the mon of canberra - an essay by richard maning[2] (1)

7/31/2019 The Mon of Canberra - An Essay by Richard Maning[2] (1)

1/28

THE MON OF CANBERRA

An Essay

ByRichard Maning

Introduction

The Mon people are an ethnic minority in Burma. They number about 1.5

million (South, 2005: 22), most of whom are in present-day Mon State, which was

established in 1974 by the Ne Win (Burmese Socialist Programme Party) government

(Lang, 2002: 36; South, 2005: 38). Mon State covers an area of 12,000 square

kilometres and extends from the Gulf of Martaban south to its internal border with

Tanintharyi (Tenasserim) Division and the international border with Thailand (South,

2005: 7) (see Map of Burma at p. 5). Mon State as is the case with the other ethnic

minority states, Rakhine [Rakhaing] (Arakan) State, Chin State, Kachin State, Shan

State, Kayah (Karenni) State, and Kayin (Karen) State (see Map at p. 5) is in reality

merely a local government area, with powers granted to it by the central

government, because Burma is under a unitary, not a federal, system of government

(Sakhong, 2010; Lang, 2002: 37).

The Mon were however once a dominant people in Burma (and in Thailand).

Mon civilisation was very influential in pre-colonial mainland Southeast Asia, a

conduit for the transmission of Theravada Buddhism and Indianized political culture

to the region. In Burma, their ancestral homeland covered present-day Bago (Pegu)

Division, Ayeyarwady (Irrawaddy) Division, Yangon (Rangoon) Division, Mon State,


2/28

2

and Tanintharyi (Tenasserim) Division (see Map at p. 5). From the mid-eleventh

century to mid-eighteenth century AD, they were engaged in a series of wars with the

Burman for hegemony over Burma. The Mon, under King Bannya Dala, were finally

overwhelmed by the Burman, under King Alaungphaya, also known as U Aung Zeya,

in a final battle at Pegu in May 1757. This battle ended the last Mon kingdom,

Hongsawatoi (the Kingdom of the Golden Sheldrake), and led to the final unification

of Burma under the Burman and to subsequent concerted efforts by King

Alaungphaya to Burmanise the Mon. In the immediate aftermath of the fall of

Hongsawatoi, Mon manuscripts were destroyed, about 3,000 Mon monks were

massacred, and thousands of Mon people were driven into exile in Ayuthaiya

(present-day Thailand) by the conquering Burman. Over the two-and-a-half centuries

since the fall of Hongsawatoi, the Mon have lost considerable grounds,

demographically, culturally and politically, in their traditional homeland (South, 2005:

Chapters Four and Five).

For almost half-a-century, between 1948 and 1995, the Mon engaged in

continuous insurgent warfare against successive Burmese governments, fighting not

merely to protect their rights and establish a Mon nation [but also] to re-establish

Monland (South, 2005: 6). However, all this fighting would appear to have been

largely futile. Such armed conflicts would appear to have impacted quite negatively

on the Mon people. In the face of strong counter-insurgency measures by the Burmese

military, thousands of Mon people were uprooted from their villages and forced to

seek sanctuary in Thailand, and there to endure hardship in refugee camps. Then, in

1996, following the 1995 ceasefire agreement between the New Mon State Party/Mon


3/28

3

National Liberation Army and the Burmese government, Mon refugees were subjected

to a process of repatriation that, according to Lang (2002), was tantamount to

refoulement. This forced repatriation was made worse by the fact these people were

driven back not to their original villages but to other areas of Mon State, and were

thereby transformed from refugees in Thailand to internally displaced persons in

Burma (Lang, 2002: Chapter Five). The flight of Mon people to Thailand in the

twentieth century was reminiscent of their exodus to Ayuthaiya in the mid-eighteenth

century following the fall of Hongsawatoi, but their twentieth-century armed conflicts

with the Burmese government also led to a scattering of Mon people to foreign lands

far beyond Thailand.

Mon nationalists are, however, continuing with their (now non-armed) struggle

to preserve and maintain the integrity of their lands, language and culture in the face

of an ongoing policy of Burmanisation by the Burmese government (South, 2005:

see in particular Chapters Three, Nineteen and Twenty). According to Sakhong

(2010), the majority Burman are seeking to build a homogeneous Burmese nation, that

is, a nation of one race (Myanmar-lumyo), one language (Myanmar-sa) and one

religion (Buddhism). All the ethnic minorities oppose this move. They

(notwithstanding that many of them, including the Mon, are mostly Buddhists) wish to

retain their own individual ethnic identities, and seek to build with the Burman a

multi-racial and multi-religious (but secular) nation, and they see a federal system of

government as the best means of achieving this objective.

