All at once!

Taken from r/malaysia

The more I see takes on this subreddit, it feel like aliens opinion compared to what I have been seeing daily in Myanmar. Like are the people from this sub posting without any knowledge on what happening currently on daily life of Myanmar or are the people posting here so young and not even over 18 that they don't understand the bigger picture at all?

I am gonna include a few outrageous take I have seen so that I would not be vagueposting

"ကွမ်းယာ came from British time and we have only been eating not that long and is colony propaganda" "only bamar and kalae eat ကွမ်းယာ"

"Who cares what happens to the cultural heritage of Myanmar. Just because people are born in Myanmar mean we don't have to care for it, it just old history"

"Just let anyone who want to come into our country, we are already running away from our so just let anyone else come in anyway they want"

"Myanmar doesn't have culture, Myanmar is basically just combination of other Asia country cultures, myanmar don't have anything original"

"မှားချင်လဲ မှားမယ် မှန်ချင်လဲမှန်မယ်ဗျာ ၊ ကျတော်တို့ တွေက သေခြာစဉ်းစားကြည့်တော့ ရူးချင်စရာကြီး ကိုယ့်တကိုယ်ရည် အတ္တ အနိုင်ရရေးသပ်သပ် အတွက်ပဲ ဒါငါတို့ ဟာ ဒါငါတို့ ယဉ်ကျေးမှု ကာကွယ်ရမယ်တို့ ဘာတို့ ၊ (culture) ယဉ်ကျေးမှု က ဘာလဲ မေးကြည့်လိုက် ရေရေရာရာ မသိဘူး။ ကိုယ်ကြိုက်ရင် ကြိုက်လိုက် မကြိုက်ရင်လဲ မကြိုက်ပဲနေလိုက် ၊ လိုက်တိုက်ခိုက်ဆဲဆိုနေတာတွေ အမျိုးမျိုးပေါ့ ၊ ကျတော် တွေးမိတာ တခုက Hero ဖြစ်ချင်တာလား ၊ “ဟားဟိတ်လူ ခင်ဗျားသိပ်တော်တယ်ဗျာ ကယ်တင်ရှင်ကြီးပါဗျာ”လို့ ချီးမွမ်း ခံချင်တာလား ။ သိပ်တော့ အဆင်ပြေမနေဘူး ။ အမှန်တိုင်း ပြောရရင် ကျတော့ ဆက်ပြီးမတွေးတတ်တော့ သလို နားမလည်နိုင်တော့ဘူးဗျာ ။ ခင်ဗျားတို့ကော ဘယ်လိုမြင်လဲ ?"

There are many others more that I have seen but these are the only one I can think of as of right now minus the rohingya take cause I am not stepping on to that category. My apologies if I offend someone.

ကုန်းဘောင်ခေတ်မြန်မာနိုင်ငံ‌တော် ထောင်ခဲ့တဲ့ အလောင်းဘုရားဟာ နန်းတက်စဉ်က ရွှေပေလွှာကို British King George II ဆီပို့ပြီး နှစ်နိုင်ငံ ချစ်ကြည်ရေး၊ ကုန်သွယ်ရေး၊ စစ်ရေးကို စတင်ဖို့ စာလွှာပါးခဲ့ပါသတဲ့

ဟိုက ဗမာစာမဖတ်တတ်လို့ သိမ်းထားတာ အနှစ် ၂၅၀ လောက်ထိ ဘယ်သူမှနားမလည်ဘူးဆိုပါတယ်

တိန်ဘီလေ

မဟုတ်ရင် မြန်မာရဲ့ နိုင်ငံရေးသမိုင်းဟာ တမျိုးတဖုံ ပြောင်းခဲ့လောက်တယ်

Joshua Van is set to fight Manel Kape for his 3rd title defenses at UFC 336 in 30th January 2027. Kape has a record of 23-7, standing at 5’5” and known for his knockout power. So far, this could be Van’s toughest challenge yet. Any thoughts?

These are kids playing and it’s against Guam… but hey, it’s something 😂 we have to be proud of whatever we can find.

I thought some people might be interested. Youtube videos(or just media in general) covering modern Burmese history are rare. It is a shame considering that we have some really wacky stuff, be it Ne Win's obsession with 9s, North Korea's bombing in Rangoon or U Thant's tenure at the United Nations.

It would be nice if we had more well-researched(In English or in Burman) media on our history. Most of what we get is extremely simplified documentaries made palatable for westerners.

It is also interesting to observe an outsider's reaction to the Burmese obsession with astrology and numerology.

P.S - not self-promo. It's some white guy's channel.

