2020 Statelessness & Citizenship Review C 2(2) Administrative Violence The Burma Citizenship Law 1982 clearly facilitates administrative violence by denying a right to an effective remedy. Its provisions prevent the judicial review of administrative decisions (the decisions of the Council of Ministers on matters concerning the Burma Citizenship Law 1982 are final). 60 In addition, s 71 specifically states that: ‘no reasons need to be given by organisations invested with authority under this law in matters carried under this law’. 61 No reasons are hence needed to justify the acts of the administration concerning citizenship. The use of administrative violence to disenfranchise internal minorities is best exemplified by the recent persecution of the Rohingya. The Rohingya are an ethnic group present in Rakhine State and across the border into Bangladesh. They have their own language and culture. 62 Their existence as a group is contested by Bamar Nationalists, who consider them illegal Bengali migrants from Bangladesh and hence ‘non-native’. 63 There have certainly been migratory movements between present-day Bangladesh and Myanmar, however this does not imply that the Rohingya are any less ‘native’ than other groups in the country (which also have complex histories of migration, demographics and self-identification). As for many other groups in Myanmar, the delineation of political borders has come after their own population movements and can hardly be used as an argument against their political participation or recognition as citizens. Rakhine State itself is a highly diverse territory, inhabited by large groups such as the Rakhine and smaller minorities (Mro, Thet, Khami, Daingnet and Marmagyi). 64 The majority of Rohingya are Muslim and, as their Buddhist ethnic Rakhine neighbours, suffer the consequences of poverty and conflict in one of the least developed states of Myanmar. During the 1970’s, the group was used as a scapegoat by the military regime in order to gain legitimacy by mobilising the masses against an alleged threat to the nation. 65 The Rohingya are a textbook example of John Higham’s definition of the ‘other’. They have been presented as an internal minority with foreign connections seen as rapidly growing demographically up to the present. Official authorities put the blame on the British colonial regime. 66 Hence, a Union Minister stated before the United Nations General Assembly in 2019, ‘as in other colonised territories across the world, our local population had no say whatsoever with regard to the seismic demographic transformation of their land’ (a narrative that resonates with the MoLIP motto mentioned earlier). 67 Evidence of such a massive influx of migrants before and after independence is subject to debate, often inconclusive. From a legal standpoint, it could be argued that between 1948 and 1982, Rohingya were considered citizens. In terms of civil documentation and similarly to the rest of the population in Myanmar, the majority of Rohingya did not have the official proof of citizenship at the time — the Union Citizenship Certificates 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Burma Citizenship Law 1982 (n 18) s 70(b). ibid s 71. Mikael Gravers, Exploring Ethnic Diversity in Burma (Nordic Institute of Asian Studies 2007) X. ibid. Ashley South and Marie Lall, Citizenship in Myanmar (ISEAS-Yusof-Ishak Institute 2018). Smith (n 27) 40. ibid 54. Derek Tonkin, ‘Migration from Bengal to Arakan During British Rule, 1826–1948’ [2019] Occasional Paper Series 26. 204