Cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment

DIPLOMATICALLY SPEAKING
By DENNIS IGNATIUS

Last month, Amnesty International published a report drawing attention to the fact that judicial caning in Malaysia has reached epidemic proportions. Since 2002, when the Immigration Act was amended to include corporal punishment, nearly 48,000 prisoners have been whipped in Malaysia.

It is a shocking reminder of the cruel, inhuman and degrading way we treat prisoners, particularly refugees and illegal migrants.

Caning or whipping is a horrendous form of punishment. Maximum force, with the cane travelling at speeds of up to 160kph, is applied. The whiplash of the cane (usually a piece of rattan about 1.09m long and 1.25cm thick that is soaked in water) literally takes the skin off the buttocks and then pounds the flesh into pulp. Skin disintegrates. Blood flows copiously.

The pain is so severe that victims often lose consciousness. And when they do, they are quickly revived by doctors so that punishment can continue.

How doctors can participate in this kind of abuse is beyond understanding.

Whipping leaves deep scars that take months to heal. It also leaves deep emotional and psychological wounds that mark the victims for the rest of their lives.

In 2007, a six-minute video of a drug trafficker being caned in Malaysia found its way onto the Internet. Those who think that caning is an acceptable form of punishment should take the trouble to view it.

I personally found it too disturbing to watch. It brought back memories of my late father’s treatment at the hands of the Kempeitai – the military police of the Imperial Japanese Army during the war years. My father was whipped so badly that he carried the scars on his back and buttocks to his grave some fifty years later.

That such horrific abuse is still being visited upon people today is mind-boggling.

And all this despite the fact that there is no evidence that caning is an effective deterrence. It simply panders to our baser instincts to inflict pain upon those who transgress.

Furthermore, such forms of corporal punishment are clearly against the 1948 Universal Declara­tion of Human Rights which states that, “No one shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment”.

Malaysia has always been an ardent supporter of the UN and proudly sits on its Human Rights Council, yet we violate one of its most cherished principles. We lose the moral authority to speak on human rights issues when we ourselves don’t cherish and uphold them.

Some years ago, Malaysians joined the global outrage over the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. America was rightly condemned for behaving in such a cruel and callous manner. What does it now say of us when we are silent about something far worse that is taking place in our prisons on an almost daily basis?

What is even more egregious is that we visit such horrific punishment upon hapless refugees and illegal migrants as well.

Refugees from Myanmar, for example, flee in fear and desperation from well documented abuse, torture and death in their own land only to be further abused in Malaysia.

According to Amnesty International, more than 6,000 refugees are caned, up to 24 times each, every year!

This is morally reprehensible and a great blight upon our nation’s honour.

Of course, we are not the only ones to permit judicial caning. It is widely practised in Singapore and Brunei as well, courtesy of our common British colonial heritage. Caning is now increasingly considered a cheaper alternative to jailing offenders. Illegal migrants are whipped and then deported.

Not surprisingly, many countries seem to ignore this appalling abuse of their own citizens in Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. If Australian, British or American citizens were similarly treated, there would be an international uproar, which explains why such punishment is rarely inflicted on them.

Our poorer Asian neighbours, on the other hand, remain silent largely because they fear antagonising us and jeopardising an important source of foreign income in the remittances that these migrant workers send home each month. For countries like the Philippines, Bangladesh and Nepal, for example, such remittances make a significant contribution to their economy.

Perhaps it is also because Asian governments tend to place a lower premium on human dignity.

Whatever the reason, shame on them for staying silent while their citizens are so harshly treated abroad.

Of course, Myanmar’s military rulers are not going to lose any sleep over the treatment of Karen, Kachin or Rohingya people abroad, but surely we become complicit in the injustice wreaked upon these people if they end up being abused and punished in Malaysia as well.

When asked about the leaked caning video in 2007, the Deputy Home Minister at the time said it was “no big deal”.

