Know Your Numbers

I never thought I'd ever say this, but it looks like Malaysia has actually been pulling its weight, when it comes to accepting refugees and asylum-seekers.

This latest spate of research came about because Malaysia seems to be starkly divided on the topic of refugees. I wanted to weigh the facts up for themselves.



I realise that the font is small and does not make the best reading so here is the text from the UNHCR website: Know your numbers

As of end April 2015, there are some 152,830 refugees and asylum-seekers registered with UNHCR in Malaysia.

- 141,920 are from Myanmar, comprising some 49,600 Chins, 45,910 Rohingyas, 12,320 Myanmar Muslims, 7,280 Rakhines & Arakanese, and other ethnicities from Myanmar.

- There are some 10,910 refugees and asylum-seekers from other countries, including some 3,890 Sri Lankans, 1,210 Pakistanis, 1,090 Somalis, 950 Syrians, 830 Iraqis, 540 Iranians, 430 Palestinians, and others from other countries.

Some 69% of refugees and asylum-seekers are men, while 31% are women.

There are some 33,000 children below the age of 18.

I did the maths. Almost 93% of the refugees in Malaysia are from Myanmar, which does suggest that Myanmar has a problem that it needs to fix.

My fellow blogger, Helen Ang, has mentioned numerous times in her postings that the Rohingya are economic migrants. She also illustrates her point with examples regarding the Vietnamese and Sri Lankans.

I have personally met Vietnamese who have resettled in Western countries and most of them have no desire to return to their land of birth. In fact, most of them are very proud to have relocated and are, in their own words, "lucky to be here."

Definitely economic migrants.

But back to the Rohingya, if they were merely escaping persecution, why do they not return to Bangladesh? There, they would not be stigmatised for their skin colour or religion.

Is it because they are hoping for better jobs and prospects in affluent countries rather than in Bangladesh?

Seriously. I just wish that people would fix the country that they live in instead of trying to find themselves a new one.

It's not that I don't have any compassion for their hardships. I do. In the Guardian, their sufferings are described in Burma’s boatpeople ‘faced choice of annihilation or risking their lives at sea'.

Nevertheless, this passage caught my eye:

Many of the women endure rape or other sexual violence on the boats or while waiting to travel, and many others are forced into marriage with men who pay for their journey.

Mothers travelling with children are also particularly vulnerable to starvation, as young travellers are given no rations so women often go hungry to ensure that their sons and daughters can eat.

Now, I sympathise with the mothers. It is typical of maternal selflessness; one that I am witnessing in the form of my sister and her one year old rugrat.

However, what stopped me in my tracks is that the women endure rape on the boats. That very strongly implies that the other passengers on the boats, fellow refugees, are guilty of sexual violence and abuse.

If we give amnesty to everyone on that refugee boat, are we allowing rapists and sex predators into our country?

What worries me is that Malaysia does not provide welfare and segregate the refugees.

Under 04 Living As A Refugee In Malaysia, the Malaysian chapter of the UNHCR says that, "There are no refugee camps in Malaysia. Instead, refugees live in cities and towns across Malaysia in low-cost flats or houses side by side local Malaysian homes."

Are we going to be allowing just about anyone into our country?

Almost every country around the world requires a background check for migration purposes. We evidently don't and can't with refugees, as most of them don't even have legal documents with them.

I know that in the UK, refugees are housed in camps and detention centres. Or later, in tower blocks. But they aren't immediately released into society. Even before that, their asylum application is assessed to ensure it is genuine.

The processing of refugees worries me, because as much as I care for human life, I also care about the average Malaysian citizen. The crime rate, as it is, is extremely high.

Helen claims that the Rohingya are suspected of bringing to Malaysia their blood feud against Buddhists.

I was skeptical, as some governments conveniently blame social ills on low-skilled migrants, but the murder rate amongst Myanmarese does seem inordinately high.

Are we inviting further problems into our country?

