Myanmar: Religious Minority Persecution

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered religious minority persecution in Myanmar. 

This is something that has been on my mind, and the mind of lots of us, for some time. We may not know very much about Myanmar in relation to religious persecution, but I am glad to see my friend and colleague in the Gallery who, along with Rev. Cecil Rasa, told us all about what was happening.

This debate has also been some time coming. There has been great interest from many hon. Members in holding Backbench Business debates, so it has taken until now for us to have this opportunity, but I am very pleased to have it and I thank the Backbench Business Committee. It is indeed an honour to introduce this debate on Myanmar and to speak once again for those whose voices are silenced by violence, repression and fear. We will hear some of the things—hopefully others will contribute as well—that relate to just how bad the situation is in Myanmar.

I speak today because freedom of religion or belief is not a peripheral concern; it is a foundational human right. When freedom of religion or belief collapses, other rights collapse alongside it: freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, access to justice and, ultimately, the right to life itself. Myanmar today is a stark example of that truth. Since the military coup of February 2021, religious freedom in Myanmar has continued to worsen amid civil war.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing today’s debate on Myanmar, because religious and ethnic minorities there are facing some of the harshest persecution. He will no doubt be aware that Christian communities have seen their churches destroyed, their clergy imprisoned and aid blocked, and that long-persecuted Muslim communities such as the Rohingya and the Uyghurs remain stateless, are severely restricted in their movements and face further persecution. Does he agree that international condemnation, co-ordination and action are urgently needed to protect those vulnerable groups?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend—he has been my friend for all the time I have known him—for his intervention. He is absolutely right, and he has outlined, in those two or three sentences, what this debate is all about. It is an opportunity to highlight religious minorities and persecution, with a focus on Myanmar.

Independent monitoring by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom documents the destruction and occupation of religious sites, the killing of clergy and civilians, and the deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid by the military authorities. Churches, mosques and monasteries have been affected by airstrikes, shelling and arson. In some cases, places of worship have been occupied or used by troops, turning sites of prayer into military targets. Aid convoys have been blocked or prohibited, even in areas of acute need. Religious leaders have been detained and harassed.

I know there are many issues demanding the attention of this House, and there has just been a debate in the main Chamber about the same thing, but I often think of Galatians 6:9, which urges us not to grow weary in doing good, for in due season we will reap if we diligently sow. The Bible very clearly gives us a challenge—indeed, it is a directive—about what we should do. We must not allow Myanmar to become a forgotten crisis, where atrocities continue in plain sight. We must continue to do what we can to help the vulnerable and the needy, and there are many of them.

The junta’s violence is nationwide, but its impact is especially severe on minority communities and on religious life itself. The USCIRF reports that over 3.4 million people have been displaced in recent years. That includes some 90,000 people displaced in Christian-majority Chin state, and around 237,200 in Kachin state. Alongside this internal displacement, around 1 million Rohingya refugees remain in Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh, living in prolonged exile, with absolutely no indication of when they will be able to return. That is one of the things we should look at today. I should have said that I am very pleased to see the Minister in her place. I always look forward to the Minister’s response. I wish her well in her role, and I look forward to her replies to our questions.

Those figures are not abstract. They represent families torn from their homes, congregations scattered, and communities unable to gather safely to worship. For many, the simple act of practising their faith has become a source of danger. This is not only a freedom of religion or belief issue viewed in isolation; it sits within a much wider framework of state violence. UN-linked reporting has documented systematic torture by Myanmar’s security forces, including cases involving children, as well as sexual abuse and sexual attacks on women and girls. I do not know whether it is my age, but I certainly get more affected by the things happening in the world than I ever did before. It is almost inconceivable to comprehend all the horror taking place.

It is important to note that FoRB violations in Myanmar are part of a broader pattern of repression and brutality. They are not isolated incidents. The plight of the Rohingya Muslims remains one of the gravest examples of this persecution. UN fact finders concluded that there were grounds to investigate senior Tatmadaw leaders for genocide and other international crimes, and they explicitly called for criminal investigation and prosecution. Can the Minister confirm whether she is aware of a criminal investigation taking place? Are there grounds for prosecution? Obviously, that would all be built on evidence, but has that started?

