Military council leader Min Aung Hlaing’s recent press conference in Belarus has drawn criticism from media experts for his confused conflation of economic sanctions and computer software. During the March 7 press conference, Min Aung Hlaing made perplexing statements suggesting that when faced with sanctions, attacked software would gain more collective strength and intensify competition – a statement that experts say demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of both concepts.
U Toe Zaw Latt, Secretary of the Independent Press Council Myanmar (IPCM), pointed out that there is absolutely no connection between economic sanctions and computer software, stating that Min Aung Hlaing appears to have mistaken sanctions for some kind of computer software. A veteran domestic journalist also noted that this confusion mirrors previous instances of military leaders misusing English terms, referencing how former leader Thein Sein had incorrectly used the term ‘National Convention’ when discussing the 2008 Constitution. The journalist emphasized that Min Aung Hlaing’s attempt to link sanctions and software resulted in statements that were essentially meaningless, likely stemming from a basic misunderstanding of the English terms he was using.
Observers have noted that Min Aung Hlaing’s linguistic limitations have been evident in his international engagements, where he consistently relies on interpreters for communication, including in his meetings with Russian President Putin and the Belarusian President. His diplomatic missteps were further highlighted by his presentation of a book to Putin on March 4, which claimed a dubious Buddhist prophecy about a ‘rat king’ – an action that has drawn additional criticism for its lack of historical basis and diplomatic appropriateness. These incidents have raised concerns about the impact on Myanmar’s international image, as such inappropriate behavior and communication failures continue to manifest even during crucial diplomatic engagements. Critics argue that these episodes demonstrate not only linguistic incompetence but also a broader disconnect in understanding international relations and diplomatic protocol.
