. And by “tense”, I don’t mean just me or the civilians – it wasn’t Tatmadaw either. To be clear, at that time, tensions were very high between the Rakhine ethnic groups and the Bengali population, so it was not possible to simply allow unrestricted access. There were security rules and movement restrictions in place. The fourth point is about border guard troops: the recommendation suggested that all security personnel in Rakhine State should be police, not the military. But in reality, this is hard to implement, because Tatmadaw has its own role and authority – it cannot simply be excluded. That’s what I wanted to explain.

gnlm

My name is Rick Heizman, an American citizen from San Francisco, USA. And now I live here in Myanmar. I’ve been here many, many times, starting in 1981, all the way back then. And I’ve been in Arakan, Rakhine State, many times, beginning in 1996. I’m going to talk about the conflict there between the Rakhine Buddhists and the Bengali Muslim Rohingya people. One thing to note here is that this conflict has been going on for a very long time, basically since the World War II era. And more recently, there have been three major attacks by the Bengali Muslim Rohingya. In 2012 and 2016, and then only 10 months after that, in 2017. The 2017 attack was quite amazing in that it was what should be called the world’s largest terrorist attack in history. At that time, 25 August 2017, a surprise attack in the early morning started against almost um 150 targets. These were villages and army bases.
There were about 30 army bases attacked, police outposts, and then also about 80 or so villages attacked that very morning. And some other villages were attacked the next day because they didn’t get the message quickly enough the night before. The reason why it is it should be noted as the world’s largest terrorist attack is that the numbers are staggering. There were 150 or so targets attacked each by hundreds of organized Rohingya men and boys. And, they did not have sophisticated weapons. Some did have assault rifles, but most of the weaponry was clubs, knives and machete-type instruments. It was all done by surprise. And if you think about it, you think about 9/11 in in New York when that terrorist act happened. That was considered very big because it was like 19 hijackers, five different targets, etc. But this was 150 or 160 or so targets and actually about 100,000 or so assailants against all these targets, and many villages were affected, attacked, and people were killed by the Muslims, hacked to death usually by long knives. Some were shot, and then for about two weeks, it was a very tense situation as the Muslims were continuing to attack and burn villages and so on. The army, the Burmese army called Tatmadaw, had to interfere of course, as the army of any country would have to do. All countries have a force that is meant to repel invaders and bring, you know, stop the violence that’s happening. Well, here you had Tatmadaw going in to chase the rebels out or eliminate them. The army action was against the Bengali Muslim Rohingya people. That took a couple of weeks to do. Now this similar type of attack happened in 2012 as well as in 2016. All three of these incidents, clearly, if you look at all the facts, were started by the Muslims and perpetrated by them. They had plans that they had made using the mosque as their headquarters. The mosque in the villages was very responsible for the brainwashing that happened against the people. We have collected many interviews and statements from prisoners, Muslim prisoners who were caught, debriefed and so on. And they all state that their mosque and their Malawi, Malawi is the Islamic holy man. The Malawis brainwashed and indoctrinated the people to carry out the attacks with the goal of clearly taking over to expel all Buddhists, all Hindus, the Hindu minority there as well and other tribal people – expel all non-Muslims. So many interviews had the prisoners or the interviewees say this. So that you had in the mosque, you had the leaders of the mosque teaching people about the goals, and the goal was to eliminate all and then have that land break off from Myanmar and become an autonomous state, an Islamic state, practising Sharia law. That’s what they wanted, and that’s what they say they wanted – a couple of things leading to this.
Just before the 2017 attack on 25 August, just before that, Ata Ullah, the leader of ARSA and ARSA is the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, a terrorist group of Bengali Muslim Rohingya people. Just before that, the leader had his phone tapped, and he did not know that it was the leader of Arsa. And there were three important phone calls that just happened the day before the attacks. Two of them were to a Pakistani general, and one of them was to an ISIS commander in Syria. These were incoming calls, sorry, incoming calls from them to the leader, and the messages translated were such as congratulations in advance on your attacks. The Pakistani general wanted the attacks moved up. They had been planned for maybe a week later, but he said we have to attack tomorrow. And so, the plans actually were to have even more targets, but the plans were changed when the leader became afraid of defectors and so on, giving information about this and preventing it. All of this action had genocidal intent.
This is a very important phrase, genocidal intent. That means the intention of committing genocide. The Bengali Muslim Rohingya people wanted to commit genocide against the non-Muslim people in that area. But they failed, and so we can call it genocidal intent. Now we know that the Bengali Muslim Rohingya are saying that they are the target of genocidal intent, but that is not true. If you look at all of the evidence that exists, and I have a lot of it. They had the Bengalis claim genocidal intent against them. But there was no genocidal intent. If the Burmese army, Tatmadaw, wanted to commit a genocide, it easily could. It could drive all those people across the border, and or kill them all or something. It could do that, but it didn’t. It was doing the kind of police work that any country has to do when somebody invades like that. More about global genocidal intent soon. Let’s see history. Okay, now we should look briefly at the history behind this. Let me get one paper here. Okay. So, the history there back in 1942 during World War II, there was a big massacre, the Mongdaw-Buthitaung massacre, and that is when many, many Buddhists were killed. Maybe 30,000 Buddhists were killed. A 100,000 Buddhists had to flee. Four hundred (400) or more Buddhist villages were set on fire. Even British officials at that time said, “Wow, the fires, the burning villages and everything, the Muslims are taking over from the Buddhist and the Buddhists have no future here if this continues”. These are quotes from British observers at that time. And then there was an underground war between the Mujahedin, as they called themselves. Mujad is an Arabic word. The Mujahedin guerrilla fighters carried out a maybe 15-year campaign, and back and forth fighting and then in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, there were various attempts by the Bengali Muslims to attack and drive out the Buddhists once again and again and again and then finally the 2012, 2016 and 2017 attacks. In all of these cases, the perpetrator was the Bengali Muslim Rohingya, not the other way around. The Buddhists did not ever start fighting. The Buddhists wanted to live in peace and