Crucially, this issue did not begin and end in 2017. Amnesty International has described a state-sponsored system of apartheid in Rakhine state marked by institutional discrimination, segregation and extreme restrictions on movement and daily life. Rohingya communities are confined, controlled and denied access to basic services. A people stripped of citizenship, boxed in by policy, and punished for trying to move—this is not merely insecurity; it is engineered oppression.

Christian communities have also suffered targeted attacks, particularly in Chin, Kachin and Karenni areas. The USCIRF documents repeated attacks on churches and confirms that the military has destroyed religious buildings and killed clergy and civilians through airstrikes and arson. The USCIRF further reports that at least 128 religious persons have been detained by the authorities, including 113 Buddhist monks, one imam and 14 Christians. These are not random arrests. They reflect a deliberate effort to intimidate religious leadership and community life. There are many examples, but one case in particular brings this into sharp focus: Rev. Hkalam Samson of the Kachin Baptist Convention—a respected Christian leader who is much loved in his area—was arrested, granted amnesty, and then re-arrested within hours. This is injustice. It is harassment, designed to send a message that no religious leader is beyond reach—no religious leader is safe.

More broadly, independent monitoring documents attacks and intimidation affecting multiple faith communities in churches, mosques and monasteries, and across several regions and states. When places of worship themselves become targets, freedom of religion or belief ceases to exist in any meaningful sense in the area—not just for the places of worship themselves, but for the practising Christians, Rohingya Muslims and people of other faiths as well.

We must also be clear about why these abuses occur. Many analysts argue that the Tatmadaw has long instrumentalised race and religion narratives to legitimise repression. It is beyond dispute that independent monitoring documents repeated targeting of religious leaders and religious sites across communities, reflecting persecution linked to identity rather than military necessity. They are being targeted because of who they are—because of their religious beliefs.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. I have come along to learn more about the situation, which is, frankly, puzzling. Is the regime motivated by some form of extreme religion of its own? Is it just ultra-nationalism? Is it doing all this persecution to repress the people and keep them in a form of captivity, or to drive people whom it does not like because of their identity out of the country completely?

[Jim Shannon]

As always, the right hon. Member brings wisdom to the debate. He is right to highlight that the Tatmadaw and the authorities are using people’s religion and race as reasons to legitimise repression. As far as they are concerned, they do not want people to have anything, and by focusing on those things, they take away the very right to express religious belief—to have a race, a different culture and a different history.

Another root cause is Myanmar’s discriminatory legal architecture, particularly its citizenship regime, which probably highlights the very point that the right hon. Member just referred to. The 1982 citizenship law embeds exclusion by tying full citizenship to state-defined nationality categories and strict criteria, while granting wide discretion over who qualifies—in other words, it directly discriminates. Amnesty International documents how this framework has left most Rohingya without full citizenship rights, despite generations of residence in Rakhine state.

Citizenship denial is not symbolic; it is operational. Amnesty shows how exclusion from citizenship underpins restrictions on freedom of movement, access to education, healthcare, participation in public life and legal protection. It forms the backbone of the apartheid-like system imposed on Rohingya communities. Amnesty also documents how temporary registration cards, often known as “white cards”, were revoked, leaving many Rohingya without identity documentation linked to rights or political participation—even further entrenching their vulnerability.

This is not an accident of bureaucracy. When a state writes exclusion into its citizenship law, it builds persecution into the legal system itself—and that is how it pursues its goals. Impunity compounds all of this. The military’s long history of avoiding accountability encourages repetition. Atrocities become a tactic, not an aberration. UN fact-finding missions have emphasised the need for criminal investigation and prosecution, yet meaningful accountability remains elusive.

There are also factors that worsen and sustain this crisis. UN investigators have highlighted the role of social media, particularly Facebook, in spreading hate speech and incitement against the Rohingya. That does not absolve the state of responsibility, but it shows how hatred has been amplified and normalised. Doing it so often means that it becomes a way of life that focuses on those who are in a religious minority.

