Myanmar: Unravelling the Rohingya...

Myanmar: Unravelling the Rohingya Crisis

“Every perspective on a news story is equally important”

I personally agree with this statement; firstly, I believe everyone has the right to free speech, as long as it does not have a negative effect on another person’s rights.

Currently, in Myanmar, Aung Suu Kyi has placed the blame of the refugee crisis on Rohingya militants. To me, this shows that every perspective is important, because despite Aung Suu Kyi having more power in the country than most people, it does not mean that she can instantly blame a group of people for something that they may/may not have done wrong without any proof.

Furthermore, if you were writing a balanced and truthful news story on the Rohingya refugee crisis, you would need to take at least one piece of information from either side of the ‘argument’. This is because the refugees would have a differing opinion to Aung Suu Kyi (and the other leaders of Myanmar), as they are the ones that are being targeted. This could result in them saying that Aung Suu Kyi was not telling the truth and the militants of Rohingya do not exist and are certainly not the cause of the refugee crisis at all!

A second reason I believe this is because every view can have a biased aspect to it- so you will need to get pieces of information from all the points of view. In Myanmar (specifically the people in the UN), people are saying that Aung Suu Kyi’s Nobel Peace Prize should be revoked. This shows that every perspective is important, because even though the people that are in the UN are saying this, it could be because they are angry and upset, as from their view she is not doing anything to stop it. However, they may not have all the information and she may well be trying to put a stop to the persecution but she just has not got all the evidence to stop it yet. If that was the case and they did happen to use that information, without any other sides of information then they would have a very biased newspaper, than if they had multiple pieces of information. This is why I believe all perspectives are of equal importance.

Even when you do have contrasting pieces of information, you would still need an open mind in order to make a clear decision, especially when you have heard every point of view. Take Aung Suu Kyi for example, she immediately blamed the crisis straight onto terrorists, instead of listening to the accusations coming from her citizens, who had experienced the crisis first-hand and were actually there when it was all taking place. If she did actually listen to the refugees’ then she could have changed her mind.

The refugee crisis reminds me of the situation Apartheid, however in contrast, when Nelson Mandela acted on his beliefs and stood up for what he believed in, rather than just saying that change is possible and not doing anything about it. He did this because even though it would affect his life, in his case facing 27 years in jail, it changed and had an effect on millions of peoples’ lives, who were living in the country at the time. If Nelson Mandela did not act, then change would never have been brought upon America and they would still be suffering with racism.

This is much like the Rohingya refugee crisis, because Aung Suu Kyi is in the same position that Nelson Mandela started in, however she is not doing anything to bring peace to the country, whereas Nelson Mandela did. If she does not act fast then she will be seen to be going against her words- instead of protecting the people in Myanmar, she is watching while they are being driven out of their homes and fleeing for their lives.

In that instance, she is a little bit like a sitting duck, waiting for her peace prize to be revoked, so she will need to act fast and actually bring change upon her country. If she had tried to bring peace then she should have listened further to the refugees’, instead of just dismissing what they were saying. This proves my point that every perspective should be heard!

Where I have used the BNC skills:

Curiosity- I questioned her approach to blaming terrorists.

Reasoning - I gave clear arguments and included examples.

Open-mindness- I showed an example of where another person has been in a similar situation.

Scepticism- I challenged her with her decision on who to blame.

Story-telling- I gave examples to clarify my points.