We should pay more attention to the welfare of Malaysians, instead of putting that of the refugees above it.

If the refugees were truly desperate to live in a Muslim country, free of attacks and persecution, they should take up Gambia on its offer.

Gambia has said that it will take all Rohingya refugees as part of its “sacred duty” to alleviate the suffering of fellow Muslims flooding south-east Asia to escape oppression.

Good on Gambia.

Now the ball is on the Rohingya court.

Bad Politics And Boatloads Of Refugees

A little bird tells me (okay, it was the Rakyat Times) that Tash Aw of The Harmony Silk Factory (I have actually read the book) fame, has waded into the huge conundrum of what to do with the Rohingya refugees.

To be fair, he makes some really good points about Malaysia stepping up to its role as ASEAN chair and using its economic power to deal with Myanmar.

After all, Malaysia has $1.65 billion worth of trade deals with Myanmar. That is no small amount.

It turns out that Myanmar also has gas, and Petronas is the principal foreign partner (yes, Malaysia unfailingly perks up at the mention of oil and gas) in the Yetagun offshore gas field.

For obvious reasons, Malaysia would have to think twice about upsetting Myanmar.

So like everyone else, I was rather surprised when the Foreign Minister, Anifah Aman, actually met up with his Myanmarese counterpart and "asked for a guarantee from the Myanmar government to help in tackling the crisis while also stressing on the importance of Myanmar identifying and resolving the main cause of the problem."

That is progress because it tackles the root of the problem at this point: Myanmar.

Myanmar has categorically marginalised the Rohingya people. And bloody Aung San Suu Kyi has not said a damn thing about it; so much for her Nobel Peace Prize. Pooh.

One point that Myanmar repeatedly makes is that Rohingya are not inherently citizens of Myanmar. The accusation is that they are economic migrants from Bangladesh.

Assuming that this is true, this would force us to shift our attention to Bangladesh.

Now Bangladesh is a whole new can of worms.

I presume that at one point in time, it was part of India - back in those days when borders were superfluous and people moved about as they wished.

Then the British showed up, and after a prolonged battle for independence, India became a sovereign nation, resulting in many Muslims moving up to Pakistan.

Bangladesh was considered East Pakistan, before it finally seceded from Pakistan.

The governance of Bangladesh has always been pathetic. Like India, there has been assassinations, but the power has always been a game of musical chairs between the Zia dynasty, the Sheikh dynasty and the military.

Actually, it's been more of a wrestling match than game of musical chairs. But I digress.

All three groups are useless. The Sheikh governance particularly springs to mind, because in 2011, they tried to remove Muhammad Yunus from Grameen Bank.

Photo: Shahidul Alam, New York Times

I confess that I always sound like a teenage groupie whenever I talk about Grameen Bank and its founder Muhammad Yunus.

This is because this economics doctorate-holder from Vanderbilt University in the US, who works as a professor in Bangladesh's Chittagong University, has managed to do what most governments could not.

He pioneered micro-credit in Bangladesh - basically lending money to classes of people formerly underserved: the poor, women, illiterate, and unemployed people.

Grameen Bank is founded on the principle that loans are better than charity to interrupt poverty: they offer people the opportunity to take initiatives in business or agriculture, which provide earnings and enable them to pay off the debt.

The bank is founded on the belief that people have endless potential, and unleashing their creativity and initiative helps them end poverty.

I confess that I am incredulous when I read that most of the loans are repaid.

The. Loans. Are. Repaid.

And these are poor people!

Another thing that he did, that would never come under the purview of a modern, impersonal bank, is that he created social rules for those taking credit from his bank.

These include: educating the children, community hygiene, and even against accepting dowry!

Yes, I was very impressed.

But good things never last. Someone always shows up and spoils the fun. This was the Sheikh Hasina administration, who took advantage of "non-compliance" in Bangladeshi banking regulations to get rid of him.

I was in high school when Muhammad Yunus was bestowed the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for his outstanding work. I remember reading about him.

