Indian Burmese

Burma IssuesFebruary 2 0 0 5

INFORMATION FOR ACTION CAMPAIGNS FOR PEACE GRASSROOTS EDUCATION AND ORGANIZING

V O L U M E 1 6 N U M B E R 2

PPPPPAAAAAGEGEGEGEGE 2: B 2: B 2: B 2: B 2: BURMESEURMESEURMESEURMESEURMESE I I I I INDIANSNDIANSNDIANSNDIANSNDIANS: T: T: T: T: THEHEHEHEHE F F F F FORGOORGOORGOORGOORGOTTTTT-----TENTENTENTENTEN L L L L LIVESIVESIVESIVESIVES

PPPPPAAAAAGEGEGEGEGE 4: M 4: M 4: M 4: M 4: MUCHUCHUCHUCHUCH A A A A ADODODODODO A A A A ABBBBBOUTOUTOUTOUTOUT N N N N NOOOOOTHINGTHINGTHINGTHINGTHING:::::WWWWWHYHYHYHYHY B B B B BURMAURMAURMAURMAURMA’’’’’SSSSS JUNTJUNTJUNTJUNTJUNTAAAAA SHRUGSSHRUGSSHRUGSSHRUGSSHRUGS OFFOFFOFFOFFOFF INTERINTERINTERINTERINTER-----NANANANANATIONALTIONALTIONALTIONALTIONAL PRESSUREPRESSUREPRESSUREPRESSUREPRESSURE

PPPPPAAAAAGEGEGEGEGE 6: P 6: P 6: P 6: P 6: PROMISINGROMISINGROMISINGROMISINGROMISING “E “E “E “E “EDUCADUCADUCADUCADUCATIONTIONTIONTIONTION FORFORFORFORFOR A A A A ALLLLLLLLLL”””””INININININ TTTTTHAILANDHAILANDHAILANDHAILANDHAILAND

PPPPPAGEAGEAGEAGEAGE 8: N 8: N 8: N 8: N 8: NEWSEWSEWSEWSEWS B B B B BRIEFSRIEFSRIEFSRIEFSRIEFS

jrefrmha&;&mjrefrmha&;&mjrefrmha&;&mjrefrmha&;&mjrefrmha&;&m 2

SSSSSOOOOO

CCCCC

IIIII

AAAAA

LLLLL

IIIIISSSSS

SSSSS

UUUUU

EEEEE

SSSSS

BBBBBURMESEURMESEURMESEURMESEURMESE I I I I INDIANSNDIANSNDIANSNDIANSNDIANS:::::

BBBBBYYYYY S S S S SAMARTAMARTAMARTAMARTAMART B B B B BUTKAEWUTKAEWUTKAEWUTKAEWUTKAEW

TTTTTHEHEHEHEHE F F F F FORGOORGOORGOORGOORGOTTENTTENTTENTTENTTEN L L L L LIVESIVESIVESIVESIVES

Burma Issues is a publication of the Peace WayFoundation and is distributed on a free-subscrip-tion basis to individuals and groups concerned withthe state of affairs in Burma.

Editor Z. Brake

1/11 Soi Piphat 2Convent Rd, SilomBangkok 10500, [email protected]

The Peace Way foundation appreciates your on-going support. If you wish to make a donation,please use the following bank account references:Bank: BANGKOK BANKBranch: SILOMAccount name: Peace Way FoundationSwift: BKKBTHBKAAccount No: 101-7-478072

Kala Lumyo is the word the Burmese callthe Indian who live in Burma. The wordKala is, in general, for those who have

dark skin. They originated from India and theycome from South Asia and the Western part ofAsia in general, most notably form present-day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The wordkala literally means degrading, disgusting andto look down upon. The word “alien” is alsoused by Burmese people to describe the Indi-ans. However, the Burmese Indians see them-selves as a part of the Burmese people. Theyhave fought for Burma together with the Bur-mese and other ethnic people to be free fromcolony rule and independent.

In the midst of the struggle for humanrights and democracy in Burma, the interna-tional community mostly focuses on the de-mocracy movement lead by Aung San Suu Kyiand the National League of Democracy or onthe fighting for the independence by the ethnicgroups. When looking to situation as a whole,the Burmese Indians are also in need of thesame freedoms as all the other Burmese people.In their struggle for freedom most people seethem as outsiders.

