Growing Islamic fundamentalism seen pushing Malays to quit country

BY BOO SU-LYN - The Malay Mail


KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 30 — Malays could be next in line after the Chinese to leave the country, in a bid to escape the growing religious fundamentalism and authoritarianism that leaves little room for free thought and dissent, according to activists and observers.

While Malaysia bills itself as a moderate Muslim nation, recent developments have demonstrated an increasingly conservative and hard-line approach to Islam here that is intolerant of cultures and practices not sanctioned by religious groups and authorities.

Malaysians for Malaysia convener Azrul Mohd Khalib said the Friday sermons prepared by the religious authorities that paint non-Muslims as enemies of Islam, as well as the use of labels such as liberalism, pluralism and humanism to vilify fellow believers, have dismayed and scared Muslims.

“Thinking Muslims are being marginalised and persecuted,” Azrul told Malay Mail Online yesterday.

“It is creating a climate of fear, suspicion and prejudice. Because of that, Muslims who do not prescribe to that belief system do not see themselves as being welcomed or even tolerated in this country,” the social activist added.

Azrul said many Muslims have started emigrating in the past 15 years based on anecdotal evidence, noting that Islamic authorities prohibit dissent and discussions of the country’s predominant religion.

“You are told ‘you cannot use logic and rationale to understand and practise Islam. ‘You must only refer to the Quran and hadith and nothing else’,” he said.

Hadith are “traditions” from the time of Prophet Muhammad that are not contained in the Quran.

Former de facto law minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim said on Tuesday that more Malay-Muslims could be expected to leave the country if local religious authorities continue to pursue and prosecute those whose opinions they deem “deviant”.

Over the years, Islamic authorities have gradually become more rigid in their interpretation and application of the Shariah code in Islam.

They vilified and attacked a recent dog-petting event in which some Muslims touched dogs, which are considered unclean here in Malaysia. The programme triggered such outrage that its organiser received death threats.

On Tuesday, the National Fatwa Council issued an edict banning Muslims from “celebrating” Halloween, which it categorised as a Christian celebration of the dead.

Kelantan this month began enforcing a by-law that empowers state authorities to fine Muslim men up to RM1,000 or jail them for up to a year, or both, for failing to attend Friday prayers thrice in a row.

An Oktoberfest-themed beer festival in Selangor also drew the ire of Muslim groups earlier this month, despite the promotional event being targeted at and restricted to non-Muslims.

Muslim intellectual Kassim Ahmad is also being prosecuted by Islamic authorities for allegedly suggesting that Muslims need only follow the Quran, and not the accompanying Hadith. The view differs from that which is officially approved.

Malaysia has also outlawed the Shiah denomination of Islam, which it considers deviant from the Sunni school that is officially sanctioned here.

Malaysia’s religious authorities also frequently warns against liberalism, with the federal government’s Islamic Development Department (Jakim) reminding Muslims last week in its Friday sermon that this concept, along with pluralism, was a threat to Malay-Muslim unity as it could weaken their faith.

Jakim also said the National Fatwa Council had in its 74th meeting in 2006 declared liberal thinking as heretical.

“The very same liberal ideas, which are condemned and persecuted, are actually what made Islam a great humanist religion. Look back at history. Our religious authorities have lost their way and like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, are leading others astray,” Azrul said.

Social activist Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir said she knows of several Malays who say they do not want to return to their homeland.

“It’s not for economic reasons, but simply because they feel that the environment here has become so negative and oppressive that it’s impossible to be able to live as peaceful, productive citizens any more,” Marina told Malay Mail Online.

“You just never know when something that is perfectly acceptable one day becomes ‘haram’ the next day,” she added, using the Malay word for “forbidden”.

The daughter of former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad also noted the discomfort with the authorities’ continuous intrusion into people’s private lives at the expense of more important things such as injustice against women.

Global Movement of Moderates (GMM) CEO Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah said most of the leaders and intellectuals of “kaum muda” (young moderates) used to seek refuge in Penang and Singapore during the 1930s.

“Because in Penang and Singapore, they are more free to share their thoughts. Because there is less institutionalised religious authorities that would go after them,” Saifuddin told Malay Mail Online.

“The kaum muda were simply practising their intellectual freedom to interpret Islam in a more progressive way. And Islam allows that. You can have different interpretations. And Islam encourages dialogues among those with different opinions, not to prosecute, unless of course, if your opinion is tantamount to treason or glaringly unlawful,” the former deputy minister added.

Centre for Policy Initiatives director Dr Lim Teck Ghee said Malays in Malaysia are following the trend of Muslims in other Muslim countries who flee to Western nations, such as Australia, the US and European Union countries, to escape religious fundamentalism and political authoritarianism at home.

But he acknowledged that Malaysia has no statistics on the racial and religious breakdown of the country’s migrant outflow.

“I expect younger educated Malays to be concerned with the growing religious extremism and intolerance and to have this as the major factor in making them leave,” Lim told Malay Mail Online.

“Out-migration for Malaysians has never been solely about making a better living abroad. It has been the combination of socio-economic and political factors. Non-Malays have felt the pain of religious and racial discrimination. Now it is the turn of many Malays to feel a similar sense of deprivation and injustice,” the political analyst added.

According to a World Bank report in 2011, an estimated one million Malaysians are residing overseas.

More than two million Malaysians have emigrated since Merdeka.

Last year, a total 308,834 high-skilled Malaysians moved overseas, with 47.2 per cent going to Singapore, 18.2 per cent to Australia, 12.2 per cent to US and the rest to other countries like UK and Canada.

According to the same report, the number of skilled Malaysians living abroad rose 300 per cent in the last two decades, with two out of every 10 Malaysians with tertiary education opting to leave for either Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries or Singapore.

No justice for my son in Malaysia, says activist Ali’s father

As devastated as Abd Jalil Abd Rahman is by his activist son Ali’s decision to flee Malaysia and seek political asylum in Sweden, the man knows that either he let the 29-year-old go, or risk the boy's life by urging him to stay in the country.

"For me, what is more important is his safety, so I don't mind so much where Ali is as long as he is safe," Jalil told The Malaysian Insider.

So he swallowed the bitter news and supported his son's decision to leave the country, although saddened by the separation.

Ali, who faces three charges for allegedly insulting the Johor and Selangor royalty, announced on Saturday that he had fled to Sweden after being treated "like rubbish" by the government and sultan.

The activist had previously claimed to have received death threats and was even beaten while in police custody. However, no action was taken despite the police report he lodged.

Jalil said Ali's case was unique as he was up against the royal institution, whose powers in the country have no bounds.

"Ali's case is different compared with Adam Adli or Safwan Anang because they were opposing the government and the institutions," he said, referring to the two activists who were recently sentenced to prison under the Sedition Act 1948.

"But Ali is protesting against the royal institution, and everyone understands this issue is sensitive and involves Malay sentiments."