In this essay, I will look at two issues: (a) whether or not the Mon currently

living in Canberra are a diasporic community, and (b) whether or not members of the


4/28

4

community engage in transnational activities. In this exercise, my principal data

sources are answers to questionnaires that I had administered to three members of the

Australia Mon Association, namely, Nai Siri Mon Chan (Board

member/spokesperson, with special responsibility for external/overseas affairs), Nai

Hong Sar Channaibanya (Business and Project Manager) and Nai Din Pla Hongsa

(Membership and Special Project Officer), who had been especially designated by the

Association to deal with me on behalf of the Association.

Acknowledgement

I acknowledge the generous assistance provided to me by the Australia Mon

Association, and thank Nai Siri Mon Chan, Nai Hong Sar Channaibanya and Nai Din

Pla Hongsa for the time and effort they have spent in responding to my questionnaires.

I also thank Nai Tin Aye, the President of the Association, for according me the

privilege of having an introductory meeting with him prior to preparation and

administration of my questionnaires.


5/28

5

Map of Burma Divisions and States

Source:http://www.aems.illinois.edu/resources/currentevents/burma.html
http://www.aems.illinois.edu/resources/currentevents/burma.htmlhttp://www.aems.illinois.edu/resources/currentevents/burma.htmlhttp://www.aems.illinois.edu/resources/currentevents/burma.htmlhttp://www.aems.illinois.edu/resources/currentevents/burma.html


6/28

6

Resettlement

In this section, I provide some background information on the Mon of

Canberra. My data-source for this section is Channaibanya (2012).

The current Mon population in Australia is estimated at about 250 persons. Of

this, about 180 live in Canberra, 40 in Sydney, 10 in Melbourne, 10 in Perth, and 10 in

Brisbane. The current residential distribution of Mon persons in Canberra is shown in

Table 1.

Table 1 Residential Distribution of Mon Persons in Canberra

Suburb/District Number of Homes

Ngunnawal 2

Amaroo 1

Palmerston 4

Gungahlin 1

Harrison 3

Franklin 6

Forde 1

Downer 3

Watson 3

Ainslie 3

Braddon 6

Reid 5

Turner 4

Woden 2

Total = 14 Total = 44


7/28

7

Of the 44 homes, about 30 are occupied by family households, and 14 by young single

persons as co-tenants.

The age profile of the estimated 180 Mon persons in Canberra is shown in

Table 2.

Table 2 Age Profile of Mon Persons in Canberra

Age range Number

Under 5 years 165-11 years 18

12-17 years 28

18-29 years 10

30-40 years 37

41-50 years 55

51-60 years 10

61-70 years 4

Over 70 years 2

Almost all Mon persons now settled in Australia were holders of special

humanitarian visas, which recognised them as persons who, while not being

refugees as defined in the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees,

were subject to substantial discrimination amounting to a gross violation of their

human rights in their home country (Department of Immigration and Citizenship,

Refugee and Humanitarian Entry to Australia: Offshore Resettlement, at

http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian/offshore/). 95 per cent of them were

granted their visas out of Thailand and the rest out of Malaysia. A special
http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian/offshore/http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian/offshore/http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian/offshore/


8/28

8

humanitarian visa allows the holder to live as a permanent resident in Australia, and to

be eligible in due course to apply for grant of Australian citizenship. 70 per cent of

Mon persons now living in Canberra have become Australian citizens and the others

are awaiting grant of citizenship pending successful completion of citizenship tests.

Following their flight from Burma, about 40 per cent of the Mon people now

living in Australia lived in Thailand or Malaysia for a period of between 18 and 29

months, 30 per cent between 30 and 49 months, and 30 per cent between 50 and 70

months, prior to applying for resettlement in Australia and receiving their visas. For

most applicants, the normal waiting-period for a grant of visa was between 18 and 30

months, but a number had to wait for up to 40 months. The first Mon special

humanitarian visa-holders to be resettled in Australia were 6 families (20 persons),

who came to Canberra in 1994. They were sponsored by a non-special humanitarian

visa-holder Mon person living in Canberra. Subsequent arrivals of Mon special

humanitarian visa-holders (mainly left-behind associates of the first batch of arrivals),

in the period from late 1996 to early 1997 (mainly families totalling about 70 persons)

and between 1998 and 1999 (individuals and families totalling about 40 persons),

were sponsored by the Australia Mon Association (formed in 1995). However, post-

2000 arrivals (in the periods 2000-2004 and 2005-2011) were principally family-

sponsored.