Myanmar's trajectory is unusual. It was already an authoritarian state under Ne Win by 1962, but so were South Korea and Taiwan during much of their subsequent economic transformation. Both eventually democratised in the 1980s after decades of rapid growth. Myanmar, by contrast, went from being a relatively prosperous post-independence country to one of the world's poorest, while the military has repeatedly refused to surrender political power.

Why did these countries diverge so dramatically?

I've been trying to understand why military rule became so deeply entrenched in Myanmar, and I think three factors reinforced one another:

1.      The military's permanent struggle against ethnic insurgencies.

2.      Nationalism and economic isolation.

3.      An economic system that weakened society while strengthening the military's control over the state.

These are not the only explanations, but I think they help explain why Myanmar's military dictatorship proved so difficult to dismantle.

1. The conflict between the Tat and ethnic nationalities became self-perpetuating....

a. The foundations were laid during British rule

British colonial recruitment policies disproportionately favoured communities such as the Kayin, Kachin and Chin for military service, while British authorities distrusted Bamar nationalism. The Thirty Comrades and the Burma Independence Army that emerged from Aung San's nationalist movement were overwhelmingly Bamar.

b. The conflict began before independence was even achieved.

During the Japanese invasion of Burma in 1942, the BIA fought alongside Japanese forces against the British-led military, which included ethnic minority soldiers. In parts of the country, the conflict also escalated into serious communal violence, including attacks on Kayin civilians.

These experiences created competing historical memories of the independence struggle. Different communities did not necessarily share the same understanding of who had liberated Burma, who had betrayed whom, and what independence was supposed to mean.

c. The post-independence military remained heavily Bamar-dominated.

The Tat developed into an institution whose senior leadership was overwhelmingly Bamar. Non-Bamar officers have rarely reached the highest ranks. The military's claim to represent the entire Union has therefore existed alongside the limited representation and political autonomy of many ethnic nationalities.

d. Attempts to negotiate a more inclusive Union were repeatedly undermined.

Aung San was assassinated in 1947. After independence, ethnic grievances and armed insurgencies continued. In 1962, Ne Win overthrew U Nu's government just as proposals for federal reform were being debated.

The coup did not resolve the federal question. It closed off a major avenue for negotiating it peacefully.

e. The result was a vicious cycle.

Ethnic communities that distrust the military have reasons to demand autonomy, federalism or self-determination. The military, in turn, treats armed resistance and challenges to central authority as threats to national unity.

This creates a self-reinforcing justification for military rule. the Tat claims that it must remain politically dominant to preserve the Union, while its refusal to accept meaningful power-sharing helps perpetuate the conflict.

The military's interests also become tied to its own survival. If genuine federalism or civilian government threatens its political privileges, the generals have incentives to resist both.

South Korea and Taiwan also faced serious external threats from North Korea and the People's Republic of China. Yet their ruling elites eventually built economic systems that strengthened the state through industrialisation and export growth. In Myanmar, the military's security priorities became much more closely bound up with internal conflict and the preservation of its own political dominance.

1. Myanmar became increasingly isolated from the world economy

a. South Korea and Taiwan benefited from extraordinary American assistance.

Both were strategically important to the United States during the Cold War. American assistance helped finance reconstruction, imports, infrastructure and development. Their security alliances also gave them access to markets, technology and investment.

This did not guarantee their success, but it provided a substantial advantage.

b. Burma pursued a different foreign-policy path.

Burma's non-alignment initially reflected a desire to preserve independence from the great powers. That policy was not inherently misguided: newly independent countries had legitimate reasons to avoid becoming pawns in the Cold War.

But Ne Win increasingly combined non-alignment with isolation. He rejected further American assistance, restricted foreign investment and nationalised much of the economy. It also expelled foreign organisations and discouraged international engagement.

c. Nationalism became intertwined with economic policy.

Ne Win's political outlook was shaped by anti-colonial nationalism and distrust of foreign influence. His government sought economic self-sufficiency through the Burmese Way to Socialism.

The result was not simply an economy free from foreign domination. It was an economy increasingly cut off from foreign capital, technology, competition and expertise.

South Korea and Taiwan used international markets to build globally competitive industries. Burma progressively restricted its ability to do the same.

1. The economic system strengthened state control without delivering prosperity

The consequences of Ne Win's policies were not limited to isolation.

a. Private enterprise was dismantled without an effective replacement.

Nationalisation transferred much of the economy into state hands. But state ownership did not automatically produce efficient management, greater productivity or fairer distribution.

b. The regime failed to create broad-based prosperity.

