Washington Post condemns Thai treatment of Rohingya

[simple1]

Thailand and Burma are some of the first countries who are saying that do not want muslims in their country. It seems like wherever these people go , problems crop up. They seem to want every body around them to act as if they are muslim. There was a story I read where in London, the owner of a cafe was being asked to not cook bacon as it could be smelled on the street. The stores ventilation, vented the fumes outside and someone was offended. This group wants to have the freedoms that come with living in a non muslim country while still living the lifestyle of the old country. Unfortunately, Britain has become so politically correct, that this store owner will most probably lose this battle.

If the Thai navy pushed this boatload out to sea with no fuel or water, to me, that amounts to murder and those in command should be held accountable. If these people are not wanted in Thailand, and that is Thailand's right, then they should be held in some sort of a detention center until a country can be found. The problem here is what to do with them when no country wants them?

At some point the world is going to have to wake up to the fact that these people, Muslims, do not tend to interact well with others. I am not talking about the radical group but the everyday person. For them it seems it is their way or the door.

Wake up folks, this problem will only get worse with time.

Many of the Muslims living in todays' Burmese territory do so as an outcome of the British changing the borders; they were not given a choice. In 1982 the Burmese Junta rescinded Rohingya Burmese citizenship, as well as many other repressive actions such as restricting freedom of movement, access to education, requiring permission to marry and so on. Therefore not surprising Rohingya seek a better life elsewhere.

Muslims have been living within today's Thai borders for centuries and are guaranteed freedom of religion, equal rights etc by the Thai Constitution. The Royal Family are strong supporters of Thai Muslims. A few examples being funding translation of the Koran into Thai as well as funding schools for Muslims in the deep South. Some Thai Muslims have reached the pinnacle of Thai society such as the current national head of the RTP and not so long ago the Commander in Chief of the Thai Armed Forces. In summary your allegation concerning Thailand is incorrect.

When living in Australia neighbours complained about the smell of my wife’s Thai cooking and requested she cease; you can guess my response. Every few months or so she was exposed to racial vilification, in public, by white Australians; there are bigots and arsexxxxs in every society, including some TV members.

Edited May 17, 2014 by simple1

[Thaiready]

Why do they have to come to Thailand to seek sanctuary, surely the nearest safe haven for the Rohingya is Bangladesh -populated by their ethnic and religious brethren. Why don't they go there - assuming that they are genuine refugees and not economic migrants? just wondering....

This is one of the most disgusting posts I have read anywhere.

I suppose all the sex slaves are to blame too.

you dont like an honest post..there in lies your problem....

Blaming the victims is hardly a reference of character.

Using the same logic, it was the Jews fault for the acts of the Nazis, Black people for slavery

If Black people were fleeing Africa to the US back in the slave days, knowing how they would likely be treated, then yes I would put some of the responsibility on them. Not much different than somebody who chooses to take a loan from a loan shark and gets beat when they don't make their payments. I think that is the point being made. While nobody deserves inhumane treatment, the story should be told more honestly because MANY of these people are headed for Thailand for work purposes and not just passing by Thailand to reach a safe religious haven.

It might put things more in context with Mexicans crossing illegally into the US and how they are treated by many border cities and people... in other words would make it a little bit harder for The Post to be casting stones outside their own backyard.

Especially since the minimum wage was raised in Thailand you will be hard pressed not to find folks from Burma and neighboring countries working here in most and retail outlet and restaurants or hotels.

I honestly don't know but would guess the majority of these folks are simply looking for a better life economically and for way to send money back home to their families and not people fleeing unjust persecution.

So can we call these people "WET BACKS" also

[catweazle]

The Washington Post article in question is about a situation in Thailand. The Washington Post editorializes on a wide range of issues, including of course domestic issues. The Washington Post is not a U.S. government organ. It is independent. There is no American Putin in Washington that controls all the press. This topic is not about the United States just because the editorial comes from there. Therefore, anti-American rants are certainly NOT called for on this particular thread.

Keep on dreaming - you thing that in the US there is something like a free press? Mainstream media worldwide is controlled by large corporations and super rich influencial people. Putin is the only one showing the US of A the finger, and I love him for that!

[Tywais]

Flame and reply to it removed.

[Gonzo the Face]

The Washington Post article in question is about a situation in Thailand. The Washington Post editorializes on a wide range of issues, including of course domestic issues. The Washington Post is not a U.S. government organ. It is independent. There is no American Putin in Washington that controls all the press. This topic is not about the United States just because the editorial comes from there. Therefore, anti-American rants are certainly NOT called for on this particular thread.

