1982 Myanmar Citizenship Law Pdf

Myanmar Citizenship Law 1982 Pdf

"Introduction to the Myanmar Citizenship Card" (PDF). Leap to the top ^ "Burma Citizenship Law". Myanmar Citizenship Act 1982 (Original + Amandment).pdf. Myanmar Citizenship Act 1982 (Original + Amandment).

pdf. Rohringya was denied Burmese citizenship under the 1982 Citizenship Act.


1. This Act may be referred to as the Union Citizenship Act of 1948. It shall apply throughout the Union of Burma and shall be considered to have entered into force on 4 January 1948, 9 Waning, Pyatho, 1390 B.E. "Certificate of Citizenship" means a document issued in accordance with the Union Citizenship (Election) Act, 1948 or this Act.

"Naturalisation Certificate" means a naturalisation document issued in accordance with this Act. "Kid " is including a lawfully adopted kid. "Constitution" means the Constitution of the Union of Burma. "The" Consulate of the Union" shall include any officers nominated by the President for the purpose of registering under this Act. "He is the sire of a lawful baby."

"Minister " means a member of the Government of the Union appointed by the President for the purpose of this Act. "parental " in all regulations concerning minors includes an adopted parental part and the pregnant woman of an illegitimate baby, provided that the adopted parental part of the pregnant woman has legal guardianship of that baby or those kids.

"Union" means the Union of Burma.

Issues with facts about Rohingya statelessness

Newsmen, HRDs and scientists repeat in various ways how this law has deprived the citizens hip of the nation. Indeed, Myanmar's Citizenship Law makes no mention of the 135 ethnical groups that now form the nation's officially "national races". It also does not contain any special paragraphs denying Rohingya citizenship.

This law privileges those who belong to certain, loose, race classes over others - that is, those who are supposed to be the native, pre-colonial population. However, the current impotence of Muslims in Western Myanmar is largely a consequence of de facto rather than de jure action.

In order to understand how the 1982 law privilegates some groups and expels others, and with what implications, we must liken it to its forerunner, the Union Citizenship Act of 1948. 1] It recognised the general right of these groups of persons to citizenship, but did not restrict citizenship to them.

Quite the opposite, any individual whose ancestors had been living in Burma, as Myanmar was then formally called, for at least two generation would be considered a national. It also offered a number of other requirements that would be sufficient for citizenship. So, although the breed was included in the 1948 law, it was not known.

It was largely irrelevant to the issue of citizenship before 1982 whether a member was a member of a "national race" or not. A look at the identification papers exhibited at the time reveals the irrelevance of ethnical or racist classes for the determination of Myanmar citizenship before 1982.

There was no place on the initial registration or" verdict card" issued by the 1952 Act of 1949 by the 1952 Union Residents Registration Act to determine whether a member was a member of a breed or not. During this period, no ministry had any power to draw up a certificate attesting that a particular individual belongs to a particular racist or ethnical group.

In 1982, the law turned the content of its preceding author upside down by making ethical identities, i.e. belonging to a "national race", the prime foundation of citizenship. "2 "2] But unlike 1948, it did not offer any other possibilities for a man to become a full-bodger.

Secondly, the 1982 law individualised this rule in a way that had not previously been made by stating: "All individuals who have been borne by the nationals of the breeds, or all individuals who have been borne by a parent who are both of the nationals of the breeds, are nationals. However, this inference is careless about the content of the law and misunderstands the kind of regimes we are dealing with here.

Act 1982 was not retrospective. Despite its racist content, it clearly provided that no one who already held citizenship would have lost it if they had not been mistaken. However, here we come from the substantive issues of the law on its implementation and the nature of the mode in charge of its implementation.

Not much was done after the 1982 law was adopted. The work to replace the old greens card with new rose citizenship scrutiny card seems to have only started in 1985. But registrars, apparently ordered by supervisors to eradicate the use of forged identification papers in the frontier area, have made it their business to stop registering most Muslims.

After they were refused citizenship, those who identified themselves as Rohingya began to make logical policy demands to get them back: naturally, because the legal regulations in place in Myanmar are encouraging, if not forcing, policy assertions that they form different racial groups, especially since belonging to a single nation under the 1982 law is both the golden rule for Myanmar's constituency and a guarantor of Myanmar's accession to the world.

Suspense between the intrinsic rationale of legal provisions that are urging individuals to make policy demands for a prominent ethical identities, and the harsh oppositions that the vast majority of Myanmar's populations are facing, is driving the physical and moral force against Muslims in Western Myanmar. Being Rohingya means being ascribed to an identitiy that is taboo both in politics and in law.

However, the assertion of a universal right of persons who prove themselves Rohingya to become members because of their nationality is not accepted. But the citizenship law itself admits the unacceptable politics. Under the law, the country's supreme administrative organ has the power to decide whether or not an ethnical group is a nationwide group.

Acknowledgement of the law's enforcement processes is that, in addition to the eight large racial groups included in the law, "many other racial and ethnical groups that are members of the nation are still in existence. Rohingya's right to belong to the nation's breeds and thus to have the right to citizenship as a collective is based on this option.

However, in order to make the claims, they must also follow the racist rationale of the 1982 citizenship system. Rohingya therefore does not call into doubt the premisses inherent in Myanmar's citizenship. Instead of opposing the basic premise of citizenship based on ethnic origin, they only call into doubt the thesis that Rohingya does not belong to the 135 groups that are entitled to citizenship as such.

1] Citizenship Act, No. 66/1948, Section 3. 2] Citizenship Act, No. 4/1982, Section 3. 3] Nationality Law, Section 5. 5 ] Procedure on citizenship law, Council of Ministers Communication No. 13/83, para. 9.

Mehr zum Thema