Introduction

THE MON OF CANBERRA An Essay By Richard Maning

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,

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

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

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.

Map of Burma Divisions and States Source: http://www.aems.illinois.edu/resources/currentevents/burma.html

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 Ngunnawal Amaroo Palmerston Gungahlin Harrison Franklin Forde Downer Watson Ainslie Braddon Reid Turner Woden Total = 14

Number of Homes 2 1 4 1 3 6 1 3 3 3 6 5 4 2 Total = 44

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 Under 5 years 5-11 years 12-17 years 18-29 years 30-40 years 41-50 years 51-60 years 61-70 years Over 70 years

Number 16 18 28 10 37 55 10 4 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

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, post2000 arrivals (in the periods 2000-2004 and 2005-2011) were principally familysponsored. 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

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 Married Men Married Women Single Men

Percentage Employed 95 70 100

Field of Employment Trades and construction Hospitality and cleaning services Trades, hospitality, construction (90 per cent), other professions (10 per cent) Trades, hospitality, cleaning services (90 per cent), small business/self-employed (10 per cent)

Single Women

100

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

1. Dispersal from an original homeland, often traumatically, to two or more foreign regions. 2. Alternatively or additionally, the expansion from a homeland in search of work, in pursuit 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 collective commitment to its maintenance, restoration, safety and prosperity, even to its creation. 5. The frequent development of a return movement to the homeland that gains collective 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 a sense 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 the possibility 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 a tolerance for pluralism.

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 Thailand Malaysia USA Canada UK Norway Denmark Sweden Finland Netherlands New Zealand Australia Number (estimated) 230, 000 3,000-4,000 400-600 80-120 20-40 20-30 20-30 10-15 20-30 20-30 30-40 250

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 sociopolitical violence associated directly and indirectly with war (Lang, 2005: 17). Australia, as noted earlier on, recognises this broader notion of refugee through the

12

special humanitarian visas that the government issues to eligible persons (Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Refugee and Humanitarian Entry to Australia: Offshore Resettlement, at http://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,

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):

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 write The Thais and the Burmans

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 heart At 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

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

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

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

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

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 better educated than the locals in the countries of their exile. Despite their bitter privations, Africans

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

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 nonreligious 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

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

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 fundraising activities organised by ACT government agencies, non-governmental organisations and community organisations. The Mon National Day celebration is one

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

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

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

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.