Setting the record straight on: “Malaysia: A Place of Refuge”

T. Chang, A concerned citizen

I refer to the opinion published on 27 December 2016 entitled “Malaysia: A Place of Refuge“, found here: http://www.malaysia-today.net/malaysia-a-place-of-refuge/.  For accuracy, I offer a different perspective relating to certain viewpoints made by the author, with a hope to ensure an accurate understanding of the matter at hand.

 

• The 1951 Refugee Convention is outdated, refugees today no longer flee totalitarianism and state-sponsored oppression

 

The author asserts that the Convention is outdated as it was drafted to cater to the World War II refugee crisis and by extension, implicitly should not apply to refugees today as they  “are not fleeing totalitarianism and state-sponsored oppression but economic scarcity, lack of opportunities, and insecurity”.

On this, two responses are necessary.  The first is that, the Refugee Convention was later accompanied by a Protocol adopted in 1967.  This Protocol reaffirmed the core principles and provisions adopted in the 1951 Refugee Convention.  Importantly, it expanded the application of the 1951 Convention from one which applied to refugees displaced from world wars in Europe to refugees from around the world, fleeing from the various conflicts and situations of modern times.  To date, 146 countries have become parties to the 1967 Protocol affirming that the Convention and its Protocol continue to enjoy relevance in the modern world.

The second response relates to the author’s assertion that refugees today are no longer motivated to leave due to totalitarianism and state-sponsored oppression but instead they leave their homes due to economic scarcity and of opportunities.  I propose to touch on three ongoing situations to illustrate that this view point made by the author is invalid.

(a) Burundi

In Burundi, there are presently 327,728 refugees who were forced to leave their homes not for reasons of economic scarcity, nor of lack of opportunities.  The UN Independent Investigation in Burundi found in its final report dated 20 September 2016 that there were executions on civilians backed by the ruling party taking place, enforced disappearances carried out by Government agents, sexual violence against both men and women, torture and ill-treatment – examples include “crushing of fingers and toes with pliers” and others.

(b) Syria

More familiar to international headlines, the situation in Syria has now led to a total of almost 4.86 million refugees.  On 11 August 2016, the UN Human Rights Council’s “Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic” found that civilians were being killed unlawfully in detentions and through summary executions.  Enforced disappearance continue to be prevalent where men of fighting age continue to disappear from families without explanation.  The Commission also found that government officials continue to torture civilians to extract information, as a form of punishment and to inflict terror.

(c) Myanmar

Closer to home, and at the heart of the present discussions are the Rohingya refugees from Myanmar.  Much has been said about the persecution they face in Myanmar, being without citizenship and made to leave the country.  The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in its report dated 28 June 2016 found that, consistent with previous findings, there are systemic human rights violations carried out by the authorities against the Rohingya.  Examples include clear restrictions to freedom of movement, threats to their lives and the prevalence of sexual and gender based violence, among others.

Finally, it is important to note that, to qualify as a refugee under the requirements of the Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, a thorough interview is carried out by trained officers to assess whether an applicant’s claim fulfils the requirement under the Convention and the Protocol.  It would be hard to imagine that fleeing from a country due to “economic scarcity” or “lack of opportunity” alone would suffice.

It is one thing to call for a review of the Refugee Convention, to better improve the convention and another to undermine the well-founded fear of persecutions of refugees from around the world.

 

• Malaysia is more humane and accommodating towards asylum seekers in comparison to countries such as Singapore and Australia

 

Malaysia should be commended for accommodating asylum seekers and refugees.  It is true that compared to some of our neighbours, we have been more accommodating towards refugees. Countries such as Australia which is a party to the Refugee Convention and the Protocol should be held to account if its conduct is found to be inconsistent with its international norms and its legal obligations.

However, while Malaysia may be more humane, this does not mean that our treatment of refugees are wholly acceptable, nor is it necessarily humane.  The UN and NGO reports have documented the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia.  To name a few, many refugees (even those registered with UNCHR and are issued with a refugee ID card) continue to be arrested (including women and children) and are detained by the authorities as they are considered to be illegal immigrants under the Immigration Act.  The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention had in 2011 found that such detention of asylum seekers and refugees are not in line with international human rights law.

Further, given their illegal status, they do not have access to the legal system and are often victims of extortion, exploited by their employees and are susceptible to becoming victims of sexual crimes.  Many continue to face physical and financial barriers in accessing healthcare.  Children of refugees are also often unable to attend national schools and are financial incapable to attend private schools.

It is easy to lose sight of the fact that most refugees are also victims of trafficking, often trafficked in less than human conditions.  Just last year, authorities uncovered various camps in the Malaysia-Thai border where many remains of refugees were found, a result of the appalling conditions they are held by traffickers.

Further, there are also legal obligations placed on Malaysia as a party to several human rights conventions including by the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  The Government has also time and again affirmed its adherence to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) – none of which calls for the difference of treatment towards refugees and asylum seekers.

In my view, allowing refugees to remain in Malaysia fulfils half of the definition of being humane.  Treating them with respect, dignity and according them basic treatment as human beings constitutes the other half of the definition of being humane. The pilot project by the Government, allowing 300 refugees to work legally in Malaysia is certainly a step forward.

 

 

• Our system is comparable with Canada’s where asylum can be claimed within Canada and a date for a formal hearing to determine refugee status will be set by the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board

 

The Government of Malaysia does not have any known asylum processes in place. In the absence of this, the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) fills the void by carrying out refugee processing.  In this surrogate system and in the absence of a system by the Government, it is hard to reconcile with the notion that our system is comparable with Canada’s system.

In all, we should recall our common humanity and temper our human reasoning with compassion and empathy, placing ourselves in the position of refugees fleeing the different conflicts that plague the world today.  Ultimately, having to flee one’s home, often with no other belongings than the clothes on them, having to leave family and friends behind to a an unknown foreign land, surrendering themselves to human traffickers, taking the dangerous journey on rickety boats, putting up with the mistreatment in their country of refuge and others, may make the decision to leave their homes a much more difficult one than many of us may think.