But it is a big deal when our nation inflicts such horrendous suffering upon prisoners, upon migrant workers and upon refugees. It tarnishes our image and invites international scorn.

And it is a big deal because we are better than that.

It’s time we end this barbaric form of punishment. Certainly, we should immediately stop the caning of refugees and illegal migrants.

Datuk Dennis Ignatius is a 36-year veteran of the Malaysian foreign service. He served in London, Beijing and Washington and was ambassador to Chile and Argentina. He retired as High Commissioner to Canada in July 2008.

Source: The Star

South China Morning Post: Imprisoned and shunned, Rohingyas plead for a home – Shaikh Azizur Rahman

Persecuted refugees are being held in jail and denied help, writes Shaikh Azizur Rahman.

When Asiya Begum heard the miraculous news in January 2009 that her husband was among the survivors of a nightmarish voyage that claimed the lives of 350 fellow Rohingya boatpeople, she felt she had been blessed by good fortune.

She learned Rashid Ahammad had been aboard a powerless hulk towed out to sea and abandoned by Thai authorities. For weeks he drifted under the tropical sun, his shipmates dying around him as their meagre supplies of food and water ran out. But then he had been rescued by the Indian coastguard and detained in India’s distant Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

Ahammad would be safe at home soon, she thought.

But almost two years later, Ahammad is still languishing in jail in the Andamans, rejected as a non-resident and denied refugee status by the government in Bangladesh, where he had lived for 15 years after fleeing persecution in Myanmar.

The increasingly desperate plight of Ahammad and 169 of his fellow detainees was laid bare in a specially arranged telephone interview with the Sunday Morning Post from their jail in Port Blair.

The tearful men begged the Bangladeshi authorities to reconsider their claims, and threatened to go on a hunger strike.

They are stuck in limbo: no nation is willing to admit that they are its citizens, and their reluctant Indian hosts will not allow the group to be assessed for refugee status. Accused of no crime, they remain stuck in jail, far from their wives and children, for the foreseeable future.

Family and friends in Bangladesh are also desperate. Some say they have not been able to raise enough money to bribe Bangladeshi police into accepting the detainees’ legitimate residency claims. When pressed on the issue, a Bangladeshi diplomat said investigations into the long-running residency claims would continue.

The detainees’ plight exemplifies that of the Muslim Rohingya, who are among the world’s most shunned people.

They are denied citizenship and relentlessly persecuted in military-ruled Myanmar, but those who have fled to neighbouring Bangladesh are mostly treated as illegal immigrants, with Dhaka having long ago barred the UN refugee body, UNHCR, from granting new claims of refugee status.

“One and a half years ago Bangladeshi police conducted inquiries to find out whether my husband was a Bangladeshi resident,” said Begum in a recent telephone interview.

“As they asked, I presented the documents showing that he was Bangladeshi. Yet, the Bangladeshi government has not let him return home. For two years he has been in that Indian jail. It is extremely painful for him, and also for us.”

Efforts to repatriate Ahammad and some of the other survivors of the once-secret Thai policy of abandonment at sea have apparently been blocked by Bangladeshi authorities.

The men set sail from Bangladeshi waters in late 2008, in hope of finding jobs in Malaysia or Thailand. But when they arrived in Thai waters, they were secretly detained, behind barbed wire, on a remote island before being towed out to sea and cast adrift.

This was part of a covert policy conducted by the Thai military that was exposed by the South China Morning Post last year. The policy was eventually rescinded by the Thai government, but not before hundreds died under horrific conditions or were lost at sea.

Bangladesh claims the Andaman detainees are probably illegal immigrants from Myanmar. Officials say most of the ethnic Rohingyas in Bangladesh are not genuine refugees and are not the responsibility of the Bangladeshi government. Of the 451 boatpeople rescued in Indian waters, 38 survivors said they were from Myanmar and 413 men claimed they were from Bangladesh. However, Bangladesh only accepted just over half of this latter group were actually its citizens; 223 Bangladeshis and ethnic Rohingyas with Bangladeshi residency were repatriated to Bangladesh (one man died in detention).