Although Ali said he was "safe in Sweden", his father is still gripped by the fear that the rulers may take matters into their own hands.

"We know and have heard of rulers ignoring and even breaking the law," said Jalil.

"We also know the country's justice and security system does not guarantee the rakyat's safety."

From Sweden, Ali continues to rail against the rulers and the government in his Facebook posts, which have received hundreds of "likes" and comments.

But Jalil defended his son's harsh criticism of the royalty, saying it stemmed from Ali's personal experiences and exposure to the injustice inherent in the system.

"Ali loves challenges; after he finished his SPM, he looked for a job straightaway on his own initiative, unlike his peers.

"He worked at a restaurant in an airport and a hotel, and observed the actions of those we call 'the elite'," said Jalil.

He said Ali witnessed the injustices committed in the country, especially those involving the royal institution.

"While working at a luxury hotel in Kuala Lumpur, he saw the ugly actions of these elites, these chiefs of states and palace people.

"When he saw things that should not be happening, he may have begun questioning the actions of those known as the heads of religion," said the pensioner.

The retired civil servant did not rule out the possibility that Ali's vocal criticism was also born out of dissatisfaction over how his twin brother, Ahmad Abd Jalil, had been treated by the state.

Last year, Ahmad was fined RM20,000 by the Johor Baru Sessions Court after he was found guilty of posting remarks insulting the Johor Sultan through his Facebook in 2012.

"Throughout the court proceedings, we saw that justice was not upheld.

"So if Ali goes to trial, it is impossible that the courts will treat him fairly," said Jalil, adding that his son was pursuing his doctoral studies at Universiti Sains Malaysia.

When asked if he hoped Ali would return to Malaysia, Jalil said his family would always support Ali's decision and advise him to live his life to the fullest.

"This world is temporary. If we are to die, we need not die in our homes.

"For instance, the Prophet Muhammad himself did not pass away at his place of birth. So I prefer that Ali stay there and enjoy this temporary world."

But Jalil advised his son to never neglect his duties as a Muslim and to always pray to Allah.

"If he believes it is better to stay in Malaysia, then he should return. But if he feels happier and safer there, then he should stay there."

Ali's sister, Asiah Abd Jalil, told The Malaysian Insider that her younger brother had been taught to think critically at a young age.

Ali was first detained on September 8 and was taken into police custody in Kuala Lumpur, Selangor and Johor.

On September 23, he was released after posting bail of RM8,000 at the Shah Alam court complex.

His freedom was short-lived as he was re-arrested and taken to Johor, reportedly because other police reports had been lodged against him there.

Amnesty International has adopted Ali as a Prisoner of Conscience, saying it is part of a push to ensure he does not suffer further punishment or selective persecution.

News portal Rakyat Times, which is run by activist and lawyer Haris Ibrahim, reported that Ali left Malaysia on October 18 for Bangkok and later flew to Stockholm on October 21.

At Stockholm, Ali went to Amnesty International Sweden where he was advised on the procedure for applying for asylum. He was taken to the asylum centre before being moved to another town, Morsta.

Rakyat Times also reported that Ali had already been given a work permit and could begin work immediately. – October 29, 2014.
- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/no-justice-for-my-son-in-malaysia-says-activist-alis-father#sthash.gIC0qMUR.dpuf

When Malaysians flee to get justice

In the same week that Malaysia won a non-permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council, a Malaysian shockingly fled Malaysia to seek asylum and protection from what he called oppression from authorities and gangsters.

Activist Ali Abd Jalil is the second Malaysian in as many weeks who ran away, citing oppressive laws and lacking faith in the system to protect his rights.

Posting in his Facebook page, Ali said "Now I am in Sweden, looking for asylum… the Malaysian government and sultan treated me like rubbish.

"I have been threatened by gangsters and racist Malay groups in Malaysia. Malaysia is not safe for me, police and gangsters are following me all the time."

Ali faces three sedition charges for allegedly insulting the Johor royalty and the Sultan of Selangor in his Facebook postings.

He has been accused of posting seditious remarks on a Facebook page called "Kapitalis Bangsat" that allegedly belittled the Johor sultanate.

Another Malaysian, Alvin Tan, who is facing criminal charges under the Sedition Act as well as the Film Censorship Act for controversial online uploads, including a photo deemed insulting to Islam on Facebook, is seeking asylum in the United States.

Ordinarily, these two are facing criminal charges and that should be the end of that. But there has been a rise of vitriol and venom against those who allegedly cause offence to be taken by certain groups.

To say that the police have been quick to stem such toxicity in the bud as they are in looking for Ali and Alvin would be too naive.

Which is why, rightly or wrongly, these two men have left the coop because they believe they won't get justice in Malaysia.

This is a major embarrassment for the Najib government, which has been at pains to paint the country as a moderate nation, and that its election to the UNSC is due to its moderation and peace-loving values.

And no amount of speeches at the UN or in international events can wipe away this blemish – that two Malaysians do not believe they will get justice in Malaysia.

Perhaps we think we are, and perhaps we do that abroad but in Malaysia, what we can term moderation in the broadest of sense that does not appear to exist.

Malaysia has seen the rise of a few groups which use hate speech to run down and threaten people, to the extent that Muslims who touch dogs are deemed apostates and anything Western is seen as a conspiracy against the Malays and Islam.

What more for the likes of Ali and the case against him.

Not only is he facing a trial, he is facing groups that have threatened his life. And nothing much has been done about it. Hence, the decision to run away.

No one should condone Ali's alleged offence. But no one should also condone those who want to harm him for what he has done.

Malaysia is in the UNSC to promote peace and moderation. It must also be seen to do that in the country. If not, we are just a country that speaks from both sides of the mouth.

No one is going to listen, let alone respect Malaysia if we allow this hypocrisy to continue. – October 26, 2014.

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/when-malaysians-flee-to-get-justice#sthash.k8qirku3.dpuf

Malaysia Deserves Praise for Accepting Stranded Asylum Seekers

20 December 2012

The Malaysian Government deserves commendation for its decision to accept 40 asylum seekers who were rescued at sea, the Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) said today.

RCOA CEO Paul Power said Malaysia’s intervention was in stark contrast to the mean-spirited behaviour of Singapore which last week refused entry to the Vietnamese-registered cargo ship that had rescued the asylum seekers, believed to be Rohingya people fleeing persecution in Burma’s Rakhine state.

“In light of the difficulties faced by many people seeking refuge in the Asia-Pacific region, we are encouraged by Malaysia’s actions,” Mr Power said. “UNHCR has described the Malaysian decision to allow the asylum seekers to disembark as ‘a vital and a genuine humanitarian gesture’ – and we agree.

“A step such as this by Malaysia is exactly what is required to shift the political focus in the region, from a focus on criminalising the movement of people who are fleeing in fear to one in which protection is provided to people who clearly need it.”

