EVERY day, Malaysians continue to be shocked as the number of new cases and deaths increase at an alarming level. It is difficult to process the fact that the cumulative number of cases has exceeded one million, with over 10,000 deaths recorded thus far. 

As if the situation wasn’t bad enough, with the people being shrouded in food insecurity, worsening mental health, economic uncertainty and unstable politics, the rakyat’s anxiety has increased tenfold with the discovery of variants.

The combination of anxiety and fear coupled with the government’s lacklustre performance in handling the alarming spike in cases has started another round of the blame-game.

Where does the fault lie? Certain hard-headed rakyat who didn’t follow the travel bans? Flip-flopping government decisions? What about VIPs and officials who practise double standards on SOP violations? Apparently none of them are at fault – because the fault lies with the refugees, the asylum seekers and the migrants who were detained by the authorities.

To make things worse, refugee activist Heidy Quah was charged with cyber-crime as she posted unsettling conditions of an immigration depot captured from last year.

What’s in a name?

The 1951 Convention Status of Refugees and, subsequently, the 1967 Protocol provides a legal framework for refugees granting them protection provided by the receiving signatory State.

Malaysia is not a signatory of the Convention which is why the refugees, asylum seekers and migrants are all blanketed under the term “illegal migrants” and their status remain as unrecognised “aliens” within our borders.

In line with the Malaysian Immigration Act 1959/63 (Act 155), Malaysia reserves the right to protect itself against perceived security threats – as do every other nation.

However, because of Malaysia’s less-than-sterling track record in its policy towards and in the treatment of these groups – not excluding torture – many began questioning the extent of which Malaysia would go to secure its borders. Or rather, to what extent would “guarding the national security” be used as a means of justification for the human rights violations imposed towards these groups.

Just recently, Malaysia came under fire for its treatment of migrant workers. Various media outlets reported that the migrants were disinfected en masse as they were seated without social distancing measures, leaving rights activists appalled and outraged at the “inhumane” and “degrading” treatment.

If there ever was a culmination of actions to depict Malaysia’s views on these groups of people, this would be it.

To vaccinate or not to vaccinate: fundamental rights v nationalism

The issues surrounding these groups in Malaysia brings us to the question of vaccination. There has been public dissent towards securing vaccines for both refugees and migrant workers, believing that they are undeserving of it or that it isn’t Malaysia’s responsibility to cater to them.

At the rate the Covid-19 virus is spreading (and also taking into consideration the rapid infection rate of the Delta variant), can we really afford to be nationalistic?

We’ve already seen how detaining these groups of people only backfired the attempts at curbing the virus last year.

At this point, putting them in crowded detainment camps and leaving them unvaccinated pose more of a health threat to the country than anything else.

The idea of keeping them at these detainment facilities with less-than-ideal living conditions is no different than cultivating the virus ourselves.

In the interest of effectively regulating the virus, the government has to put aside its hostility towards them and stop propagating negative narratives in its attempts to use these groups as scapegoats for its shortcomings.

Rather than intimidation, use of force or detention, creating a safe space for them to be vaccinated (without a surprise raid this time) will in the long run be more beneficial for all parties.

Fear of regional implications and the non-refoulement principle

Among Malaysia’s justifications for not accepting these groups into the country runs along the lines of not wanting to interfere with other Asean Member States’ domestic conflicts.

This was the case for the Rakhine Crisis back in 2016, where Malaysia and Myanmar were caught in a political stand-off on the issue of accepting Rohingya refugees into our borders. 

Activists called for the practice of non-refoulement to be upheld but the issue of whether Malaysia is subjected to it is heavily debatable.

On one hand, some argued that Malaysia should abide by the non-refoulement principle law because despite it not being a signatory of the Convention, Malaysia is a member of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organisation (AALCO) which had agreed on the Bangkok Principle on the Treatment of Refugees.

On the other hand, some contended that the decision was entirely up to the country of origin, “derived from objective legal recognition” instead of “moral aspirations”.

Balancing national security and refugee rights

Currently, the refugees are entirely dependent on the United Nations Commission on the Human Rights (UNHCR) for protection despite it not having any legal force in Malaysia.

There has been a perception that UNHCR is “overstepping” its boundaries by meddling into immigration affairs through its issuance of refugee cards.

Their relations further continue to be strained when certain refugees arrested for breaking the law begin displaying the UNHCR cards as a sort of ward against impending charges.

Furthermore, the government’s hesitancy surrounding building a comprehensive legislative framework or administration to address these groups will only make progress more difficult.

The issue of whether refugees should be granted legal rights in the country continues to be a contentious one.

Many are afraid that by granting these groups certain legal rights, Malaysians will bear the brunt of the consequences, now even more so, largely due to the increase of unemployment rate since the start of Covid-19.

Nevertheless, there has to be some way a middle ground can be achieved: a way the government can preserve national security and interest without it being at the expense of another human being’s dignity and fundamental rights.

The refugees, asylum workers and migrants only ask to be safe and to have their basic rights recognised and respected. Therefore, it is important to prioritise vaccination for all. There should be no compromise to those with xenophobic inclinations. – August 9, 2021.

* Elisha Mohd Fadzil is a research assistant at the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS).

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.