It's the Burmese Government to be blamed. I still don't understand why they can't stop the discriminatory policies.

and ASEAN will never involve in this issue. trust me.

a good report from BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33007536

Thailand, which was being used as a smuggling route by people traffickers, has cracked down on the trade and a senior Thai officer has been charged in connection with trafficking. And the Dalai Lama has joined other international voices calling on Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi to speak out about their plight.

Yes and shame on ASIA, which needs to finally clean up its act.

Which could start by foreign nationals respecting other nations borders. Given ignoring it and or poor folks selling their kids, is what created much of this problem anyway.

Slavery only exists where and when it can or is allowed!

That said, simply put, the Rohingya are just migrating Muslim Bangladeshi, who have just "invaded" squatted on another nations territory?

And should therefore be asked to return and come back in as invited guests!

And as invitees, have some rights and access to legal redress?

And we Australians only role in this centuries old problem, is to counsel lawful and mutually acceptable resolutions, between conflicted aspirants; rather than throw open the door to a veritable tide of displaced people!

Who sadly, we have absolutely nothing in common with; just entirely implacable Ideological, cultural and immutable religious difference with! And the problem also for the former Burma?

Not for nothing is it writ large that the east is east and the west is west, and never the twain should meet!

Besides, letting a few manageable numbers in, could start a flood tide we could never turn back; and or, tantamount to throwing petrol on a forest fire in an attempt to put it out! And that worked out well for a compassionate Greece didn't it?

The solution needs to be sort at the source of the problem! Namely overcoming localized poverty!

Oh sure, others will argue different all while claiming absolute sovereignty and self determination for themselves!

This nation and everything it is now, was carved out by desperately poor folks living in bark huts and humpies; and in the harshest most inhospitable landscape in the world, with little more that their bare hands and a few hand tools.

Let others who now envy, want to take what we/they built, try a little of that!
Rhrosty.

The Myanmar government and people figure they need an influx of Muslims like they need a hole in the head.

This sentiment is largely shared by the Buddhist countries to the east of Myanmar including Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. They are well aware that the Muslim countries to their west, including Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Indonesia too, used to be Buddhist until the Muslims arrived and simply killed anyone who didn't agree with them.

They rightly fear that the Muslims will play the victim card while they are in the minority, and then commit the kinds of atrocities that they are committing all over the world every day in agitating for the predominance of their 'religion'.

"The situation has caused concerns in the international community which finds Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia should do better ..."

The author is not the international community and does not speak for them.

The solution is for the author and everyone who agrees with him, to put their money where their mouth is, and *pay* for the Rohingya to be re-settled in Bangladesh or Saudi Arabia, two lovely Muslim countries with all the humanitarianism of the religion of peace.

Rhosty & JDJ,

The Rohingya have been in that part of Burma for, variously, 200, 400 or 600 years. They were born there.

Laws in one country obviously don't carry to another, but it's interesting that anybody born in Australia is thereby an Australian citizen. The current argument and sense of outrage is how an Australian-only citizen can be stripped of his/her citizenship.

By extension of that logic, Rohingya are as Burmese as Shans or Kachins or anybody else born in Burma. If they flee or are expelled, then they are genuine refugees. Do they genuinely fear to stay in Burma ? Then they are genuine refugees.

If we have any compassion for people in situations that we can barely imagine, and will never be in ourselves (unless IS moves on us), then we must surely take a quota of such unfortunate fellow-human beings. Twenty thousand wouldn't be too many. And I would suggest that, to the extent that they are Muslims, jihadism is probably the last thing on their minds.

Joe

"that anybody born in Australia is thereby an Australian citizen.

I'm not sure that's right, is it?

..." then we must surely take a quota of such unfortunate fellow-human beings."

Who's "we"?

You personally will be taking a quota, will you?

If that was the arrangement, I would have no objection

Hi JDJ,

Yes, I would. I have a spare room, two at a pinch. After a relatively comfortable life, it' the least I could do, until people got on their feet here. Where's our sense of a fair go ?

Joe

Loudmouth; sorry I greatly doubt you would. They would have to random and not "selected" to ensure it was a Doctor, Uni comrade or such. Also no-one else would have to bear any liability when damage occurs, it is at your cost (not the tax payers).

People born here are not necessary Australian citizens, as is the case of folk born of illegal migrants!

And given these folk are in essence illegal migrants or the issue of illegal migration, then they are not citizens!

Be they undocumented Mexicans living in the US or any similar ethnic minority, that has simply crossed a border to seek an economic outcome, rather than avoid genuine persecution.

Simply put, being born in a particular location as the issue of non citizens doesn't automatically grant citizenship!

One needs paperwork that proves you were born here or there, and of folks who were themselves legal citizens of somewhere!

Be they new arrivals or a community that has illegally imposed their persons on another ethnic community; and even for hundreds of years; then say out bred them in order to become the dominant culture?

Even so, the child of a non citizen is also a non citizen as are the also non documented issue; and forever!

You have to be the legal issue of the legal issue or come in as a properly documented and invited migrant!

And I'm all for increasing the properly documented refugee migrant intake, if they are compatible and able to integrate! And I do mean integrate, not assimilate!