Keep on dreaming - you thing that in the US there is something like a free press? Mainstream media worldwide is controlled by large corporations and super rich influencial people. Putin is the only one showing the US of A the finger, and I love him for that!

Me doth think that you are just spouting your own anti-American venom. This thread is not about your personal likes or dislikes or feelings regarding America or Americans, This post is about the Rohingya and human trafficking possibly happening in Thailand..... You forgot to even mention that in your personal rant. Stick to the topic please.

[american12bthai]

Why do they have to come to Thailand to seek sanctuary, surely the nearest safe haven for the Rohingya is Bangladesh -populated by their ethnic and religious brethren. Why don't they go there - assuming that they are genuine refugees and not economic migrants? just wondering....

The more pertinent question is: why is Thailand is in denial over this?

lol. hurro, nobody loses face here. its the falangs reporters fault. he exposed a spot for them to migrate. now everybody is doing it. I havent seen a problem and im down town Bkk every day. You can ask anyone here if they have a problem with Rohingya people and i guarantee you they all say "no". there for your comment is in-valid. and makes no sense.

( Thai logic. )

[american12bthai]

The Washington Post article in question is about a situation in Thailand. The Washington Post editorializes on a wide range of issues, including of course domestic issues. The Washington Post is not a U.S. government organ. It is independent. There is no American Putin in Washington that controls all the press. This topic is not about the United States just because the editorial comes from there. Therefore, anti-American rants are certainly NOT called for on this particular thread.

Keep on dreaming - you thing that in the US there is something like a free press? Mainstream media worldwide is controlled by large corporations and super rich influencial people. Putin is the only one showing the US of A the finger, and I love him for that!

Me doth think that you are just spouting your own anti-American venom. This thread is not about your personal likes or dislikes or feelings regarding America or Americans, This post is about the Rohingya and human trafficking possibly happening in Thailand..... You forgot to even mention that in your personal rant. Stick to the topic please.

yeah. stay on topic. EMERICA!! EMERICA!

[aussieinthailand]

Why do they have to come to Thailand to seek sanctuary, surely the nearest safe haven for the Rohingya is Bangladesh -populated by their ethnic and religious brethren. Why don't they go there - assuming that they are genuine refugees and not economic migrants? just wondering....

This is one of the most disgusting posts I have read anywhere.

I suppose all the sex slaves are to blame too.

Unfortunatly TimCM,

millwall_fan, is ignorant as to the fact's regarding the Rohingya people, thus the comment, but hey ignorance is no excuse is it.

Go the Hawks

[sumtingwong]

The Rohingya people are getting what they were giving. Karma is a wonderful thing.

[DeepInTheForest]

Why do they have to come to Thailand to seek sanctuary, surely the nearest safe haven for the Rohingya is Bangladesh -populated by their ethnic and religious brethren. Why don't they go there - assuming that they are genuine refugees and not economic migrants? just wondering....

Google search, despite its odious corporate underpinnings, can be a wonderful tool...

It is clear that Bangladesh will not welcome Rohingya refugees, having absorbed well over a million in previous years by some accounts, and that those who are in camps there are in a perilous and endangered state. Bangladesh is of course a poor country with virtually no resources for refugee treatment and resettlement. What most Rohingya want is to be able to go back to their home in Burma, with some kind of assurance of safety.

Excerptsd from news agencies follow below.

13 June 2012 (IRIN) - Bangladesh says it will not accept any Rohingya refugees fleeing a new spate of ethnic violence in neighbouring Myanmar’s western Rakhine State.

"We are not interested in more people coming to Bangladesh," Foreign Minister Dipu Moni told an impromptu press briefing at her office, noting that Bangladesh is already a densely populated country and cannot a afford a fresh influx.

Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya have fled persecution in Myanmar over the past three decades, the vast majority to Bangladesh in the 1990s.

more here: http://www.irinnews.org/report/95634/bangladesh-closing-the-door-on-rohingya

In Bangladesh, the Rohingyas are faced with hardly any protection from their host country. A burden to the densely populated country, the Rohingyas are living a harsh life in refugee camps, struggling from malnourishment, isolation, illiteracy and neglect. There is one registered camp situated meters away from the unregistered camp where 90,000 refugees live. There is also another camp 15 miles away in Leda Bazaar, where approximately 25,000 Rohingya live.