Mr Power said the plight of the Rohingya people highlighted the Asia-Pacific region’s failure to offer adequate protection to people who are persecuted.

“Rohingya people are rejected in Burma, being told that they have no right to be in their own country of birth and denied citizenship,” Mr Power said. “Earlier this year the world saw Bangladesh turning away Rohingya people who were trying to flee at a time of heightened violence in Rakhine state.

“Increasingly, Rohingya people are taking to boats to head towards South-East Asia. No one knows how many hundreds of refugees have died on the Bay of Bengal. Their deaths go largely unremarked and result in no effective political action.”

Mr Power said Singapore’s refusal had highlighted that nation’s heartless disregard for people in distress and allowed the world to see that Malaysia had higher humanitarian standards than its neighbour.

“Malaysia’s actions provide encouragement, at the end of a year in which there were few signs of hope for refugees in the Asia-Pacific region,” Mr Power said. “In the Middle East and Africa this year, nations have provided hospitality to around 900,000 people displaced by the crises in Syria, Mali and the Horn of Africa but in our region that same spirit of welcome to refugees has been largely missing.

“However, Malaysia’s humanitarian response to the desperate asylum seekers on the MV Nosco Victory is a significant step and, if other governments are prepared to act in the same spirit, this action could encourage more serious thought about how the region could work together to protect highly vulnerable people who have been displaced.

“We encourage Malaysia, Australia and other governments in the region to use the planned regional roundtable on irregular movement by sea, to be held in Bali in March, as a forum to search for better answers for the needs of people who are forced to flee persecution and violence in the Asia Pacific region.”

Media contact: Andrew Williams 0488 035 535

Suite 4A6, 410 Elizabeth Street

Surry Hills NSW 2010 Australia 

Phone: (02) 9211 9333 ● Fax: (02) 9211 9288 

info@refugeecouncil.org.au ● Web: www.refugeecouncil.org.au 

Incorporated in ACT ● ABN 87 956 673 083 

The Refugee Council of Australia represents non-government organisations and individuals working with and for refugees in Australia and around the world

Refugees fear mass deportation

They fear being caught up in the impending crackdown on illegal workers.

PETALING JAYA: Refugees and asylum seekers have been allegedly sacked by their bosses with the introduction of the 6P amnesty programme, and they fear an impending crackdown.

Myanmarese asylum seeker Patrick Sang claimed that local employers didn’t want to go through the trouble of registering this group with the Immigration Department.

“Since the news of the major crackdowns and accompanying measures, many of the refugees and asylum seekers and their families have been fired by their bosses.”

“They lost their jobs…because employers didn’t register them under the 6P programme,” he told reporters today at Tenaganita’s office.

Sang was referring to the government’s 6P amnesty programme which started last June to legalise illegal foreign workers.

Thus far, only 379,020 illegal foreign workers have been legalised by the Immigration Department.

One million undocumented individuals, however, have either no work permits or have seen them rejected thus far.

A total of 94,856 migrants have been deported to their home countries since the programme’s inception.

Refugees and asylum seekers at risk

Some have speculated that the programme, which has been extended to April 10, will see a crackdown on migrant workers who have not yet been legalised by the government.

Refugees and asylum seekers are especially at risk, as they are not recognised as such in Malaysia. Instead, they are classified by the government as undocumented individuals.

They are especially concerned with the federal government boasting a four-million-enforcement-agent deployment against illegals after programme’s deadline.

This, according to Sang, was a very real fear for asylum seekers like him who face detention and deportation.

“It seem like there’s going to be huge crackdown (after April 10). Why don’t they just postpone the crackdown? If they want to exercise it, do it after all the refugees and asylum seekers are recognised.”

“If the registration for the refugee does not take place before April 10, all the refugees and asylum seekers are going to be in big trouble.”

“It heightens our fear. (If they register us) we don’t have to live with this fear daily,” he said.

Even a registration in March for nearly 100,000 refugees would be too late, Sang added. He said that it would take two or three months to fully register and legalise an individual.

Tenaganita executive director Irene Fernandez called for an immediate halt on the impending crackdown on migrants and refugees.

She also asked for migrant and refugee detainees to be released, as well as the government to stop deporting them.

Criticising the 6P programme, Fernandez said that a systematic plan was needed to address the “structural flaws” in the country’s migration system.

Ratify Refugee Convention, Govt urged

The Star

PETALING JAYA: Human rights activists and the Bar Council want the Government to be a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention before registering asylum-seekers and refugees in the country.

Suhakam commissioner James Nayagam said such a move would put Malaysia on a positive platform in the international scene.

He said the new registration exercise would lower the number of refugee and asylum-seeker arrests as law enforcers could verify their identities quickly.

“It will also help reduce cases of immigrants who enter the country to work but produce fake United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) documents when caught,” he said in an interview yesterday.

He hoped the registration process would be access-friendly for refugees and asylum-seekers and urged the Government to provide them with one-stop centres.

Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee said the registration exercise was a step in the right direction but more needed to be done.

“We need to enact laws to promote and protect internationally-recognised rights of asylum-seekers and their rights to livelihood, healthcare and education,” he said.

“The Prime Minister wants us to be the best democracy, and if this is to be so, then we must demonstrate compassion on how we treat the vulnerable and weak.”

Lim said amendments to laws like the Immigration Act was necessary to recognise the legal status of asylum-seekers.

Amnesty International-Malaysia executive director Nora Murat also said Malaysia should agree to the convention before proceeding with the new registration exercise.

Association for the Promotion of Human Rights president Tan Sri Simon Sipaun said it was ironic that even with the registration, asylum-seekers were not recognised as refugees.

“How can you sign an agreement when you do not recognise them as refugees?” he asked, adding that asylum-seekers would still be treated as illegal immigrants even if they were registered.

Chin Refugee Committee co-ordinator Henry Pin Maunt Shwe said the agreement between the Government and UNHCR was a step in assuring safety of asylum-seekers and refugees.

“When they have registered, they can get a proper job and provide for their family.”

AIPMC statement on detainees’ “swap” between Malaysia and Myanmar

AIPMC notes with serious concern recent developments of the Malaysian government’s plan to implement the ‘detainees exchange program’ with Myanmar. This plan will result around 1,000 people from Myanmar, detained in Malaysia, deported from the country.

There will be a possibility of persecution for those who are sent back to Myanmar.

Those who flee Myanmar, namely ethnic and other persecuted minorities, remain at risk from persecution of all forms – forced labour, land confiscation, rape, and torture among them – should they continue to live under the military regime. Thus, they risk their lives to find asylum in neighboring states, in pursuit of a dignified, secure and peaceful life elsewhere.

We wish to reiterate that such a ‘swap deal’, which would see Burmese nationals returned to persecution in their homeland, serves political interests well ahead of these exceedingly serious human rights concerns.