freedom there. and the Hindu minority and the ethnic ethnicities like the Thet people and Mro people, Kami and Thet. Let’s talk about mass graves. After 2017, Bengali Muslims screamed about major massacres in places like Tulatoli, Chutpyin, Maung Nu, Inndin. These are places that I went to. I went to each one of these places where there was a supposed massacre and found no evidence supporting that. What I was doing was going to villages around the massacre site. So the villages within just a mile or two of that, and interviewing people there, people had horrific stories, and they would say what’s happening, but nobody heard of a massacre happening there. The only massacre that is true turned out to be the massacre of about a hundred Hindu people in Khamongseik village, and that was a massacre that we did find mass graves with dozens of bodies piled on them, men, women, 12-50 minors (children and babies), everything. Then, there were some survivors of that massacre, the Khamongseik massacre. The Hindu survivors were girls who were about 20 years old, beautiful, and they were forced to watch their fathers, husbands and so on killed right in front of them, their kids too. And they were then forced to march with the Bengali Muslims back into near Bangladesh and then forced to marry some old Muslim men and so on. But these survivors were rescued, and then we have their stories, too, about the brutality that happened. So, of all of the mass grave issues, only the mass murder of the Hindus is real. Let’s see.
Okay. And then by the way, okay, I was allowed into Rakhine State three times on my own team that I picked to assist me about five guys, you know, driver, etc. And I was the only foreigner allowed to do this. One thing I was also doing was translating the YouTube videos that ARSA put out. ARSA or like-minded people put out. There’s we we I had a translator who was Muslim himself. He knew he was Muslim, but he hated Islam, and he was very willing to document the atrocities and very willing to translate anything. And since he grew up knowing all of the intricacies of the language, it was very good. We translated so many things. We translated 350 videos from YouTube, all showing Arsa in action or or or so on like that. For example, videos taken by themselves, the Muslims took to show, you know, just to show among themselves. But we got the videos of death, sorry, killers, and so we got their phones, and often we were able to break into them and get the videos of them putting on black hoods and shirts and pants and then marching with knives to a Buddhist village to kill everyone. And they did that. We have hundreds of videos of that. And what you hear is that you know you hear the Bengali language. Now you know Myanmar people do not know the Bengali language. So then you don’t know what they’re saying. But when I translate them and put subtitles there, then the meaning is horrific.
What you hear there and what you see then really adds up to a horrible, horrible brainwashing that’s going on. Let’s see. Okay, now let’s talk about the computer that I got seized from a Rohingya Arsa leader, Rashed Ula. Rashed Ula was his name. He was the head of the RSO for a
time, which was the Rohingya Salvation, sorry Rohingya Solidarity Organization and we broke into this computer that he had. He did not know about uh passwords or something, but we snatched the computer, and it turned out to have over 700 videos on it. And these were videos that we carefully examined and documented, translated and posted. These are videos taken in the Meyu mountains at secret training camps that they had. The Meyu mountains are the main mountains that are in that area.
And videos taken at a secret base in Saudi Arabia, where they were, where the Bengali insurgents were training, clearly in Saudi Arabia, and there are many links between those two areas, Meyu mountain videos, and the Saudi Arabia videos, that is startling evidence that is very, very hot evidence to use, so that seized computer had so much information. It also had many pages of our videos of information about high explosives, C4, C3, PET, PTEN and other explosives and poisons. It had instructions about how to make poisons, how to make bombs, how to make bullets, how to do everything, how to fight with knives, how to take hostages, how to um how to do anything bad you can think of.
These were on the videos from that computer. Another subject is that in Myanmar, there are other Muslim groups of people. There are Ponte Muslims and Kaman Muslims, and then there’s the Bengali Muslims who call themselves Rohingya, but that’s to be contested. The Kaman Muslims and Ponte Muslims are both equal citizens, and they have been citizens since the founding of the nation. They make no trouble. That’s the main thing. These other Muslim group populations in Myammar, they don’t cause any trouble. They don’t agitate for their own land, etc. It is only the Bengali Muslims who fight. They have never been at peace in their corner of the state. They’ve always wanted to break away, break away, break away. And they fail. And they fight. Ponte Muslims originally came from China. Chinese Muslims who came across the border and then Kaman Muslims, their heritage is from Persia from a long time ago. The Bengali Muslims hearken back to Bangladesh, which, when Bangladesh was part of India, was called East Bengal and so Bengal Bengali. Yeah, the Muslims come from there. But the Muslims in currently in Myanmar, many of them, many of the Bengali Muslims try to be or try to convince the authorities that they are actually Kaman Muslims, which they are not, because the Kaman Muslims, you know, are free and much more viable than Bengali Muslims. So the bottom line is Bengali Muslims have forever been kind of a problem population creating problems agitating for autonomy etc etc and let’s see come on translate or called Arakan, the old older name for the kingdom is that the land is just littered with ruins, Buddhist ruins and of course the huge mega ruin, which is one of the largest Buddhist cities, ruined cities on earth and then but anywhere else you go you’re almost tripping over statues and pagodas and so on from the past.
However, all around, there are virtually no ruins of Muslim people. There’s no archaeological evidence. There is a tiny bit. Yes, we do acknowledge that there was a Muslim minority in that area for a long, long time, but that’s what it was. A Muslim minority. There was also a Chinese minority, an Indonesian or Sumatra minority, and a Cambodian minority. There was a Christian minority and so on. So we don’t say that there were no Muslims historically; there were Muslims, but a very small minority, and that’s it. Let’s see. Okay. I also interviewed hundreds of people there, and my interviews with the film have subtitles, so you can understand them very, very well. I interviewed of course Buddhist people there but I made a point to interview even Muslims and interviewed the ethnic minorities like Hindu, Mro, Thet, Daingnet, Kami indigenous people and like I said and I interviewed Muslims and most of the Muslims that I interviewed were actually not supportive of the Bengali for insurgency and special interviews I have done with very old men who came who remembered the World War II days and those massacres and the mayhem going on like around 1942 up until 1950. I have a dozen interviews of that, and those are very revealing to read what you know about what these people went through in the 1940s. I think maybe we’re finished.—News Team