Approximately 2 per cent of the Burmesepopulation is Burmese Indians. However thisnumber is not dependable as there is no reli-able information. In Burma, the majority of Bur-mese Indians are Muslim (Suni Set), others areHindu, Sikhs and Buddhist. Most of the Bur-

mese Indian Muslim population lives in urban ar-eas and big cities such as Rangoon and post Brit-ish Hill towns such as Pyin U Lwin ( formerlyMaymyo)1.

The first Burmese Indians migrated toBurma in the glorious Bagan period (A.D. 1044-1287) when Indian, Persian and Arabian merchantscame to Burma. In the 16th and 17th centuries,the Golden Age of the spices trade attracted moreIndian merchants to Burma. This migration con-tinued until the British invasion.

When Burma became a part of India underthe British colonial rule in 1824, a large numberof Indian people moved to Burma. These includedentrepreneurs, politicians and government employ-ees. In the following decades infrastructure initia-tives of the British caused an unprecedented eco-nomical boom in Burma. From 1855 to 1930 thearea of the Irrawaddy delta used for rice cultiva-tion increases ten times to roughly 4 million hect-ares.2 Coolies (Indian labourers) from southernIndia migrated continuously to Burma in search ofwork. In 1930 the number of Indians in Burmahad grown considerably and in Rangoon 53 percent of the whole population was Indian3. Thingswere going smoothly for the Burmese Indian popu-lation even after British left and independencedawned Burma in 1948. There were even Indiansin the Cabinet.

Things changed after the coup d’etat in1962 led by General Ne Win and the introductionof Nationalism. Some Burmese Indians were forcedout of the country as a result of the economy’snationalization. Their wholesale and retail busi-nesses were taken away without any compensa-tion and they were all given 175 Kyat to return toIndia4. The Cabinet was pushed out of the gov-ernment. Although, many Indian had been livingin Burma for generations and had integrated intoBurmese society, they became a target for dis-crimination and oppression by the junta.

Today many Indians, particularly Hindus livein central Rangoon on the both side of the Su LeiPaya Road. Most are involved in either legal orillegal businesses, including restaurants, jewelleryshops and money exchanges. It is not surprisingthat the Burmese people believe that these Indi-ans have a better economic rank, than they do. Itseems that there are no problems for the Bur-mese Indians because they are rich, but in factthis is not true. They have many personal issues.

Although Burmese Indians have not been vio-lently oppressed by the military government like

vlr_a&;vlr_a&;vlr_a&;vlr_a&;vlr_a&;

jrefrmha&;&mjrefrmha&;&mjrefrmha&;&mjrefrmha&;&mjrefrmha&;&m3

other ethnic groups in Burma, their rights havebeen continuously restricted and they have faceddifferent forms of oppression. If Burmese people’srights are limited, the Burmese Indians’ rights willbe doubly limited.

Religion is being used as a tool of oppressionagainst the Burmese Indians by the military dicta-torship. Burmese MuslimIndians and BurmeseHindu Indians are not allowed to grandly celebrateany of their religious ceremonies. These religiousrights are prohibited. They can not run religiousparades anywhere in Burma, like they do in othercountries. In South East Asian countries like Thai-land and Malaysia the governments allow peopleto grandly celebrate their religions, but in Burma,the military just allows them to quietly celebratebehind closed doors or in the few temples. Themilitary dictatorship rejects or ignores their requestwhen they want to build Mosque in the countryor to go abroad for religious ceremonies5. Themilitary dictatorship never encourages or supportsthe Burmese Indians.

However, the attitude of the Burmese peopletowards the Burmese Indian is worse. The Bur-mese Indians are looked down or mistreated be-cause of their religion, the way they dress or theway they act. Burmese people believe that the“Kala Lumyo” will take over the country and ruleBurma. They believe that if there are too manyIndians this will happen. According to the reli-gious beliefs, if you were marry someone who isa Muslim or a Hindu you have to change youroriginal religion to their religion and your childrenwill also automatically become Muslim or Hindu6.Consequnetly, Burmese people do not want theirchildren to marry Indians.