The detainees who say they are Myanmese are resigned to never returning home to a land where they are despised.

But the remainder, including Ahammad, have been making increasingly desperate efforts to return to their homes and families in Bangladesh.

After the Bangladeshi interior ministry declared they had no claim to residency, relatives of the men petitioned police with their identity documents.

Inside the Port Blair jail, the remaining detainees staged demonstrations to highlight their demands. After the men held hunger strikes in February and June, lasting 10 and 11 days respectively, Bangladeshi police agreed to conduct another round of investigations regarding their residency claims.

The Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi said recently that 19 of the remaining 189 men had been found eligible to return to Bangladesh. Ahammad was not among them.

“On verification of their home addresses, as they stated on the list, and other related documents we have found that 19 of the men rescued and detained by India had legitimate rights to return to Bangladesh,” said Syed Muntasir Mamun, a diplomat with the High Commission. “Those 19 men will be taken back to Bangladesh very soon.”

Good news for the 19, as word spread in the jail, but another bitter blow for the remaining 170.

In a phone call, some of the rejected detainees said they were extremely disappointed and depressed over the decision. They demanded a “fairer” inquiry into their claims of residency, or they would launch another hunger strike soon.

Ahammad said he feared the Bangladeshi government decided he was a Myanmar-based Rohingya.

“I have my wife and five children living in Bangladesh,” he said. “For more than 12 years I worked in the town of Cox’s Bazar as a mason. I have my home in Bangladesh.”

He admitted that he was born in Myanmar but had crossed the border and settled as a refugee in Bangladesh 15 years ago, well after the government halted refugee assessments.

One young Rohingya detainee said he was born in Bangladesh, and that his mother had shown his government-issued birth certificate to the police long ago.

“Even after two inquiries by Bangladeshi police I have been found ineligible to return to Bangladesh. I think I shall never be able to return to my home,” said the youth, before breaking into sobs. The boy feared that his comments could anger Bangladeshi police and asked to remain unidentified.

Some family members of the men in Bangladesh said their claims had been denied simply because they could not pay large enough bribes to the police.

The father of one Rohingya detainee said he presented police with documents which proved that his son was a Bangladeshi.

“I had all the documents, including my son’s [Bangladesh government-issued] National ID card, in order,” said the father in a phone interview. “But one police officer who visited us during the inquiry earlier this year said that unless I paid him [a bribe of] 5,000 takas (HK$537) he would not do what was needed to help my son return to Bangladesh. I told the officer that I was sick, old and had no job of my own, and could not pay more than 3,000 takas, but he would not reduce his demand.

“I could not pay his bribe, so he refused to certify that my son was a Bangladeshi citizen and my son is still in jail.”

This man, too, asked that he remain anonymous.

One of the lucky 19 who were ruled Bangladeshi residents was Abdus Shukur, 30, who said he hoped to be reunited with his wife, Kohinoor Akhtar, in Cox’s Bazar within weeks.

“More than two years of my life have gone by in this jail and during this period my family has suffered immensely,” he said by phone from the jail. “but many of my companions died at sea. I am lucky that I am still alive.”

The Rohingya ethnic group has been the subject of an ongoing crackdown on illegal immigration by Bangladeshi authorities near Cox’s Bazar since the start of 2010.

The UNHCR has been barred by Bangladesh from registering any Rohingya arrivals as refugees since 1992 even though they continue to flee Myanmar in such numbers that their population in Bangladesh has swelled to an estimated 200,000 plus.

In an attempt to keep a check on their population, hundreds were arrested and jailed this year. Some were even pushed back to Myanmar.