gnlm

“Looking at this pattern, Bengali people live in both Bangladesh and Myanmar, and in Myanmar, the term ‘Rohingya’ is used. This is what Brig-Gen Aung Gyi meant in his speech, referring to the people living on both sides of the border.” (Associate Professor Dr Sint Sint Myat)

“Following this incident, UNHCR referred to it as a fact-finding mission and formed a team to investigate. However, when I read the report, I found that the facts were not recorded at all. Instead, the report relied on interviews with refugees in the camps. In my view, it presents the opposite of reality.” (Retired Colonel Maung Maung Nyein)

The hearings in the case between The Gambia and Myanmar are taking place at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the Netherlands, from 12 to 29 January. Below are statements from Colonel Maung Maung Nyein (Retd), who served in Rakhine State, and Dr Sint Sint Myat, Associate Professor, Department of International Relations at the Yangon University of Foreign Languages (YUFL).

Colonel Maung Maung Nyein (Retd)
(Formerly served in Rakhine State)
I was transferred to No 263 Light Infantry Regiment in Buthidaung Township in 1993, where I served as a commanding commander. I spent about three years there. At that time, the Border Region Immigration Control Headquarters Na Sa Ka had just formed, and there were many Bengali villages around our regiment. During that period, we worked well with the Bengalis and carried out the Na Sa Ka operations together.
The incident I am referring to occurred in Rakhine State in 2017. I would like to say that when we lived in Rakhine State earlier, the Bengalis were not like this. So why did these things happen? Because I could not understand it, I personally went to the Buthidaung-Maungtaw region in 2018. I travelled throughout the area, from Rathedaung in the south to Maungtaw in the north, and interviewed Rakhine ethnic people, Bengalis, and Maulavis and monks who had experienced the incident. I have records of all these interviews.
Another major incident occurred when Bengalis entered Yebaukkya village and killed 144 people from the entire village. They also took seven girls from there. The intention was to use these seven girls as evidence once they reached the other side. It was a staged incident, in which the killings were carried out in a way that made it appear Tatmadaw was responsible, while the perpetrators escaped under the pretense of being pursued by Tatmadaw.
Fortunately, these girls escaped from the Kutupalong refugee camp in Bangladesh. I met them in person and interviewed them. Through these interviews, I learned the true story, which led me to write a book documenting it. This book is a research-based work.
The book is titled ‘Bengalis Trying to Migrate with Dignity’, and I later gave it the title ‘Displacement with Dignity’. The title was inspired by a research paper written by two lawyers in Australia, which argued that due to climate change, people in Bangladesh are seeking to migrate with dignity to neighbouring countries. That is why I chose that title for my book.
The main point is that this project was carried out with premeditation. We have also released a video recording presenting the true story of the Yebaukkya village incident. What I later discovered was that before this incident, during security operations in the area, the army found a laptop in a Bengali camp. The laptop contained numerous records showing that these Bengalis had travelled to Saudi Arabia for military training for two to three years before the incident.
On another occasion, in the Buthidaung-Maungtaw region, we observed caves being dug along the Meyu Mountain Range and training activities taking place inside them. From this, it was clear that these actions were premeditated.
Following this incident, UNHCR referred to it as a fact-finding mission and formed a team to investigate. However, when I read the report, I found that the facts were not recorded at all. Instead, the report relied on interviews with refugees in the camps. In my view, it presents the opposite of reality.
The report claims, for example, that Tatmadaw killed about 10,000 Bengalis, among other allegations. These claims are greatly exaggerated and unsupported by solid evidence. There is not a single photograph to substantiate them. In this era, when almost everyone has a phone, there is still not a single video file to support these claims.
On the other hand, there was a major Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) report that relied solely on oral testimony. Based on that report, the OIC brought The Gambia into the picture and subsequently took the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In this context, the Independent Commission of Enquiry (ICOE), headed by a deputy minister from the Philippines, came to our country to examine the facts. During the investigation, we were able to present evidence to support our account. The international media reported extensively on this. As I could no longer remain there, I went to Thailand and held a press conference with various news organizations. I presented the facts, and the Thai state broadcaster also interviewed me due to its interest in the issue. The transcript of that interview was later released. What actually happened is very different from what is commonly claimed.
The next development involved a journalist who is a former Syrian citizen and now an American citizen, whose news agency was highly respected. He came to Yangon, and when he arrived, I explained everything to him. I told him, “You are a Muslim yourself. Go and see the real situation on your own, without being guided”. I advised him to visit the mosque, the market, and the surrounding areas. I asked him to observe how many Rakhine people were selling goods in the Maungtaw market. There were none; they were all Bengalis. I told him to speak with Bengalis working in the fields and to visit the schools, where he would also see them.

When he returned, what he told me was completely different from what he had expected. He said that while security in Rakhine was not good, people were living peacefully. He personally went to the mosque and met religious leaders. As a Muslim himself, he saw with his own eyes that Bengalis were able to live and work freely. His news agency later released a video documenting this, which was distributed internationally.
What I want to emphasize is that these Bengalis are not citizens of our country. They have no proof of citizenship. Nevertheless, Myanmar grants non-citizen Bengalis the right to education, employment, and medical treatment. He saw clear evidence that our government treated non-citizens in the same way as its own citizens. To sum up, this Bengali issue is a premeditated and well-planned process. Its main objective is to place our government in a political trap and ultimately force the acceptance of these non-citizen Bengalis.
In our country, we maintain precise records of Bengalis, including detailed lists, photographic records, and fingerprint records. According to our data, about 400,000 people fled from our country to Bangladesh, and currently, more than 400,000 Bengalis remain in Rakhine State. This means that more than half of them fled. However, the number of Bengalis in the Kutupalong refugee camp is estimated at about 1.5 million. I do not know where the rest came from. This suggests that a large number of Bengalis may return to this country.
Myanmar and Bangladesh have a readmission agreement, under which we will accept only those who actually fled from Myanmar. Our position is clear: returnees must provide evidence that they lived here and fled from Myanmar. Only those who can do so will be accepted. However, we have observed demands that Myanmar must accept all Bengalis indiscriminately and grant them citizenship.
The issue at Myanmar’s western gateway, in the Bengali region, poses a major challenge for the country. There is no solid evidence, yet the ICJ is addressing a case based largely on oral testimony. In fact, when we examine the legal process, it appears that justice is lacking.

Dr Sint Sint Myat
Associate Professor, Department of International Relations
Yangon University of Foreign Languages (YUFL)
Today, I will discuss the use of the word “Rohingya” in a speech delivered by Brig-Gen Aung Gyi at the 1961 surrender ceremony of the Mujahid armed groups.
The first point I want to make is that when Brig-Gen Aung Gyi used the word “Rohingya,” he did so as a concession to the government’s authority, in response to the Mujahid armed groups’ demand to be referred to as Rohingya rather than Bengali.
Secondly, when using this term, Brig-Gen Aung Gyi did not intend to suggest that the Rohingya, as claimed by the Mujahid, are distinct from the Bengalis living in the border areas of Bangladesh.
Third, ethnic groups live along the borders with Myanmar on both sides. For example, just as the Lisu, Iko, and Lawa people live along the border with China, the Tai, Mon, and Kayan people live along the border with Thailand. Therefore, it is not only along the Meyu border, previously known as northern Rakhine State, that Bengali people live on both sides. Historically, other ethnic groups have lived along the borders with China, Myanmar, and Thailand. For instance, in Myanmar, they are known as the Shan, while in China, they are called the Tai. Looking at this pattern, Bengali people live in both Bangladesh and Myanmar, and in Myanmar, the term “Rohingya” is used. This is what Brig-Gen Aung Gyi meant in his speech, referring to the people living on both sides of the border.
In the meantime, I would like to discuss the use of the word “Rohingya” in the speech of Brig-Gen Aung Gyi and the information found in the Rohingya programme of the Myanmar radio service. First, I will address the origin of the Rohingya broadcast programme. Since World War II, programmes related to foreign ethnic groups have been broadcast in Burma. For example, there were Tamil-language programmes, Bengali programmes, and Hindustani programmes.
However, in 1961, at the request of Brig-Gen Aung Gyi and the Mujahid armed groups, the Bengali-language programme was renamed the Rohingya programme, because the term “Rohingya” was used instead of “Bengali”. According to our findings, at that time, the Myanmar radio had two separate types of programmes: ethnic-language programmes and border-region ethnic programmes. Since the Rohingya programme (originally called Bengali) was not considered an ethnic-language programme, it was included under border-region ethnic programmes, as was also reported in the daily newspapers of 1961. — The News Team