Furthermore, the military dictatorship pro-hibits Burmese Indian from becoming involved orbeing employed as the government employees orworking in any companies run by the State gov-ernment.

While the military dictatorship is persuad-ing ethnic minority groups to enter what they calledthe “legal fold” and participate in the drafting of anew constitution which includes sections on reli-gion and political rights, Burmese Indians have notbeen invited by the military dictatorship to partici-pate. They will never be invited as they are notseen as important in the eyes of the military dic-tatorship.

The international community does not seethat the main issues facing the Burmese Indiansare the State’s policies. The military governmentalways says to the international community thatthey have opened the opportunity for all religiousand ethnic minority groups to live together peace-fully. It seems like the Burmese Indians should nothave any problems. In reality, they do not receive

any of these opportunities. The military govern-ment tries to block them getting in touch withthe wider community and working together for abetter society, human rights and other meaning-ful activities.

Like all people in Burma, the quality ofhealth care depends on how much you can pay.Burmese Indians who can afford to pay for healthcare, receive reasonable care. However, BurmeseIndians who cannot afford to pay, receive nohealth care. The government is suppose to pro-vide free health care for all Burmese people, butthis does not happen for most people in Burma,including the Burmese Indians.

Another issue is that the Burmese Indianswho have good businesses will send their chil-dren to study abroad such as to the USA. Manyof them are poor and can not manage to sendtheir children to school. The government is notsupporting the education system. There are someprivate schools or schools owned by foreign com-panies from the Middle East who provide freeeducation and basic knowledge on Islam to IndianMuslims. Furthermore, Burmese Indians are notallowed to use their native languages and the juntahas banned literature in these languages. The gov-ernment has even banned some Bollywood mov-ies7. The New Light of Myanmar is the trumpet ofthe government, but in this newspaper it nevertalks about the Burmese Indians.

Living as the stranger in their own countryBurmese Indians are not trying to make any prob-lems for the society. There is an obvious imageof the Burmese Indians “looking after their own”.At the moment we can clearly see that the Bur-mese Indians are out of sight of the junta and arelooked down upon by the Burmese people. Thestatus of the Burmese Indians in terms of reli-gion, culture and civil rights are the same as theother ethnic groups. The government has usedreligion to oppress the Burmese Indians. Whatwill happen to these people when transitioncomes? There are plenty of questions. Will theytreated equally like other Burmese people or willthey continue to be outsiders?

Endnotes:

1 Burmese Indians, http://www.answer.com/mainntquery?method2 Myanmar History Colonial Times, http://www.asiatour.com/Myanmar/e – 01land / em – lan43.htm3 Ibid4 Indian and Burma: working on their relationship, TheIrrawaddy (online) , March 19995 The outsider, The Irrawaddy vol. 14 No.1, January 20066 ibid.7 How the Indians Government Stabbed Burmese Tamilsin the Back, http:// www. Geocities.com/ tamiltribune/ 020702. html?20065



PPPPPOOOOO

LLLLL

IIIII

TTTTT

IIIII

CCCCC

SSSSS

MMMMMUCHUCHUCHUCHUCH A A A A ADODODODODO A A A A ABBBBBOUTOUTOUTOUTOUT N N N N NOOOOOTHINGTHINGTHINGTHINGTHING:::::

BBBBBYYYYY K. L K. L K. L K. L K. LANGEANGEANGEANGEANGE

WWWWWHYHYHYHYHY B B B B BURMAURMAURMAURMAURMA’’’’’SSSSS J J J J JUNTUNTUNTUNTUNTAAAAA S S S S SHRUGSHRUGSHRUGSHRUGSHRUGS O O O O OFFFFFFFFFF I I I I INTERNANTERNANTERNANTERNANTERNATONALTONALTONALTONALTONAL P P P P PRESSURERESSURERESSURERESSURERESSURE

EdkifiHa&;EdkifiHa&;EdkifiHa&;EdkifiHa&;EdkifiHa&;

Since Burma was accepted as a memberof the Association of Southeast AsianNations (ASEAN) in 1997, the organi-

zation has pursued a policy of constructive en-gagement towards the military leaders of thecountry. The term constructive engagement hasnever been clearly defined, but it is based onthe principle that it is better to engage andcreate ties with Burma rather than to ignoreand isolate it. While the official strategy of theASEAN policy is to influence and push forwardthe State Peace and Development Council(SPDC) towards reforms by entering into politi-cal, economic and security relations with Burma,it in fact offers ASEAN member states the pos-sibility to pursue their own strategic intereststhe under the guise of constructive engagement.