Contrary to the principles of international law upon which ASEAN is founded, such an agreement would only further jeopardize the dignity and security of Burmese refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia – who should be considered among the region’s most vulnerable.

Thus, the AIPMC calls for a halt to any such ‘swap deal’ plans, until effective systems be put in place to ensure that such refugees and asylum seekers are protected from persecution upon their return to Myanmar. The human rights situation in Myanmar, grievous as it remains, is unlikely to be able to ensure such protections, without which Malaysia cannot hope to fulfill its international obligations to ensure that human rights of refugees be protected.

We also note with concern that the Malaysian Government has, in recent months, further completed the registration under the 6P programme.

There must be a total change in the Malaysian government’s approach and policy with regard to the grave issue of the Burmese refugees in the country. As a first step the Malaysian government should accord them recognition as refugees.

There should be a timely and efficient refugee registration process to give certainty to refugees with regards to their in-country status to protect their rights. We also call upon the Malaysian government to ensure that detainees are provided access to both representatives from legal and non-government organizations, as they embark on a long route to ensuring their inherent rights are formally recognized when lodging asylum claims.

Finally, we strongly urge the Malaysian government to ensure that all refugee registrations be undertaken in full collaboration with the UNHCR, which consistently act to ensure the rights of refugees are both explicitly recognized and protected.

(Statement as Chair of the Malaysian Caucus of the AIPMC)

Hishammuddin: Myanmar detainees not refugees

The Sun Daily (Used by permission)
by Husna Yusop and Pauline Wong

PUTRAJAYA (Oct 18, 2011): Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein has clarified that the 1,000 Myanmar detainees who will be sent back to their country under a recent exchange agreement are not asylum seekers or refugees.

He said he checked their status with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) before finalising the matter with Myanmar Deputy Foreign Minister U Maung Myint yesterday.

“It is not true. They are not asylum seekers. I have talked to the UNHCR and made it clear that we are not going to stop those who are really eligible for refugee status.

“But, at the same time, do not use the refugee status as an excuse to dump so many people who are not eligible in our country. This would create a bigger problem in future,” he said.

Speaking to reporters at the ministry after a weekly meeting with immigration directors here today, Hishammuddin said there are about 94,000 asylum seekers in Malaysia but those listed in the exchange are not under the UNHCR’s watch.

He was responding to concerns raised by NGOs Migrant Care Malaysia and Tenaganita, who claimed that most Myanmar nationals came to Malaysia as refugees or were seeking political asylum, having fled their country to escape persecution.

Yesterday, Hishammuddin said both countries have agreed in principle to exchange detainees – those detained for various immigration related offences - to help reduce congestion at immigration depots.

He said the claims by the NGOs were made based on political considerations, adding the ministry has yet to identify the number of Malaysians currently detained in Myanmar.

He said Myanmar nationals are the third biggest group of foreigners in the country now and Myanmar government’s commitment is important in identifying and deporting those who are not supposed to be here.

“We don’t want to see Malaysia as a transit country or shelter for terrorists, drug smugglers and those taking advantage of the refugee status to do things which are clearly against the law,” he said.

Meanwhile, the UNHCR, in a statement, encouraged all governments to manage migration in a manner that is protection-sensitive towards those who wish to seek asylum.

“This holds true for Malaysia as well. It means that individuals who may be subject to arrest, detention and deportation for immigration offenses have the opportunity to seek asylum and to have their claims considered,” UNHCR spokesman here Yante Ismail said today.

She added that Malaysia cooperates with UNHCR on this issue and allows access to individuals so the agency can determine if they are eligible for asylum.

For those who have legitimate claims, UNHCR seeks their release from detention while their claims are being considered.

“On the matter of deportation, UNHCR reminds all Governments, including Malaysia, that refugees and asylum-seekers should benefit from the fundamental principle of non-refoulement and should not be deported to a country where their human rights might be at risk,” she said.

(Non-refoulement is a principle in refugee law that concerns the protection of refugees from being returned to places where their lives or freedoms could be threatened.)

The Bar Council, meanwhile, said it welcomed the Malaysian-Myanmar immigrant swap, but urged caution.

Its president, Lim Chee Wee, the arrangement must still live up to the highest humanitarian standards.

"Care needs to be taken to ensure that those returned to Myanmar will not in turn be subjected to retributive or punitive action by their own government," he said.

This is because there is no mention of any monitoring mechanism, nor whether any determination has been made by an Office of the UNHCR on whether any of the detainees returned was a genuine asylum seeker.

"This swap must also fulfill the need for a wider and more comprehensive regional mechanism for freedom of movement of nationals from one ASEAN member country to another," he added.

Hisham: M'sia can proceed to send refugees to Australia

The Sun
by Husna Yusop and Alyaa Alhadjri

PETALING JAYA (Oct 14, 2011): Malaysia can still proceed to send 4,000 refugees to be processed in Australia despite the country's decision to abandon the refugee swap deal, said Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussien yesterday.

In a tweeted response to theSun last night, Hishammuddin, through his official Twitter handle @HishammuddinH20 said: "Malaysia no impact as they are still willing to accept 4,000 refugees from us."

Hishammuddin also reiterated Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard's statement yesterday that the deal was scrapped because of her inability to get any Opposition MPs to support a change in migration laws which will allow for the swap deal to proceed.

Gillard reportedly said: "We are not in a position to implement the arrangement with Malaysia. It is apparent the legislation will not pass the parliament."

In his second tweet to theSunM, Hishammuddin added: "Bilateral cooperation (between) Australia and Malaysia to fight human trafficking syndicates (is) still very strong. The next working group meeting will be held next month."

The deal was signed between Hishammuddin and Austalia Immigration and Citizenship Minister Chris Bowen in July.

Under the deal, Malaysia was originally slated to receive 800 boat people for the purpose of processing by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).

Australia, in return, will resettle 4,000 refugees who are already in Malaysia over the next four years, at an average rate of about 1,000 a year.

Earlier, Home Ministry statement said: “People trafficking is one of the hidden horrors of modern life. The arrangement between our governments would have tackled it in a way that protected the interests of Australia, Malaysia and, above all, the migrants involved."

Malaysia will continue working closely with Australia to find new and effective ways to deal with the 21st century threats of human trading, beginning at the annual working group on smuggling and trafficking, to be held in Sydney next month, said the statement.

Australia scraps M’sia asylum solution

Aussie Prime Minister Julia Gillard did not have enough backing to change the migration laws to allow the refugee swap.

CANBERRA: Australia’s prime minister has scrapped a plan to send asylum seekers to Malaysia.

The move keeps her fragile government from becoming the first in 82 years to have legislation rejected by Parliament’s lower chamber.

Julia Gillard had vowed to put legislation to a vote on Thursday that would enable her government to send asylum seekers to Malaysia in return for Australia resettling registered refugees from Kuala Lumpur.