A number of the special humanitarian visa-holders arrivals in Canberra were

single men. Of these, about a third of them have since married, the majority marrying

Mon women (who were already in Australia, or out of Thailand or Mon State), while

only three have married non-Mon women (one to an Anglo-Australian woman and


9/28

9

two to other Asian women). There was only one unmarried woman special

humanitarian visa-holder, who came with her prospective husband (also a refugee)

they subsequently got married in Canberra. However, there were also a number of

young Mon girls who arrived as members of families with special humanitarian visas.

Some of these, having attained marriageable age after arrival, have since got married,

the majority of them to Mon men (out of Thailand or Burma) and a few to non-Mon

men.

The productive employment profile of Mon persons in Canberra is shown in

Table 3.

Table 3 Employment Profile of Mon Persons in Canberra

Category of Persons Percentage Employed Field of Employment

Married Men 95 Trades and construction

Married Women 70 Hospitality and cleaning

services

Single Men 100 Trades, hospitality, construction

(90 per cent), other professions

(10 per cent)

Single Women 100 Trades, hospitality, cleaning

services (90 per cent), small

business/self-employed (10 per

cent)

Diasporic consciousness

In this section, I employ Cohens list of common features of a diaspora to

examine whether or not the Mon of Canberra are a diasporic community (Cohen,

2008: Table 1.1, p. 17). For convenience of reference, I set out below Cohens list.


10/28

10

1. Dispersal from an original homeland, often traumatically, to two or more foreignregions.

2. Alternatively or additionally, the expansion from a homeland in search of work, inpursuit of trade or to further colonial ambitions.

3. A collective memory and myth about the homeland, including its location, history,suffering and achievements.

4. An idealization of the real or imagined ancestral home and a collectivecommitment to its maintenance, restoration, safety and prosperity, even to its

creation.

5. The frequent development of a return movement to the homeland that gainscollective approbation even if many in the group are satisfied with only a vicarious

relationship or intermittent visits to the homeland.

6. A strong ethnic group consciousness sustained over a long time and based on asense of distinctiveness, a common history, the transmission of a common cultural

and religious heritage and the belief in a common fate.

7. A troubled relationship with host societies, suggesting a lack of acceptance or thepossibility that another calamity might befall the group.

8.

A sense of empathy and co-responsibility with co-ethnic members in other

countries of settlement even where home has become more vestigial.

9. The possibility of a distinctive creative, enriching life in host countries with atolerance for pluralism.


11/28

11

Dispersal

The current distribution of Mon people outside Burma is shown in Table 4. My

data-source for this table is Channaibanya (2012).

Table 4 Distribution of Mon people outside Burma

Country Number (estimated)

Thailand 230, 000

Malaysia 3,000-4,000

USA 400-600

Canada 80-120

UK 20-40

Norway 20-30

Denmark 20-30

Sweden 10-15

Finland 20-30

Netherlands 20-30

New Zealand 30-40

Australia 250

Most of Mon people living in Thailand and Malaysia would be migrant workers,

while those in the other countries listed in the Table 4 would almost all be refugees, at least

in the extended sense employed by Lang in her book, Fear and Sanctuary: Burmese Refugees

in Thailand (Lang, 2002). She adopts a broader notion of the term refugee than that

codified in [the definition of the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees]

to encompass persons forced to flee their homes due to fear, danger, and socio-

political violence associated directly and indirectly with war (Lang, 2005: 17).

Australia, as noted earlier on, recognises this broader notion of refugee through the


12/28

12

special humanitarian visas that the government issues to eligible persons (Department

of Immigration and Citizenship, Refugee and Humanitarian Entry to Australia:

Offshore Resettlement, athttp://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian/offshore/).

Given the above distribution of Mon people outside of Burma, either as migrant

workers (voluntary migrants) or as refugees (involuntary migrants), those living in the

twelve countries listed in Table 4 clearly satisfy the first diasporic criterion of dispersal to

two or more foreign regions (as well as the second and alternative or additional criterion

of being out of their country of origin in search for work).

A collective memory and myth about the homeland

There is no haziness in the collective memory of the Mon of Canberra

regarding the founding of Monland, the homeland of the Mon people (Chan, 2012).

At the time of Gautama Buddha, Monland was still submerged beneath the sea. Some

years after he attained Enlightenment, the Buddha and his retinue were on an aerial

tour of the lands east of India and passed over the still sea-covered Monland. The

Buddha saw two sheldrakes, a male and a female (the female perched on the back of

the male), settled on a pinnacle jutting out from the sea, and he prophesied that a great

nation would emerge from there, and that its people would glorify Buddhism. And so

it came to pass. Several centuries later, in 825 AD, Pegu (Bago), the capital of

Hongsawatoi, was founded by the god Indra, who made it over to two Mon princes,

who were brothers, Prince Samala and Prince Vimala of Thaton (which is located in

present-day Mon State). The site on which the Buddha saw the sheldrake pair is today

marked by the Hinthagone Pagoda (South, 2005: 52-53, 59). As pointed out by South

(2005: 52), the golden sheldrake, known in classical Mon, as the hamsa or hongsa,
http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian/offshore/http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian/offshore/http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian/offshore/http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian/offshore/


13/28

13

and in Burmese as the hintha, is the national symbol of the Mon people, and is also, in

Hindu mythology, a symbol of divine kingship, as the hamsa is the sacred mount of

Brahma.

