Episode #463: “You know, I’m not a superwoman or anything, but at least I can do what I can do,” says Moe Thae Say with quiet conviction. Once a creative director and successful entrepreneur in Yangon’s digital and design scene, she lived comfortably, surrounded by friends who continued their middle-class lives even after the coup. But when Myanmar’s military seized power in 2021, Moe Thae Say could no longer accept normalcy under dictatorship. She used profits from her small business to support resistance groups—until she made a life-altering choice to join them.

Leaving behind her career and family, she left the city and traveled to the border to train with the People’s Defense Force (PDF). For two months she endured grueling combat drills under defected soldiers, confronting fear, exhaustion, and discrimination as one of only seven women among sixty trainees. “My heartbeat was louder than the gunfire,” she recalls. Though barred from the frontline, she contributed through medical training, management, and fundraising, finding strength in solidarity— and in the presence of her longtime partner, now fiancé, whom she married amid airstrikes as an act of defiance and hope.

Haunted by the constant threat of bombings, she slept with her shoes on, ready to flee. Yet her determination deepened. “I enjoyed it,” she says. “I’m thinking that my life is meaningful over there.” Now recovering from heart problems, she awaits the call to return, unafraid of death: “Once I die, I won’t remember anything— it just disappears.”

Moe Thae Say remains critical of the revolution’s leadership in the NUG, urging decision-makers to “come to the ground and listen.” She believes art can bridge divides and awaken empathy in a desensitized urban middle class. Her call is simple but profound: to listen—to one another, to the suffering, and to the shared humanity that must fuel Myanmar’s struggle for freedom.

Episode #462: Dulyapak Preecharush, an associate professor of Southeast Asian studies and comparative political scientist specializing in Myanmar, argues that Myanmar’s post-independence political trajectory is best understood as a deliberately managed hybrid political system rather than a failed democratic transition. Drawing on his long-term research, he explains that this system combines limited political opening with entrenched military dominance, allowing reform and conflict management to proceed indefinitely while structurally blocking the emergence of genuine federal democracy. In his view, only a decisive rupture in military political power, rather than continued reform within the system, could produce a fundamentally new political order.

He situates Myanmar alongside other hybrid regimes, such as Singapore and Cambodia, where elections and civilian institutions exist but core authority remains tightly controlled. Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution exemplifies this model by permitting parties and elections while guaranteeing the military veto power and reserved parliamentary seats. The concept of “disciplined democracy,” articulated by military leaders, captures this logic of participation without vulnerability.

The relocation of the capital from Yangon to Naypyidaw in 2006 serves as a concrete illustration of this hybrid logic. Dulyapak explains the move as combining strategic, developmental, and symbolic aims. Shifting the capital inland reduced exposure to foreign intervention and mass uprisings, strengthened command-and-control capacity, and improved logistical reach across the Burman heartland. At the same time, the military sought to inscribe itself into a longer historical narrative by emulating precolonial monarchs through ritual practices, including pagoda construction and the ceremonial raising of white elephants as markers of legitimate rule. Naypyidaw’s deliberately zoned layout—separating civilian population, administration, and military command—physically embodies a system designed to allow limited political opening without threatening military control.

Turning to federalism in Myanmar, Dulyapak traces its origins to the 1947 Panglong negotiations and its suppression after the 1962 military takeover, which centralized power and eliminatedpolitical debate. Federal ideas re-emerged after 2011 under a hybrid system, but their fragility was exposed by the 2021 coup. Today, he argues, Myanmar contains multiple governing forms simultaneously: centralized unitarian control in the heartland, near-autonomous rule in some frontier areas, and continued pursuit of democratic federalism elsewhere. This fragmentation, reinforced by regional geopolitics and constrained international engagement, sustains stalemate rather than resolution. Myanmar, he concludes, remains a revealing case for understanding why partial reform under hybrid rule fails to resolve foundational political conflict.

Episode #461: “I think this time, there is even more hope for a fundamental shift and change in [Myanmar],” says Gus Miclat, co-founder of Initiatives for International Dialogue (IID). He contrasts today’s Myanmar resistance with earlier elite-led struggles, seeing in it the potential for “a more systemic change.”

Miclat traces his activism to high school protests in the Philippines, sharpened during Ferdinand Marcos Sr.’s dictatorship. He became a journalist, educator, and organizer, later co-founding IID in 1988 to build “South-South solidarity” linking democracy and liberation movements across Asia. Early work focused on East Timor, where IID organized the landmark 1994 Asia-Pacific Conference, defying government pressure and catalyzing a coalition that contributed to Timor’s eventual independence.

In 2000, IID turned to peacebuilding in Mindanao, helping to bring civil society into negotiations that led to the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region. That experience informs IID’s renewed engagement in Myanmar since the 2021 coup, which Miclat views as uniquely promising because of grassroots leadership, ethnic unity, and what he calls a new “culture of care” among activists.