Gillard says she canceled the vote because a nonaligned lawmaker doomed it to failure by declaring his opposition. Gillard’s minority government holds a single-seat majority in the lower chamber.

“We are not in a position to implement the arrangement with Malaysia,” Gillard told reporters, adding her government continued to support the plan. “It is apparent the legislation will not pass the parliament.”

It is Gillard’s second failure to secure an offshore asylum processing centre. This year, Gillard announced that East Timor would host a centre, but failed to gain East Timor government support for the plan.

Gillard had hoped the swap deal would stem the tide of asylum seekers making the dangerous journey by boat to Australia.

Gillard announced details of the refugee deal with Malaysia in July under a policy designed to deter people smugglers and asylum seekers from sailing to Australia in leaky boats, mainly through Indonesia.

However, the deal, which would have seen Australia send 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia and accept 4,000 refugees in Malaysia, was ruled invalid by Australia’s High Court because Malaysia has not signed the UN refugee convention. – Agencies

Australian Govt’s move to amend law welcomed

The Star

PUTRAJAYA: Malaysia welcomed the Australian Government’s move to ensure the asylum seekers exchange programme between both countries takes off by amending its immigration law.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein said this showed Malaysia was on the right track when it signed the agreement.

“They are aware of the importance of addressing the asylum seekers’ issue.

“So, when their prime minister says they are going to amend the law, it just shows that we are on the right track,” he said after chairing a weekly meeting with state immigration directors here.

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard said her government was “determined” to make broad amendments to Australia’s migration laws to halt people smuggling and go ahead with the asylum seeker swap deal with Malaysia.

“We will bring to parliament broad amendments which will restore the executive government’s ability to make arrangements that it sees fit for the transfer and processing of asylum seekers in third countries,” she said.

Hishammuddin said the move by the Australian Government clearly showed that it was serious in working with Malaysia to address issues related to asylum seekers.

“We want the (human trafficking) syndicates to get a clear message that Malaysia and Australia should not be seen as a safe transit or destination,’’ he said.

Oz Court Decision on Refugees Creates a Quandary

Maybe try Nauru

Both Malaysia and Australia ask what next
(Asia Sentinel) The decision Wednesday by Australia’s highest court to void the so-called “Malaysia Solution,” in which Australia would swap refugees with Malaysia, leaves both countries in a continuing quandary.

Under the policy, announced by Prime Minister Julia Gillard in May, Australia would have accepted 4,000 certified refugees from Malaysia, most of them Christian or Buddhist Burmese, in exchange for 800 asylum seekers who were to be sent to Malaysia. The 4,000 that Australia wished to trade, including unaccompanied children, are currently held on Christmas Island, 2,750 km from Darwin. They are believed to be mostly Muslims. The scheme was an attempt to stem a continuing influx into Australia from poverty-stricken or war-torn countries, particularly Afghanistan and Sri Lanka.

The idea behind the swap – to be paid for by the Australian government – was to both seek to come up with a regional solution and to put an end to dangerous boat trips. However, the scheme ran afoul of the fact that Malaysia, like many other Southeast Asian nations, is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Refugees and thus, according to lawyers arguing in the High Court against the plan, there was no way to guarantee that the refugees to be swapped would be treated humanely. The decision also appears to doom Australian plans to send some refugees to Manus Island, a part of Papua New Guinea, or anyplace else in Southeast Asia. East Timor has also been suggested as a processing option.

The swap, of a total of just 4,800 refugees, is only a small part of a major problem, as poor or oppressed Asians, like their millions of counterparts from Latin America and Africa who are seeking to get into the United States or the Eurozone, have acquired both the knowledge that there are better places to live out there, and the ambition and means to get there. Senior Asian and European officials are to meet next week in Ulan Bator, Mongolia, next week to discuss the challenge of dealing with immigration and attempts to prevent trafficking.

Malaysia and Australia are perhaps the two biggest magnets for refugees in Asia – Australia because it is a tidy, resource-rich country with an annual per-capital gross domestic product by purchasing power parity of US$41,000, Malaysia because it sits next to Indonesia, which is neither tidy nor rich. Malaysia’s GDP by PPP is US$14,700 annually, three times that of Indonesia’s at US$4,200. Malaysia’s borders, especially in East Malaysia where it abuts the Indonesian province of Kalimantan not to mention across the Strait of Malacca, are porous.

There are believed to be as many as 2 million Indonesian illegal migrants or more – some estimates go as high as 3 million -- living and working in Malaysia. Tens of thousands more have arrived from Burma. The Indonesians have raised the political temperature not only because they might now make up more than 10 percent of the country’s population of 28.3 million but because the Chinese and Indian ethnic minorities have accused the government of seeking to register them as citizens to tilt the always-sensitive racial balance in favor of ethnic Malays. The government periodically initiates crackdowns to attempt to send them home, to little avail. As in the west, most have crossed the border or the strait because they are willing to do the jobs that richer people won’t.

Likewise, immigration has been an issue for three decades in Australia, whose population is 22.6 million, because of the flood of migrants, and not just illegal ones. Some 300,000 new legal migrants had been expected to arrive in 2009 and 2009 before the government announced a 14 percent cut in intake and later cut back again. Unlike Malaysia, where the Indonesians are culturally and religiously akin to the majority of the locals, Australians, especially conservative ones, fear the new arrivals will change the complexion of the country.

According to a background note prepared for the Australian parliament, most undocumented aliens arrive in Australia by air and filter into the general population. There are believed to be as many as 100,000 of them in the country, many of them in white-collar jobs. But it is the boat people who have caused Australia’s biggest problem, fleeing political violence or poverty in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Indochina and other areas of Asia.

It is more an emotional problem. The boat people number a fraction of those who arrive by other means. In the seven years between 2001 and February 2008, only 1,637 people had been detained in facilities on the islands of Nauru and Manus. Of those, 70 percent were resettled in Australia or other countries. Untold hundreds of others are believed to have drowned.

Mandatory detention was introduced in 1992 by the Keating government and has been the law ever since, with the exception of a period between 1999 and 2002 and from the middle of 2009 to the present as boat arrivals have continued to increase.

The government has remained committed to mandatory detention, offshore processing, and if necessary turning the boats around at sea and sending them somewhere else, which resulted in a major controversy several years ago when 433 asylum seekers were rescued by a Norwegian freighter that was refused entry to Australia. The ship’s master, however, defied the order and did enter Australian waters. The refugees were eventually transferred to another ship and sent to Nauru.

That controversy gave rise to the so-called “Pacific solution,” in which the islands of Christmas, Ashmore, Cartier and Cocos were excised from the migration zone. Anybody seeking a visa to enter Australia from one of those islands was not allowed to do so unless the Immigration Minister determined it was in the public interest.