The Mon of Canberra and Mon communities elsewhere (South, 2005: 38-40,

283-284; Euro-Mon Community, http://www.eumon.org/) annually celebrate two

highly significant events relating to the ancestral homeland of the Mon people. On the

first waning day of the tenth Mon (Burmese) lunar month (usually in February)

(Hongsa, 2012b), they celebrate Mon National Day, marking the legendary founding

of Hongsawatoi. Mon National Day was first adopted by the Mon people in 1947

(through the works and sponsorship of the United Mon Association, which was

formed in 1945 by Nai Po Cho), and has since become a symbol of Mon independence

(South, 2005: 38; Hongsa, 2012a). On the eighth waning day of the second Mon

(Burmese) lunar month (usually in May), they commemorate the fall of Hongsawatoi

(Hongsa, 2012b; Australia Mon Association,http://www.mon.org.au/).

Having watched DVD recordings (lent to me by Nai Hong Sar Channaibanya)

of the 64th

and 65th

anniversary celebrations of Mon National Day in Canberra, I can

see how the collective view of the Mon community in Canberra (and of Mon

communities elsewhere) about the ancestral homeland of the Mon people are affirmed

and reinforced every year. The nationalistic sentiments that are being continually

affirmed and reinforced here (Hongsa, 2012b) are, in my view, encapsulated very well

in the following February 1998 statement by the Mon National Day Celebration

Committee, an overseas Mon association, in connection with the 51st

anniversary of

Mon National Day (South (2005: 39-40):
http://www.eumon.org/http://www.eumon.org/http://www.mon.org.au/http://www.mon.org.au/http://www.mon.org.au/http://www.mon.org.au/http://www.eumon.org/


14/28

14

Traditionally we Mon have celebrated the founding of our Nation on the first Waning of

Mide, a Mon lunar date, which happens to fall this year on 12th

February.

Mon National Day commemorates the inception of the Mon kingdom, Hongsawadee, founded

in 825 AD by two brothers, Samala and Vimala, in what is now called Pegu, in Lower Burma.

On this auspicious day may all Mon people be blessed with physical and mental health

The fall of Mon Kingdom to the Burmans in 1757 not only marked the end of the once

flourishing Mon kingdom but of all administrative and political powers as well. Thus a nation

of great significance in Southeast Asian history was reduced to an ethnic minority and has

tended to have been forgotten by the modern world.

Mon political forces joined hand in hand with Burmans and other ethnic groups in gaining

independence from the British in 1948. But after independence the Mon were denied their

political rights with the excuse that there were no particular differences between the Mon and

the Burmans. As a result of this, the Mons continued to endure suppression of their rights and

their country

We Mon people are still severely oppressed under the ruling of dictatorship, SPDC and had

been deprived of our fundamental rights, the rights of self-determination.

In this auspicious occasion, Mon National Day, let all Mon people commit ourselves to be

united as one family and to struggle for freedom of our homeland where we Mon could

exercise the rights of self-determination and where we could enjoy a peaceful life.

An idealization of the supposed ancestral home

For the Mon community in Canberra (and Mon communities elsewhere), the

ancestral home of the Mon people, Monland, was the Land of the Golden Sheldrake,

the land of the sacred mount of Brahma, a divine kingdom. It was the land whose

civilization gave the rest of Burma letters, religion, and magnificent pagodas, and

which the Burman have, since 1757, sought to consign to the footnotes of history

(South, 2005: 34; Hongsa, 2012b). The sentiments of the Mon community in Canberra

(and Mon communities elsewhere) in this regard (Hongsa, 2012b) are poignantly

reflected in the following lament by Mon monks in Thailand (South, 2005: 34):

Our history is rich

Our future is bright

We gave Southeast Asia Buddhism

Here we were the first peoples to writeThe Thais and the Burmans


15/28

15

Were our pupils

How do they treat their teacher now?

The following poem (by Hong Sar Channaibanya, read at the 254th

anniversary

commemoration of the Fall of Hongsawatoi Day in Canberra, on 10 May 2011, at

http://www.mon.org.au/file/mysoul.pdf) expresses similar sentiments and is an

idealization of Monland:

My homeland and my soul

The land of peace for a man of dignity

A misery of history of destruction and invasion

My homeland and my soul

Lingering to the heart of Hongsawatee!