Of course, we cannot point fingers outwards and not look internally. International action also plays a role. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned Myanmar in the main Chamber debate and referred to the Magnitsky sanctions that need to be in place for some of the Myanmar leaders. With great respect, the Government—this has been going on for a number of years, so it is not just this Government, but previous ones—have not pursued those involved in horrendous things in Myanmar, but they should have.

When decisive multilateral action stalls, the junta itself can outlast condemnation. Annual monitoring shows that detention, attacks on religious sites and the obstruction of aid continues despite years of international concern. Humanitarian obstruction remains a central tool of control. The USCIRF states that the military has blocked or prohibited critical aid from reaching displaced people, worsening their suffering and vulnerability —especially for minorities. All my life I have said that if a person is denied their human rights, they are also denied their religious viewpoint, and if they are denied their religious viewpoint, their human rights are also denied.

The question is: what should be done and what can realistically be done? We cannot solve all the problems of the world—if only we could—but the bit that we can do, we should do. In the immediate term, civilians and places of worship must be protected. Humanitarian aid must be allowed to reach those in need. I am sure that the Minister will be able to confirm where, or if, that is happening. I ask that the Foreign Office tie the substantial funding that we give to Myanmar to the principle of freedom of religion or belief. The UK has provided over £190 million for aid, healthcare and civil society since the 2021 coup, including some £66.45 million in the financial year 2024-25 alone. That was boosted by £10 million for the 2025 earthquake, with further funds for the refugee crisis—always with enhanced due diligence to avoid the military regime benefiting. We must leverage our goodness to them and ensure their goodness to their own.

In the medium term, the international community must constrain the junta’s capacity to wage war, including through air power, and strengthen evidence gathering and accountability mechanisms. Those who carry out abysmal and despicable crimes need to be made accountable, and the evidence needs to be gathered and made ready so that we can at some stage hold them accountable. Diplomacy can be a mighty tool and I believe that we can do more.

In the long term, there can be no durable peace without an inclusive settlement in which citizenship and equality are restored—especially for the Rohingya—so that freedom of religion or belief is protected by law, not dependent on good will or military discretion. For many years, the House has repeatedly raised concerns about freedom of religion or belief and wider human rights abuses in Myanmar. The question now is whether our actions match the scale of the crisis.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, will the Government commit to regular, published assessments of freedom of religion or belief and human rights in Myanmar, using independent monitoring benchmarks? It is really important that we have an independent body that is able to assess what is happening in Myanmar specifically. Through that, we will be able to gauge whether persecution is decreasing, or if there is any more action that we could take.

Secondly, what further steps will the UK take with allies to constrain the junta’s capacity for attacks that destroy religious sites and kill civilians? The air force has been used to bomb and kill, and to destroy churches and even hospitals and schools—nothing is ruled out in the junta’s attacks. Something really needs to be done to ensure that they stop.

Thirdly, how will the Government ensure that humanitarian aid reaches displaced minorities when the military deliberately blocks assistance? We know evidentially that whenever aid was sent from here to Myanmar, the military blocked it, put obstacles in its way and ensured that assistance did not get to the people that it should have.

Fourthly, what additional support will be provided to the accountability pathways identified by UN fact-finding work on genocide and other international crimes? I would love to have the people who have carried out these crimes made accountable in the court of this world, and then jailed accordingly. I am a Christian; I know that whenever they come to the next world, they will be accountable then. We all know where they will end up: they will end up in a place that is very warm—in hell. Still, I would love to see them get their justice in this world, just as they will get their justice in the next—I know that is going to happen, no matter what.

Myanmar’s crisis is not only political. It is a crisis of conscience, where identity is punished, worship is targeted, and the law itself—as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said—is used as a weapon. This House must continue to speak clearly, consistently and persistently for those who cannot. Let us not be weary in doing good, and let us do what we can in Myanmar. I believe that with renewed focus, we can reap a harvest of freedom for those living in fear in that place. Our job today is to speak for them. They have no voice; today, we are their voice.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful and powerful contributions.

As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), said, there has been real consensus across the House today. With the continuing horror of the situation in Myanmar, it is important that we have a strong sense of our responsibilities in the international community. Given Britain’s history with Burma, we must do all we can to support Myanmar to move forward to a more positive future and to keep hope alive.

