Military council leader Min Aung Hlaing’s recent press conference remarks in Belarus have drawn criticism from media experts for conflating unrelated concepts of economic sanctions and computer software. During the March 7 press conference, Min Aung Hlaing made confusing statements suggesting that economic sanctions would somehow lead to increased consolidation and competition among computer software, demonstrating what critics say is a fundamental misunderstanding of both concepts.
U Toe Zaw Latt, Secretary of the Independent Press Council Myanmar (IPCM), analyzed that Min Aung Hlaing appears to have spoken without properly understanding the meaning of economic sanctions and computer software. He pointed out that there is absolutely no connection between economic sanctions and computer software, yet Min Aung Hlaing incorrectly attempted to draw parallels between these entirely different concepts, revealing his apparent confusion about their meanings.
A veteran domestic journalist also noted that this is reminiscent of former leader U Thein Sein’s past mistake of incorrectly referring to the 2008 Constitution as a ‘National Convention.’ The journalist observed that Min Aung Hlaing similarly demonstrated his lack of understanding by attempting to connect sanctions with software in a way that made no logical sense. It was also noted that during his meetings with Russian leader Putin and the Belarus President, Min Aung Hlaing was unable to communicate in English and had to rely entirely on interpreters, speaking only in Myanmar language.
Furthermore, during his March 4 meeting with Putin, Min Aung Hlaing presented a book that dubiously referred to Putin as the ‘King of Mice’ based on alleged Buddhist prophecies, despite lacking any historical or documentary evidence to support such claims. Analysts point out that these incidents – the poor command of English, misunderstanding of basic international concepts, and use of unsubstantiated historical references – demonstrate significant weaknesses in international relations capabilities. The combination of linguistic limitations and confused policy statements has led to increased scrutiny of the military council’s ability to engage effectively in international diplomacy.