Years have gone by day and night

The mighty of our greatness

The fate of our future

Will be bright!

It is the land of a holy place of Buddhism

The long lives of our identity, language, culture and arts

The craftsmanship of our mankind

Time to reach liberalism!

Hongsawatee!

It is my soul, my land and my heart

It is my identity and my dignity at last

Hongsawatee!

A united soul of our greatness

Strength of our unity

A vision of our common journey!

We, the generation of Hongsawatee

Re-united in our soul and heartAt last, the motherland is waiting for us.

Monland is regarded by Mon people today as the territory that stretches from

present-day Bago (Pegu) Division, Ayeyarwady (Irrawaddy) Division, Yangon

(Rangoon) Division, Mon State, and Tanintharyi (Tenasserim) Division (see Map at p.

5). It is the Monland that the Mon of Canberra, jointly and in solidarity with Mon
http://www.mon.org.au/file/mysoul.pdfhttp://www.mon.org.au/file/mysoul.pdfhttp://www.mon.org.au/file/mysoul.pdf


16/28

16

communities elsewhere, would like to see restored one day to the Mon people (Chan,

2012).

A return movement or at least a continuing connection

My data-sources for this sub-section are Chan (2012) and Hongsa (2012a). The

current social, economic and political developments in Burma are viewed positively

by the Mon of Canberra, but they wish to see further improvements in these areas, and

would like to contribute to and participate in these developments if given the

opportunity. Many have not seen their parents or other relatives for many years and

they long to be able to visit them, but many are still uncomfortable in doing so.

Nonetheless, one or two have gone back, once or twice, to Mon State to visit their

relatives and friends. Most, however, and rather more frequently, go to Thailand, to

see relatives and friends who are living in Thailand, as refugees or migrant workers, or

relatives and friends who have, by pre-arrangement, travelled to Thailand from Mon

State.

Mon persons in Canberra dream of going back to Monland once they are

assured that it is safe for them to do, but they would only be visiting relatives or as

tourists, not to return for good. If the political situation in Burma improves further,

particularly if democracy and multiculturalism become widely accepted, and more so

if a federal system of government is thought to be realisable, so that there is increased

potential for Mon people once again to play a reasonable and satisfactory role

(socially, culturally, economically and politically) in a pluralistic Burmese nation,

perhaps a few single persons might return to Burma permanently. However, most

Canberran Mon with families are unlikely to return to Burma to resettle.


17/28

17

Almost all Mon persons in Canberra maintain regular contact with families,

relatives and friends in Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, the US, the EU countries and

elsewhere by phone, letters and internet communication facilities, such as email,

Skype, Yahoo Messenger, and social media facilities such as Facebook. Since mobile

phone services (via Thai mobile network) are available in almost every village in Mon

State, and with the cost of such services having become increasingly more affordable,

many Canberra Mon telephone their families almost every week, and some even do so

at shorter intervals. Many, however, tend to prefer to engage in email correspondence

and in Skype or Yahoo Messenger communication, more regularly than in telephone

communication, with those of their relatives and friends who have access to such

internet communication facilities.

Almost all Mon persons and families in Canberra use the internet to keep

abreast with what is going on in Burma, by reading Mon media websites such as Kao

Wao, Independent Mon News Agency and other websites. They also listen to radio

broadcasts in Burmese from the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Asia (RFA)

and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Some Canberran Mon keep

themselves up to date with the news in Burma by either or both of the above means on

a daily basis and many on at least a weekly basis.

A strong ethnic group consciousness sustained over a long time

My data-sources for this sub-section are Chan (2012) and Hongsa (2012a). In

commenting on this particular diasporic feature, Cohen (2008: 166) says: A strong

attachment to the past, or a block to assimilation in the present and future, must exist

to permit a diasporic consciousness to be mobilized or to be retained. It seems clear


18/28

18

to me, from I have said above regarding their collective memory about their ancestral

homeland, their idealization of that homeland, and their attitude to a return to

Monland, that the Canberran Mon do indeed have a strong attachment to the past.

There is also no ambiguity about their collective attitude to assimilation. The Mon of

Canberra desire and are determined to live in harmony with other communities in

Australia in line with Australian multiculturalism, but they do not wish to abandon

their language, culture, religion, customs and traditions. In short, they want to

maintain their ethnic identity. This attitude is consistent with the well-established

position of the Mon people in Burma in relation to the Burmans efforts to

Burmanise them.