JKJ is right and the stated countries have a right to fear they too will follow the fate of former Buddhist nations and be simply overwhelmed/put to the sword; as has been the case for so many former Buddhist communities.

And yes the peace loving and tolerant Buddhists can become the most hostile and warlike when they believe their very survival is on the line! i.e., Vietnam!
Rhrosty.

What you talking about, Rhosty ?!

Honestly ! I couldn't follow your logic ! Are you suggesting that Rohingya invaded western Burma ?! That they have terrorised Buddhist villagers !? That they have done such vile things that so many exclamation marks are necessary !?

How do distinguish Bangla economic migrants from genuine Rohingya refugees may not be so hard to do - after centuries living in Burma, Rohingya, even if they still speak Bangla, they would most likely speak it with a distinctive accent. And of course, they would most likely understand Burmese as well, which would rule out Bangla economic migrants.

! Let us know, Rhosty ! when Rohingya carry out a terrorist attack anywhere !

Joe !

What garbage Loudmouth, Do you have the $40,000 or more each, to support people for the rest of their lives? Don't forget health care & education, for basically illiterate subsistence farmers, who can never find a place here.

If you don't have, I sure don't have, so forget it.

I don't give a damn where any of these people go, just as long as it is not here. I am totally compassioned out. It is foolish unsustainable compassion that is going to destroy western civilisation.

Hi Has been,

Certainly taking refugees is a stop-gap measure, of course - until the problems are resolved at source. Until that happens everywhere, there will be refugees. Taking in refugees is - in that sense - always a second-best option. But it may be necessary, if it is pretty obvious that the situation in their home country is NOT going to be resolved.

On a slightly different topic, paying people-smugglers to turn their boats around could be a brilliant inspiration: for a few thousand dollars, perhaps a few hundred thousand dollars all-up, the government could keep turning the boats around.

So who is going to get on another boat if they suspect the captain will take the money and simply bring them back to Indonesia ?

It might even work in the Mediterranean. It's a terrible option for those refugees, but right or wrong, it might work.

Joe

One of the dali lama monks
said on TV the other night
that "he feared the Rohingya would cut his throat.

He must be basing this fear on some experiences he knows of.
It would have been imformative reporting, if the reporter had asked him why he felt like that.

The reporters need to ask ordinary people from both sides
in countries just what they perceive to be the problem.
So we can get a better idea of why the conflict is happening.
The reporting is too much on the surface with no indebt interviewing. A real fault with the Western media.

Yes, Loudmouth, it probably would work. I was reading today about Robert Clive's victory at the Battle of Plassey, which basically cemented British control over India. Clive had 3,000 troops, and the Indian guy on the other side had a coalition with 12,000 troops. Clive simply paid the other guy's allies, so when the battle came, they stood neutral, and after Clive won, they shared in the spoils. Low and cunning perhaps, but it worked.

As for paying one's fair share of the refugees, it is hard to know what that would be. I also tend to doubt you would accept your quota being the sum of the total expenditure on refugees, divided by the number willing to pay for it.

On the other hand, if that was an option - i.e. sponsor pays - then no doubt the whole thing could be administered at a small fraction of the costs with government's insanely expensive refugee policies.

However there's another factor to be considered, and that is the negative externalities that the sponsor would not cover. Muslims by definition consider the supreme moral example to be a man who committed armed robbery, mass murder, slavery, rape and paedophilia.

Australia and Australians in the past have simply assumed, because we were being liberal and modern, that therefore the immigrants we bring in are too. It has now become increasingly clear that that is not the case, and the Muslims are a very problematic case in point.

Why have the Rohingyas come all this way, do you think, when Muslim Bangladesh was just across the border to their west? Saudi Arabia is a very rich country, and just on the other side of India? How come they didn't go there?

Hi JDJ,

A bit pig-ignorant, with the greatest respect. Let me know when the first Rohingya jihadist is suspected of turning up in Syria or Iraq.

Yes, They may be Muslim, but in all these years past that has merely been a way to differentiate them - as an under-class to the Buddhists, who are not necessarily as pure as the driven snow.

As for going to Bangla Desh, well, they are not Bangla, are they, they are Burmese, Rohingya, they would be looked down on very much by Bangla Deshis, which may not put them in a good position, economic or political, if they fled to Bangla Desh. And even more so, how would they fare if they tried to get into Saudi Arabia ? Idiotic suggestions, with the greatest respect.

They do seem to meet the criteria of 'refugee' in the extreme - so why not make special provision for a few thousand of them ? Would that kill us ? Yes, maybe they might have trouble fitting in, but that's in the very nature of 'refugee', after all.

Meanwhile, surely our government should do (and probably is doing) as much as it can, in concert with other SE Asian countries, to resolve the core issues that have created the problem for the Rohingya.

Joe

Muslims account for only 4.2% of the population of Thailand, but an ongoing insurgency by Muslims have claimed over 4000 lives since 2004. Buddhist priests, policeman and teachers have been targeted for assassination, and Buddhist temples attacked and burned.