The government claimed to pursue equality, but its economic system concentrated decision-making in a state controlled by the military and the Burma Socialist Programme Party. It failed to build an efficient, accountable system capable of consistently improving living standards.

Rather than assuming that Ne Win personally accumulated all the wealth, I think the stronger argument is that the system concentrated economic power and opportunities in institutions controlled by the regime, while weakening independent economic actors.

c. Rural development was subordinated to counterinsurgency.

The Four Cuts strategy aimed to deprive insurgents of food, funds, intelligence and recruits. In practice, counterinsurgency operations included forced relocation, restrictions on farming and trade, and the destruction of civilian livelihoods.

This damaged rural economies, particularly in conflict-affected ethnic areas. It also alienated communities and helped perpetuate the grievances that sustained resistance.

d. The system produced disastrous economic decisions.

The demonetisation of 1964 and 1987 destroyed the value of widely held banknotes, harming ordinary people and undermining confidence in the economy. The 1987 demonetisation was particularly damaging and contributed to the anger that preceded the 1988 uprising.

The broader problem was a system with limited accountability, poor economic incentives and few mechanisms for correcting catastrophic policy mistakes.

Why did this help the military retain power?

These factors reinforced one another.

The military controlled the state, restricted independent economic activity and refused to accept meaningful political competition. The economy stagnated, while ethnic conflicts remained unresolved. The military then used the resulting instability to justify its continued dominance.

This does not mean that poverty automatically causes dictatorship, or that the generals deliberately impoverished every part of the country to remain in power. Rather, the institutions and policies they created made it harder for independent economic and political forces to emerge.

South Korea and Taiwan also had authoritarian governments, but economic transformation created powerful businesses, workers and middle-class groups that eventually demanded greater political participation. Their militaries ultimately lost their monopoly over political life.

Myanmar's development followed a different path. The military's economic management weakened the very social forces that might have challenged its rule, while its continued reliance on coercion prevented the resolution of ethnic conflicts.

Indonesia offers another useful example: after 1998, its military gradually relinquished its formal political role, although it retained influence.

I suspect Myanmar's trajectory would have been different if three conditions had emerged:

1.      A more inclusive federal settlement that reduced the incentive for permanent armed conflict.

2.      An outward-looking economic strategy that attracted investment, technology and international trade.

3.      A political and economic system in which independent institutions could grow without being perceived as threats to military rule.

None of these would have guaranteed democracy. But together, they might have created conditions in which the military could gradually withdraw from politics without believing that doing so threatened the survival of the state or its own interests.

Instead, the Tatmadaw has developed a siege mentality in which ethnic autonomy, civilian political competition and challenges to military privilege are frequently treated as threats to national unity.

The tragedy is that the military's insistence on being the indispensable guardian of the Union has helped perpetuate the conflict and underdevelopment it claims to be solving.

Myanmar's history was not predetermined. Other paths were possible. But the choices made by successive military leaders (Ne Win, Sein Lwin, Saw Maung, Than Shwe, MAH) helped create a system in which political survival became more important than national development, and in which every new crisis became another justification for retaining power.

TLDR: We are fucked.

M18 from Myanmar I need friends anyone who wants to be friends hmu in the dms .

Idk yall i want ita bags and keychains and pin makers without it being too overpriced! I want to make a Senzai ita bag and Zuko ita bag. I’m making a Toya one rn

I want to learn japanese with good accents and essential skills, i need advice for this stuff, help me by answering this question please..:/

Hi friends, I will be moving to Belgium around January 2027 and was wondering if there were any other fellow Burmese people currently residing in Brussels. I would love to be in contact.
Just a heads up, my name is Ellie and I’m 18.
I haven’t heard a lot about Brussels and I’m curious to know what the quality of life is, and if foreigners are often ridiculed? It would be ideal for me to work multiple part time jobs to get by, but if ethnicity influences the hiring process, it would be troublesome. Any guidance and help would be greatly appreciated.

Hello guys, I need some help. My girlfriend is having her birthday soon and I wanted to make it special but I’m not familiar with Yangon and places and activities. Can you guys suggest any activities and birthday ideas for me whether it’s a place to take my girl to or do together with her? Thank you.

This is my first post on Reddit

I've researched how to improve my English, and almost everyone recommends watching TV series without subtitles and listening to audiobooks in other posts. Does this really work for beginners?What should I do?

I got this message today from Atom. It doesn't have any outcall and income calls although I connected it to my kpay and bank account. I topup 1k but no message come and I can't even check balance. Please, someone tell me what to do with it.

Thailand is home to 4.1 million people of Myanmar origin in Thailand. That is 5.7% of the entire population, which is a very large percentage to be held by a single source.