The Mon of Canberra have an association the Australia Mon Association

(formed in 1995, not long after the first arrivals of Mon persons in Canberra) to

provide them with a mechanism to co-ordinate and sustain their efforts in maintaining

and promoting their language, culture, customs and traditions. The Association holds

regular Mon language classes for Mon children; organises the yearly celebration in

Canberra of Mon National Day and the yearly commemoration of the Fall of

Hongsawatoi Day; manages Canberran Mon participation in multicultural festivals

and other cultural activities; participates in joint activities with Mon communities

elsewhere; and generally acts as an advocate for Mon interests with government

agencies and non-government agencies.

The Mon community is the backbone of the Buddhist Society of the ACT. The

resident monk (abbot at Narrabundah monastery) is a Mon who speaks five languages:

Mon, Burmese, Thai, Sinhalese, and English. Since 1996, once a month, individual


19/28

19

members of the Mon community prepare and take meals to the resident monk, to

maintain a traditional practice that is over one thousand years old (Buddhist monks

should not prepare and cook meals for themselves, so as to differentiate them, as

religious leaders, from lay people). The Mon abbot is the Mon spiritual/religious

leader in Canberra. Mon persons in Canberra see him as having an essential role in

sustaining their religious affiliation and maintaining social cohesion.

A troubled relationship with the host society

Cohen says: This feature of a diaspora is, unfortunately, all too common and

there is barely a group mentioned that did not at some stage experience discrimination

in the countries of their migration (Cohen, 2008: 166). He cites the experience of the

Chinese in Malaya, Indians in Fiji, Poles in Germany, Italians in Switzerland,

Japanese in Peru, Irish in England, Palestinians in Kuwait, Caribbean peoples in

Europe, Sikhs in Britain, Turks and Roma in Germany, and Kurds in Turkey, all of

whom, he says, have experienced antagonism and legal or illegal discrimination,

while some have become the objects of violent hatred in their countries of

settlement (Cohen, 2008: 167).

The Mon of Canberra have, however, never experienced, as a group, any

discrimination or racial intolerance. Similarly, no Mon persons in Canberra are known

to have experienced antagonism or hatred. Canberran Mon see themselves collectively

as being well-regarded and accepted by other communities in Canberra (Chan, 2012).


20/28

20

A sense of co-responsibility with co-ethnic members in other countries

The Mon of Canberra maintain strong ethnic solidarity with Mon communities

elsewhere. This is exemplified by their participation in the issuing of regular joint

political statements with other Mon organisations, through the Australia Mon

Association. The Euro-Mon Community website (http://www.eumon.org/) contains a

number of these joint statements in connection with the commemoration of 251st,

252nd

and 253rd

anniversaries the Fall of Hongsawatoi Day by the Australia Mon

Association, Euro-Mon Community, Mon Canadian Society, Monland Restoration

Council (USA), Mon Womens Association of America, Mon Womens Organization

of Canada, National League for Consolidating and Aiding (Mae Sot, Thailand), Mon

National Democratic Front (Liberated Area), Mon Unity League (Thailand), and

Overseas Mon Womens Organization (Mae Sot, Thailand). And, as noted earlier

(under sub-section A return movement or at least a continuing connection), many

members of the Mon community in Canberra maintain regular contact with members

of Mon communities elsewhere, by phone, email, letters and online facilities such as

Skype, Yahoo Messenger, and Facebook.

The possibility of a distinctive creative, enriching life in tolerant host

countries

In his commentary on this particular diasporic feature, Cohen has the following

to say (2008: 167-168):

Even victim diasporas can find their experiences in modern nation-states enriching and

creative as well as enervating and terrifying. The Jews considerable intellectual and spiritual

achievements in the diaspora simply could not have happened in a narrow tribal society like

that of ancient Judea. The Armenians and Irish thrived materially and politically in the land

of opportunity, the USA. The Palestinians are characteristically more prosperous and bettereducated than the locals in the countries of their exile. Despite their bitter privations, Africans
http://www.eumon.org/http://www.eumon.org/http://www.eumon.org/http://www.eumon.org/


21/28

21

in the diaspora have produced influential musical forms like spirituals, jazz, blues, rock and

roll, calypso, samba and reggae, initiated major innovations in the performing arts and

generated a rich vein of literature and poetry.

Under the current social, political and legal environments in Australia, the Mon

of Canberra see a bright future for Mon persons in Australia (Chan, 2012). They are

very optimistic that they and their children and their childrens children would have

great potential of enjoying a good and enriching life in multicultural Australia, where,

unlike the situation in Burma, social mobility is dependent on ones talent and drive,

and not on patron-client relationship or clientelism (I have borrowed these

expressions from David Steinbergs 2010 book,Burma/Myanmar: What Every Needs

to Know, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 151), and formal education,

including in particular tertiary education, is highly accessible to everyone who wants

it.

Transnational consciousness

In this section, inspired by Brees (2010), I look at the question of whether or

not, and the extent to which, members of the Mon community in Canberra engage in

transnational activities. My data-source for this section is Hongsa (2012a).