The Rudd and Gillard governments have sought since 2007 to come up with a different solution. According to a December, 2010, report, processing freezes on detainees “has placed significant pressure on immigration detention facilities.” The government responded by moving detainees from Christmas Island to mainland facilities. However, by December 2010, 25 percent of the detainees had been held for three to six months, and 40 percent of them had been there between six months and a year.

Thus the “Malaysia Solution,” announced in May, under which Australia would simply swap refugees it wanted to take in with those from Malaysia. That option is now probably off the table, along with any other Asian nations that have not signed the UN convention on refugees. Its failure at the hands of the court probably means facilities “rented” by the Australian government on the island of Nauru will have to be reopened to accommodate those who have arrived since the Malaysian Solution was signed.

The fallout for the Gillard government has been considerable, with the newly energized Conservatives claiming it was the latest in a long string of disasters that began years ago when the Rudd government first sought to change the policy. With the fleeing Afghans and Sri Lankans increasing in numbers, now the government is going to have to try to figure out where to put them.

Humane decision as Malaysian plan springs a leak

David Marr
The Sydney Morning Herald
September 1, 2011
Opinion

‘A devastating blow for the government’
It’s about fairness. For a long time the High Court has ticked off on the remarkable difficulties Australia puts in the way of asylum seekers who come here by boat. Even mandatory detention for life has been given the nod by the court. But lately the judges have ruled boat people must at least be dealt with fairly while they are caught up in the system.

Yesterday’s emphatic six to one decision extended that principle to those men, women and children Australia had wanted to send away to Malaysia. The court could find no guarantee they would be dealt with fairly once they arrived there. So the minister Chris Bowen’s choice of Malaysia as a safe haven was declared invalid.

It was not enough, said the Chief Justice Robert French, for the minister to have a “hope or belief or expectation” that the asylum seekers would be dealt with properly by Malaysia. They needed laws to protect them now and in the years ahead. “It is an agreed fact,” French observed, “that Malaysia does not recognise the status of refugees in domestic law”.


The court was not plucking these human rights obligations out of the air. When the ”Pacific solution” was hurriedly set up in 2001, strict criteria were laid down in the Migration Act to identify the kinds of countries we might export asylum seekers to. These safe havens had to allow refugee assessment and meet “relevant human rights standards” in protecting asylum seekers before and after that assessment process.

Bowen brought to the court the arrangement he signed with Malaysia, the Malaysia order exempting the 800 we planned to send there from the harsh provisions of local laws – fines, whippings and imprisonment – and his own sense that “the Malaysian government had made a significant conceptual shift in its thinking about how it wanted to treat refugees and asylum seekers”.

Six of the judges declared this was not enough. Justices William Gummow, Ken Hayne, Susan Crennan and Virginia Bell said in their joint judgment that access to the protections demanded by law must be provided by Malaysia “as a matter of legal obligation”.

Bowen brought to court Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade advice on the harsh reality in Malaysia for the 100,000 or so asylum seekers – mainly Burmese – already living there. The minister claimed the advice backed his declaration of Malaysia as a safe haven. But six of the judges declared, on the contrary, that the advice demonstrated Malaysia could not meet the requirements of Australian law.

Justice Dyson Heydon was the government’s only friend in court. All Malaysia had to provide, he said, was “practical access, practical protections, and a meeting of standards in practice”. He cautioned that Australia’s dealings with Malaysia “are within the province of the Executive. Intrusion by the courts into those dealings may be very damaging to international comity and good relations”.

Perhaps the best ammunition the plaintiffs had were the reiterated claims by governments through the years that every tough action taken against boat people was an expression – not a repudiation – of Australia’s obligations under the refugee conventions. The court took the politicians at their word and reached yesterday’s humane conclusion.

Nauru and Manus may survive under their ruling – with strict legal safeguards in place – but if Canberra wants to try once again to set up machinery as vindictive as the Malaysian plan, it’s going to have to come clean and admit, for the first time, that we are backing away from our international obligations. Admit that fact and almost any law is possible.

Or Canberra will now abandon these schemes to send our problems away and do what other countries do and the recent Nielsen poll showed most Australians want: simply assess these people here.

Australian court blocks Malaysia refugee swap

Lawyers argued that the swap was illegal because Malaysia is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention [Reuters]

Australia's High Court has blocked the Federal Government's plan to send asylum-seekers to Malaysia as part of a refugee-swap deal, saying that the proposal was "invalid".

In a major blow to the government's plans to ship up to 800 asylum-seekers to the Asian country in exchange for resettling 4,000 of its refugees, the court extended an injunction on Wednesday on removing asylum-seekers to the country.

"Today the High Court held invalid the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship's declaration of Malaysia as a country to which asylum seekers who entered Australia at Christmas Island can be taken for processing of their asylum claims," the court said in a statement.

Earlier this month, the court granted a temporary injunction to civil rights lawyers acting on behalf of two asylum seekers who were scheduled to be among the first to be transferred to Malaysia.

The lawyers argued that the deportations would be illegal because Malaysia does not meet the human rights standards stipulated in Australian law, as it is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention.

"This is about life or death matters and our clients are challenging the government's power to expel them to Malaysia where they fear they will not be protected and they are at real risk of harm," said David Manne from the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre in Australia.

Manne said that Australian law requires that the refugees' claims be considered in Australia, not expulsion.
The government of Julia Gillard, the Australian prime minister, signed the Malaysian deal to deter human trafficking, and to fight perceptions that her government was soft on asylum seekers.

However, the deal came under increasing criticism after it was revealed that unaccompanied children who arrived by boat would not be exempt from transfer.

Commenting on the High Court's ruling, Marianne Dickie, an expert on migration law at the Australian National University, said: "It's a slap in the face for the Gillard government, it's a huge setback for the Malaysian solution. It effectively hobbles it [the policy], if not ending it."

Prior to the ruling, Immigration Minister Chris Bowen, in a filing to the court, said Malaysia had made a "significant conceptual shift" in its treatment of asylum seekers and he deemed conditions there acceptable.- Al Jazeera

‘Malaysia Solution’ illegal, says Australian court

Sri Lankan asylum seekers threaten to go on a hunger strike at Cilegon harbour after being prevented from continuing towards Australia, October 16, 2009. — Reuters pic

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 31 — The refugee swap deal between Australia and Malaysia was deemed illegal by Australia’s High Court today.


The hugely controversial arrangement has been popularly referred to as the “Malaysia Solution” in Australia.

The Sydney Morning Herald ran an Australian Associated Press report that quoted Chief Justice Robert French as saying that “the declaration made... was made without power and is invalid.”

The court barred asylum seekers held by Australia from being sent to Malaysia, a ruling that will likely derail the swap deal intending to send 800 boat people to Malaysia in exchange for 4,000 already-processed refugees to Australia.

The move was put on hold earlier this month after Melbourne lawyer David Manne won a High Court injunction to prevent deportations pending a decision on the deal.