Greed and jealousy of the incompetent Bangladeshi government, however, fomented within those 5 years to shut him out.

Muhammad Yunus and his bank could have done much more to improve the lives of the common Bangladeshi. Perhaps this would have reduced the number of refugees trying to flee Bangladesh.

Ironically, this is the story of two Nobel Prize winners.

One who was forced into silence, and one who remains silent of her own accord.

Related:
Malaysia’s Duty to the Rohingyas - New York Times

Seeking But Finding The Unexpected

A lot of them come to seek jobs in Malaysia. After all, Malaysia has a huge need for low-skilled labour.

Apparently only 30 to 40% of them were Rohingya; the rest of them were Bangladeshis seeking their fortune.

They never found it.

Unfortunately, many of them met their ends at transitory migrant camps at the border between Malaysia and Thailand. These were suspected human trafficking camps, about 139 of them.

My nationality - and the consequent opportunities that it brings - are an accident of birth and not of my choosing, but it does make me stop and wonder how misfortunate some groups of people can be.

What Do We Do With The Rohingya?

I confess that this is the first time I am making a concerted effort to find out where the Rohingya people of Myanmar actually come from.

Given the proximity of the state of Rakhine with Bangladesh, it explains why the Rohingya share similar features and a common religion with the Bangladeshis.

More dismally, Myanmar and Bangladesh seem to share oppressive governments and religious extremism, which is why both groups of people are fleeing their countries.

Unfortunately, Malaysia does not welcome them. "We won't let any foreign boats come in," Tan Kok Kwee, first admiral of Malaysia's maritime enforcement agency said Tuesday. Unless they're not seaworthy and sinking, he added, the navy will provide "provisions and send them away."

It's not that Malaysia has ever been nice to refugees. Kuala Lumpur has refused to sign the treaty at the United Nations Refugee Convention and has a record of mistreating refugees.

Amnesty International Australia's refugee co-ordinator, Graham Thom, once said, "If you're looking for a country in the region that has some of the harshest policies towards refugees and asylum-seekers, then you couldn't really go past Malaysia."

It's rather harsh, very embarrassing, but unfortunately closer to the truth than anything.

I found it strange, because Malaysia very calmly deported a bunch of Uighurs back to China, where they would inevitably face the wrath of the Chinese government.

It goes to show that when it comes to the 'Muslim brotherhood', refugees don't make the cut. All those protests against atrocities in Palestine must have been just grandstanding. Love from a distance.

Lest you think I am a saintly soul for sympathising with the refugees, allow me to disabuse you of that notion.

In the heat of the moment, I wrote a nasty open letter to the refugees. I was unhappy about the thought of them being used as voters by the BN government.

But in my more sane moments, I have considered the predicament of refugees in greater depth. I acknowledge that refugees do not become refugees on a whim. It is usually desolate conditions that drive them to that situation.

And while we may have our own personal interests and families to take care of, what are we, and what have we become?

Can we claim to be successful, when our behaviour is akin to miserable, self-centred turf-lords?

The measure of a nation's success is how we treat the poor, regardless whether they are our citizens or not. Have we failed?

Letter To Refugees

Dear Asian Refugees (presumably from Myanmar, Cambodia, Sri Lanka or Iran),

Congratulations for making that treacherous journey by boat to Australia! Unfortunately, that would have been the peak of your success and only the beginning of the consequences of making poor decisions.

When you landed safely on Australian shores, the first people you met were probably the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. They probably glanced at you wearily and sent you off to some refugee holding centre.

While you were waiting in that centre, an agreement was made by the Australian government with its Malaysian counterparts. They wanted to exchange refugees.

If you could only read or hear of this news, you would be horrified. Malaysia is not a signatory to the UN refugee convention. It treats its refugees very badly. It abuses those who try to protect, help and speak out for refugees as well.