Consequently, in dealing with Burma the pri-ority is based on lucrative business deals.Burma, as one of the most resource-rich coun-tries in the region, enjoys strong economic re-lations with other ASEAN countries as well aswith China and India. These countries are look-ing to benefit from Burma’s enormous gas andoil resources to handle their future energy prob-lems1.

One significant reason for ASEAN to followthe concept of constructive engagement is toprovide Burma with an alternative to forming acloser relationship with China, known as thestrongest ally of the military regime. ASEANmembers fear China is gaining ascendancy inAsia. Consequently, underlying the idea of shar-ing markets is the plan of creating a regionalcounterbalance to China through promotingpeace and stability in the region is another im-portant driving force of ASEAN. This might bean explanation why ASEAN has been reluctantto criticize Burma too strongly by invoking thenon-interference principle.

The principle of non-interference in eachother’s affairs is one of the fundamental prin-ciples of ASEAN declared in 1976 during theirfirst summit. One could say that this principlewas made to avoid tackling problems that ASEANwould be confronted with. In the case of Burmathe use of the non-interference principle is mor-ally inappropriate in relation to ongoing humanright violations, suppression and continuous de-terioration of living conditions by the SPDCagainst the Burmese populace. Nevertheless, theprinciple has worked well as a shield to avoidany discussion about the grim situation inBurma.

Burma is placed, not just geographically butalso politically, between China, India and theASEAN member states. Consequently, it playsan important role in maintaining the balance ofpower in the region. The Burmese junta seemsto be very conscious of this. If Burma wouldleave or be expelled from the ASEAN grouping,it would lead to a shift in the balance of power,quite likely for the benefit of China. But thisscenario is not foreseeable as long as the in-ternational community is unable to put con-stant pressure on ASEAN to force them to speakout critically or take action against the SPDC,ASEAN will not feel compelled to do so. In-stead of breaking down their relations withBurma ASEAN member states continue doingbusiness with Burma. However, economic fac-tors are nearly always involved in any relationswith Burma and must be taken into consider-ation to understand the policy of Burma’sneighbouring countries as well as ASEAN to-wards the military regime.

At the end of 2005 the policy of ASEAN to-wards Burma seemed to shift. In the fore fieldof the 11th summit of ASEAN, which was heldin Kuala Lumpur from December 12-13, oneheadline topped another and all chorused thesame message: ASEAN will make a great stanceby speaking out critically against the extensionof Aung San Suu Kyui’s house-arrest and theunwillingness of the junta to put any efforttoward their self-proclaimed Roadmap to De-mocracy. But there was only an informal brief-ing about the recent developments in Burmaand its policies were not too much of a distrac-tion during the summit. Pressing issues on theformal agenda, like developments on the Ko-rean peninsula, terrorism, maritime security andthe threat of bird flu were still discussed. Onlyat the sidelines of the summit and after theevent critical voices against Burma were raised,but have not yet led to an official ASEAN state-ment.

The significant push factor behind the super-ficial shift of the ASEAN policy can be mostlyascribed to the effort of the United States ofAmerica (US), the world’s only superpower, toregain influence in Asia2. President Bush madea journey through Asia in November last yearto strengthen the relationship with its allies,namely Japan, India and some ASEAN States.The reason why the US has tried to get a footback in Asia’s door lies obviously in the role ofChina and its rise as a prospective superpower,


EdkifiHa&; EdkifiHa&; EdkifiHa&; EdkifiHa&; EdkifiHa&;but also in the nation’s primary mission tospread democracy all over the world.