The persecution of religious minorities and the freedom of religion and belief are important areas that go across the work of the Foreign Office. Indeed, earlier this week I met our special envoy for freedom of religion or belief to talk about the overall strategy, and why it is so important that we uphold these values and continue to be champions for freedom of religion or belief across the world. I will respond to as many as possible of the points that have been raised today, but first I will make a few opening points.

First, religious persecution in Myanmar is a grave violation of fundamental human rights. As my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) powerfully stated, we must speak with one voice in condemning these injustices and must work together to ensure accountability and protection for the most vulnerable, so let me say that the UK remains steadfast in its commitment to defending the freedom of religion and belief for all. As hon. Members have rightly highlighted, Myanmar’s religious minorities have faced decades of persecution, from discriminatory laws such as the 1982 citizenship law to long-standing restrictions on worship, on movement and on citizenship. Indeed, since the coup in 2021, religious freedoms have deteriorated even further. This debate has raised the issues of attacks on religious sites, confiscations of places of worship, widespread destruction, families torn apart and communities displaced.

The regime continues to exploit religious tensions, particularly in southern Shan and Rakhine, where ethnoreligious nationalism fuels hostility, particularly towards Christian and Muslim minorities. We are also seeing the military weaponising online spaces to spread hate. The UN’s independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar has highlighted how disinformation has driven identity-based violence, including against the Rohingya, as the hon. Member for Strangford has referred to. For the first time, we have seen brutal violations taking place in predominantly Buddhist regions. Sagaing is now one of the hardest-hit areas, facing daily airstrikes, village burnings and mass displacement.

In the face of those challenges, I want to address some of the points that were raised in the debate, particularly around the support we are giving. It is the case that, in the light of unprecedented global humanitarian need and the current fiscal situation, the UK has adjusted its annual official development assistance allocations. However, the plight of those in need and fleeing Myanmar remains a UK priority.

In 2024-25, the UK increased humanitarian support to Myanmar to £66.5 million, and the UK is providing £80 million this financial year. This year, as we provide that £80 million in lifesaving humanitarian assistance, we are supporting emergency healthcare and education for the most vulnerable. We are also working very closely with faith-based organisations, which are trusted actors with deep community ties that are often first on the scene in crises.

UK-funded education initiatives are helping to make schools more inclusive by supporting minority languages and cultures, so that every child feels able to learn. It is important to reiterate the point that no UK aid goes to the Myanmar military. This year, through the John Bunyan fund, we have supported organisations that tackle hate speech, misinformation and online harms that drive discrimination and violence. We have also trained religious and community leaders to challenge harmful narratives, strengthen civil society and develop practical tools to help communities respond.

[Jim Shannon]

Just one thing to confirm, Minister, and I think it is something that each and every one of us who has spoken has raised: we have all highlighted the issue that the aid the Government are sending to Myanmar is not getting to the refugees, that the junta—the military—is stopping it and is an obstacle to it getting there. We are all seeking an assurance that the aid will get to the refugees, which is where it is needed, and that the junta will not try to stop it. Please.

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Member is right to highlight what the junta continues to try to do. That is why it is incredibly important that we are continuing to work to make sure that humanitarian aid is not prevented from reaching where it needs to go. It is also why it is so important that we continue to work with local organisations and actors on the ground, so that we are able, as much as possible, to reach the frontline through trusted organisations with deep community ties. I am happy to continue dialogue with the hon. Member on how we are working in Myanmar on these very difficult challenges.

I also want to mention the incredibly important role that Bangladesh is playing, and to commend Bangladesh for the accommodation of 1 million refugees. We know the challenge that has been. The UK is the second largest donor to the Rohingya crisis response in Bangladesh, contributing £447 million since 2017, including an additional £27 million announced in September, just a few months ago.

My colleague Baroness Chapman was fairly recently in Bangladesh, talking to the Government, visiting Cox’s Bazar and looking at what more can be done to support further skills development and other productive activity for those in the refugee camps. She also looked at how we can keep alive the hope that it will one day be safe for return, and how we continue to work as an international community towards that future.