He argued that Australian-held asylum seekers had rights to refugee protection assessed in Australia, and that the High Court could review Bowen’s declaration that Malaysia was a suitable destination for offshore processing.

With Canberra agreeing to pick up the RM1 billion bill for the swap, the Gillard administration's popularity has sunk under pressure from opposition leaders and human rights activists in both Pacific nations.

But Australia’s Labor government insists the swap will stem human trafficking despite a Parliament motion condemning it due to concerns over Malaysia’s treatment of refugees.

There has also been concerns that a biometric system used in Malaysia to register migrants is “riddled with problems” and reports of scalps taking advantage of an ongoing amnesty programme for illegal immigrants have raised further questions over its ability to deal with incoming asylum-seekers.

According to the AAP, refugee lawyers asked the High Court to strike down the deal, arguing that Immigration Minister Chris Bowen did not have the power to send asylum seekers to a country that has no legal obligations to protect them.

They also argued that sending unaccompanied minors to Malaysia would breach the minister's duty of care as their legal guardian to act in their best interests.

But the Australia's Solicitor-General Stephen Gageler had argued the government could lawfully declare Malaysia a safe third country even though it had no domestic or international legal obligations to protect asylum seekers.

Malaysia trading 4,000 non-Muslims for 800 Muslims in asylum swap, says top Aussie paper

By Shannon Teoh


KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 22 — The refugee swap deal with Australia is one of several immigration initiatives by Malaysia that will benefit the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN), says Australia’s top-selling broadsheet.

Chris Kenny, a senior journalist with The Australian, wrote in his column yesterday that as the majority of Muslims support the Umno-led coalition, the deal, which will see 800 Muslims who arrive by boat in Australia being swapped for 4,000 non-Muslim Burmese, plays into “Malaysia’s explosive ethnic-religious divide.”

“In the ethno-religious politics of Malaysia, this is seen as a swap of 4,000 non-Muslims for 800 Muslims; as squeamish as we may feel about describing the equation in those terms, it is clearly one way in which the deal supports the interests of the ruling Muslim majority,” he wrote.

Most of the arrivals to Australia, including an initial batch of 54 whose fate is being decided by its High Court, are Muslims from Afghanistan and Pakistan via Indonesia and have “the unspoken advantage (of) their Islamic faith” which will “bestow on them social welfare benefits and financial advantages,” wrote Kenny.

With the Najib administration reiterating its commitment to the “Bumiputera Agenda” — affirmative action for the indigenous community and Muslim Malays — last weekend while the federal opposition pushes for a needs-based welfare system, the move will likely play to BN’s advantage.

Kenny also noted that critics of Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s government see the current amnesty on illegal immigrants — its deadline was recently lifted indefinitely — “as a way of fast-tracking more Muslims on to government benefits and the electoral rolls, with the asylum-seekers from Australia expected to join that preferential queue.”

“The refugee swap plays directly into Malaysia’s explosive ethnic-religious divide, a fracture that continues to define the federation’s politics and deliver injustice to the country’s non-Muslim population,” he wrote.

“In recent weeks, protests for cleaner and more equal democracy — in part, code for an end to Muslim preference — have been met by government crackdowns and arrests,” Kenny wrote, referring to tens of thousands who flooded the capital in the July 9 Bersih rally but were dispersed by water cannons and tear gas as police arrested nearly 1,700.

The federal opposition has most recently charged BN of giving at least 1,600 foreigners citizenships and the right to vote, questioning further the Home Ministry’s motives for its current amnesty programmes.
Although Najib announced a parliamentary select committee to improve electoral practices last week, Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammmudin Hussein has said that he believes these allegations to be “baseless.”

But the opposition has claimed that the parliamentary panel is just a political ploy ahead of a general election that must be called by early 2013.

Asylum seekers not welcome in PD

The presence of asylum seekers will mar the town's tourist image, says the state assemblyman.

PORT DICKSON: Residents of Port Dickson are fervently hoping that the Australian High Court will rule against the deportation of 54 asylum seekers to Malaysia when it hears the matter on Aug 22.

The 54 are meant to be the first batch of asylum seekers sent to Malaysia under the recently inked Australia-Malaysia refugee swap deal.

They were originally scheduled to arrive two weeks ago but faced a setback after an injunction against their deportation was extended.

The asylum seekers – mostly Afghans and Pakistanis – will be housed in two transit homes in Port Dickson for a maximum of 30 days while their applications are being processed.

The first home, Rumah Cycle Carri, comprises a colonial bungalow and two wooden chalets. The second, Cresent Peak, is a former hotel. Both facilities are slightly smaller than a football field.

When FMT visited Port Dickson last weekend, renovation work on both facilities was already in progress.
A third transit home, Pearl Villa Hotel and Resort, had pulled out of the arrangement last week after finding out the real purpose behind the hotel reservations.

“We were lied to,” a hotel spokeman told FMT. “The person who made the reservations first told us that it was for a group of engineers. Then it was changed to management trainees.”

Security issues

“Later on, officials from the Immigration Department and the Australian Embassy visited the hotel and told us that the booking was for embassy officials.”

“We only found out that we were one of the transit homes when we read the newspapers a few days ago and we immediately cancelled the booking. It’s a lot of money but not worth the risk.”

The spokesman added that the hotel was beseiged by worried calls from their regular clients and residents in surrounding areas.

“There is strong concern about security issues,” he said. “None of us were told that the asylum seekers would be housed in Port Dickson and we’re not sure what to expect. No one is telling us anything.”

Port Dickson state assemblyman, M Ravi, expressed similar frustration and opposition to the housing of asylum seekers in the seaside town.

He claimed that he had not been officially informed of this decision and had found out through a friend who is providing the transport for the asylum seekers.

“We don’t want them here,” he said bluntly. “If the government wants to place them in Negri Sembilan, then go to Kuala Pilah and Bahau instead. Don’t choose a tourist destination.”

“The residents are very unhappy as they feel that their security, especially that of their children’s, will be threatened. Already, there is unnecessarily high security at Crescent Peak which has created a sense of uneasiness among the locals.”

Beachside accommodations

Ravi also demanded to know where the asylum seekers would be placed once their applications are processed. The government has said that they will be “released into the community” but has made no mention of which community.

“Will they go to Kuala Lumpur or remain in Port Dickson?” he asked. “We need to know all these details before they arrive here.”

Bar Council Human Rights Committee chairman, Andrew Khoo, noted an element of a public relations exercise in the choice of Port Dickson.

“The government wants to show Australia that the asylum seekers are being housed in very nice beachside accommodations,” he said. “But these are transit homes. What happens after that?”

Khoo also pointed out that the two facilities were akin to detention centres as the asylum seekers would not be allowed to leave the ground.

“The community is not being adequately prepared either,” he added. “We’re not just talking about the official part of the preparations but also the social and community preparation.”

