Analysis on the answer of Mark Farmaner
By Mg Mike Mike on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 at 4:21am
This writing is followed by the article I recently read and in which some comments I liked to point out and discuss, by Mark Farmaner the director of Burma Campaign UK about the explanation to the people’s misunderstanding and criticism to his organization’s operations of Rohingyas’ human rights.
Is the Burma Campaign UK really working to protect the Human Rights in Myanmar?
There is no doubt on their efforts of campaigning for the human right violations in Myanmar. Their movements however has been objective to human rights only for Rohingyas in a way of claiming this certain group of people are belonged to the nationalities of Myanmar which is quite controversial, but not involved in other significant human right problems in Myanmar.
His Organization mission is to subside the Human Rights violation for the welfare of Myanmar people. So their efforts is not supposed to only focus on Rohingyas who is only known as the Stateless People and also partially regarded as Nationalities of Myanmar, which the latter is also not assured. Instead they are more expected on other significant human rights problems like, to one of the most persecuted Myanmar natives who are displaced in the refugee camps on the border of Thai-Myanmar, in the area of Myanmar East. Those Myanmar natives are living on the edge with inadequate support from organizations including the United Nations and private institutions whereas Rohingyas are receiving the funds of approximately US$ Ten to hundreds millions annually under the names of various funds generating projects and that of other NGOs.
Then, is Burma Campaign UK really doing well for Rohingyas welfare?
In this case, what is questionable is why the problems of Rohingyas in some country like Saudi in where the national religion is same to theirs being treated in way of breaching human rights and lack of fundamental freedoms is not brought up to the world. For instance, BC UK did not make prominent to the world about the cases of residential/citizenship laws legislated by Saudi court in 2009 and the Rohingyas children not being eligible for public schools.
In the article of “The 300,000 Rohingyas in Saudi are in limbo”, it said
“Mr Abdul Majid’s family moved to Saudi in 1954, two years after he was born, and was granted legal resident status as it was among the first Burmese groups to arrive. But a decree issued two decades later forced Rohingya older than 18 who were not born in the kingdom to obtain a non-Saudi passport. Without residency permits, their children cannot enrol in public schools. Mr Abdul Majid said Burmese children attend charity schools created for the community by Saudi donors and wealthy Burmese”
So it would be interesting to hear the explanation and excuses of Mark Farmaner why BC UK is silent and not shouting out for the Rohingyas’ rights in Saudi. And it does raise the question of whether their human rights movements are based on the country.
On what source of funding does his organization live?
Mark Farmaner never explains about his organization and how it generates to receive funding. From what he said, BC UK is NGO that means the organization is heavily dependent on either internal or external sources or both. Even the United Nations relies on the contribution from the government and private donors. Also unlike other NGOs with many various projects in the impoverished countries, scope of activities of BC UK is only in Myanmar, so it is certain the organization would face the difficulties to seek and secure the funding. That also brings up the curiosity and concern of from what sources and patterns of funding do the organization relies on.
But widespread photos of stuff of BC UK with other Rohingya organizations such as Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO) and ့္ Arakan Rohingya National Organization (ARNO) which are believed to be in connection with OIC with the prominent evidence of news and photos does give a little insight of its funding source. (Note: RSO and ARNO have been alleged as the radical and terrorist Islamic organizations in the wikileak and other websites of classifying the organizations to security threats)
Is he sure or is it true that BC UK had never heard of the statement of claiming Arakan to be the Muslim autonomous state from other Rohingyas organizations?
What he said introduces the questions to ask him. Homeland and International Security watch also categorized rohingyas organizations as the Islamic fundamentalist and terrorist organizations. Foreign minister of Bangladesh also addressed the violent involvement of the Radical Islamic terrorist groups in the late unrest.
Rohingyas in attempts to gain the autonomous region was cited by the author Thanawat Pimoljinda in the article named Ethno-Religious Movements As a Barrier to an ASEAN Community in the website http://www.globalasia.org, in March 2010.
“The Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO) and the Arakan Rohingya National Organization (ARNO) in Burma have been fighting to liberate Arakan from Buddhist rule, with the aim of establishing an Islamic state. “
“The Mujahid party was founded by Rohingya elders who supported jihad movement in northern Arakan in 1947. The aim of Mujihid party was to create a Muslim Autonomous state in Arakan” …. cited in Wikipedia about rohingas after post war.
“The group also aimed to establish an Islamic autonomous Rakhine (Arakan) state, uniting the Rohingya people of Myanmar and Bangladesh” written in Jane’s World Insurgency and Terrosim about rohingas organizations
Many also can be seen in articles about Myanmar affairs by Barti Latherer. So it proves that what mark Farnamer said – “ we have never even heard any Rohingya organization saying they want their own state” – is the outright lie.
Objecting Wai hnin Pwint Thon is because whether she is Islamic or she works for Rohingyas rights. ?
Since Mark Farmaner made the comment as cause of provoking religious conflict by writing “attacking her because she is Muslim” , it called us to explain and point out some facts although it is not initially required to do so. Remember, when she made the vigorous speech in the England parliament, the majority of people who cheerfully supported her were Buddhist Burmese, and that same group of supporters also encouraged her when she did the parachute jump. Her efforts and attempt of fighting against the Junta brutal oppression in Myanmar were also widely acknowledged and appreciated, with the evidences.
Burmese however found difficult to accept the compliment to her as in the equal status of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi who is the democracy icon representing the majority of Burmese democracy lovers. The matter of acceptance would be quite common for everyone that people will not easily place any person in their hearts as equal to their idols. So it is obvious the cause is not her being Islamic.
Myanmar people have always been against and also held the massive protests to the acts and matters which are soundly unfavourable to the majority regardless of religion. The same happened to Ngae Min Swe who is known to be in good connection with the government authority was also opposed and criticized by the people for his doings contradictory to the majority’s common conceptions can be observed. So people turning their backs to her is that only because of the different perspectives they are of to what she is actually doing, not because of her religious status. And Myanmar people are always ready to forgive and welcome to those who choose the right path from wrong. Since her father Mr Mya Aye had also firmly spoken out Rohingya is not Myanmar nationality, she is expected to be in same boat with Myanmar people.
Why do the local Arakanese organizations not communicate with BC UK?
No further and complicated explanation to it! No-one or no organization would like to be in contact with their complete oppositions, even when the globalized organization like the United Nations group was objected in some cases, Mr Mark Farmaner should have easily realized his national private sector BC UK would be under the situation of being against.
Why did Mark Farmaner compose that explaining article?
He must have already calculated and set eyes on the national funding might come from the religious and private institutions and allocations from government budget since he would have figured out the difficulties of the foreign based NGOs on Myanmar affairs to get external funding from non-national sources in which the situation could have implied by Myanmar recent political reform to Democracy. He also visited Myanmar secretly and tried to conciliate Myanmar government he opposes to. He was surprised of being asked by senior democracy leaders about Rohingyas, which he later said “On my recent trip to Burma, even very senior democracy leaders in Rangoon talked about it.” But his attempt and the meeting with Myanmar senior leaders were only discovered by his own late coverage which raise the questions of why his credible trip was not made public and there was no transparency in their meeting.
To conclude Mark Farmaner already realized it is impossible to base the BC UK only in UK, hence he is trying to base his BC UK in Myanmar. At the same time, the questions and shout-outs of Myanmar people mainly from online networking websites becomes louder and louder, so his article was to merely put the explanation on seemingly misunderstanding between BC UK and Myanmar people upon their campaigning and cover the actual purposes of their works. With this article Myanmar people are kindly warned not to fall into their play of political trap to our beloved country.
Mg Mike Mike
Translated by THS