gnlm

U Win Lwin
Retired Ambassador

When Operation Nagamin began, I was in charge of the relevant department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As there was an increase in people entering the country illegally, we conducted a census. I believe the first pilot project took place in Mingala Taungnyunt. From there, we moved on to Sittway in Rakhine State. During this process, people who had entered Rakhine State for various reasons and lacked official registration documents fled.
When they fled, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs received a report that there were about 800 people; over time, this number gradually grew into a large and widespread community. The number on the other side also grew to hundreds of thousands, and complaints were raised between the two sides. The government conducted an investigation, after which the two sides met for discussions on two or three occasions. The other side also formed a delegation led by its Foreign Minister, and we did the same. We discussed the issue extensively, and the Myanmar side stated that our country shares land and water borders with Bangladesh and that, as it was a newly independent country, we would do everything possible in accordance with our policy toward neighbouring countries. The elders decided to accept this approach: if a person residing here was found to have a legitimate claim, we would accept them. On that basis, we proceeded with negotiations.
When we say they will be accepted back, it appears that, among those who fled — numbering over 100,000, as I mentioned earlier — only a little over 3,000 people actually possess genuine Myanmar registration cards. The rest offer explanations such as having fled, having their tents burned, disappearing, being left behind, or losing their registration cards. In any case, if they are truly people who have lived in Rakhine State, Myanmar, they will be accepted, and so on.
Of the registration certificates, about 3,000 were genuine. Among the rest, some had fake registration certificates, while others had fake household cards. In any case, if a person truly had lived in Rakhine State, Myanmar, I accepted them. In total, I accepted and recognized about 130,000 — perhaps 140,000; I do not remember the exact number. In this regard, Myanmar was the first — indeed, the seventh — country in the world to recognize this. The meaning of this was to uphold a good-neighbor policy. I accepted them in a spirit of friendship.
They also insisted on taking everyone back, saying nothing and simply accepting them. This side agreed, and when it did, the process was carried out in stages. If they had lived in Rakhine State, we would accept them regardless, and we did so without further verification. Because the two countries are neighbours, the acceptance was based on friendship — in that sense.
Now, finally, this is the third time. There was a second time, and that process has ended. For the third time, Myanmar, as a neighbouring country, stated — as it had before — that if a person was genuinely from Rakhine State, they would be accepted. However, this time the other side acted differently. Their leadership was no longer the same as before, and although they had previously sent back those who were accepted here, this time they did not do so. Instead, they internationalized the issue, turning it into a global matter rather than a simple issue between two countries.
When this issue became internationalized, the entire world immediately became aware of it. Information technology was used, and Myanmar was affected. The situation was leveraged to turn it into a global problem. We do not know who was responsible—whether it was the relevant country or organizations sharing the same religion as that country. In reality, the matter was minor, and this side had accepted it honestly, as before. However, sending people back was delayed, and the case was brought before the World Court. When the case was filed, it carried severe charges.
In fact, police officers were killed in the incident. Compared with the killings and bombings taking place in the Middle East, this incident was minor and largely unrelated. For political gain, people from their own country are being targeted — undermining the ruling government and harming the nation itself. This has damaged the relationship between two countries that must coexist, whether they like it or not. The real issue is not merely the lawsuit; it is that Myanmar has been taken to the World Court by a country with which we have never had a conflict and of which we had little prior knowledge. Consider whether this is right or wrong — whether this is truly just.
The relevant country is not simply making an accusation; the claim comes from a distant country that intervenes deliberately, conspires, and creates this problem. This has nothing to do with any individual or policy—it is, simply put, a matter of plain fact. Ideally, if someone is affected, they have the right to respond. In this case, however, the person responsible did not commit the act; it was carried out by someone far from the area and completely unrelated. So what is the difference between then and now? When two countries are neighbors and share a land border, they should cooperate for a lifetime, whether they like it or not. At a time when the world is facing such challenges, a global organization has not encouraged collaboration but has instead driven the two countries further apart. I see this as a simple matter, not caused by any individual. There are many problems in the world, and neighbors have many issues they need to handle together. I see this as a situation in which they simply do not want to face each other.

Dr Myint Thein
Member of Myanmar Historical Commission

The Rohingya people do not actually exist in our country. There is no mention of this group in the history of Rakhine, nor in the history of Myanmar. In the early period of Myanmar’s history, about six documents were written concerning one hundred and one people, and none of these documents mention the Rohingya. So how did this issue arise? Previously, they were referred to as Rakhine Muslims, Bengalis, Chattogram Thar, or sometimes Khao Taw. The name Khao Taw was still in use during the Myanma Socialist Programme Party era, up until the 1980s.
This term did not exist at that time. English records show that this name does not appear in either colonial or contemporary documents. In 1872, the British first entered Burma and began taking a census in the Rakhine State and Lower Myanmar. The census was conducted in 1881, and then again in subsequent years. Thereafter, censuses were conducted every ten years — 1891, 1901, 1911, 1921, 1931, and 1941. These censuses included information on ethnicity, population, gender, and age. In the Rakhine State censuses, the terms used were “Bengalis” and “Chattogram Thar” and sometimes “Hindustan”. Although the British did not always conduct the census with complete accuracy regarding how many people entered or left the region, this particular term did not appear until the Second World War.
This name appears relatively late. A scholar who studied this thoroughly noted that he had previously served as a British ambassador to Thailand, Vietnam, and Laos. When he studied this group, he searched for all available evidence from the British colonial period in India. He examined reports, censuses, official records, and court rulings. What he concluded from this research was that, during the 122 years that the British occupied and administered Rakhine, there was no mention of the word “Rohingya” in any of the evidence. Who is this scholar? His name is Derek Tonkin. He also confirmed that he found no occurrence of the word “Rohingya” in the historical records. Similarly, a prominent researcher on Rakhine, Jacques Leider, wrote in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Asia that this term became popular around 1950. From this, we can infer that this group is a relatively recent, newly defined community.
Another point is: when did this name emerge? The name only came into being after World War II. However, the fundamental reason for the emergence of this name after World War II was that, in 1947, Muslims in India sought to separate. When they attempted to form Pakistan, the Muslims in Buthidaung and Maungtaw stated that if they wanted to separate from India, they should be included in that new country. They approached the leader of the Pakistan secession movement, Ali Jinnah, from India and requested to be incorporated into Pakistan.