Like Irene Fernandez for example, who in 1995, published a report on the abuse of migrant workers, cataloguing the malnutrition, physical and sexual abuse and the appalling conditions and the detention camps where they end up and where many of them die. She was arrested at home and charged with ‘maliciously publishing false news’.

You may say that it happened long ago and that conditions have since improved. You would be very wrong. I recently met this person, who for some reason, has a heart for the downtrodden.

In Malaysia, "downtrodden" could refer to a number of groups, including the rural poor, urban poor, non-Muslims, but it is most significantly applied to the group of people called "refugees".

This acquaintance of mine chanced upon a number of detention camps for refugees and she thinks that Irene Fernandez was grossly understating the conditions. Most of these camps are under the watch of RELA.

RELA is a paramilitary organisation that can only be formed under an Emergency. We are currently under 4 emergency rules which have yet to be lifted. These rules are still being enforced so that it allows the UMNO government more leeway to do things within its discretion.

Unfortunately, there are no rules to govern what RELA can or cannot do, as they are an ad-hoc organisation. They know it, so they pretty much do as they please, including having their way with refugees.

My acquaintance told me that the refugees quake in fear when the RELA members as much as just walk past. If you are unaware of what I am trying to say, please watch the movie, 'The Kite Runner' about life in Afghanistan. It would be an eye-opener to you, though I wager most of you (and not just you, but most Malaysians as well) would come away traumatised.

This acquaintance of mine, if caught, can be charged with aiding and abetting because she brings along food to eat when she pays them a visit.

Don't get me wrong. I know that you refugees do not come about because you're bored. In a previous post, I once said, "Something drastic must have caused these people to flee their homeland. Often it is war. Sometimes it is the tyranny of the tin-pot dictators. People don't become refugees in search of a better lifestyle; they become refugees because they have no other choice."

Sometimes, I really wonder if you did have a choice, to begin with. Why didn't you fight the oppressors in your home country? The biggest group of refugees in Malaysia are the Myanmarese -- the Chins and Rohingyas -- why didn't you do something before you let your country get to that sorry state??

The rest of the world is fighting against their oppressors. In many instances, they are the men in white collars. In other countries, it is the men in military uniforms. The Americans have decided to stop taking it lying down! And consequently, we have the Wall Street Occupation, speaking out against the bullying and thieving done by the white collars.

We Malaysians have woken up as well. We refuse to let the select few rape and plunder.

But this exchange program between the Australian and Malaysian governments are for a reason. They want to naturalise you refugees and give you citizenship and voting rights in exchange for your votes. They say there is no such thing as a free lunch. They, whoever they are, are right indeed.

So for your rights to live and start your new life, you will be violating our rights to a free and democratic government. And frankly, that is what upsets us. It is not your presence here in this country. It is your political role.

And for that reason alone, we don't want you. Nothing personal.

Crank

Silence Is Not Always Golden

They say silence is golden. Most of the time it's true. After all, a lot of people open their mouth and get into trouble because of what they say.

But sometimes what the world needs is for people to get off their couch and voice their opinion for everyone to hear.

One pretty glaring aspect is the subject of refugees.

Now, no one really needs refugees - certainly not anywhere in Asia where the population is high enough as it is.

Bear in mind, honest, hard-working, tax-paying citizens are the ones who are forking out the expenses to feed and shelter a refugee.

I can fully understand why the Australians are anxious to get rid of their refugees, especially the trouble-makers.

The question is, how did we get to the stage where there are so many refugees? I was trolling the web and most refugees are from Bosnia-Herzegovina, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, China and Afghanistan.

On one side of the coin, it is not fair for the host country to bear these expenses, but on the other side, how many people become refugees for the fun of it? The journey is treacherous, the new surroundings unfamiliar and unpleasant.

Something drastic must have caused these people to flee their homeland.

Often it is war. Sometimes it is the tyranny of the tin-pot dictators. People don't become refugees in search of a better lifestyle; they become refugees because they have no other choice.

