ne win's speech oct-1982-citizenship law

7/29/2019 Ne Win's Speech Oct-1982-Citizenship Law

1/5

Meeting held in the Central Meeting Hall, President House, Ahlone

Road, 8 October 1982.

Translation of the speech by General Ne Winprovided in The Working Peoples Daily, 9 October 1982

"Comrade Central Committee members:

What I am going to speak today is aboutan important law, the Burmese CitizenshipLaw. if this law must be explained, whathas happened in the past must necessarilybe recalled. I have no desire to hurtanybody in recounting this recent history.

However, the truth might perhaps hurtsomebody sometimes. but I do not wish tohurt anyone and I will try not to do so.

I would like first to explain about conditionsthat prevailed in Burma as a subjectnation. After a part of Burma had beenannexed by foreigners in 1824, one warafter another was fought and the whole ofour country subsequently became asubject nation. After becoming a subject

country, we officially regainedindependence on 4 January 1948, as isknown to all. During the period between1824 and the time we regainedindependence in January 1948, foreigners,or aliens, entered our country un-hinderedunder various pretexts. They came to livein Burma and mainly for economicreasons. The first to come were theEnglish who ruled our country. After themcame many of their camp followers. Let us

say only that much.

We, the natives or Burmese nationals,were unable to shape our own destiny. Wewere subjected to the manipulations ofothers from 1824 to 4 January 1948. Letus now look back at the conditions thatprevailed at the time we regainedindependence on 4 January 1948. We thenfind that the people in our countrycomprised true nationals, guests, issuesfrom unions between nationals and guestsor mixed bloods, and issues from unionsbetween guests and guests. So at the timeof independence there were not only true

nationals, but also guests, issues of unionsbetween nationals and guests, and issuesfrom unions between guests and guests.This became a problem after independence. The problem was how toclarify the position of guests and mixedbloods. When the problem was tackled,two laws emerged.

The Union Citizenship Act, 1948. This Actwas promulgated on 4 January 1948, asAct No. 66. The Second Act was the UnionCitizenship (Election) Act, 1948. This Actwas promulgated on 3 May 1948, as ActNo. 26. The aim of the first Act was first todefine citizens and their rights. The Aim ofthe Union Citizenship (Election) Act was tosolve the problem of immigrants I hadmentioned. These people were already in

Burma when we regained independenceand they were to elect for Burmesecitizenship if they so desired. They were toapply for it. Not that citizenship was to begranted without limitation. Certainqualifications were to be fulfilled. For thispurpose the Act was promulgated.

I would like to explain certain significantpoints of this Act. Section 5 of theCitizenship Act provides that persons born

after the Constitution had come into forcewere to be citizens of Burma (a) if born inthe Union of Burma of parents one ofwhom is a Union citizen: where the fatheris a citizen of a foreign country, that personis to make a declaration within one yearafter reaching the age of majority that herenounced the foreign citizenship andelected to remain as a Union citizen. If heor she did not make such a declaration heor she cease to be a Union citizen at theend of that year; (b) if born outside of theUnion of Burma of a Union Citizen fatherbut had registered his birth in theprescribed manner and within the


2/5

prescribed period at a respectiveConsulate of the Union; (c) born outside ofthe Union of Burma of a parent serving asa Government servant: where one of theparents is a foreigner he or she is to make

a declaration within one year of havingattained the age of majority renouncingforeign citizenship and electing to remain aUnion citizen. If he or she failed to do sohe or she is to cease to be a Union citizenat the end of that year.

I have singled out this matter because ourblood is involved -our citizen, our national,is involved either as father or mother. Heor she having married a foreigner had an

issue. That issue has the duty within oneyear on attaining the age of majority, tomake a declaration renouncing foreigncitizenship and electing to remain a citizenof ours. It is as if even a person of ourblood must do this. This Act waspromulgated as a matter of course. Shoulda person of mixed blood forget to electBurmese citizenship as required by lawbefore authorities concerned he or sheautomatically loses citizenship oncompletion of 19 years of age. That is onepoint.