But Ali Jinnah refused. In 1947, General Aung San went to London to sign the Aung San-Attlee Agreement. Afterwards, when he traveled to India, he met with Ali Jinnah and the Muslim separatist leader. During the meeting, the General said, “Relax on this matter; we have no desire to merge with any other country, and we are against all those who try to secede from it.” He also reassured them, saying, “There is no need to worry about it.” The Muslim groups in Buthidaung and Maungtaw, who had attempted to merge, eventually considered how they could establish and claim a separate state within Myanmar after the Second World War.
The problem was that, when Myanmar gained independence in 1948, the Rakhine ethnic leaders in Rakhine began demanding a separate state and an autonomous region. The Bengalis feared that granting Rakhine such independence would lead to increased oppression against them. As a result, they began considering demands for self-administration of their own and started planning how to achieve it.
One of them was that around 1948, the Mujahid leaders began making demands on behalf of their people. At that time, the Muslim liberation leader at the Muslim Conference requested a state for them as Rakhine Muslims. Then, in 1951, during the Muslim Conference held in Ale Than Kyaw village in Maungtaw, they also requested a separate state for the Bengalis. When they made this request, the term “Rohingya” was not used. They only asked for a separate state for themselves and to be recognized as Rakhine Muslims so that they could operate independently.
The Rakhine people do not like the term “Rakhine Muslim” because there are no Muslims among the Rakhine, so they do not accept it. At that time, they were referred to as Chattogram Thar, Bengali, Rakhine Muslims, or the people of Kho Taw. Among these names, the one we preferred was “Rakhine Muslim”, but since the Rakhine people did not accept it, a new name had to be created.
When I think about it, this name began to become widespread around 1950. The word “Rowentgya” was first used around 1948 to refer to refugees who had been displaced from elsewhere. Later, a person named Abdul Ghaffar, who was elected to parliament, mentioned it in parliament around 1950. The term “Rohingya” then began to be used to refer to their people. At the same time, Abdul Ghaffar wrote a comprehensive historical article about the Rohingya in the Guardian newspaper. The article, which focused on the Sudetan Muslims, was published in 1951. Then, in May 1960, another person named MA Tahi Ba Tha wrote about it as well. Similarly, when we refer to the Rowanghnya, we are not necessarily referring to them as Rohingya. He also explained in the Guardian how the Rowanghnya people came into being.
In other words, this name was clearly created around 1950. It is evident that this is not an indigenous ethnic group and that it was deliberately constructed later. When the census was conducted in Sittway in 1953, the people of Buthidaung and Maungtaw included all those who had come from Chattogram. They were compelled to register and were forcibly counted in the census. Among those recorded, some were listed as Rakhine Muslims, while others were listed as Rohingyas.
Therefore, we can conclude that the term they use is a fabricated ethnic name that emerged around 1950, as noted by Western researchers. It can be assumed that it was deliberately created and adopted for political purposes. — The Information Team

gnlm

The hearings concerning the case between The Gambia and Myanmar are being held at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, the Netherlands, from 12 to 29 January.
Here is the interview with Senior Advisor of Myanmar Institute of Strategic and International Studies, Founder and Executive Director of the Thayninga Institute for Strategic Studies, and Director Dr Nai Swe Oo of the Myanmar Narrative Think Tank.
I would like to discuss first that I personally conducted field research in Buthidaung and Maungtaw areas in 2018 and 2019 regarding the Bengali issue that occurred in Rakhine State. I am someone who has directly observed and understood the ground realities.
Moreover, we, Think Tank, are involved in discussions on the repatriation of Bengalis. While holding regular dialogues between the Think Tank of Bangladesh and Myanmar, I have regularly taken part in the discussions since 2018 and 2019.
I would like to briefly discuss the current situation in which Myanmar is facing legal proceedings at the ICJ. On 11 November 2019, The Gambia, a small country located in West Africa, initiated legal proceedings against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice with the support of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
The Gambia made allegations claiming that Myanmar violated the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) and filed the lawsuit on that basis.
The main point is that the case was filed based on allegations related to incidents that occurred in northern Rakhine State in 2016 and 2017. However, when we look at The Gambia, it is a small country located thousands of miles away from Myanmar in West Africa. From Myanmar’s perspective, The Gambia has no legal obligation or standing to bring a case against Myanmar. The Gambia is merely acting as a proxy of the OIC. The next fact is that there is no dispute between The Gambia and Myanmar. The place alleged by The Gambia did not occur within Gambian territory, nor did it have any impact on Gambian citizens. It can therefore be seen that The Gambia’s accusations are solely one-sided.
However, in January 2020, the ICJ issued Provisional Measures, and Myanmar had to submit reports every six months.
Myanmar, as a responsible member of the international community, has regularly submitted the required reports. However, on the other hand, The Gambia and some other countries have criticized these measures as insufficient. Nonetheless, it can be seen that Myanmar has faithfully fulfilled its obligations.
In July 2022, the Court rejected Myanmar’s preliminary objections and confirmed that it has jurisdiction over the case. It was also observed that, in addition to The Gambia, 11 countries, including Canada, Denmark, France and Germany, had the right to intervene in the case under Article 63.
I will continue to discuss the current situation. At present, the case has reached the hearings stage. A Myanmar delegation led by Union Minister U Ko Ko Hlaing for the Ministry 2 of the President’s Office, currently in The Hague, the Netherlands, is serving as Agent of Myanmar and presenting the defence at the ICJ. However, it should be noted that cases at the ICJ are not resolved in a short period of time and often take many years.
In other words, the presence of a Myanmar delegation at the ICJ in The Hague, the Netherlands, represents the legitimacy of the Myanmar government. — MNA/KTZH

gnlm

U Kyaw Tin Hlaing (100-household elder)
Aungmingala Ward, Sittway.

My name is U Kyaw Tin Hlaing. My Muslim name is Musa Ahmed. I am a 100-household elder from Aungmingala Ward. There are five wards namely Gontan, Kathit, Kyaunggyilan, Aungmingala, and Maulid connected with ethnic communities. There are 720 households with a population of around 4,000 people in these five wards. I have been serving as a 100-household elder since 2010. During the conflict period in June 2012, Tatmadaw and police members protected our ward. Nothing happened to our ward due to the protection provided in a timely manner.
As there were concerns about arson, the state government, in cooperation with the combined team comprising Tatmadaw and police protected our ward. At that time, tensions between groups were high, and there were fears for people’s safety, so security was provided. Up to now, nothing has happened to our ward.
The government provides us with rice every month. NGOs also assist frequently. In the past, there were the Myoma market and shops in our ward. There were traders, painters, masons, carpenters, and casual labourers of all kinds. After the conflict, due to a lack of harmony between communities, people stayed within the village and survived on aid.
Around 2019, after relations gradually became more harmonious, the checkpoints that had been set up were removed. Police units were also completely withdrawn in 2020. Now, we can go to the main market outside and buy goods. Some fish vendors are also able to go to the main market to sell fish. There are no problems.
In our ward, there are also shops and clinics jointly operated with ethnic communities. At the clinic opened by the government, people of all religions come for medical treatment. There are no problems between people. At present, there is freedom.
Regarding healthcare, during the conflict period, if we needed to go to a hospital, we had to inform the authorities and go under security arrangements through the ward. Now, there is no need to do that. We can go to clinics on our own. There is also a Thaddha Clinic operating in the ward. We can get healthcare services there. The government provides medical services in the ward twice a week on a regular basis.
There used to be only one primary school in our ward for children. Now, it has been upgraded to a middle school. The chief minister pledged that a school building will be built to be a high school from the middle school in the future. We have not yet been able to provide land, but once land is provided, the government will construct the school. For examinations, students currently go to Thetkaepyin to sit for their exams.
Now, if there are tenders in our area, Muslims are also able to apply for tenders through the government. We apply jointly with ethnic communities. Whoever qualifies wins the tender. Businesspeople and traders also order goods from Yangon and sell them here. Some people work as painters, masons, and carpenters at the homes of ethnic people. Harmony has been achieved. At present, there are absolutely no problems. We are also able to go to the hospital for medical treatment. As Muslims, we are required to pray at the mosque five times a day, and we can do all five prayers regularly. — News Team/KTZH