If we collectively spoke up against the tyrants that make these people run away, and get them to behave, then maybe there would be less people fleeing their homeland.

If we controlled our very own village idiots -- the tin-pot dictators who try to rule our country without our consensus -- then we wouldn't have to run away some day.

Strange Way Of Dealing With Refugees

I am confused.

The Malaysian government has been trying to entice Filipinos and Indonesians to become citizens of Malaysia in the hope that these migrants would vote for the BN government come the next general elections.

Personally, I don't know if this will work, but Malaysia has agreed to accept Muslim refugees from the Middle East in exchange for sending non-Muslim Myanmarese refugees to Australia.

This led me to believe that the BN administration was selecting Muslims for their vested interests.

But it looks like I was wrong.

I had not previously heard of the Uighur people of China. These people hail from Xinjiang and are of Caucasoid (European/Turkish) and Mongoloid (Chinese) ancestry.

You may be forgiven for thinking that people from China would be either Taoists or Buddhists. That was what I previously thought.

But the Uighurs are Muslims.

Only today, the BN government deported 11 Uighur people to China.

KUALA LUMPUR — A human rights group criticised Malaysia on Tuesday for sending a group of ethnic Uighurs back to China and urged an end to such deportations over fears of mistreatment and even torture.

The UN refugee agency also said it had sought access to the 11 people deported on August 18 as well as five others still in custody in Malaysia but had been denied by Malaysian authorities.

A senior Malaysian police official defended the government's actions in comments to AFP, saying the Chinese nationals, all members of the Uighur ethnic minority, were involved in a human-smuggling syndicate.

"This group has nothing to do with any political group or asylum-seekers. They are all involved in people smuggling," he said.

Announcing the deportations on Saturday, police said they had busted a Chinese people smuggling ring which was falsely trying to claim UN refugee status for its victims after smuggling them into Malaysia.

But New York-based Human Rights Watch denounced the deportations and urged they be halted, saying Uighurs faced "grave risk of torture" in China.

It also called on China to make known where the 11 deportees were.

"The treatment of these Uighurs is a litmus test for Malaysia?s commitment to basic principles of refugee protection," it said in a statement.

Many Uighurs, a Turkic-speaking and predominantly Muslim minority in China's remote northwestern Xinjiang region, allege decades of political and religious repression by China.

Their anger -- and China's resulting tight security in the region -- has triggered sporadic bouts of unrest.

The deportations come amid a refugee swap arrangement between Malaysia and Australia, which has been put on hold by a Canberra court.

Rights groups moved to block the deal, citing concerns over Malaysia's record on handling refugees.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees spokeswoman Yante Ismail said the agency had sought access to all 16 Uighurs. She said the five in detention had all previously applied for refugee status with the agency.

"We very much regret that the 11 individuals were deported without the opportunity for us to have access to them," she said in a statement.

The police official said there were no immediate plans to deport the five but that they could face criminal charges over fake Malaysian passports found on them.

The US-based Uyghur American Association called the deportations a "flagrant violation of international law" by Malaysia.

"(The deportations) follow an extremely disturbing trend of Uighurs deported from countries with strong trade and diplomatic ties to China," it said in a statement.

Human Rights Watch said other countries such as Thailand and Pakistan had recently deported Uighurs back to China, adding that it revealed "the bullying hand of China".

I would derive two conclusions from this:

1. While the BN government tries to bully its Malaysian-Chinese citizens, it has a profound fear of China, with whom it has business dealings.

2. While the BN government is seeking more Muslims to form a bigger Muslim majority, it is still wary enough of increasing the Chinese population in Malaysia.

3. The BN government will happily ditch the Muslims when it suits them.

I guess all those protests against atrocities in Palestine are just grandstanding.

Why Exchange Refugees Anyway?

I just read Chris Kenny's commentary on the refugee swap between Malaysia and Australia. I am honestly surprised to note that the Australians are this perceptive to the state of affairs in Malaysia.