In this context, the case of Burma seems toenjoy a high priority in the US; not for anothermilitary invasion, but for improving their imagein the international community, which has be-come tarnished following the wars in Afghani-stan and Iraq. The White House Administra-tion does not seem to tire of calling Burma oneof six ‘outposts of tyranny’. Recently, at theannual meeting of the Asia Pacific EconomicConference forum in Busan, South Korea, fromNovember 18-19, President Bush urged sevenof the ten ASEAN member states to move onBurma3. In his words, the ASEAN membersshould use their neighbourly influence to pushBurma to democratic reforms.

But, the ASEAN states prefer profiting fromthe US sanctions against Burma instead of ful-filling American desires. The combination ofsanctions and domestic political pressure pre-vent most western companies from doing busi-ness in Burma, which give Asian companies acompetitive edge in this market. Statistics showthat the biggest investors in Burma are compa-nies from Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia,as well as China and India4.

With his effort in Asia Bush could only winthe support of the president of the Philippines.Gloria Macapagal Arroyo supported the moveby the US to bring Burma on the UN SecurityCouncil, which resulted in the first-ever dis-cussion by the body over the Asian country inDecember last year. Malaysia and Indonesia alsospoke out critically against the Burmese juntaand urged them to take concrete steps towardsdemocracy outlined in the junta’s road map5.However, Burma has not been compelled to act.What does it matter, when for example whilecriticizing the junta at the same time the Ma-laysian state oil company Petronas secured rev-enues for the Burmese government by beingrecently granted three more contracts to ex-plore for natural gas in Burma?8 Additionally,the recent visit of the Indonesian Prime Minis-ter Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to Burma aimedthe to deepen bilateral ties between the twocountries rather than addressing the issue ofBurma’s progress towards democracy9. Thequestion is how much weight do political an-nouncements have, when the economy obvi-

ously pulls the strings?

During the 11th, summit ASEAN managed tosecure an invitation from the junta to host anofficial ASEAN delegation in January 2006. Thedelegation, lead by Malaysia’s foreign ministerSyed Hamid Albar, aimed to check the politicalsituation and study the progress of its demo-

cratic reforms10. Syed Albar himself said hisplanned visit did not amount to interference inthe internal affairs of Burma, “it is just to havea good feel of what they are doing”11. How-ever, in early January 2006 the ASEAN delega-tion received a severe blow, when the SPDCpostponed the visit without setting a newdate12. The reason the junta gave was that theyare too busy to host the delegation becausethe country is in the midst of moving govern-ment offices to their new capital Pyinmana.Recently, Syed Albar urged the junta again tolet him visit the country before a ministerialmeeting of the ASEAN States in Bali, Indonesiaon April 17-1813. But the junta made no replyyet.

Over the last months there has been increas-ing international pressure on Burma, led by theUS. There has been plenty of encouraging andpositive news that could make some think thata change might be indicated. A lot of politicalactivity took place around the world, promptedby the worsening situation in Burma, whichmight raise hopes the international communityis finally becoming serious about tackling theproblems of the Asian country. Whether anyactual changes happened, the situation remainsvery much the same. There must be a genuinepolitical will from the neighbouring countries ofBurma about helping the suffering populace.However, as long as economic interests stilldominate the regional and international relationswith Burma, the SPDC will retain a tight gripon power.

Endnotes:1 “Burma’s neighbours eye energy resources, despitepolitical woes”, Agence France Press, January 15, 20062 “Bush visits Asia and challenges China’s growingprofile”, South Asia Analysis Group, Paper no. 1645 “Bush urges ASEAN to move on Burma”, TheIrrawaddy, November 18, 20054 www.dfat.gov.au/geo/fs/burm.pdf, January, 20065 “Indonesia urges Burma to take concrete stepstowards democracy”, Agence France Press, January 6,20066 “Going nowhere”, Time Asia, January 22, 2006,“Three more offshore blocks in Myanmar under gasexploration” Xinhua General News Service, February26, 20067 “Democracy not the Issue as Indonesian leader visitsBurma”, The Irrawaddy, March 1, 20068 “Delegation may visit Burma next month”, NewStraits Times, December 15, 20059 “Malaysia foreign minister says visit to Burma notan interference”, Associated Press, December 16, 200510 “Too busy to host ASEAN envoy this month, saysBurma junta”, Associated Press, January 6, 200611 “Malaysian FM pushes for Burma visit”, AssociatedPress, February 26, 2006


SSSSSOOOOO

CCCCC

IIIII

AAAAA

LLLLL

IIIIISSSSS

SSSSS

UUUUU

EEEEE

SSSSS


In August 2005, the Thai Cabinet approved aresolution under the auspicious name “Edu

cation for All”. The aim of this new law was toallow all children in Thailand equal access to edu-cational opportunities, including migrant children,who were previously deprived of this right.