Bangladeshi Police officer Jasimuddin last year conducted inquiries into some of the Port Blair detainees’ residency claims. He said that “a big number” of the 170 rejected detainees were most likely illegal settlers in Bangladesh.

“During inquiries around Teknaf [in Cox's Bazar district] relatives of more than half of the men could not produce any documents showing that those detained in India were citizens or legal residents of Bangladesh,” said Jasimuddin.

“In some cases we even found the men had never lived at the Bangladeshi addresses which, they claimed, were their homes. We assumed that they were Burmese Rohingyas, with no connection to Bangladesh at all. We have to be very careful before we certify one as Bangladeshi.”

However, a Bangladeshi diplomat admitted that some of the 170 men probably had residency rights.

“We will seek another round of police inquiries into the 170 cases of the men detained in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands,” said the India-based diplomat, who did not want to be identified.

“We believe some more among them may have legitimate rights to return to Bangladesh.”

Source: Burma Net News

The future of Myanmar and ASEAN after the elections

By Bambang Hartadi Nugroho, Jakarta

The Nov. 7 general election in Myanmar has become a cause for concern for many, with critics calling it undemocratic, because it prohibited the leading opposition party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), from contesting.

The military junta went farther by keeping NLD leader and Nobel laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, together with many of her colleagues in custody. The only significant opposition party allowed to put up its candidates was the National Democratic Force (NDF) with only 164 candidates, compared to the junta-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) and the National Unity Party (NUP) with 1,112 and 995 candidates respectively. Moreover, the Constitution of 2008 mandates that 25 percent of the seats in the parliament should go to military appointees in any case.

The outcome of the election announced Wednesday saw the USDP win by landslide, with around 80 percent of the available seats in the parliament. This result, however, was not unpredictable given the composition of the parties allowed to stand.

From the beginning, the junta had designed the poll to maintain the status quo and hold on power regardless of mounting criticism from across the world. Thus, it is hard to imagine there will be a significant change in the domestic situation in Myanmar.

The question now is how this election result will impact on the future of Myanmar and its people, including the opposition and ethnic minorities, and on the future of ASEAN as the main regional actor that has constantly been defending Myanmar from external pressure, although lately ASEAN also has shown signs of impatience towards the slowness of change in its youngest member.

The Burmese government finally released Suu Kyi on Nov. 13 as planned, around a week after the election. However, based on previous experiences, there is no real guarantee that the junta will keep its promise. And even if she really is freed, there are doubts she can do much under the current situation and in the future.

Some believe Suu Kyi still has a chance to gain support from Burmese people as she did soon after her release in 2002, when she held rallies all around the country and made speeches in front of her supporters. However, in terms of political movement, it is unwise to rely solely on charisma and influence, because it is going to take a lot more than that to push for political reforms.

This effort will even be tougher assuming that the junta will not be kind enough to simply let Suu Kyi and her colleagues to stage anti-government rallies, especially now that the junta can claim to have secured a mandate from the people.

For the ethnic minorities that account for approximately 30 percent of Myanmar population, there is a little hope the election will bring any changes to their fate. Historically, the military regime has always been discriminatory against ethnic minorities such as the Karen and Rohingya.

In a wider context, the result of this poll can affect the development of ASEAN cooperation. It would be exaggerating to say that the future of ASEAN will be determined by what happens in Myanmar, but we must admit that problems in the Indochinese sub-region could probably impact negatively on ASEAN.

From the beginning, ASEAN has always rejected the western approach towards these issues, which focus on pushing agendas through political and economic sanctions.

Through its “constructive engagement” approach, ASEAN has tried to engage Myanmar since the early 1990s by building economic cooperation, while at the same time trying to counter pressures from the US and Europe. SEAN believed that by engaging Myanmar, it would be able to exercise influence to persuade the junta to adopt political reform. However, recent developments indicated that this belief did not hold true.