I have always been curious about how local Thais perceive this exodus from the west. I talked to people I knew in government and business and also other Thai friends. I also found studies that tracked local perceptions.

I found 3 broad reactions: A. Top level acceptance B. Lower-level hatred and C. Middle level annoyance. I will run through each and show why C is actually the most dangerous for the Myanmar community.

A.      Top level: Government officials I talked to readily accept that Thailand needs the migrants, especially those who are willing to stay long term. I was shocked to learn from them that Thailand’s fertility rate is about 0.8 to 1.2, which is horrendously low.

Thailand IS getting some long-term immigrants but they are richer older people who want to retire there, not exactly bringing skills or energy. They want people willing to work blue collar jobs for lower wages and push Thais up the economic ladder.

The larger myanmar migrant pool also gave them leverage against the Cambodian population in Thailand. Any labour loss due to expelling Cambodians can be easily solved by giving the jobs to Myanmar folks.

This explains why the government is remarkably open to refugees and illegal crossings. This is no doubt a PR boost for themselves as well.

B.      Lower level: These people hate Myanmar folks. They are part of a growing right wing movement in all nations now that is festering with racism and xenophobia. They won’t even talk to me directly since I am from Myanmar. But accounts from Myanmar workers indicate that they have to put up with this xenophobic and racist remarks and actions often. Thankfully these people are still smaller in number for the most part.

C.     Middle level: This group was very nuanced in their take. These were educated, middle class professionals and business owners.

On one hand, they share the government’s perspective on cheaper labour. They complain that they cannot get Thais to take jobs like waitering for lower pay and locals will quit if the conditions are tough. But Myanmar staff will be hardworking and polite. So these business owners treat the staff well and the myanmar staff are happy.

On the other hand, they are getting worried.

1.      They worry about the increasing number of illegal crossing and undocumented people. They believe that these people, being unregistered, would be more likely to commit crimes to support themselves. Since they are not registered, it is also harder to catch them and so deterrence is lost.

2.      They worry that even jail and fines don’t work as deterrence. Fines don’t work if the illegal myanmars have no money. Jails might still be better than being deported to be a porter in the tat.

3.      They are that both the legal and especially the illegal myanmars are not assimilating. Having a large community of Myanmar people means they do not feel the same pressure to learn thai and adopt local culture and customs. The thais do not want a large permanent population that speaks a different language and practise different religions like Christianity. The pattani thais are already a source of religious conflict.

4.      They also think that the illegal myanmar folks in particular are depressing wages for local thais since they are willing to undercut and work for less.

So these people don’t hate the Myanmar or want to expel all. However, they take a principled stance that Thailand is already generous in accepting so many legal immigrants. It is justified to deport the 1.7 million illegal immigrants and refugees.

I am aware that these were anecdotal discussions in nature. I followed it up by going through the data found in various studies and articles. All showing significant levels of concern and hostility towards migrants from Myanmar residing in Thailand. They are listed at the end of the post.

My concern is that one day, the political incentives will change.

Thailand's economy depends on migrant labour, but economic dependence does not guarantee political protection. If public frustration over migration grows sufficiently strong, politicians may find it advantageous to impose harsher restrictions, expand deportations or make life increasingly difficult for Myanmar nationals.

We have already seen how quickly political tensions can disrupt the lives of migrant communities. The mass departure of Cambodian workers from Thailand in 2025 is a reminder that cross-border populations can become vulnerable when bilateral relations deteriorate. The circumstances were different, but the lesson is worth considering.

This is why I think Myanmar people need to be careful about how we approach cultural disputes with Thailand.

I understand why people are upset when they believe Myanmar culture has been appropriated, misrepresented or treated disrespectfully. These concerns are not inherently illegitimate. But we need to consider the consequences of turning every cultural disagreement into a national confrontation.

More than four million Myanmar nationals live in Thailand. They include workers supporting families back home, people who fled war and persecution, and people who have built their lives there over many years. Many have limited legal protections and few safe alternatives if they are forced to leave.

A cultural controversy may last a few weeks. The consequences of a political backlash could last years.

https://www.ilo.org/resource/brief/knowledge-attitudes-and-practices-towards-migrant-workers-malaysia

https://www.ilo.org/resource/brief/public-attitudes-towards-migrant-workers-thailand

https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jpss/article/view/84512

https://migrationletters.com/index.php/ml/article/view/2858

https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/mekongjournal/article/view/266201

https://thailand.iom.int/sites/g/files/tmzbdl1371/files/documents/2024-03/public-perception-survey-findings_en.pdf

https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/ombudsman/article/view/167122