No room for refugees in Sarawak and Sabah

I HAD not heard anything about fresh batches of Palestinians seeking asylum in Malaysia until the day after I returned from Sabah on the 13th of this month.

Normally, my sources in Kuala Lumpur, having got wind of anything of national importance, not gossips, would get in touch with me without delay.

I was somewhat confused when reading the press statements made by several Sarawak’s politicians (including two senior ministers cum high-ranking officials from the same political party) and activists from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) about the coming to Sarawak of the Palestine refugees.

Refugees? The public perception was that the asylum seekers from Gaza were on their way to Sarawak the following week or month.

‘Aduh, aduh!’

Most of those Sarawakians who expressed their objection to any move by the federal government were, I think, actually pre-empting any move in this direction, without prior ascertaining a firm and official decision.

That is why I was so surprised to hear about all the new asylum seekers because all my Kuala Lumpur friends had heard about was the complaint by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) about the treatment of asylum seekers in Malaysia in general.

They were pointing specifically to those asylum seekers from Bangladesh, Myanmar and Palestine who are already in Kajang and Serdang.

Suhakam, according to my friends, was concerned about the rights of children of the asylum seekers in Malaysia to education and employment for the adults. According to them, Suhakam would like to see the Employment Act revised or else, its application, relaxed, so as to accommodate the needs of migrants.

What’s the constraint then? The snag is that Malaysia is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention of 1951 and its 1967 Protocol. Therefore, Malaysia is not obliged to treat asylum seekers in the country as if they were refugees having registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNCR).

Malaysia is a transit country only, providing a temporary stay for the migrants (in fact illegal) on humanitarian grounds, while Malaysia together with UNCR is scouting for a third country which is willing to accept them as settlers on a permanent basis in that country.

Unfortunately, many countries in this part of the world are not signatories to the Geneva Convention. I think it is because of the heavy burden imposed by the provisions of that Convention on any country that accepts and grants the refugee status.

A small country or one which is economically poor or is at war within its borders, eg Myanmar, would not be able to accommodate asylum seekers and to cater for their needs required by the Convention.

Anyway, those people fleeing their own countries at war prefer to seek refuge in a country where they can start a new life, or one whose population is composed of people of the same religious beliefs as the migrants.

This being the case, I wonder why the Muslim refugees from Gaza are not flocking to the nearby, very wealthy Arab countries!

Who is a refugee?

I consulted Google for more information on what the duties and obligations of a country that is a signatory to the Geneva Convention.

According to Google: “The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention of 28 July 1951, is a United Nations multilateral treaty that defines who a refugee is and sets out the rights of individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant the asylum… Each contracting state shall accord to refugees lawfully in its territory the right to choose their place of residence and to move freely within its territory.”

Notice the words in heavy type. It is the right of the refugees who are legally in the country to choose their place of residence within the territory of the country that grants them asylum.

It is exactly their freedom and their right under the Geneva Convention to choose wherever they like to settle that is causing anxiety and concern among the Sarawakians and the Sabahans.

What if the asylum seekers will turn refugees if Malaysia suddenly signs the treaty and its protocol? Will the state governments of Sarawak be free to exercise the right to refuse entry of any class of persons under the Immigration Act, once the asylum seekers are registered with the UNCR?

All these are fears and issues that must be handled with care by the authorities in order to allay those fears of the Malaysians in the Borneo States. The original Sabahans are sure to say ‘Not again!’, because they, having had to accommodate people fleeing from the wars in the Philippines or quite simply poor living conditions, had their immigration problem compounded by the presence of many new citizens.

And don’t forget ‘Project IC’, an underhand move that tilted the state’s demography, the memory of which still rankles among my friends in Sabah.

And now it’s Sarawak’s turn? ‘Enggai kami’! No, no!

My reading is that many Sarawakians are in real fear of their state becoming the place of residence of choice of the refugees.

I have nothing against the Palestinians personally, but we in Sarawak are not ready to accommodate an influx of a totally alien group of people.

Jumping the gun pays

It appears that the act of ‘jumping the gun’ has brought ‘some positive results’ on the political front. It is better to be proactive even if it seems a bit pushy, rather than be naïve, and wise but sorry after the event.

After the refugees have landed on our shores, it will be too late and useless to grumble. ‘Nasi sudah jadi bubur’!

In this speculation (Palestine refugees for Sarawak or Sabah), we are lucky in terms of the Geneva Convention because Malaysia is not a signatory yet, and the fact that we have the Immigration Act in place.

Thanks to the safeguards demanded by the founders of Malaysia from Sarawak and which found its way as a provision in the immigration law.

Just a reminder: YB Dato Sri Alexander Nanta Linggi’s grandfather was one of those founders of Malaysia who insisted on the reservation and retention to Sarawak of immigration powers should Malaysia be formed. At the Kapit Conference of 51 Pengarah and Penghulu on March 19, 1962, there was Resolution 11 of the Conference that said: “Immigration to remain under the control of the State of Sarawak.”

Charity begins at home

Sarawakians and Sabahans are sending a message, loud and clear, to the federal government that a policy of ‘charity begins at home’ should be its top priority: the solution to the problem of granting Malaysian citizenship to children born in Sarawak of Sarawakian and Indonesian mothers, to name just one problem that seems to defy quick solution any time soon.