Of course ASEAN’s future development does not depend solely on the issue of Myanmar, but Myanmar has become and will remain an unsolved matter for ASEAN if it insists on the principle of non-interference, which has justified its non-action against Myanmar.

Some ASEAN members have, to some extent, violated this principle, including Indonesia which recently suggested that the junta should have allowed media coverage on the election process to ensure its fairness and impartiality. Yet, that was the most they could do: They commented only on individual basis, unable to use a stronger and more formal institutional mechanism to put pressure on Myanmar.

Evidently, ASEAN has lost very precious momentum to push Myanmar to reform itself.

Finally, the issue of democratization in Myanmar is vital for ASEAN not only to rebuild its reputation — after being heavily criticized for protecting the military regime — but more than that, it is also important in order to strengthen political and regional security cooperation.

ASEAN states have set the common goal of creating a Political and Security Community by 2015, in which one of the strong points is to promote democracy and the protection of human rights within the region.

That is why the need to encourage Myanmar to carry out political reform is vital to ASEAN.

Nevertheless, the group has failed to do so, and they will have to wait — if unable to create—new momentum in the future to mount pressure on Myanmar.

Hopefully, when the new momentum comes, ASEAN will be able to maximize it, for the sake of Burmese citizens, and for the sake of ASEAN’s institutional development.

The writer is assistant lecturer at the Department of International Relations, University of Indonesia.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/11/16/the-future-myanmar-and-asean-after-elections.html

ROHINGYA REFUGEE SCHOOL IN KLANG

A news piece was published by the State Assemblyman of Meru, Klang at his official blog. ARRC seeks assistance for this school by means of volunteers, stationeries, text books, recycle materials and etc.

http://khidmatmeru.blogspot.com/2008/09/madrasah-pengajian-pelarian-rohingya.html

Masa depan generasi Rohingya

.com

DENGAN tangan kiri yang berbalut dan langkah longlai, seorang wanita yang berumur dalam lingkungan umur 40-an membawa sepinggan nasi kosong. Nasi itu putih dan berkilat. Tiada langsung lauk-pauk yang melengkap hidangan.

Di ruang tamu rumah sewanya yang agak bersepah, beberapa orang kanak-kanak menunggu untuk menikmati menu makan tengah hari.

Sambil menggaul nasi tersebut, tangannya pantas menyuakan makanan itu kepada seorang anak kecil yang sedang menangis.

Walaupun pada mulanya kanak-kanak terbabit enggan membuka mulut, namun nasi putih kosong itulah yang menjadi santapannya.

Mungkin kerana lapar, anak kecil yang langsung tidak mengetahui corak kehidupan yang dilaluinya itu menerima apa sahaja yang disuapkan si ibu.

“Tengoklah, itu sahaja makanan yang ada di rumah ini. Nasi kosong yang digaul dengan minyak dan sedikit garam. Jadilah buat alas perut mereka,” ujar Faridah Fazal Ahmad, 36, salah seorang wanita Rohingya pelarian Myanmar yang fasih berbahasa Melayu dan menetap di rumah usang tersebut.

Ditanya mengapa tangan wanita itu berbalut, Faridah dengan wajah yang sayu berkata, ia disebabkan rutin mengetuk besi buruk untuk dijual bagi menampung kehidupan.

Itu sebahagian insiden yang menyentuh hati apabila menyaksikan kedaifan komuniti pelarian Rohingya Muslim di sekitar kawasan Kampung Tasik Tambahan, Ampang, Selangor.

Jika dilihat mengenai berita-berita yang merakamkan kesengsaraan etnik yang tertindas dan dinafikan hak-hak politik, sosial dan budaya oleh pemerintah junta di Myanmar itu, sudah terlalu banyak untuk dihitung.

Namun, isu sejak puluhan tahun itu masih belum bernoktah. Etnik yang 90 peratus daripadanya beragama Islam itu tetap tidak diakui kewujudan mereka.