Frankly, I am not the only Malaysian who has been protesting the refugee exchange programme between Malaysia and Australia. It originally sounded quite beneficial for Malaysians - after all Australia will take 4000 of our refugees in exchange for only 800 of theirs per year.

But of course, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Australia is offloading most of their troublemakers and the extremists to Malaysia.

And what does Malaysia stand to gain? The truth is, the average citizen has everything to lose, while UMNO is banking on the support of these new-comers, the Muslims. Perhaps UMNO is hoping to reinforce the divide between the Muslims and non-Muslims.

This is a sorry state of affairs.

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

Measure Of Our Success

Lulu claims not to be the brightest spark in the room. But she sure makes some of the best observations on the blogosphere:

Our government thinks that the nation's success is measured by the tall buildings we build, our ability to pay someone to go to space, having the longest jalur gemilang on the great wall of china, having the longest pizza, a personal luxury jet for the prime minister, that kind of thing.

Lulu thinks the measure of a nation's success is how they treat the poor, regardless whether they are our citizens or not. All are made in the image of God, all belong to this big-big race known as the human race.

And in this aspect, we have failed greatly.

I'm afraid Lulu is right in her remarks directed at our poor treatment of refugees, as documented by Tenaganita.

Our government is more interested in sweeping issues under the carpet and putting away people like Irene Fernandez (who helms Tenaganita) with a trumped-up charge of “maliciously publishing false news”:

In 1995, Fernandez published a report on the abuse of migrant workers, cataloguing the malnutrition, physical and sexual abuse and the appalling conditions the workers endure, and set out the facts about the detention camps where they end up and where many of them die.

The research included interviews with as many as 300 migrant workers. The embarrassed government admitted that 46 people had died of various medical conditions in their detention centres, but, in March 1996, Fernandez was arrested at home and charged with ‘maliciously publishing false news’.

Her trial became the longest in Malaysian history and many of the witnesses she was relying on were deported before she could make her defence. In 2003 she was finally found guilty and sentenced to a year in prison, having by then appeared in court more than 300 times.

The UMNO government treated her very badly, but it's good to know that she is at least recognised abroad with a Right Livelihood Award.

But we Malaysians are not only mean to our refugees. We discriminate against Africans as well.

Now I'm not going to claim the Africans are perfect either. Some of them can misbehave when in a group, talk loudly and appear more than just a little aggressive.

I've lost count of the number of Africans who have posted notes on my various online social networking sites to inform me that they know that I am "the right one for them" and that they "look forward to a brief relationship before moving on to marriage".

And all this at first encounter! :-) I wouldn't give a Malaysian like that any time of the day, much less a foreigner.

But not all Africans behave such. Some are actually quite funny, witty and intelligent. I like making friends with foreigners, so I've managed to get acquainted with a few.

It hurts me when they're treated badly by my own countrymen.

You see, folks, we tend to complain that we get discriminated against when we work or live abroad.

Only on Friday, my Indonesian colleague (who works with my company on a contract basis) was telling me about the discrimination he and his colleagues faced in Australia (Melbourne and Sydney to be specific).

On different occasions, someone once hurled a bottle at his friend, the bus driver yelled at them for speaking in a foreign language, and Aussies have driven past, screaming, "Go back to where you came from, bloody Asian!"

We Malaysians were shocked.

But it doesn't occur to us, that we treat our foreigners just as badly, if not worse in Malaysia. Very often, it is based merely on their skin colour.

I was reading what Pat wrote about kindness only today and couldn't help agreeing with feeling.

I think the true worth of any nation is its people. And we are a great bunch of people - or we could be, if we just got our act together. Along the way here, some of our good-ness has been eroded away. We weren't always this rough-shod, rude, kiasu, and unfeeling lot. I am old enough to remember when we used to be a lot nicer, you know.

We need to be nicer to our foreigners - all of them, not just the ones who have a lot of money.

And we need to be nicer to each other.