gnlm

Interviewers: Nyein Thu & Kyaw Gyi; Photos: Kanu & Kyaw Gyi

As Phase III of the multiparty democratic general election 2025 was held in 17 townships of Yangon Region yesterday, eligible voters keenly cast ballots at their respective polling stations from the opening time.
The news team mentioned the aspirations of voters from Dagon, Lanmadaw, Yankin and Tamway townships in Yangon Region and officials’ endeavours to hold a free and fair election.
Ma Khin Mar Lwin (Dagon Township)
As a citizen, I want to the polling station together with all my family members to cast a vote because I want to fulfil my civic duty. I cast my vote for the party I prefer. When a new government emerges, what I want to say is I hope it will take action to reduce commodity prices for the people.
Maung Paing Soe (Dagon Township)
It was an exciting experience for me. It is my first experience of casting a vote in my life. As a young person, I came to vote because voting is a citizen’s right, and because I hope there will be more job opportunities and better living conditions. As a young person, I want to live freely and peacefully. Above all, I want to ensure a good life for my family. We want better jobs and higher wages for young people, and we want a better future for our generation.
Ma Yoon Kabya Soe (Dagon Township)
It is my first-time experience for me to cast a vote. So, I felt excited. I hope there will be more opportunities for employment and improvements in education for us. I came to vote because I hope for a leader who I believe will be better for everyone.
Ma Aye Madi Soe (Lanmadaw Township)
This is my first-time voting. At first, I was worried that I might not know how to do it, but it turned out to be straightforward, and everything went smoothly. As a citizen, you should think about your country – what will happen in the future – and if you live in this country, you should care about it. I want Myanmar to be peaceful and functioning normally. That’s why I studied the candidates and voted for the representative I believe will perform best. Going forward, I hope Myanmar will be peaceful and develop further.
Maung Wai Phyo Oo (Lanmadaw Township)
To exercise my right as a citizen to express my will, I chose the representative whom I believe aligns with my wishes. I want the country to become better than it is now and to see progress in all aspects.
Ma Wut Shwe Yi (Yankin Township)
As this is my first time casting a vote, I feel excited. I am also happy to have the opportunity to vote and not lose my citizen rights. Voting by machine was not difficult at all. I am a university student, and I want to contribute to my country to the best of my ability. I want to see our country become better than now. I also hope for a new government that can develop the education sector to be on par with other Asian countries and, by enhancing young people’s capabilities, help build a better and more progressive future for the youth.
Ma May Thae Nu Khaing (Tamway Township)
This is my first-ever vote. Voting by machine was convenient. I cast my vote for the party I believe will be beneficial for the country. As I am a student, I would like to prioritize the education sector. History shows that countries built on education are the ones advancing rapidly today. When education standards are high, technology follows, and economic success comes naturally; this is clear when we look at neighbouring countries. A stable education system is essential. In the education sector, there must be equal access and equal teaching quality for both mountainous and lowland areas. Since the future of the country depends on young people, the future of our youth can only shine brightly with the light of education. I would like to say that the integration of youth and education is a true driving force for national development.
Ma May Yadana (Tamway Township)
I work at an eye hospital. As a young citizen, this is my first time voting. I cast my vote with full confidence for the party that I believe can raise wages, reduce commodity prices, and improve employment opportunities. I also voted for the party that I think can make living conditions and transportation more convenient for workers. I want the country to be peaceful and stable. I enthusiastically voted for the candidate who I hope will be able to plan and implement measures to improve the lives of workers, and I believe this will give us young workers peace of mind about our future.
Ma Nang Wutyi (Tamway Township)
I cast my vote, which is important for the country. I believe the elected candidate will be able to make the country better and improve the economy. If a new government emerges, I strongly hope that commodity prices will be stable and aligned with wages, that job opportunities will help improve everyone’s economic situation, and that women as a whole will have security and rights. I also have high expectations that the government will be one the public can rely on in areas such as transport, education, and healthcare.
U Soe Win (Tamway Township)
I voted for the party’s candidate who will work for the good of the country without considering personal gain. As citizens, we hope for a developed, peaceful, and prosperous society. This moment is extremely important, and there is much work to be done. To make the country peaceful and prosperous, everyone needs to work together hand in hand. The future of the country depends not only on the hands of the people but also on the capabilities of the new government that will emerge.
Daw Nwe Ni Myo Hlaing (Polling Station Head), Polling Station 1, BEHS No 2 in Ward 14 of Yankin Township
At Polling Station 1 in Ward 14, Yankin Township, there were 2,296 voters, including 74 for the Kayin ethnic representative and 94 for the Rakhine ethnic representative. As early voters, 70 people had already cast their ballots. Arrangements were made so that the public could vote smoothly, including organizing the voter lists for easy checking, and the machines were repeatedly tested. At 5 am on the day the polling station opened, when the candidates arrived, it was demonstrated that the machine buttons were functioning properly and that the machines were set to zero. At 6 am, voters began arriving to cast their ballots. Although the polling station closed at 4 pm, all voters present inside the station were allowed to vote in an orderly manner.
U Dawut (Tamway Township)
I hope a good new government will emerge for the country. Improvements are needed in the health, education, and transport sectors. Most importantly, citizens’ rights should be equal and fair. Currently, the main challenge is the economy, so measures are needed to facilitate booming trade. I also believe that a positive change will occur. For the country to develop, everyone should avoid activities of personal cult and partisanship. We should welcome reformers who will genuinely work to make the country better. So, we wholeheartedly welcome a new government that prioritizes the interests of the country and the people.

gnlm

A ceremony to present remarks by international election observers who monitored Phase III of the multiparty democratic general election, which was successfully held on 25 January 2026, in 61 townships, took place at the Parkroyal Hotel in Yangon yesterday morning.
The event featured video messages from representatives of observation teams from the Republic of Belarus and remarks of the teams from Cambodia, Nepal, Nicaragua, and the Cambodian People’s Party as follows: –

Ms Volha N Chamadanova, Chairperson of the Belarusian Party Belaya Rus of the Republic of Belarus
A five-member delegation from Belarus arrived in the Republic of the Union of Myanmar to observe Phase III of the election. We would like to praise the fact that the preparations made in advance for Phase III of the election, as well as the arrangements for election day, were extremely systematic and ensured security. We would also like to express our gratitude to the Head of State and to the Union Election Commission of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar for the warm hospitality and well-organized arrangements provided to our delegation during Phase III of the election.
We have also noticed that Phase III of the election process was organized in accordance with democratic standards. All procedures were transparent, and it was evident that election-related information had already been disseminated to the public, resulting in active public participation. We observed that every stage of polling station preparations complied with the legal standards of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar. We would like to extend our sincere thanks for the distinguished invitation extended to our Belarusian delegation.