NASIB anak-anak pelarian Rohingya ini perlu dibela agar tidak menjadi orang gelandangan apabila dewasa kelak.

Malah, mereka kehilangan tanah yang diserahkan kepada etnik Rakhin beragama Buddha.

Penindasan yang berterusan menyebabkan mereka terpaksa menjadi pelarian dan mencari perlindungan di negara lain.

Memetik kata-kata jurucakap Pesuruhjaya Tinggi Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu untuk Pelarian (UNHCR), Kitty McKinsey menyebut bahawa etnik Rohingya mungkin merupakan golongan masyarakat yang langsung tiada rakan di dunia, merupakan satu penghinaan kepada mereka.

“Secara keseluruhan, tiada kumpulan atau masyarakat yang menyokong mereka. Boleh dikatakan tidak ada walau seorang pun daripada mereka mempunyai status sah menduduki mana-mana negara di dunia,” kata McKinsey dalam satu temu bual bersama agensi berita antarabangsa AP pada bulan Februari 2009.

Faridah yang datang ke Malaysia sejak dua dekad lalu mengakui sebagai etnik pelarian, mereka merupakan golongan yang terpinggir di bumi asing.

Namun, dia bersyukur kerana masih bernafas dan meneruskan survival di negara orang.

Ibu kepada lima cahaya mata yang berusia di antara 16 hingga dua tahun itu memberitahu, untuk menyara kehidupannya sekeluarga, dia menjual bunga di sekitar kawasan tersebut. “Apa sangatlah keuntungan hasil daripada menjual bunga. Nak dapatkan RM10 sehari pun susah. Tetapi, saya kena bekerja untuk cari rezeki yang halal,” jelasnya.

Ditindas tentera Burma
Menurut Koordinator Program Arakan Rohingya Refugee Committee (ARRC) Malaysia, Mohamad Sadek Ali Hossain, 38, kehidupan di Arakan boleh digambarkan seolah-olah neraka dunia kepada etnik tersebut.

“Sejak tahun 1962 kami ditindas oleh rejim tentera Burma ketika itu akibat tekanan politik. Mereka tidak membenarkan kami menunaikan solat di masjid, dihalang mendapat pendidikan dan menerima rawatan perubatan.

“Sebaliknya, kami dipaksa bekerja sebagai askar dan perlu membayar duit kepada pemerintah untuk membina kuil-kuil Buddha sedangkan mereka tahu bahawa kami adalah penganut agama Islam.

HARUN (kanan) menggunakan ilmu yang ada untuk menabur bakti pada anak-anak Rohingya dengan mengajar mereka mengenal al-Quran.

“Selain itu, masyarakat Rohingya juga dihalang berkahwin untuk mengelakkan perkembangan zuriat dan selama tiga hari seminggu, kami wajib bekerja secara percuma tanpa gaji,” terang Mohamad Sadek yang datang ke Malaysia sejak empat tahun lalu.

Dianggarkan kira-kira 750,000 etnik Rohingya menetap di kawasan pergunungan utara di wilayah Rakhine atau Arakan yang bersempadan dengan Bangladesh.

Mereka dipercayai berasal daripada keturunan pedagang Arab dari abad ketujuh.Warna kulit mereka agak gelap berbanding rakyat Myanmar yang berkulit cerah.Di Malaysia, hanya 26,000 pelarian Rohingya diiktiraf oleh UNHCR.

“Kami hanya bergantung kepada kad keahlian UNHCR dan tidak memiliki sebarang dokumen yang sah. Ini menyebabkan kami tidak boleh mendapat sebarang pekerjaan.

“Lebih malang, anak-anak Rohingya tidak berpeluang menerima pendidikan formal,” tutur Muhammad Husson Ali, 59, pula.

Asas-asas Islam
Buat masa ini, terdapat lapan buah sekolah Rohingya di bawah kendalian UNHCR, namun enam daripadanya menerima bantuan daripada persatuan Buddha dan Kristian.