Financial remittances to left-behind families and relatives

Providing financial assistance to family members, particularly to parents who

are in need, is regarded by Mon people as an important social obligation owed by

children to their parents, and between siblings. Most Mon persons, regardless of

where they live, take this responsibility very seriously. Individual members of the

Mon community in Canberra began sending money to left-behind family members


22/28

22

and/or other relatives in Burma (or Thailand) as soon as they could. Most persons

send remittances at least once a year, but some do so more often. Most remittances to

Burma are sent through informal means through trusted people, that is, people

who are visiting from Burma or Thailand, or Burmese or Thai students in Australia

who are either returning home upon completion of their studies or for holidays; or the

money is sent to relatives in Thailand for on-sending to recipients in Burma not

through banks or international money transfer agents. This is because the remitters

fear that sending money to Burma through the formal channels might attract (for their

relatives) the unwelcome attention of Burmese authorities, particularly unscrupulous

police officers who are always looking for opportunities to extract money from the

people by means of threats and trumped-up charges.

Fund-raising activities

Members of the Mon community in Canberra also regularly raise funds or

contribute to fund-raising activities organised by other Mon organisations for Mon

community projects (social or religious) in Burma or Thailand or elsewhere. Most of

the fund-raising activities that are associated with social projects, such as

humanitarian assistance, teaching Mon language to young people and other non-

religious projects, are organised by either the Australia Mon Association or Mon

individuals with the support of the Association. For example, the Association

organised a fund-raising event for the victims of cyclone Nargis in 2008. The

Association is also frequently involved in fund-raising activities for various other

projects that are viewed as beneficial to people in Burma.


23/28

23

Fund-raising for religious-related activities tend to be undertaken or

coordinated by individuals with or without the support of the Association. For

example, Mon people around the world have been involved in the construction of a

Mon monastery in Bodh Gaya in Gaya district in the Indian state of Bihar. Bodh Gaya

is famous for being the place where Gautama Buddha is said to have attained his

Enlightenment. For Buddhists, Bodh Gaya is the most important of the four main

pilgrimage sites related to the life of Gautama Buddha. Members of the Mon

community in Canberra, in solidarity with Mon communities elsewhere, make regular

donations to the Bodh Gaya Mon monastery project.

Cultural activities

In her discussion of cultural activities undertaken by refugees (mainly Karen)

in Thailand, Brees has this to say (Brees, 2010: 290-291):

Within Thailand, diaspora organizations arrange cultural activities (which are at the same

time social events) to maintain the link with their home country. Even if these cultural

activities take place within the host country, many have a home country focus, which is why

they are looked upon as transnational activities. Traditional festivals, national holidays and

ceremonies are still celebrated both inside and outside camp. These rituals enable the refugees

to recover a past and imagine a future if and when they return.

In the same way, the cultural activities of the Mon of Canberra, possessing as

they do similar attributes as the above-mentioned cultural activities of the refugees in

Thailand, are transnational activities. These activities Mon National Day celebration

(in February), Mon New Year celebration (in April) (Hongsa, 2012c), Fall of

Hongsawatoi Day commemoration (in May), and participation in annual multicultural

festivals in Canberra and in Queanbeyan have all a home country focus. These

activities maintain the Canberra Mons connection to their past, and affirm and


24/28

24

reinforce their ethnic identity both to themselves and to non-Mon audiences. Most

members of the Mon community in Canberra are not happy when members of the

wider community regard them as Burmese.

Political activities

Providing moral and other appropriate support to opposition groups or

organisations in Burma is a natural activity for individual members of the Mon

community in Canberra as the majority of them were political activists or politicians

in Burma. Some community members regularly engage in debates about Burmese

politics and society in relevant news/public media (including internet/online media)

and through other avenues. For example, one person is a permanent contributing

columnist in the Guiding Star, an independent monthly newspaper published (in Mon

and Burmese) in Thailand. Another person has written two books in Burmese on the

Mon people, and he frequently engages in online debates on the history of Burma.

Some individuals have been interviewed by Australian media on many occasions

whenever there are new or interesting political developments in Burma. Many

participate in the annual Burma Update forum on Burmese issues organised by the

Australian National University.

Members of the Mon community in Canberra participate in demonstrations

against the Burmese regime, organised by various Burmese or ethnic opposition

groups from time to time, in front of the Embassy of the Union of Myanmar. Mon

community leaders and delegates frequently attend meetings, fora, parties and fund-

raising activities organised by ACT government agencies, non-governmental

organisations and community organisations. The Mon National Day celebration is one


25/28

25

of the principal avenues that the Mon community in Canberra employs to lobby or

engage with (invited) Australian officials and politicians to advance the cause of the

Mon people.