Section 7 of the same Act states: (i) Aforeigner may apply for citizenshipcertificate giving the following reasons. Ifthe reasons are acceptable to the Ministera citizenship certificate may be issued tohim. (a) Has completed the age of 18years; (b) has lived continuously for not

less than five years within the Union underthe authority of the Union prior tosubmitting the application... I will read outonly the relevant portion. There are manymore points. What is meant here is that aforeigner who (a) had completed the age of18, (b) had lived continuously for at leastfive years in the Union under the authorityof the Union can apply for citizenship.

You might not have noticed what I had

read out just now. It is mentioned that if theMinister accepts the reason given acitizenship certificate may be granted tothe applicant. This means that a citizenshipcertificate may be granted at the discretion

of the Minister, appointed and empoweredby the President for this purpose. That is,the Minister acting alone, has full power todecide as he wishes.

In this same Act there are other pointsrelating to those who had entered ourcountry our country that I did not go intodetails to avoid hurting others. However Ifeel one point should be brought out.Section 13 of the Act states that a personwho had served for at least three yearseither continuously or not may apply forcitizenship during his service or within sixmonths after termination of his service andmay be granted citizenship if he fulfils

requirements of the law even if he hadgiven (i) no prior intimation of his desire todo so (ii) or had not resided within theUnion. Of foreigners who came into Burmathere were many who served the English,but of them extra care has to be taken ofarmed forces personnel.

I will say only this much about this Act. Thenext Act is the Union Citizenship (Election)Act, 1948. I will read out section 3 of thatAct. Any person who fulfils the followingqualifications may apply to the Districtofficer concerned for Union citizenship.The qualifications are: (a) being born in aterritory under the suzerainty of the Britishmonarch.

The British Empire at that time was veryextensive and it was then said that thesun never sets on the British Empire in

various parts of the world. People fromwithin this Empire who wish to reside in ourcountry as citizens were allowed to applyfor such citizenship. This was a specialprivilege. Since we live in amity with thewhole world, it is not right to givepreference to one country only. We mustbe fair to all.

That same Section 3 has a sub-section (b)that states that those who have lived within

the territory of the Union of Burma for eightyears out of ten years prior to 1 January1942 or 4 January 1948 are eligible toapply for Burmese citizenship. Thequalifications therefore are that one must


3/5

have lived within the territory of Burma foreight years out of ten years prior to 1January 1942 or 4 January 1948. These, ofcourse, are points of law.

There are actions to be taken under thislaw. For instance, those who are in Burmaand who satisfy those conditions mustdeclare that they would like to electBurmese citizenship and apply forBurmese citizenship.

On the part of the Burma Government,personnel from the department concernedmust scrutinise the applications and issuecitizenship certificates. In this respect,

certain foreigners were illiterate or wereunaware of the existence of this law. Theytherefore have not made the applicationsup to now and if legal action were to betaken against them there would be no end.A lot of bother and a lot of trouble for themas well as for us. What is worse and whatshould not have happened is as we hadbeen saying all along since our Party wasfounded: the giving of full powers to asingle person. Power was howeverentrusted to a single person under theconditions that prevailed at that time.Decision taken by the person in power wasfinal. There were some irregularities withregard to grant citizenship to personsbefore Independence; and have notpersons arriving in Burma afterIndependence in 1948, also been givencitizenship?

We cannot look on with folded arms oncases of grants of citizenship to those whohad arrived in Burma after Independence.As I have said earlier, those foreignerswho had settled in Burma at the time ofindependence have become a problem.We made these two laws to solve thisproblem. But we were not able to applythese laws strictly with the result that theproblem of these people exists up to thisday. The problem not only remains:

because of this problem, these people arenow living in panic because most of themhave no definite status.