Similar to the Rohingyas living in Burma, the Rohingya refugees are limited in their movement and often subject to exploitation. In refugee camps, the Rohingya women are victims of sexual violence, children are denied education and there is limited access to health and medical aid. The hostile environment for Rohingyas in Bangladesh urges the refugees in Bangladesh and Burma to seek help in other parts of Asia such as Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia; however, these parts are not usually welcoming or like Bangladesh, do not have the resources to house another community. It is Burma's duty to accept the Rohingya as citizens, accept their history and ensure the safe repatriation of each and every single member of the community back into Arakan. Although safer then being persecuted and killed in Burma, the Rohingya community in Bangladesh are a stateless community who want to return to Arakan when it is safe to call it home.

more here: http://www.restlessbeings.org/projects/rohingya

Does that answer your question?

Edited May 17, 2014 by DeepInTheForest

[DeepInTheForest]

The Rohingya people are getting what they were giving. Karma is a wonderful thing.

If you're serious about this karma business, you may want to think a little more about it...

[ATF]

Why do they have to come to Thailand to seek sanctuary, surely the nearest safe haven for the Rohingya is Bangladesh -populated by their ethnic and religious brethren. Why don't they go there - assuming that they are genuine refugees and not economic migrants? just wondering....

Because that's where they came from and Bangla is a massive craphole. 100,000's Banglas have been pouring into Burma for years. Congrats to the Ethnic Cleansing Monks great job. Keep it up.

[simple1]

Why do they have to come to Thailand to seek sanctuary, surely the nearest safe haven for the Rohingya is Bangladesh -populated by their ethnic and religious brethren. Why don't they go there - assuming that they are genuine refugees and not economic migrants? just wondering....

Because that's where they came from and Bangla is a massive craphole. 100,000's Banglas have been pouring into Burma for years. Congrats to the Ethnic Cleansing Monks great job. Keep it up.

The flow is the other way and as you know are usually detained by Banglasdeshi authorities. In anycase please explain why Bangladeshi Muslims would wish to enter Burma where they are ostracised / oppressed with a worse standard of living for them than in Bangladesh, please point to your creditable source of information.

Congratulating crimes against humanity is the height of inhumanity

Edited May 17, 2014 by simple1

[craigt3365]

Several posts have been removed from view, along with some appropriate replies. Apologies to the members with the replies.

Please stick to the topic. Condemnation of religious groups is not welcomed on this forum.

[issanaus]

Before you all go crying to get these factual posts removed read this first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_rebellion_in_Western_Burma

Proves Rohingya Muslims were and are Muslim insurgents.

And before you start talking about Aung San Suu Kyi the real reason her election was disallowed by the Burmese Military is because her party had been infiltrated by communists. She was just a patsy for China. But you won't know that unless you visit Burma.

The reason why the military rejected the election was because they wanted to hold on to power and the economic advantages that the military coup had given them.

BTW I have visited Burma - I was born there and witnessed the Military takeover and what has happened since.

[Stradavarius37]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Why do they have to come to Thailand to seek sanctuary, surely the nearest safe haven for the Rohingya is Bangladesh -populated by their ethnic and religious brethren. Why don't they go there - assuming that they are genuine refugees and not economic migrants? just wondering....

This is one of the most disgusting posts I have read anywhere.

I suppose all the sex slaves are to blame too.

Lighten up Tim, you'll live longer.

[ATF]

Before you all go crying to get these factual posts removed read this first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_rebellion_in_Western_Burma

Proves Rohingya Muslims were and are Muslim insurgents.

And before you start talking about Aung San Suu Kyi the real reason her election was disallowed by the Burmese Military is because her party had been infiltrated by communists. She was just a patsy for China. But you won't know that unless you visit Burma.

The reason why the military rejected the election was because they wanted to hold on to power and the economic advantages that the military coup had given them.

BTW I have visited Burma - I was born there and witnessed the Military takeover and what has happened since.

Well please give us all an unbiased view of what is going on.

[issanaus]

Before you all go crying to get these factual posts removed read this first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_rebellion_in_Western_Burma

Proves Rohingya Muslims were and are Muslim insurgents.

And before you start talking about Aung San Suu Kyi the real reason her election was disallowed by the Burmese Military is because her party had been infiltrated by communists. She was just a patsy for China. But you won't know that unless you visit Burma.

The reason why the military rejected the election was because they wanted to hold on to power and the economic advantages that the military coup had given them.

BTW I have visited Burma - I was born there and witnessed the Military takeover and what has happened since.

Well please give us all an unbiased view of what is going on.

The military who still control the levers of power in Burma see the Rohingya as a useful political tool. When the Military takeover occurred the used the mantra of Burma for the Burmese. "Burma" did not exist before the British - essentially you had the Burman and Mon Kingdoms, the wars between them and then the involvement of the British and French. At times in history the Burmans had controlled all of the land west almost as far as Dacca (so at that time all Rohingya were "Burmeses". At the time of independence most Rohingya lived in Burma either because their families were there before colonisation or had moved there during the time of British rule.