Over 150,000 Rohingya in Myanmar, however, have been confined to camps for over a decade, with no freedom of movement, no civil liberties and limited access to services. Since 2017, the UK has provided £57 million in assistance to Rohingya communities in Rakhine, delivering water, food, cash, sanitation and health support. We continue to press the regime to stop attacks on communities and places of worship.

Sanctions have been raised by a number of colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), who I want to thank for catching me in the House in relation to this issue. Since the coup, we have imposed sanctions on 25 individuals and 39 entities, including those responsible for human rights violations. We are using our role at the United Nations Security Council to keep this firmly on the agenda. At our last meeting, we condemned attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure.

We also continue to keep all evidence and potential designations under close review. It would not be appropriate to speculate in this debate about potential future sanctions and designations, as to do so could reduce their impact. However, I say to my hon. Friend and other Members that we are clear that sanctions remain an important tool to maintain pressure on the Myanmar military. Since the coup, the sanctions that I mentioned have targeted the regime’s access to finance, arms and equipment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I am concerned about time, so I will continue my remarks.

We continue to raise discrimination against minority communities at the UN Human Rights Council. We also know that pressure alone is not enough, and that there must be accountability, which is essential for breaking the cycle of impunity and violence. That is why the UK has provided over £900,000 to the independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar to collect and preserve evidence for future prosecutions. We have also established the Myanmar witness project to verify open-source evidence, and to train civil society organisations to do the same. We will go on to advocate for increased protections for minority groups, and for inclusivity, with opposition actors. That remains critical for a future transition out of conflict, and it is key to delivering the aspirations of the people of Myanmar.

I want to make a couple of remarks. First, in relation to criminal investigations, which the hon. Member for Strangford referenced, the UK is clear that there must be accountability for atrocities committed in Myanmar. We condemn ongoing serious human rights violations by the military regime, and those actions require further scrutiny. The UK is supportive of any attempts to bring those issues before the ICC. We support the prosecutor’s initiative to investigate these acts. It remains our assessment that there is not sufficient support among United Nations Security Council members for an ICC referral, but as penholder on Myanmar at the United Nations Security Council we convened five meetings in 2025 and will continue to maintain international focus on the crisis.

In 2025, the UK submitted written observations to the ICJ in the case brought by Gambia against Myanmar for alleged breaches of the genocide convention, alongside Canada, the Netherlands, France, Germany and Denmark. It remains the UK’s position that a determination of genocide should be made by a competent court or tribunal. The UK’s intervention at the ICJ presents legal arguments regarding the interpretation of certain provisions of the genocide convention, and we are closely monitoring these proceedings, which begin on Monday. We reaffirm our commitment to accountability and to the international legal order. We also stress the Court’s vital role in the peaceful settlement of disputes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, including those who have now left. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), as always, very clearly highlighted the issue of the Rohingya Muslims; the fragile peace, if it is such a thing as peace; and the fragile conditions in which they live.

We all look forward to contributions from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), because they are always very applicable to the issues. His question was who is behind this and what their purpose is. Quite clearly, the junta is focusing on race and religious beliefs.

It is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) in her place. I thank her for her well-known interest in the issue. We can almost see how de-stressed she is as a result of not being the Minister any more, but we very much welcome her contribution. She referred to the need for sanctions, and I will come to that point in a wee minute.

The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) voiced the intelligent thought that the junta is holding power through fear, propped up by others outside. A really important question, which may have been raised in the intervention from the right hon. Member for New Forest East, is “If the junta falters, do we step in or does somebody else?” If the Minister does not mind, perhaps she could come back to us on that point.

The hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) told me earlier today about his particular interest in the subject. We thank him for his contribution and his interest for all those years as a Labour party member. He referred to the fact that the elections will not be free or democratic, and to the need for sanctions.

My good friend the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara), who brings great knowledge of the world to these debates, referred to sexual violence. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) spoke about mass killing and economic collapse. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), put things very clearly in his contribution and referred to perpetrators being made accountable.

My very last ask is whether the Government will commit to publishing regular assessments of freedom of religious belief and human rights in Myanmar, using independent monitoring—I think we need an independent person to do that. Once again, I thank the Minister and everyone else for their contributions.