Mr Sergei A Shkrudnev, Chairman of Minsk City Trade Union, Republic of Belarus
As a member of the election observation delegation from the Republic of Belarus, I have observed that the elections of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar are being conducted peacefully. Today, citizens are coming to the polling stations enthusiastically together with their children, and it can be seen that they are ready to actively participate not only for their country but also for the future of their entire homeland. It is seen that there is transparency is important at the polling stations. I have also noted that, in addition to political parties monitoring today’s election results, the people are present as well. Everything is being carried out transparently and in accordance with the law.
Based on discussions with party representatives who are serving as observers today, we know that the current situation and the voting process are being conducted systematically and without any violations of the law.
Moreover, the Myanmar Electronic Voting Machine system currently used has proven to be highly effective in preventing electoral fraud and in ensuring that elections are held fairly. I believe that the people and citizens of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar are aware of this fact and will understand that no one will be able to interfere with their will in the coming elections.
Besides, I would like to express my gratitude to the Union Election Commission for granting access to visit the polling stations and for providing all necessary information. In particular, I would like to convey my best wishes to all Myanmar citizens for good health and well-being, and I wish that the country will prosper and develop even further, continue to move forward, and achieve greater progress and development.

Mr Yich Samethy, Member of the Cambodian Election Commission
Mingalabar to all distinguished Chairman and members of the Union Election Commission who are attending today’s ceremony, honoured guests from various countries, officials from embassies, and all distinguished guests. On behalf of the Kingdom of Cambodia, we have come to observe the elections in Myanmar, and this marks our second visit for election observation purposes.
At the invitation of the Union Election Commission, we also observed the first round of voting held on 28 December 2025. At that time, we visited six polling stations in Nay Pyi Taw and observed that the election was conducted properly and correctly in accordance with the relevant laws, rules, and procedures. With regard to Phase II of the elections held on 11 January 2026, although we were unable to come in person as representatives of Cambodia, the Ambassador of the Kingdom of Cambodia to Myanmar carried out the observation. Even though we could not personally conduct the observation at that time, it was learned that no irregular or unlawful election-related practices were found. For the Phase III of the elections currently being held, we observed voting at six polling stations in Yangon. During our observation, we noted the following points.
First, the voting process was peaceful. The elections were conducted peacefully, and the public participated actively and enthusiastically. Voters were able to exercise their voting rights freely, without any interference, fear, or intimidation.
Second, we observed the performance of polling station staff. The staff carried out voting and vote-counting procedures in accordance with the prescribed election laws, rules, and procedures, ensuring the integrity of the entire electoral process.
Third, there is transparency. The entire election process was transparent, comprehensive, and clearly implemented. Particularly, during the voting and vote-counting processes, all relevant stakeholders — especially political parties, international election observers, and the media — were able to participate and cooperate, which clearly demonstrated a high level of transparency.
Fourth, regarding the use of Myanmar’s electronic voting machines, we observed that they were highly effective, made the voting and counting processes faster than before, and produced accurate and reliable results. Although this was the first time that many Myanmar voters used these machines, we found that they were already well informed about how to use them properly.
Another point was security. We observed that comprehensive and effective security measures were in place throughout the election process. As a result, voters, polling station staff, and all other relevant stakeholders were able to carry out their responsibilities safely with confidence.
Finally, throughout the entire election observation mission, we did not see any form of electoral fraud or irregularities. During our observation of the 2025 elections in Myanmar, we found that the elections were conducted in accordance with the law. In this Phase III, just as in Phases I and II, we observed that the elections were free, fair, and transparent.
We would like to express our gratitude to the Union Election Commission for inviting us to observe the elections in Myanmar. In addition, we wish all representatives from each country attending this programme a safe and pleasant journey back to their respective countries. With these words, I would like to conclude. Thank You.
 

Dr Janaki Kumari Tuladhar, Member of the Nepali Election Commission
Mingalabar to the distinguished Chairman and members of the Union Election Commission, responsible officials of the Union Election Commission, officials from international embassies, and all honoured guests attending today.
On our part, in accordance with the guidance of the Election Commission, we were honoured to participate as international election observers in the 2025 multiparty democratic general elections of Myanmar. Moreover, we are deeply honoured to have this opportunity to deliver remarks today on behalf of the Election Commission of Nepal.
First of all, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Union Election Commission for inviting us to observe the elections. Inviting international election observers is an important demonstration of the commitment to cooperation among election management bodies, to strengthening trust in institutions, and to ensuring transparency in the electoral process. For this opportunity, we would like to extend our heartfelt thanks.
In addition to inviting us, we are also especially grateful for the warm hospitality extended to us throughout our stay in