A long battle by advocacy groups led tothis shift of policy at the Ministry of Education (MoE). Now that the legal ground is opento new perspectives, how this new law will beimplemented remains the key challenge.

For more than two decades, Thailand has hostedmillions of migrant workers, accompanied by theirchildren. Many have come from Burma but alsoCambodia and Laos. Until last August, these chil-dren were not legally entitled to attend Thai pub-lic schools. On occasion, if the teacher was will-ing to accept the children and the migrant familycould afford it, children could attend classes, butwith little hope of getting a Thai certificate indi-cating their level of education, an essential docu-ment to pursue further study.

Today, the number of Burmese migrants in Thai-land is an estimated 1.5 million, including thou-sands of children. Displaced Burmese people andtheir families flee to Thailand in search of safety,but large numbers also come for reasons such aspoverty, limited employment opportunities and loweducation standards in their homeland. UNICEFreports indicate that in Burma almost 38 per centof children between the ages of five and nine donot enrol in school and almost 75 per cent ofstudents fail to complete secondary school. It isreported that the Burmese government spends lessthan $0.28 per child in public education peryear. Low family incomes mean children are oftenpressured into joining the workforce or even intobecoming child soldiers.

The situation in Burma’s ethnic States is evenmore alarming. According to statistics from theAll Burma Federation of Student Unions Year 2004Education Reportt, only 1.6 per cent of the eth-nic population attends school, while 32.7 per centof ethnic people are school aged. Also years ofdiscriminatory policies have led to the banning ofteaching ethnic languages even as a second lan-guage, affecting millions of ethnic children whoare now unable to master their native language.Under the UN Convention on the Rights of theChild (1989), it is recognised that all children,regardless of their ethnic background, have a uni-versal right to education. Ironically, Burma rati-fied this Convention in 1991 and, therefore, is

bound by the provision it contains.

Given the above it is easy to understand why somany families finally decide to leave their homecountry behind, with the lure of better educationopportunities in Thailand.

Under the UN Convention on the Rights of theChild, to which Thailand is signatory, migrant chil-dren from Burma and children born stateless1 inthe kingdom should share the same rights to edu-cation as Thai children. The fact that Thailand hasfinally amended its national law to conform withthis international principle means that the freedomof equal access to quality education, that childrenfrom Burma have longed for, seems an achievabledream in Thailand. According to the “Educationfor All” Act, Burmese migrant children as well asthose from other countries can now access theThai education system and should be given a cer-tificate at the end of their studies.

Apart from opening a great door of opportunityto migrant children, this new policy is also an en-couraging step forward for all groups involved inproviding and/or supporting education for migrantcommunities. But, for now, the reality of imple-menting such reforms shows a more complex pan-orama. Indeed, half a year after the law was ap-proved, it is still very difficult for Burmese migrantchildren to attend Thai public schools. Various fac-tors still prevent many from doing so. Above all,the price for a child to attend Thai school is veryexpensive for a migrant family. According to NawPaw Ray, Chairwoman of the Burmese MigrantWorker Ethnic Committee (BMWEC), a migrant net-work gathering 20 schools in the Mae Sot area, itcosts nearly 3,000 Baht (US$76) for a family tobuy all the uniforms needed for just one child peryear, plus additional expenses for transportation,books and food. This represents a massive sum ofmoney for most migrant families, who earn an av-erage of 1,500-2,000 Baht a month per person,especially when the child who is attending schoolwill have limited opportunity to contribute to thealready low family income.