Situasi itu amat membimbangkan Muhammad Husson apabila memikirkan masa depan generasi muda Rohingya. Tidak mustahil mereka menjadi murtad atau memilih agama selain Islam.

Bagi Harun Bashir, 44, yang sudah 18 tahun menetap di Malaysia, dia terpanggil untuk mengajar asas-asas Islam kepada anak-anak etnik Rohingya yang berada di rumah-rumah atau di pejabat ARRC.

Dia yang pernah bergelar guru di sebuah sekolah pondok di daerah Arakan satu ketika dahulu bersyukur kerana mereka mudah menerima apa yang diajar.

“Alhamdulillah, anak-anak ini boleh membaca Muqaddam dan al-Quran dengan baik. Setiap minggu, saya akan mengajar selama lima hari dalam tempoh satu hingga dua jam.

“Saya harap, dengan cara ini setidak-tidaknya ada usaha bagi mengelakkan berlakunya insiden murtad di kalangan generasi muda Rohingya. Saya tidak mahu mereka hilang agama,” ungkap Harun yang melakukan kerja sampingan seperti mengambil upah memotong rumput.

Salah seorang murid Harun, Siti Nurhaliza Nor Mohamed, 10, berkata, dia sudah pandai membaca al-Quran pada usia tujuh tahun.

Anak bongsu daripada tujuh adik beradik itu juga berjaya menunaikan ibadah puasa selama sebulan tanpa meninggalkan sehari pun. Adakah dia mengetahui sejarah etnik Rohingya? Anak kecil itu pantas menggeleng.

“Saya tak tahu sangat pasal itu. Tapi, apa yang saya tahu kami adalah pelarian yang menumpang di negara orang,” tutur Siti Nurhaliza yang fasih bertutur bahasa Melayu. Dia juga bercita-cita untuk menjadi seorang guru, satu impian tinggi yang mungkin tidak akan dapat dicapai jika nasib pelarian Rohingya tidak dibela.

Taraf kerakyatan
Sementara itu, Pensyarah Politik dan Pen tadbiran Awam di Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Prof. Dr. Ahmad Atory Hussain berkata, isu pelarian Rohingya ini hanya akan selesai sekiranya negara mereka kembali pada kerajaan demokrasi.

“Seluruh dunia tahu bagaimana penghinaan yang diterima etnik tersebut daripada kerajaan pemerintah junta Myanmar.

“Jadi, agak sukar untuk mana-mana negara berurusan dengan mereka terutama dalam isu pelarian ini,” jelasnya sambil memberitahu terdapat dua jenis pelarian Rohingya iaitu pelarian politik dan biasa.

Tambahnya, isu tersebut memang memberi kesan besar terhadap masalah sosial, pengemis dan meningkatkan lagi jumlah orang gelandangan di Malaysia.

Namun, sedar atau tidak, ramai pelarian Rohingya dieksploitasi oleh pihak tertentu yang mengambil kesempatan di atas nasib buruk mereka.

“Antaranya diberi upah yang terlalu rendah untuk kerja-kerja buruh atau pelayan restoran dan sebagainya.

“Justeru, pada pendapat saya mereka ini terutama yang sudah menetap begitu lama di Malaysia perlu diberi taraf kerakyatan (PR) yang secara tidak langsung akan menanamkan sifat sayangkan negara ini,” ujarnya sambil menegaskan bahawa satu jawatankuasa pemilihan perlu ditubuhkan untuk tujuan tersebut.

Kepada sesiapa yang ingin menghulur sumbangan peribadi kepada komuniti Rohingya sama ada dalam bentuk kewangan, pakaian mahu pun makanan, boleh berhubung dengan Mohamad Sadek di talian 016-309 4599 atau layari laman web www.arrcrohingya.ning.com.

