You're are so uninformed it's almost criminal to be saying these things. Please read up on some credible resources on both her history and the past ten or so years of the countries main political events.

First of, you cannot say as fact that the Rohingya wouldn't have been better off. The UN doesn't have a flawless record but they could have intervened both politically and even military if needed. A military intervention is not ideal but we are looking at one of the most atrocious events in recent world history that happened in Myanmar. She chose to let this happen. She made up the balance of staying in power vs the lifes of hundreds of thousands. She chose not to let the UN intervene. Her government locked up journalists. And mainly she chose to not accept aid from other countries. If all those murders, rapes, destruction, mental scars and hundred of thousands of fugitives are not reason enough to ask other countries for help under the guise of keeping democracy (aka as staying in power) I would argue you don't have your priorities straight.

Secondly, according to the AP she had no desire to even bring back the Rohingya's after they were forced out of the country with nowhere to go. She is not a benevolent leader as many people initially believed. And it's not me saying that, it's many associations stripping her of previously won peace prices (amongst others amnisty international).

And lastly, calling A GENOCIDE and the absolute destruction of hundreds of thousands of lives 'this one issue' is insane.