Malaysia prepared to receive asylum seekers from Australia as part of deal

The Star
by MAZWIN NIK ANIS

PETALING JAYA: Malaysia is ready to receive asylum seekers whenever Australia is ready to send them, said Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein.

Despite the initial hiccup of a court injunction, Malaysia and Australia remained committed to tackle human trafficking through the recently inked refugee resettlement and transfer programme, he added.

“Notwithstanding the hiccup, the agreement remains the best way to tackle the menace of people traffickers in a way that protects the interests of Australia, Malaysia and above all, the immigrants involved.

“We hope to see it up and running as soon as possible.

“Malaysia and Australia remain steadfastly committed to make this programme a success,” he told The Star yesterday.

Australia's plan to send asylum seekers to Malaysia as part of a refugee swap deal has been delayed for at least two weeks until the Australian High Court can rule on its legality.

Refugee advocates obtained an injunction in the court late on Sunday against the government flying the first 16 asylum seekers to Kuala Lumpur on Monday morning.

Justice Kenneth Hayne had ruled the injunction would remain in force until the full bench of seven judges hear the case beginning Aug 22.

Melbourne-based Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre was challenging the government's claim that Malaysia would provide adequate protection.

On July 25, the two countries signed a landmark agreement on the transfer and resettlement of asylum seekers, which aims to put a cork on human trafficking syndicates profiting from human misery by promising them places in the two countries.

The historic deal the first in the world will see 4,000 refugees currently residing in Malaysia be sent to Australia and 800 asylum seekers redirected here over the next four years.

Australia is expected to fork out A$292mil (RM900mil) for the programme.

Malaysia has given its assurance that refugees who are sent here will be treated with dignity and respect.

Ministry gets ready to receive first of asylum seekers

The Star
by ZUHRIN AZAM AHMAD

PUTRAJAYA: The first batch of asylum seekers under the refugee swap agreement between Malaysia and Australia is expected to arrive here early next week.

Although no exact date has been announced, officials at the Home Ministry are said to be making preparations to receive them.

However, it could not be confirmed how many refugees would be in the first batch.

A ministry official said that upon arrival, the refugees would be temporarily placed at a centre about 100km from Kuala Lumpur.

“The centre is a former resort,” the official said.

“The refugees will be housed there for up to 45 days where they will then be screened by the UNHCR to determine their status,” he added.

The selection of the former resort as the centre was agreed by both governments.

In Melbourne, Australia, the group that was due to be sent to Malaysia were said to be on hunger strike.

A refugees advocate movement said the group arrived on Christmas Island on Thursday.

The group includes 18 minors or people claiming to be minors. Up to 14 of them are unaccompanied.

Refugee Action Coalition spokesman Ian Rintoul claimed that the movement received a distress call from one of the asylum seekers on Friday.

“The short call said: We are in a bad way; we need help. We are starting a hunger strike',” Rintoul was quoted by the Australian Associated Press as saying.

He called on the Australian Government to give the group access to lawyers.

“The asylum seekers have committed no crime but are effectively being held incommunicado,” Rintoul said.

‘No’ to child refugees in Malaysia

Both the Malaysian and Australian governments, are being slammed for allowing '13 unaccompanied children' to be transferred to Malaysia under the refugee swap deal.

PETALING JAYA: News that 19 minors will be among the first batch of refugees to arrive in Malaysia from Australia on Sunday has sparked outrage against the governments of both countries.

The boatload of 54 Afghan refugees that was intercepted in Australian waters earlier this week are currently in Christmas Island.

They are expected to board a flight to Kuala Lumpur by tomorrow.

On Thursday night two senior Malaysian police officers flew into Christmas Island to inspect the process of selecting asylum-seekers for transfer.

The refugee swap deal between both countries was signed on July 25 amid strong protests that refugees arriving in Australia would be sent to a country with a shocking human rights record.

To date neither government has released any further information on where the refugees will be staying upon arrival in Kuala Lumpur or how they will seek employment and so forth.

There was also a glaring omission of children – accompanied or unaccompanied – in the agreement.
Therefore the latest announcement that a group of minors – 13 of whom are unaccompanied – will be part of this first group here has intensified criticism of the deal.

Suaram Project Coordinator, Andika Abdul Wahab, lamented that the biggest problem is that no one knows anything about the deal.

“The governments have said that the refugees will be placed in a community cente here but where is that centre?”

“Even our colleagues in Australia are in the dark.

“So there is a strong possibility that these 54 refugees will be temporarily placed in a detention centre instead,” he said.

Malaysia tight-lipped

Andika said Suaram was against the whole swap deal.

“Suaram is against this deal in its entirety because as long as these people are human they have their rights and Australia is in no position to kick them out.

Malaysia on the other hand should treat these people according to the Convention of the Rights of the Child which it ratified in 1995.”

Amnesty International Malaysia, which is closely monitoring the situation, also vented its frustration over the Malaysian government’s refusal to reveal any details on the deal.

“This is madness…The government has been so tight-lipped over everything.

“We don’t even know what time they are arriving on Sunday, whether its a commercial or chartered flight…nothing.”

“And the fact that children will arrive here is extremely very worrying because who will be responsible for their wellbeing?

“This whole deal is like “batuk di hujung tangga” (to not pursue something wholeheartedly),” said its executive director, Nora Murat.

Human rights lawyer, Andrew Khoo, had earlier told FMT, said that it would take a month for the details of the swap deal to be ironed out and for the arrangements to be fully operational.

But when contacted yesterday a surprised Khoo panned the Australian government for displaying negligence over the protection of children.”

“It is not in their best interest to be sent to Malaysia and Australia should have shown more moral and legal responsibility,” he said.

“I’m also very surprised that this first batch includes 19 minors.

“That’s a significant 20% of the boatload and very worrying.”

‘Children vulnerable in Malaysia’

Meanwhile Australia’s opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, has slammed his government for creating a Catch 22 situation.

Morrison, who had visited Malaysia in June and gave a thumbs down on the refugee conditions here, declared that the Australian government would fail regardless of its next move.

He pointed out that the government cannot give the same assurance that refugees would be protected in Malaysia as they are in Nauru.

“They know children are vulnerable in Malaysia, they know they can’t send them all there.

“And they only have to make one exception for that to become the rule for people smugglers.”
“And the government just doesn’t seem to understand that.

“They think they can just put out a YouTube video and say there won’t be blanket exemptions,” he told ABC news yesterday.

The Australian government will post on YouTube, images of so-called boatpeople being turned away and sent to Malaysia, in an effort to deter asylum seekers.

But Morrison argued: “Children are always going to turn up and they simply don’t have an answer, and the people smugglers will see right through that.”

Meanwhile Australian Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, has refused to confirm the fate of the minors but said that as of yesterday no decision had been made to let any of them stay in Australia.