PM's child refugee strategy hailed

By Karlis Salna, AAP

October 18, 2010, 8:56 pm

Support for a federal government decision to move hundreds of children and families from detention centres into the community has flooded in from human rights advocates.

The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) was among those to welcome Prime Minister Julia Gillard's announcement on Monday, but said the scheme should be expanded to include all families with children and unaccompanied minors.

The AHRC also said the detainees should be moved as quickly as possible, especially given many youngsters had already been in detention for a number of months.

That call was echoed by other groups, including the Refugee Council of Australia (RCA) and Catholic social justice organisation the Edmund Rice Centre (ERC), which say the government's time-frame is too long.

Under the scheme, several hundred children and families will be moved into community-based accommodation by June 2011, although all unauthorised arrivals will continue to be mandatorily detained when they first arrive while identity and security checks are carried out.

The government would partner with non-government organisations and community groups to house the asylum seekers and would cover the cost, which is yet to be revealed.

"... They are a special case and we would hope that their processing might be expedited to ensure they remained in detention for as little time as possible," ERC Director Phil Glendenning said.

The government's two-pronged announcement also drew criticism from those groups opposed to mandatory detention.

Ms Gillard's plan also includes a major expansion of facilities on the mainland with the commissioning of two new detention centres, at Northam in Western Australia and Inverbrackie in South Australia, to cater for up to 1900 asylum seekers.

Amnesty International (AI) expressed disappointment, saying that part of the initiative represented a missed opportunity for the government to move away from "the failed policy of mandatory detention".

"As AI has highlighted time and again, Australia is the only country to mandatorily detain asylum seekers in this way," AI's refugee coordinator Graham Thom said.

"By reaffirming its commitment to the policy, the government is failing to acknowledge that this system is not working."

Dr Thom said that if the government was serious about protecting the best interests of families and children, it should immediately move to legislate against detaining children.

The AHRC agreed, with its president, Catherine Branson QC, saying detaining children should only be a last resort.

"And ... if they are detained it is for the shortest appropriate period of time," she said.

But Ms Branson added that it was pleasing to see the government adopting an alternative approach by moving the vulnerable into the community.

"The commission has been raising concerns over the past 12 months that this alternative system was not being used for vulnerable groups in detention," she said.

The United Nations Refugee Agency, the UNHCR, said the detention of any asylum seeker was inherently undesirable once health, identity and security checks were completed.

"Experience shows that prolonged detention can have a negative impact on the health and wellbeing of people who have often already suffered from torture or trauma before arriving in this country," UNHCR regional representative Richard Towle said.

"This is particularly the case for children, and so we welcome the decision."



Follow Yahoo!7 on Twitter

The raids against poor migrants and refugees are continuing in Malaysia

1According to area based refugee representatives, the situation in farer region like Peneng, Terangganu is unstable compare to KL.

1) In last September 28, 2010, two unregistered Rohingya refugee teens were arrested in Bukit Payong, Terengganu. They are aged about 16 and 18. They both were lifted to Ajil detention camp.

2) Another spot-raid on September 21, 2010, UNHCR card holder 5 Rohingya refugees were lifted by immigration raid in Sugai Besi-KL area. The raid of that day was already reported in Malay-mail newspaper but not covered these 5 refugees. The source available at:http://www.mmail.com.my/content/49937-apartment-guards-duty-nabbed-immigration-raid

3) On 19th Sept 2010, another two unregistered refugee teens were arrested from bus-station in Kotabaru but the father was escaped. His father said that they are comming to UNHCR office in KL for registration of his two sons. His father’s UNHCR File No. is 354-10C-01767.

4) Again on Aug 2010, UNHCR card holder Mr.Husein (UNHCR’s File No. 512-03C-02444), a 75 years old, Rohingya refugee was arrested in Penang and lifted to prison. Because he is a sick-man, he was released from prison after one month of detention.

Source:http://myanmarrefugees.blogspot.com/2010/10/raids-against-poor-migrants-and.html