If we could do something definite to definetheir rights, they would be happy. We onour part must also be magnanimous.These people, the foreigners, had settledown here since after 1824, 1830, 1835,

1840. and had been here for more than100 years. Their descendants retainedtheir own nationality and were notBurmese citizens before Independence.After Independence, some left. Those whoremained behind did not know whatnationality they were. If we choose not tobe magnanimous to them, if we considerthat we have nothing to do with them, andthat they have come here of their ownaccord and if we are to deal with them

accordingly, they would be in great troublewith nowhere to go because they have lostcontact with their native places. We arehere talking about the remote past, aboutforeign settlers who had come in theaftermath of the first Anglo-Burmese war.

And then we have those persons whocame before 1948 Independence or before1942, the year the war broke out. Wetherefore decided to make the latestCitizenship Law solve all these problemstogether.

We are, in reality, not in a position to driveaway all those people who had come atdifferent times for different reasons fromdifferent lands. We must have sympathyon those who had been here for such along time and give them peace of mind. wehave therefore designated them eh-naing-

ngan-tha (associate citizens) in this law.Why have we given them this name?Because, we were all citizens in thebeginning; then these people came asguests and eventually could not go backand have decided to go on living here forthe rest of their lives.

Such being their predicament, we acceptthem as citizens, say. But leniency onhumanitarian ground cannot be such as to

endanger ourselves. We can leniently givethem the right to live in this country and tocarry on a livelihood in the legitimate way.But we will have to leave them out inmatters involving the affairs of the country


4/5

and the destiny of the State. This is notbecause we hate them. If we were to allowthem to get into positions where they candecide the destiny of the State and if theywere to betray us we would be in trouble.

I will tell you an instance. Now let us usethe term eh-naing-ngan-tha from now on.After the country gained independence,some of these eh-naing-ngan-tha left thiscountry again, leaving behind some of theirfamily members. Some of them -kalas tobe frank- did not go back to their kala-pyibut went to Singapore, Hong-Kong orAmerica. Some tayokes did not return totayoke-pyi but went to Singapore, Hong-

Kong, Australia, and America. They leftbehind a relative, say a brother, here. Thisbrother would contact his brother in Hong-Kong and his brother in England and wouldsmuggle goods out of our country. Wehave actually seen such smugglings. Weare aware of their penchant for makingmoney by all means and knowing this, howcould we trust them in our organisationsthat decide the destiny of our country? Wewill therefore not give them full citizenshipand full rights. Nevertheless, we will extendthem rights to a certain extent. We will givethem the right to earn according to theirwork and live a decent life. No more.

I have recounted the past. Now I shallspeak on the present Burmese CitizenshipLaw. Beginning now, up to a certain pointin the future, there will be three classes ofcitizens. Racially, only pure-blooded

nationals will be called citizens. As forthose foreign settlers who came herebefore Independence and who could notgo back and who have applied forcitizenship under the two law mentionedbefore, we will scrutinise their applicationsand will grant them eh-naing-ngan-tha if allconditions are satisfied. For those whohave not applied for citizenship out ofignorance, we will tell them to apply forcitizenship and consider them as naing-

ngan-tha-pyu-khwint-ya-thu (naturalisedcitizens) if all conditions are met.Citizenship will this be granted in threecategories (i) citizens; (ii) eh-naing-ngan-tha; (iii) naing-ngan-tha-pyu-khwint-ya-thu.

Who are the eh-naing-ngan-tha? They arethose who arrived in Burma beforeIndependence and satisfy all conditionslaid down in those two laws and whoalready applied for citizenship. They are

eh-naing-ngan-tha. What is the differencebetween eh-naing-ngan-tha and naing-ngan-tha-pyu-khwint-ya-thu? Both camehere in similar circumstances -beforeIndependence, January 1948. Thedifference lies in whether they applied forcitizenship or not. Those who have not yetapplied for citizenship are, let us say, abigger problem. Therefore, we have madea distinction between eh-naing-ngan-thaand naing-ngan-tha-pyu-khwint-ya-thu.

According to the Union Citizenship(Election) Act, 1948, a person withBurmese blood who failed to make certaindeclarations and renouncements when heor she comes of age loses his or hercitizenship. Under our present law, not onlythose persons both of whose parents arenationals but also those persons only oneof whose parents is s nationalautomatically becomes a citizen on comingof age, without having to makedeclarations or renouncements.