Military rule saw mass forced expulsions of Anglos, Hindu and Muslim people with military families grabbing all of their assets. Since that time there has been a increase of the number of Muslims due to higher birth rates. There was also an increase in the population of Rohingya due to migration of parts of families that were split between the two countries - this accounts for very few of the Rohingys people in Burma but is used as an excuse against the whole population.

The insecurity of the ethnic Arakanesses people who are outnumber about 4 to 1 was exploited by the "Monk" who just prior to the major outbreaks of community violence that he promoted had meetings with some of the major military power brokers. Many of the Rohingya were economical successful with holding in land and business (which is why they are not economic migrants). The envy that this caused was reinforced by the preference of these business to employ Rohingya people in preference to ethnic Arakanese people.

In a lot of cases the relationship were good, but as always the negative ones stand out and are exploited for political purposes. An illustration of the trust and respect in many of the communities is show by the Rohingya villages seeking and been give protection in Buddhist monasteries.

In fear of their lives and with businesses and livelihood destroyed many have fled to Bangladesh where they have been subject to the mistreatment that such people endure through the world. Seeking a life and to escape percussion in Burma and Bangladesh many fell victim to people smugglers who are mainly Bangladeshi Muslims. They are deliberately stranded in Thailand (having expected to go to Malaysia) and the families back in Burma and Bangladesh are made to pay ransom for their release. Those that can not pay the additional money are sold to work on Thai fishing boat ...

[ATF]

Issanus, thank you for your report which clarifies that the Rohingya people are allowed to own land so they must have citizenship. It has been said that these were denied to the Rohingya by the Burmese Government. Secondly the Rohingya burnt down and destroyed over 19 Buddhist Temples prior to their "persecution".

You say that the Muslim population has dramatically increased, I believe this has been a result of Bangladeshis entering Burma together with an increase in the natural population. Bangladeshis are also passing themselves off as Burmese or Rohingya. Would you agree this is true?

[simple1]

For those interested, a history of the Rohingya is provided at the URL below; is the info disputed by any readers?

http://csis.org/publication/separating-fact-fiction-about-myanmars-rohingya

Concerning the Myanmar government providing citizenship, a quote from an article below dated 21/11/2013.

Burma’s government has rejected calls by the United Nations General Assembly’s human rights committee to grant the stateless Rohingyas citizenship rights, with government officials saying the country does not recognize the existence of “a Rohingya minority.”

http://www.irrawaddy.org/un/govt-rejects-un-calls-rohingya-citizenship.html

[issanaus]

Issanus, thank you for your report which clarifies that the Rohingya people are allowed to own land so they must have citizenship. It has been said that these were denied to the Rohingya by the Burmese Government. Secondly the Rohingya burnt down and destroyed over 19 Buddhist Temples prior to their "persecution".

You say that the Muslim population has dramatically increased, I believe this has been a result of Bangladeshis entering Burma together with an increase in the natural population. Bangladeshis are also passing themselves off as Burmese or Rohingya. Would you agree this is true?

They were citizens of The Federation of Burma and later the Union of Burma at the time of independence and therfor they had the right to acquire property. These rights were taken away from them by changes to the citizenship laws. This happened to many other individual people - but in the case of the Rohingya it applied to a whole population for the purpose of ethnic cleansing.

You are incorrect about the Temples simply because the Rohingya people have been persecuted by the Military government for decades. As a Buddhist I would say that it was (so called) Buddhist that started the recent community violence. Buddhists have burnt far more mosques than Muslims have burnt temples. Reports of violence by Buddhist were rarely reported or acted upon. Acts of violence by Muslims were all ways reported and acted upon by the police.

I would doubt that many Bangladeshis pass themselves off as Rohinyga for lots of reasons - I suspect that if anything it would be the other way around.

[DeepInTheForest]

issanaus:

The military who still control the levers of power in Burma see the Rohingya as a useful political tool....

simple1:

For those interested, a history of the Rohingya is provided at the URL below; is the info disputed by any readers?

http://csis.org/publication/separating-fact-fiction-about-myanmars-rohingya

issanaus:

They were citizens of The Federation of Burma and later the Union of Burma at the time of independence and therfor they had the right to acquire property....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kudos to issanaus and simple1 for their posts above-- rare examples of thoughtful responses on this site. The csis.org link provided by simple1 above is worth a look.

Edited May 19, 2014 by DeepInTheForest