“I don’t know what BC (boycott) is. I am not even well literate on A to Z,” declared mockingly by Myanmar’s prominent rockstar Lay Phyu on July 5, 2024, eliciting an overwhelming cheer from the crowd. Just days before the event, which was set to take place in the heartland of the military generals and officials, many Myanmar civilians took to social media to call for a halt to the event and pressure the rockstar to disassociate from the military. Despite their efforts, the boycott advocates were ridiculed in front of an audience of regime supporters. Following the viral spread of the video mocking the boycott movement, activists and participants renewed calls for a more effective public boycott strategy.
Boycott, a method of nonviolent action, involves refraining from cooperation with an adversary or perpetrator. Technically, the noncooperation or boycott movements are divided into economic, social, and political noncooperation. Economic and social boycotts are often employed to ostracize individuals associated with the opposition. Historically, boycott movements have played a crucial role in global movements, with notable successes including Gandhi’s Swadeshi movement and the campaign against South Africa’s apartheid regime. In the case of Myanmar’s pro-democracy struggle after the February 2021 coup, two key resistance strategies have emerged: the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM), falling under the political noncooperation category, and Social Punishment (SP), falling under social noncooperation, also named as Social boycotts. These methods reflect the citizens’ determination to challenge the military junta and seek justice for its widespread abuses.The CDM is a broad-based protest strategy aimed at crippling the government through strikes and non-cooperation across various sectors, from civil service to industry. This resistance seeks to disrupt the military-backed administration’s operations, underscoring the public’s refusal to endorse or sustain the military regime’s governance. In contrast, Social Boycotts or Social Punishment (SP) is a more targeted approach, utilizing social media and public shaming to isolate and penalize those seen as supporting or benefiting from the military regime.
Initially, the SP campaign involved mass reporting on Facebook, leading to the removal of many military-related accounts and pages. It soon evolved to target the personal lives of military officers and their families. In the coup’s early days, many pro-military figures and their families shut down their social media profiles due to the public backlash.The viral campaign eventually reached the elite circles of the military. While many actors and influencers have condemned the coup, those who have remained silent face intense social pressure. Notably, Nay Chi Oo, a social influencer and daughter of a retired high-ranking military officer, became a target of SP. Her beauty product line, “beautybynaychi,” was widely boycotted, and many businesses publicly announced they would not collaborate with her. Similarly, Myanmar’s hip-hop star Sai Sai Kham Hlaing faced public boycott, leading him to reduce his social media presence.
As the military and police forces intensified their actions against civilians, the public’s retaliation extended to the families of the officers, even those abroad. For instance, the daughter of a military junta official studying at Toyo University in Japan faced public shaming through posters around the university and bus stops. After filing a police report and complaining to the embassy, she has decided to quit her studies and return to Myanmar. Businesses with military ties faced boycotts, and high-profile individuals associated with the junta were publicly shamed, leading to notable economic and social pressure on the military elite. One notable early success was Japanese beer giant Kirin’s decision to sever ties with Myanmar Economic Holdings Public Company Limited (MEHL), a military conglomerate.
The principles of boycott and civil disobedience have also taken center stage in Southeast Asia, particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. The recent consumer boycott against Western brands such as Unilever, McDonald’s, and Starbucks in response to perceived support for Israel highlights a different facet of the boycott movement. This consumer-driven action, spurred by the Israeli government’s killings of Palestinian civilians, underscores how individuals fight against the oppression, apartheid, and injustice globally. In Indonesia and Malaysia, the boycotts have resulted in significant economic impacts on multinational companies. Unilever reported a substantial decline in sales in Indonesia, while Starbucks Malaysia experienced a revenue drop attributed to the boycott. These actions reflect a broader pattern where consumer sentiment aligns with political and humanitarian concerns, driving individuals to use their purchasing power as a form of protest.
At the outset of the coup, Myanmar’s boycott movement proved highly effective. The Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) and Social Punishment (SP) campaigns significantly disrupted the military regime. However, despite these early successes, sustaining such efforts amid intense political repression and violence has proven challenging. By the third year of the coup, the boycott movement began to lose momentum and faded from the public eye. In contrast, recent boycotts in Indonesia and Malaysia have achieved notable success. Many in Myanmar now believe that the viral video of rockstar Lay Phyu mocking and insulting the boycott advocates and pro-democracy supporters has served as a wake-up call. It has given an unexpected boost and revitalized the boycott campaign against the military and its affiliates.