Miclat highlights initiatives such as exchanges between Rohingya women leaders and displaced women in Marawi, which bridge local struggles with regional advocacy. He also stresses the need to adapt activism to authoritarianism’s resurgence, harnessing social media without losing sight of real-world organizing. His focus is always, first and foremost, centered in the importance of people being mobilized and acting, and not on institutions, governments or media attention.

“Even the smallest act,” he says, “is part of a larger effort. A little wound in your pinky is felt by your entire body… Healing one scar helps heal the whole.”

Episode #460: “This is not only my interest—it is also my duty,” says Khay, a research fellow in Berlin, describing his work to better understand Myanmar’s crises. Raised in Karen State during an era of conflict, Khay became inspired by a sense of ethnic pride and a responsibility as a university student, causing him to shift his interest from engineering to political research, a path that eventually brought him to Germany.

After the 2021 coup, he returned temporarily to Karen State to document displacement, refugee flows, and the rise of grassroots governance in resistance-held areas. This firsthand experience deepened his understanding of how ethnic organizations adapt to state collapse. His research focuses on the Karen National Union (KNU), which has moved from peace negotiations to a strategy combining armed resistance, diplomacy, alliances, and training for local administrators to advance “bottom-up federalism.” He also notes a generational divide, with younger Karen and diaspora activists demanding greater autonomy, and describes how the coup has reduced religious divisions, while fostering unity against the military.

In the end, Khay stresses that the only road to real, stable, democratic future in Myanmar is through genuinely addressing the country’s long-standing ethnic grievances. Yet despite the immense challenges facing the country, Khay remains hopeful. He cites not only a new interethnic solidarity, but also a significant change in majority Bamar attitudes towards ethnic communities. He also has a great deal of faith in the country’s youth, who have shown their dedication to overcoming the military, and creating a free and united nation.

Episode #459: This is the third episode in a three-part series that emerged from a three-day Digital Storytelling Workshop hosted by Insight Myanmar Podcast, with support from ANU and IDRC. What began as a room of strangers slowly became a community through the simple act of sharing stories. We were reminded that communication is not just the exchange of information, but the creation of a shared emotional world, built through attention and care. “Tell me more” became our refrain, and this episode is an invitation to step into that circle. On this episode, you’ll hear the result of those few transformative days: honest voices, emerging perspectives, and storytellers beginning to find their footing.

First up is Chit Tun, a teacher and marketing manager before the coup, who now lives as a refugee in Thailand with his family. The 2021 coup transformed his life. With his wife pregnant, he refused to let his child grow up under dictatorship. He supported her CDM participation, and became a protest leader before joining the armed resistance. However, he became disillusioned with some resistance groups, and eventually fled to Thailand. To make ends meet, he aids fellow refugees, teaches Burmese, and produces a podcast amplifying revolutionary voices.

Zue, a Burmese language teacher and artist, roots her work in the beauty of her rural childhood, where weaving looms, bullock carts, and open fields shaped her creative and educational passions. After years of volunteer teaching and curriculum work, she founded the online Akkhaya Burmese Language Institute during COVID-19. Her YouTube and podcast projects also advance cultural preservation and pride. She was Myanmar’s sole recipient of the selective Global Ambassador Fellow granted by the International Council on Human Rights, Peace and Politics (ICHRPP). Zue hopes to continue her teaching and art work to better serve communities.

August describes a shift from engineering to the study of religion and philosophy after becoming disillusioned with Myanmar’s education system. His academic path grows out of his work as a gender and LGBTQ rights trainer, where he has seen religion repeatedly misused to justify discrimination. He argues that Buddhist teachings emphasize compassion, morality, and nonviolence, not stereotyping or exclusion, and he wants to ground this claim in textual and scholarly evidence. Drawing on experiences with LGBTQ individuals from religious communities, he highlights the heavy social pressure they face. August hopes education can challenge conservative mindsets and support social change.

Episode #458: Lilianne Fan is a long-time Myanmar analyst and advocate who served as an adviser to the ASEAN Special Envoy on Myanmar and as part of Malaysia’s advisory group during its ASEAN chairmanship. Drawing on that insider role, she argues that ASEAN’s response to the 2021 coup must be judged by how ASEAN actually functions, not by expectations of decisive moral intervention.

Fan explains that ASEAN’s Five-Point Consensus was never meant to resolve Myanmar’s crisis. Its real purpose was to create a diplomatic framework that allowed ASEAN to remain engaged while denying the junta regional legitimacy. Most significantly, it institutionalized the exclusion of Min Aung Hlaing from high-level ASEAN meetings, preventing the military from claiming regional endorsement.

