Advertisement

Abstract

This chapter may well begin with a plea. It has long been said with pride in Burma that the family is so close knit by feelings of love and duty that the young grow up to be good citizens naturally and the old grow old gracefully, that there is nothing but beauty and happiness in family life, unmarred by juvenile crime, untroubled by angry young people, unembarrassed by old unwanted people tottering about on the fringes of bare subsistence. Burma is an abundant land, and in the early days when the population was small there was plenty for the people to eat and more than enough to give them their small needs in their contented lives. Burma has not grown bigger or richer, but the population has been shooting up from 16 million in 1940 to 21 million estimated in the sample census of 1953–54, and it hovers today over the 22 million mark. The per capita income, about 56 Burmese kyats or 10 U.S. cents per day, is among the lowest in the world.1 In times when there are floods or failure of crops, as there were on tragic scales in 1961, starvation, an unfamiliar ghost, stalks the poorer areas of the country. Mothers were reported, in 1961, to have sold their infants for petty amounts of money, partly because they needed the money for themselves to live, partly because the infants needed homes which could give them food and life. Extreme poverty shatters the family, and neither law nor custom can hold it together then. Great efforts need to be marshalled in the building of the economy, in the education of the young, in giving them hope and greater horizons, in raising them right, in gently correcting them when they err.

Keywords

Natural Child Adoptive Parent Young Offender Deceased Parent Juvenile Crime 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chamber of Deputies, Proceedings, II, 1, p. 4, August 30, 1956.Google Scholar
  2. 1.
    Report of the Committee appointed to consider the treatment of Juvenile Delinquency in Burma, Rangoon, 1928.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    A more elaborate Act for the protection of Children was passed in 1955, superceding some of the sections of the Young Offenders Act of 1930. A children’s court was opened at Rangoon under a stipendiary magistrate with special training and interest in social work, and after a few years of experimental operation in a limited jurisdiction, the operation of the Act has been extended to the major urban areas, with new children’s courts in Mandalay and other cities.Google Scholar
  4. 1.
    Kinwunmingyi Digest, I, pp. 207-215.Google Scholar
  5. 1.
    May Oung, Leading Cases, p. 231.Google Scholar
  6. 2.
    Kirkwood vs. Maung Thein, 2 Ran. 693 P. C.Google Scholar
  7. 3.
    U Tauk Ta vs. Ma Ohn Yin, 1939 RLR 217.Google Scholar
  8. 1.
    Daw E vs. Maung Aung Thein, 1941 RLR 665 F. B.Google Scholar
  9. 2.
    Maung Thein Maung vs. Ma Kywe, 13 Ran. 412 F. B.Google Scholar
  10. 3.
    E. g. The Land Nationalization Act, 1953, under which agricultural land has been taken over by the state and distributed to peasants, with 50 acres as the largest holding for one family, though the Burmese system of the joint family is also recognized, and in the case of a joint family it may hold as many 50-acre lots as there are families in it.Google Scholar
  11. 1.
    Kinwunmingyi Digest, I, pp. 29-32.Google Scholar
  12. 2.
    Ma Wun Di vs. Ma Kin, 4 LBR 175 P. C.Google Scholar
  13. 1.
    UBR (1910–13), 111.Google Scholar
  14. 2.
    Richardson’s translation of the Manugye, p. 296.Google Scholar
  15. 1.
    Dr. Ba U, My Burma, pp. 80-81.Google Scholar
  16. 1.
    Ma Kyin Sein vs. Maung Kyin Htaik, 1940 RLR 783.Google Scholar
  17. 2.
    Aung Ma Khaing vs. Mi Ah Bon, 9 LBR 163.Google Scholar
  18. 3.
    Ma Me Gale vs. Ma San Yi, LBR 172 P. C.; Ma Ywet vs. Ma Me, 5 LBR 118 P. C.; Maung Ba Pe vs. Maung Shwe Ba, 6 Ran. 520 P. C.Google Scholar
  19. 4.
    Ma Than Nyunt vs. Daw Shwe Thit, 14 Ran. 557.Google Scholar
  20. 1.
    May Oung, Leading Cases, p. 131.Google Scholar
  21. 2.
    Maung Aing vs. Ma Khin, 2 UBR (1893) p. 22.Google Scholar
  22. 3.
    In Ko Pe Kyai vs. Ma Thein Kha, 1937 Ran. 426, it was held that a Keittima child did not need to live with the adoptive parents in order to inherit as the parents intended from the start that he should inherit, but that an Apatitha child who lived apart did not earn the right to inherit.Google Scholar
  23. 4.
    Maung Po An vs. Ma Dwe, 4 Ran. 184 F. B.Google Scholar
  24. 5.
    Daw Khin Nyun vs. Lim Geok Soe, 1956 BLR 248 H. C.; Chan Eu Ghee vs. Mrs. Iris Maung Sein, 1953 BLR 294 H. C.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands 1963

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maung Maung
    • 1
  1. 1.Lincoln’s InnUK

Personalised recommendations