264 Southwick disloyalty to the State by any act or speech or otherwise’ or communicating with an organisation which is ‘hostile to the State.’6 Under these broad terms, conceivably a person could lose his citizenship by alleging abuses committed by the state. The law does not allow for dual citizenship7 and an individual whose associate citizenship has ceased or has been revoked cannot reapply for citizenship.8 Moreover, an associate or naturalized citizen ‘who leaves the State permanently’ loses his citizenship.9 Under such terms, it is unclear whether individuals who have fled the country and lived abroad for many years would be eligible for citizenship. In a speech given at the time the 1982 law was passed, General Ne Win suggested that the purpose of the law was conciliatory, stating that: We are, in reality, not in a position to drive away all those people who had come at different times for different reasons from different lands. We must have sympathy on those who had been here for such a long time and give them peace of mind, (…) [for] they would be in great trouble with nowhere to go because they have lost contact with their native places.10 While referring to the ethnic Burmese as ‘true citizens,’ he envisioned that over time, the grandchildren of associate and naturalized citizens would become ‘full citizens’. Then, in his words, ‘there will be only one type of citizen’.11 The number of Rohingya that have acquired citizenship under the 1982 law is unknown and thought to be very limited. Most Rohingya are either unaware of the law’s requirements or, as a result of poverty or loss and destruction of documents through displacement, are unable to provide the evidence required for associate or naturalized citizenship.12 Moreover, most Rohingya abroad have no path to citizenship in the countries in which they live. Most Rohingya are therefore stateless. However, some Rohingya received temporary 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ibid Arts. 35 and 58. Ibid Art. 13. Ibid Art. 41. Ibid Arts. 34 and 57. Translation of Speech by General Ne Win Provided in The Working People’s Daily (9 October 1982). Ibid. See Benjamin Zawacki, ‘Defining Myanmar’s “Rohingya Problem’” (2013) 20 Hum. Rts. Br. 18 (stating that the citizenship law’s provisions require ‘an awareness of the law that few Rohingya possess and a level of proof that even fewer are able to provide’). tilburg law review 19 (2014) 261-275