She acknowledges ASEAN’s early failures, particularly its initial reliance on shuttle diplomacy with the junta and its slow recognition of Myanmar’s mass civilian resistance. Over time, however, ASEAN adapted. Under Indonesia and especially Malaysia, engagement broadened to include resistance actors, ethnic organizations, and civil society.

Fan highlights Malaysia’s chairmanship as a turning point. Kuala Lumpur invested heavily in preparation and conflict analysis, convening confidential, structured Track One meetings with resistance stakeholders, complemented by Track 1.5 dialogues with experts and civil society. These processes treated resistance groups as serious political actors without granting formal recognition.

She also points to a major humanitarian shift: ASEAN’s formal acknowledgment that aid cannot rely solely on the AHA Centre and must include cross-border assistance and local delivery networks. Fan concludes that while ASEAN cannot force outcomes or reform the military, it plays a critical role in maintaining political red lines, preventing premature legitimization of the junta, and slowly reshaping ASEAN’s own approach to conflict and legitimacy.

Episode #457: Brang Min, a Kachin State civil society organizer and student activist with the Kachin State Civil Movement; Thinzar Shunlei Yi, a leading organizer and deputy director of the Anti-Sham Election Campaign Committee representing the General Strike movement; and Aung Moe Zaw, a veteran democracy activist associated with the Democratic Party for a New Society, discuss the upcoming elections. Despite their differing backgrounds, all three agree that the 2025 election is designed to entrench military power under a civilian façade.

Brang Min grounds his analysis in conditions in Kachin State, where airstrikes, artillery attacks, displacement, and internet shutdowns dominate daily life. Under such circumstances, he argues,elections are irrelevant. Having voted in 2020 with hopes for political change, he views the current election as fraudulent, and intended to manufacture legitimacy rather than reflect popular will. He acknowledges that some ethnic minority parties may participate in hopes of gaining limited influence, but maintains that this dynamic is shaped by coercion. With fighting ongoing, ordinary Kachin civilians who participate do so under pressure, while military-aligned actors engage willingly.

Thinzar Shunlei Yi explains that the military revealed its intentions immediately after the 2021 coup by dismantling the Union Election Commission and rebuilding it under junta control. She argues that elections have always been treated as a tactical reset, not a democratic process. She emphasizes widespread disenfranchisement, noting that of Myanmar’s 330 townships, the junta’s phased election plan initially included only 193; elections are already cancelled 56 of those, and others remain uncertain as fighting continues. She also describes intensified repression, including arrests under “election protection” laws and escalating violence to secure territory ahead of polling.

Aung Moe Zaw places the election in historical context, describing decades of manipulated votes, overturned results, and tightly controlled political participation. He argues that opaque electoral laws and proportional representation systems are designed to guarantee military victory and obscure accountability.

All three conclude that the election will not weaken resistance. They warn against international acceptance of the electoral façade and stress that Myanmar’s democratic future depends on sustained internal struggle, accountability for war crimes, and rejection of military-imposed political frameworks.

Episode #456: “We will not leave them behind,” says Simon Billenness, director of the Campaign for a New Myanmar and a Burma policy advocate with more than three decades of experience lobbying the United States Congress on sanctions policy, congressional appropriations, and accountability for Myanmar’s military. In his second appearance on the podcast, Billenness focuses on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Burmese nationals, which he views as both a humanitarian crisis and a sharp rupture in longstanding U.S. policy.

Billenness explains that TPS had allowed nearly 4,000 Burmese nationals to remain legally in the United States because conditions at home made safe return impossible. With DHS giving recipients just sixty days before protections expire, he describes the consequences as stark. Many TPS holders, he notes, have been told by immigration attorneys that no realistic legal pathways remain for them to stay, leaving forced return to a conflict as a terrifying prospect.

He emphasizes that those affected are not abstractions or mere statistics. Many arrived as students or professionals before or shortly after the 2021 coup and remained because returning home would expose them to grave danger. Some support the Civil Disobedience Movement from abroad; others belong to ethnic or religious minorities targeted by the military. Young men face forced conscription, while all confront a country still engulfed in instability, indiscriminate military violence, and overall repression.

From Billenness’s perspective, ending TPS misrepresents both American interests and values. He argues that TPS recipients are among the United States’ strongest allies within Myanmar society and that their presence strengthens American communities. DHS’s justification—citing ceasefires, elections, and stability—he dismisses as false and misleading and moreover, contradicting the State Department’s analysis. The elections, he says, are sham exercises under military rule, while airstrikes on civilian populations continue despite so-called ceasefires.

While legal challenges and congressional efforts to restore TPS move forward, Billenness stresses that sustained constituent advocacy remains the most effective tool. Even amid an unpredictable moment for U.S. foreign policy, he insists on endurance and resolve, concluding, “We will fight back. We will not abandon the Burmese people.”