Conclusion

The Mon of Canberra are a diasporic community. They are one of at least

twelve Mon communities residing outside Burma (that is, in addition to Australia, in

Thailand, Malaysia, USA, Canada, UK, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland,

Netherlands, and New Zealand).

Most of them have become Australian citizens, and the rest are permanent

residents who are awaiting grant of citizenship pending completion of citizenship

tests. Even if the situation in Burma improves to their satisfaction, most of them have

no intention of returning to Burma to resettle. Having escaped human rights violation

in Burma, they are now well-settled in Australia, and most of them would only visit

Burma, if they do at all, once the circumstances there are judged by them to be

congenial, as tourists or to meet with relatives and friends.

They have, however, a strong commitment to maintaining connection to

homeland (as exemplified, in particular, by their unflagging annual celebration and

commemoration of Mon National Day, Mon New Year and the Fall of Hongsawatoi;

and by their abiding interest in keeping abreast with news about Burma) and Mon

communities elsewhere (as shown by their efforts, through the Australia Mon

Association, to co-ordinate their activities, including the issuing of joint political

statements, with those communities). But their homeland nostalgia is for Monland, not


26/28

26

Mon State, the piece of land that the Ne Win government had grudgingly offered the

Mon people in 1974 in its effort to buy peace.

The consistent and organised ways in which the Mon people in Burma have

represented themselves in the political and cultural realm of Burma are faithfully

reflected in the ways that the Mon of Canberra have represented themselves in

Australia. They have been deprived of their ancestral homeland by the Burman, who

have, since the fall of Hongsawatoi, sought to Burmanise them. They have become

an ethnic minority in a land in which they were once dominant. They seek to have

their ancestral homeland the land that stretches from present-day Bago (Pegu)

Division, Ayeyarwady (Irrawaddy) Division, Yangon (Rangoon) Division, Mon State,

and Tanintharyi (Tenasserim) Division (see Map at p. 5) restored to them. They do

not want to be consigned to the footnotes of history.

The Mon of Canberra have a strong commitment to maintaining their ethnic

identity (their language, culture, religion, customs and traditions). This identity is

affirmed and reinforced by their unfailing yearly celebration and commemoration of

Mon National Day, Mon New Year, and the Fall of Hongsawatoi Day, and in their

participation in multicultural festivals in Australia. The Australia Mon Association

assists them in mobilising and managing this commitment, and their religious leader,

the Mon abbot at Narrabundah monastery, assists them in sustaining their religious

affiliation and cohesion.

As a corollary to the above, the Mon of Canberra desire and are determined to

live in harmony with other communities in Australia in line with the principles of


27/28

27

Australian multiculturalism, but refuse to integrate in ways that would cause them to

abandon their ethnic identity. This attitude is of course consistent with the position of

the Mon people in Burma in relation to the Burmans efforts to Burmanise them.

As a diasporic community, the Mon of Canberra regularly engage in

transnational activities: sending financial remittances to relatives in Burma (and

Thailand); making financial donations to social and religious projects in Burma and

elsewhere; and pursuing cultural and political activities that have a homeland focus.

These transnational activities maintain the Canberra Mons connection to their past,

and affirm and reinforce their ethnic identity both to themselves and to non-Mon

audiences, and so there is here an intersection of their diasporic consciousness with a

form of transnational consciousness.

Richard Maning

Canberra

June 2012


28/28

28

References

Brees, Inge, 2010. Refugees and transnationalism on the Thai-Burmese border.

Global Networks 10 (2): 282-299.

Chan, Siri Mon, 2012. Answers to Questionnaire No. 1 (Questions 30-52).

Channaibanya, Hong Sar, 2012. Answers to Questionnaire No. 1 (Questions 1-29).

Cohen, Robin, 2008.Global Diasporas: An introduction (Second Edition). London

and New York: Routledge.

Hongsa, Din Pla, 2012a. Answers to Questionnaire No. 2.

Hongsa, Din Pla, 2012b. Answers to Questionnaire No. 3.

Hongsa, Din Pla, 2012c. Answers to Questionnaire No. 4.

Lang, Hazel J., 2002.Fear and Sanctuary: Burmese Refugees in Thailand. Ithaca,

New York: South East Asia Program, Cornell University.

Sakhong, Lian H., 2010.In Defence of Identity: The Ethnic Nationalities Struggle

for Democracy, Human Rights, and Federalism in Burma. Bangkok, Thailand: Orchid

Press.

South, Ashley, 2005.Mon Nationalism and Civil War in Burma: The Golden

Sheldrake (Paperback Edition). London and New York: Routledge.

the mon of canberra - an essay by richard maning[2] (1)

Documents