There are three types of citizens at presentas said earlier. There will be only one typein our country at some time in the future;that is there will be only citizens. What isknown eh-naing-ngan-tha and naing-ngan-tha-pyu-khwint-ya-thu will graduallydisappear. How? A person classified as an

eh-naing-ngan-tha at present if qualifications, I said earlier, are met. Wecannot trust them fully. That is why one iscalled eh-naing-ngan-tha.

If the descendants of eh-naing-ngan-thacontinue to be regarded as eh-naing-ngan-tha, they will never be in a position to enjoythe rights of citizens. I said earlier, that inview of what is happening at present, thiseh-naing-ngan-tha is not trustworthy at

present. As I said earlier one lives inBurma, one in Hong-Kong, and one lives inEngland and are engaged in bad business.However, this blood relation will more orless cease to exist at the time of his or her


5/5

grandchildren. When the grandchild isgiven citizenship, he will, just like any othercitizen, become a full citizen. Similarly, withthe children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of a naing-ngan-tha-pyu-

khwint-ya-thu continue to be a naing-ngan-tha-pyu-khwint-ya-thu? Will a naing-ngan-tha-pyu-khwint-ya-thu not be able to enjoyfull rights? As I said earlier, hisgrandchildren will be given citizenship.Although there are three types of citizensat present -eh-naing-ngan-tha, naing-ngan-tha-pyu-khwint-ya-thu and purecitizens, the grand children of eh-naing-ngan-tha and naing-ngan-tha-pyu-khwint-ya-thu will become full citizens. Then there

will be only one type of citizen.

If the grandchildren of eh-naing-ngan-thaor a naing-ngan-tha-pyu-khwint-ya-thu areto become full citizens, the eh-naing-ngan-tha or naing-ngan-tha-pyu-khwint-ya-thuhimself or herself, and his or her childrenand their children must live in our countrycorrectly and must not misbehave. Onlythen can his or her grandchildren becomecitizens. As to action to be taken againstthem for misbehaviour, time limits, etc., areto be prescribed in Rules.

This is the first time we are taking action toenable those who have been in our countrysince before Independence to escape froma life of uncertainty about their ownnationality. If necessary qualifications aremet, they can live in our country; if theylive correctly and properly, their

grandchildren will become full citizens.What I would like to tell such persons isthat, in recognition of what we have doneto enable them to be certain of their ownnationalities, they should live correctly andproperly. I would also like to tell our truecitizens, the Burmese, that they should nottreat such persons arrogantly, saying theycame from abroad or they are guests, but

should realise that one day they willbecome one with us and all will betravelling in the same boat.

As everybody knows, this law was drafted

in consultation with the whole country anda lot of time has been taken in drafting it. Ido not know how many drafts were drawnup at the lower level. After it came to me,six more revisions were had to be madebecause some terms and facts had beenleft out.Even now I found one fact missing. Idiscovered that when I re-read it whilewriting this speech this morning. A clauseabout pure citizens. Citizenship is a

person's birthright. Excepting for treasonduring war, nobody can strip him ofcitizenship. This is what this clause isabout. However, there is also anotherclause which gives him responsibilities.There is one point left unmentioned in thisSection. If this is not put in, it may createdisputes later on. That is why I am sayingthis. What is to be added is "A citizen shallhave no right to renounce his or hercitizenship in time of war in which thecountry is involved". This is what is to beincluded in the law. There is such a clausein the part concerning eh-naing-ngan-thaand naing-ngan-tha-pyu-khwint-ya-thu. Itwas inadvertently left unmentioned in theSections on pure citizens. We musttherefore put it under Section 13 asSection 14. Section 13 says: "A citizenshall have no right to be a citizen ofanother country". Section 14 should read:

"A citizen shall have no right to renouncehis or her citizenship in time of war inwhich the country is involved". This mustbe put in because in time of war a citizennot wanting to go to war may say he nolonger wants to be a citizen. "

(Applause)

ne win's speech oct-1982-citizenship law

Documents