Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) is pleased to learn of the extension of the Australian High Court’s temporary injunction of the deportation of 16 asylum seekers under the controversial asylum swap deal between the Australian and Malaysian governments.
Although it comes as a temporary reprieve in preventing the deportation of the asylum-seekers which comprises accompanied and unaccompanied minors. A successful outcome ensuing from this legal challenge would be consistent with the spirit of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
LFL reiterates its strong objection to this swap deal as the Malaysian government has yet to show any tangible commitment towards the protection of refugees and /or asylum seekers in this country. There is still no real commitment to recognise refugees under the law nor any commitment to allow them to work or give access to healthcare.
The Malaysian immigration act maintains whipping as a form of punishment for those who have entered this country “illegally”, this would mean a large number of asylum seekers potentially face prosecution and sentencing in accordance with present laws.
LFL also finds the Australian government’s reasoning that this swap deal would break the people smuggling business model is misconceived as the return of 800 refugees and their processing by UNHCR in advance of thousands of persons of concern who are unable to access registration, will only encourage others who are desperate and face hardship here in Malaysia, to make an attempt to escape and continue to seek the aid of smugglers.
LFL urges the Australian government to review the deal and at the same time demands that the Malaysian government recognise and ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention as a first step towards guaranteeing protection and giving humanitarian aid to these victims of violent conflict and persecution in their countries of origin.
8 August 2011
Latheefa Koya
Adviser
Lawyers for Liberty
The fact that each new method and attempt to thwart people smuggling and illegal migration fails or is viewed as a flawed exercise with the benefit of hindsight, does not deprive either Malaysia or Australia of their rights as sovereign states in this respect.
The High Court’s injunction on sending the latest batch of illegal immigrants (termed refugees for convenience) is temporary and not necessarily a conclusive statement of law. It is interlocutory relief and not final.
Having said that I turn to the continued use of the word ‘refugee’. It is both conceptually flawed and not binding on those states who in the exercise of their sovereign rights decide that the class of people referred to as refugees are not refugees.
The UN may have a definition for refugee. Oddly enough the vast majority of the illegals can almost verbatim recite the definition in their native languages.
The crime and menace of illegal immigration will have victims. The ambitious, the greedy, the queue jumpers and the genuine refugees in their midst who constitute a minority.
All too often we see organizers from within the ranks of the noble profession of lawyers at source advising clients before they set out on their perilous voyages at sea to their new destinations without proper papers.
In Kuala Lumpur, Penang and Johore Malaysia it was recently revealed by an independent survey that the legal profession are the largest single employers of maids and amongst these illegals or migrants in breach of their visa conditions. The survey also revealed that
lawyers as employers of these category of immigrant worker have on at least one occassion physically assaulted their employees (migrant workers).
There is a need to be circumspect about what the objective is are attempting to achieve with this discussion on the illegal immigrant/ refugee dichotomy. Because by not thwarting in the most aggressive way possible, what is in fact mass illegal migration by an invasion out of control directed by mainly Chinese and other peripheral criminal activity in the region we open ourselves to cultural, economic and social destruction.
Whilst there is a need to be sympathetic and helpful to the plight of those non citizens who are politically and economically challenged, we do not have an obligation to remedy their situations at the expense of that which we fought, worked and sacrificed to achieve for ourselves and our children.
What you espouse here is a moral position and not a legal one. The vast majority of the illegal immigrants are economic refugees. Political refugees can be anyone from a dissident to a delusional individual. After all the definition is of one who has a genuine fear of persecution or harm for his political beliefs if he returns to his own country.
Try getting a real job as a real lawyer if that’s not too challenging.
Gopal
Gopal Raj Kumar