But cost is not the only barrier. Indeed the edu-cation you want for your children does not onlydepend on the price you are willing to pay or whatyou can actually afford. It is also a question ofcultural and philosophical matters: What is the cur-riculum you want your children to learn, in whichlanguage, under which guiding principles and cul-tural approach? These factors are deeply rooted inthe true meaning of “education”. The school envi-ronment and the curriculum that children partici-

PPPPPROMISINGROMISINGROMISINGROMISINGROMISING “E “E “E “E “EDUCADUCADUCADUCADUCATIONTIONTIONTIONTION FORFORFORFORFOR A A A A ALLLLLLLLLL” ” ” ” ” INININININ T T T T THAILANDHAILANDHAILANDHAILANDHAILAND:::::WWWWWHAHAHAHAHATTTTT AREAREAREAREARE THETHETHETHETHE T T T T TRUERUERUERUERUE B B B B BENEFITSENEFITSENEFITSENEFITSENEFITS FORFORFORFORFOR M M M M MIGRANTIGRANTIGRANTIGRANTIGRANT C C C C CHILDRENHILDRENHILDRENHILDRENHILDREN BEHINDBEHINDBEHINDBEHINDBEHIND THISTHISTHISTHISTHIS NEWNEWNEWNEWNEW POLICYPOLICYPOLICYPOLICYPOLICY

BBBBBYYYYY C.G C.G C.G C.G C.GUINARDUINARDUINARDUINARDUINARD


vlr_a&;vlr_a&;vlr_a&;vlr_a&;vlr_a&;pate in contribute greatly to their developmentand future role in society.

On the Thai-Burma border, near the town ofMae Sot, Tak province, Thai schools do not teachany Burmese or Karen language in their curricu-lum. That’s not to say all schools are unwilling todo so, but a lack of proper funds to adapt thecurriculum has undermined initiatives taken bydynamic local education officials and school di-rectors to include Burmese or ethnic languagesinto the Thai curriculum.

It is also true that migrant parents usually prefertheir children to be formally taught Burmese cul-ture and language. Indeed, Burmese children areoften behind in their studies compared to similaraged Thai students, and it is particularly challeng-ing for these children to study a new curriculumin a language that they have not yet mastered.They often also lack confidence and motivationas there is still, in many cases, no formal recogni-tion of their achievements. Despite the new policy,Thai schools are still reluctant to deliver Thai cer-tificates to migrant children.

Another undermining factor is the challengingliving conditions of illegal migrant communitieswho deal continuously with the fear of arrest anddeportation. They are restricted in their move-ments, further isolating them. Consequently, peopleare afraid to send their children to Thai schools.Naw Paw Ray from BMWEC explains “because ofthe low level of communication between Thaischools and migrant communities which has beenreinforced over the year by the lack of consistentgovernment policy, many parents don’t even knowthat their children are now allowed to attend Thaischool.”Until all these concerns and constraintsare fully addressed, it is improbable that suddenlya high number of Burmese children will apply toattend Thai schools, despite this positive newpolicy. Indeed, a high number of Burmese migrantchildren still prefer to attend migrant schools,which are not part of the official Thai Educationsystem, when accessible. There are approximately100,000 Burmese migrant workers and familiesliving in Mae Sot and Pophra District, Tak Prov-ince. In the 2005-2006 academic year about 5000children were enrolled in 43 Burmese migrantschools with 350 teachers.

A research study by the National Health Educa-tion Committee, revealed that in 2004 there wereabout 10,000 children of illegal migrant workersin and around the Mae Sot area. Among thesechildren 40 per cent did not attend any school, 5per cent had the opportunity to attend Thai schoolsand 55 per cent attended illegal migrant schools.Naw Paw Ray is in charge of 20 of these schools.Despite the hardships of overcrowded classes, il-legal status and constant financial difficulties, sheremains optimistic about the future education of

her people, at least in the Mae Sot area. “I’mconfident that if we find more support we will beable to reach the children who do not attend anyschool”. In migrant schools, children learn in theirnative language and in many cases follow the Bur-mese educational curriculum with additional coursessuch as Thai language and computer skills.

The major drawback is that after finally complet-ing high school, these young graduates do nothave any prospect to attend university, as theireducation is not officially recognised by the MoEin Thailand. With no identification papers and noeducation certificate, hopes for a better future aresuddenly dashed.