The situation is becoming worse with the rise of militant Islam with foreign fighters with military and bomb making training now entering the fight. It is hardly surprising that Thailand does not want any more Muslims.

The principle that those born of a country are nationals does not always apply to ethnic or religious minorities who consider their ethnic or religious uniqueness to be their primary identity. The war in Iraq would stop today if every combatants in Iraq considered themselves "Iraqis" first and "Sunnis", Shiites, "Turkmen", "Kurds" and "Yazidis" second.

When a Muslim Insurgency in Australia is taking 400 lives a year, some of them teachers, even the Australian Teachers Federation might get inside with the Australian government and figure out that importing Muslims for any reason is insane.

The biggest laugh is the silence of Aung San Suu Kyi. This sainted moralist has kept her mouth shut because she knows she will lose the support of her own people if she ever stuck up for Muslims. Muslims are thoroughly hated by the Buddhists, and for good reason. When a primarily pacifist religion meets an expansionist and primarily military aggressive religion, the results are not pretty for the pacifists. The Burmese consider the "Rohingya" as simply the thin edge of the wedge for the ever encroaching violent Muslim hordes who will never stop expanding into Buddhist areas with catastrophic results for Buddhist society.

The Buddhists have woken up and are deterring Muslim immigration and even encouraging Muslims to leave and go back to Muslim areas. The Australians are still living in lotus land and thinking that Muslims deserve to be helped and will be gratefull if they are helped. THe fact that Muslims are three times over represented in incarceration rates than anybody else should dispel that myth.

Thank you for all interesting and constructive comments.

For a comment on representing international community, I have never claimed represent it but I 'suggest' the community to take action.

There are many ways to support people who need help. And it is important t to think humanitarian in this circumstance.

I also agree with a few comments that poverty plays a part in this problem.

Loudmouth finding he can't defend his ideas, instantly descends into personal abuse, ho hum.

Do you deny that Muslims by definition consider the supreme moral example to be a man who committed armed robbery, mass murder, slavery, rape and paedophilia?

If you do, it's you who are being pig-ignorant and idiotic.

And if you don't, then you've established no reason for your argument. If they would not be "in a good position" in Bangladesh, and Saudi Arabia wouldn't let them in, then you have provided no reason why they should be in any better position, or let in, anywhere else.

Saying they're "Burmese" is only begging the question. Not according to the Burmese they're not. You're just chasing your tail.

"the core issues that have created the problem for the Rohingya"

The core issue is that the Myanmar people and government don't want them and the people in Australia who CLAIM to be concerned about it, are not willing to pay for them voluntarily. All you do is keep hiding behind this fake "we", but won't answer who that is.

So let's settle it. Post proof that you have set up a trust account, and that you and the author have paid into it your own money to support the number that you say should be supported.

Nattavud
The flaw in your argument is your assumption that the government is more representative of the people, than the people are of themselves. The community is taking action - they're excluding the Rohingya because they don't want them.

Will you join Loudmouth in *voluntarily* paying the costs of what you advocate?

Hi JDJ,

It's always been a complicated world. Sorry.

Various kingdoms have ruled, back and forth, across that part of the world for centuries. From the Khmer kingdoms, Ayodhya, the various Burmese and Thai and Mughal kingdoms and fiefdoms. For the last fifty years, Burman, shan, Karen, Kachin, etc. on one side, Bangla on the other. The poor b@stards, the Rohingya, somewhere in the middle, working their fields and fishing their seas.

Easy pickings for some semi-fascist - or 'socialist' - power group to have a go at. Then along the commentariat comes.

LO ! They happen to be Muslim. Beauty ! Get stuck into them !

Ask yourself, JDJ: they have been there, where they are now, for many hundreds of years, and the Burmese government doesn't want them, at least, not there, now. They shouldn't be there, you suggest.

So where should they be ?

How about your place?

Yep. Or Burma, where they have lived and worked for a hell of a lot longer that you and I have been here. So while some of them are here in Australia, they are welcome at my place. And I don't give a toss about the cost, we can all squeeze in together.

That's what it means, to be 'on the Left'.

You should try it some time.

No, I don't think so.

Joe

You're right: being on the Left is about saying you don't care about costs, when you're not paying them, but actually suggesting other people, who don't agree with you, should be forced into paying them.

Have you set up that Rohingya refugee trust account yet, and paid into it voluntarily your own money to support the number that you say should be supported?

No, I didn't think so.

And Nattavud is keen to pay his own money into it, aren't you Nattavud?

Hi JDJ,

Yes, I'll pay them as they arise. Presumably refugees get some funds to pay for food and other consumables, but apart from that, I'm okay. I'm willing to give it a go.

Apart from waving banners about wind towers and gay marriage, what are you doing this weekend ?

Joe

"Yes, I'll pay them as they arise."

Good. They're arising now. You can start by paying the costs of the Rohingyas in Manus Island. I'm sure you approve of getting them out of there as soon as possible, don't you? Bill Shorten and his mates will chip in of course. They love a good principle.

Perhaps then we can discuss your attempted diversions into personality.

Meanwhile, I'm off to shoot some cute furry endangered species.