Myanmar, as well as for the comprehensive arrangements made to support our observation mission.
We would also like to express our special appreciation for the arrangements and assistance provided regarding our accommodation, transportation, security, access to comprehensive election-related information, and all other forms of support necessary for us to carry out our election observation effectively.
Furthermore, I would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the Ambassador of Nepal to Myanmar for the support and assistance extended to our delegation. The Ambassador worked closely with us to facilitate our mission and to further strengthen the friendly relations between Nepal and Myanmar.
Throughout the period of our election observation, we observed that the Union Election Commission had undertaken well-prepared arrangements for the elections. Clear and systematic operational guidelines were implemented, particularly in ensuring voter inclusion in voter lists, facilitating advance voting, and coordinating with other relevant organizations to ensure the smooth functioning of these processes.
When we visited the designated polling stations, we observed that polling station staff carried out their duties honestly, competently, and professionally. They demonstrated a clear understanding of their responsibilities and performed their tasks with full commitment and diligence.
We also observed that polling stations were under a well-managed system, and that voters did not experience confusion or uncertainty regarding the voting procedures. We further noted that Myanmar’s electronic voting machines were designed and developed by local engineers in Myanmar, and that these machines operated without any external interference during the voting process.
The voting process was conducted in a well-organized and systematic environment, ensuring that voters were able to exercise their voting rights without obstruction. In addition, we observed that special arrangements were made to ensure accessibility and convenience for voters with disabilities when using the electronic voting machines.
From the perspective of international election observers, we recognize that conducting elections in any country, especially one with diverse geography, a large population, and varying administrative conditions, can present challenges and shortcomings. In such situations, it is essential to assist to ensure that voters from regions and states and ethnic communities can participate, thereby achieving an inclusive electoral process. During our observation, we noted that legal provisions and arrangements were in place to ensure that the ethnic communities were able to exercise both their right to be elected and their right to vote.
In facilitating election observation, the Union Election Commission shared relevant information with us promptly and demonstrated openness, positivity, and active cooperation with international observers like us. We highly appreciate this transparent approach, as transparency strengthens institutional integrity, public trust, and confidence in the electoral process.
From the international observer’s perspective and in line with established practice, election processes are ongoing and evolving processes. Therefore, it is important to continuously improve voter education programmes, ensure accessibility for all voters, and enhance cooperation among all election stakeholders throughout the entire electoral cycle promptly.
Distinguished Chairman and honoured guests, Nepal is scheduled to hold its election on 5 March 2026, and we continue to face challenges related to election management. At that time, having the opportunity to observe Myanmar’s well-prepared, systematic, and effectively implemented election management processes has been of great value to us. The positive experiences and lessons gained from this observation will be shared and applied in Nepal as we work to ensure integrity, credibility, and public trust in our own electoral processes.
International election observation is not an administrative procedure. It is also an important part of mutual learning and cooperation. We firmly believe that exchanging experiences and knowledge among election management bodies, particularly among ASEAN countries, BIMSTEC member states, and neighbouring countries in the region, is a positive practice that contributes to the conduct of inclusive, credible, and widely accepted elections.
Holding the elections is not only an administrative process. It is an implementation of a nation’s democratic standards and its commitment to the will of the people. From this perspective, we would like to appreciate the Union Election Commission for its professionalism, competence, and dedication in successfully conducting this major general election amid challenging and complex circumstances.
On behalf of the Election Commission of Nepal, I would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Union Election Commission, the Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, and all institutions and departments that cooperated and contributed to the successful conduct of this election.
I would like to conclude by wishing the people of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar peace and stability, and continued progress and development along the democratic path. Thank you.

Mr Mario Jose Armengol Campos, Vietnam-based Nicaraguan Ambassador
Good Morning.
Esteemed Chairman of the Union Election Commission U Than Soe, and Commission members, international election observers, representatives from embassies attending this ceremony and all distinguished guests.
On behalf of the Government and the people of Nicaragua, and as a delegation representing Nicaragua, I would like to express our sincere appreciation to the Union Election Commission for inviting us to participate as international election observers in Phase I and Phase III of the elections organized by the Commission.
Myanmar is currently at a very important stage in carrying out its electoral processes. By holding these elections, the people are being allowed to choose the representatives who will govern them and to shape their future through democratic means. At the same time, this is also a period in which efforts are being made to strengthen institutions within the country and to accelerate national development.
The election being held demonstrates the strength, unity, and firm determination of the people of Myanmar. Although there are certain unique challenges and difficulties within the country, we observed that the electoral processes were carried out in a normal, systematic, secure, and transparent manner. It is evident that the people of Myanmar can protect their sovereignty and that the will of the people is being respected.
As an election observer, I found that the entire electoral process was implemented properly and correctly, and that the public has confidence in these elections. We were also able to confirm that holding elections is the correct path toward peace, stability, and development.
Public trust is the most fundamental and essential element in ensuring the integrity and credibility of an entire electoral process. During our observations, we also noted that the technology-based voting systems were implemented accurately and effectively.
We observed that election staff carried out their duties with full responsibility, clear understanding, dignity, integrity, impartiality, and transparency. Our country fully supports this election for its fundamental principles of sovereignty, self-determination, freedom, and fairness in every nation.
In observing the electoral processes, we conducted our work with respect and mutual trust between our two countries, and with a correct and respectful attitude toward the will of the Government and the people of Myanmar.
With respect, I would like to recommend on behalf of our observing delegation. To further improve electoral processes in Myanmar, particularly concerning polling station operations and voter verification procedures, we suggest strengthening and enhancing the system for checking voters’ identification cards.
In conclusion, we would like to thank all responsible authorities in Myanmar for inviting us and allowing us to observe these elections transparently. On behalf of our government, we also affirm that we will continue to cooperate with the Union Election Commission in matters related to elections, experience-sharing, and ongoing collaboration.
Finally, on behalf of the President of Nicaragua, Commander Daniel Ortega Saavedra, and Comrade Rosario Murillo, we extend our best wishes to the Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar and to the people of Myanmar for greater success, good health, and prosperity. Thank you all.

Dr Chheng Kimlong, Vice-Chairman, International Relations Central Committee, Cambodian People’s Party, International Conference of Asian Political Parties (ICAPP)
Esteemed Chairman and Commission members, distinguished guests, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for the opportunity to come to Myanmar at the invitation of the country and to participate as part of a delegation representing the Cambodian People’s Party, as well as for being allowed to deliver remarks today.
We would like to thank the Union Election Commission for inviting us to observe such a perfect and effective election, and for making necessary arrangements to conduct the election observation mission.
We also thank all for briefing the electoral processes of the Union Election Commission and the electronic voting machines to be used in the elections on 24 January when we arrived here.
During these briefings, we received detailed information related to the 2025 elections, including the number of political parties, the number of candidates, the number of eligible voters, the number of constituencies, the number of candidates contesting under political parties, the number of independent candidates, the number of polling stations across townships, the electoral system, and the results obtained from Phases I and II of the elections.
On election day, we visited and observed seven polling stations in different townships. During our observations, we found that the voting process was simple, clear, and transparent, and that polling station staff performed their duties competently and effectively. The polling station environment was peaceful, stable, and secure, and we generally observed that the multiparty democratic general election was being conducted in a free, fair, and transparent manner.
For example, throughout our observation, we noted that each polling station displayed relevant information, including polling station details, lists of political parties, voter lists, lists of independent candidates, lists of advance voters, and voting procedures presented on digital screen televisions. Seating arrangements were also provided for voters who needed to wait.
Moreover, during our observation period, we observed the presence of state-owned and private media, representatives of political parties, domestic and international election observers, and medical teams assigned to each polling station.
We would like to express our gratitude to the Union Election Commission for its efforts to successfully and comprehensively implement the elections, as well as for its close cooperation with all stakeholders involved in the electoral process.
We also conducted interviews at polling stations with local authorities, members of political parties, election commission staff, and voters. We further observed that security personnel had put in place the necessary security arrangements to ensure the successful conduct of the elections, for which we are thankful.
We would like to appreciate the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, the Union Election Commission, especially the UEC Chairman and the people of Myanmar for their resilience, unity, strong sense of patriotism, and dedicated efforts to achieve peace, stability, and development while successfully holding these elections.
On behalf of the Cambodian People’s Party and the people of Cambodia, we will continue to work toward building even closer, more positive, and stronger cooperation between Cambodia and Myanmar and between our two peoples.
Through these efforts, we aim to promote unity and development between Cambodia and Myanmar, not only bilaterally but also in the regions. Thank you very much. — MNA/KTZH