To overcome this frustrating stalemate, the solu-tion would be to legalise migrant schools as non-formal education providers authorized to deliverrecognised certificate. Indeed, the MoE is now look-ing at ways to register these migrant schools as“Learning Centres”. In consultation with migrantschools and international organisations, the MoEhas drafted some guidelines explaining the stepsthat migrant schools need to follow to fall underMoE jurisdiction. This would then provide theschool with recognized status inside Thailand andthe capacity to deliver certificates to its students.The MoE is currently finalising this proposal be-fore submitting it to the Cabinet for approval.

The “Education for All” Act and the likely forth-coming registration of migrant schools as “Learn-ing Centres”, launched by the MoE in the pastmonths, are truly encouraging initiatives. Howeverto make the most of these new opportunities, muchmore needs to be done. Bangkok must allocateadditional funds to educational district offices forbetter curriculum development and policy strategyimplementation. Adequate financial support mustalso be provided to Thai schools to ensure theyare able to cope with the higher running costsassociated with the influx of migrant children tothe schools.

More effort must be put into developing collabo-ration and trust between migrant schools, Thaischools and education district officials at the locallevel. Without a doubt, the registration of migrantschools as legal learning centres will be the firstsymbolic and constructive step. Let’s hope thatno petty internal fighting among some of the deci-sion-makers at the MoE will affect the future ofthese ambitious educational reforms, the sole ben-eficiaries of which are children.

Endnotes:1 According to the Nationality Act of 1965 (amended in1992), even though Burmese displaced children are bornon Thai soil, they are not granted Thai citizenship.Sources: Burma Lawyer Council and Refugee International

BURMA ISSUESPO BOX 1076SILOM POST OFFICEBANGKOK 10504THAILAND

ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED PRINTED MATERIALS AIRMAIL

news briefRed Cross vis its stopped:

Burma’s military junta has sus-pended visits by the InternationalCommittee of the Red Cross to 90prisons and labour camps acrossthe country, a spokesperson for thehumanitarian agency said.

The military government has notgiven any specific reasons for thetermination of the ICRC prison vis-its, which had been going on since1999, the Red Cross spokesper-son said.

The spokesperson said theICRC’s ability to operate had be-come more difficult since the purgeof Prime Minister Khin Nyunt, withthe junta imposing unworkable con-ditions on the agency.

ASEAN parliamentarians urge re-lease of Suu Kyi: Southeast Asianparliamentarians have urged gov-ernments of the ASEAN to expelBurma from the regional groupingunless it frees opposition leaderAung San Suu Kyi and other politi-cal prisoners, a Thai senator said.

The ASEAN Parliament called on

the military junta to keep its prom-ises made four years ago to releasethe leader of the National Leaguefor Democracy.

Despite international pressure,Burma has shown no sign of free-ing Aung San Suu Kyi and otherpolitical prisoners.

China makes a small stance: Chinasignalled to visiting Burmese PrimeMinister Soe Win that Burma couldcontinue to depend on China but itneeded to reform its economy andrelax political repression.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao saidafter meeting Soe Win: “AsMyanmar’s neighbouring country,China sincerely hopes Myanmarcan continue to push forward rec-onciliation at home and realise eco-nomic development and socialprogress.”

Apparently Beijing wants Burma’smilitary rulers to do more to ac-commodate Aung San Suu Kyi andspeed up the country’s growth.

China withheld its veto to permit

a discussion of Burma at an in-formal meeting ofthe UN SecurityCouncil last December.

NLD proposes military as interimgovernment: The National Leaguefor Democracy offered for thefirst time to publicly legitimise themilitary junta as interim govern-ment in exchange for reconcilia-tion.

The terms of the interim gov-ernment will be negotiated by bothsides and a new government willcome to power after an election.

Burma watchers and exiled ac-tivists welcomed the NLD’s state-ment but hold dim hope for re-sponse of the military junta.

Democratic Party for a New So-ciety President Aung Moe Zawwas surprised by the statement.

“As you know, many observersand some democracy activistsaccused the National League forDemocracy as stubborn. I believethis statement shall overcome thisaccusation,” he said.

Indian Burmese

Documents

Transcript of Indian Burmese