Refugees in South-east Asia: A crisis of shared responsibility — Andika Ab Wahab

JUNE 22 — A few days ago, on June, 20^th marked the World Refugee Day – an annual commemoration with an overarching objective to raising awareness of the plight of refugees and other categories of forced migrants across the globe. What have we learnt is an unprecedented 65 million people around the world who have been forcibly displaced from home in search of international protection. It is the highest level of displacement on record, according to UNHCR. At the global scale, it is obviously a crisis of number.  

However, it is not the case for South-east Asian (SEA) region. As of 2014, there was only about 300,143 refugees and asylum seekers who were residing mostly in five countries of asylum (SEA) namely Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Cambodia and the Philippines. Numerically speaking, it is only about 0.5 per cent from the global refugee population. From the other numerical point of view, total refugee population in SEA region is only about 0.05 per cent of the entire SEA’s population that is 6 billion people (2012).

While majority of the refugee population came from within the SEA region, considerable numbers fled along the way from Asia’s transcontinental (e.g., Middle East and East Asia) and African regions. It demonstrates intra and inter-regional refugee movements — a manifestation of a complex migration phenomenon.

Strikingly, Malaysia hosted the highest number of refugees and asylum seekers (150,258 people) or 50 per cent of the total refugee population in SEA region, while Thailand hosted 46 per cent, Indonesia (3.8 per cent), the Philippines (0.1 per cent) and Cambodia (0.03 per cent). For record, only Cambodia and the Philippines are signatory countries to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, requiring the contracting states to provide refugee legal protection framework in their respective jurisdiction.

The developed countries namely Brunei and Singapore hosted not even a single refugee from any part of the world. Similarly, no refugee and asylum seeker has been registered in Viet Nam and Lao PDR. This informs us the unequal distribution of refugee population among SEA countries, reflecting a weakened spirits of burden sharing and solidarity.

For Malaysia and Thailand who hosted about 96 per cent of the total refugee population in the region, this would definitely be a tough burden. Despite their resistance to be part of the 145 contracting states to the 1951 Refugee Convention (excluding 1967 Protocol), Malaysia and Thailand have provided minimum protection on humanitarian basis.

If the total refugee population in the region is divided equally among SEA countries (excluding Myanmar), each country would have hosted only about 33,349 refugees and asylum seekers. It’s comforting figure for Malaysia and Thailand, in particular.

Again, number does matter. Yet, it is not a crisis of number in the SEA region. Given the unequal distribution of refugee population and the absence of coherent regional cooperation among SEA countries — “it is a crisis of values of shared responsibility and burden sharing”.

In moving forward, although national commitment through the signing and ratification of 1951 Refugee Convention is desirable, a regional response is much more needed that would best address the issue of unequal distribution of refugee population. This would also enable the hosting countries to engage with refugee-producing countries such as Myanmar in view of tackling the root causes.

This is not to say that Brunei, Singapore, Viet Nam and Lao PDR should have hosted refugees and asylum seekers on equal basis (provided their varying limitations). Rather to have a sense of “responsibility to protect” to be manifested through regional cooperation.

In building a coherent regional response, one should acknowledge that the plight of refugees is a product of origin country’s failure to protect its citizens. Hence, it requires political leadership among hosting countries to find political solution.

Given the fact that the plight of refugees is transnational in nature, it requires more than moral responsibility among hosting countries to provide protection. They should also play a functional duty to engage constructively with the countries of origin such as Myanmar.

The contentious non-interference principle shall no longer be the stumbling block. As the affected nations, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia should take this opportunity to advocate for a progressive interpretation of the principle.

With a more coherent regional response, it is hoped that the region will witness a reduced flow of refugee movement from the region on the one hand. And, would be able to effectively respond on the plight of refugees from other regions (inter-region) on the other hand.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or organisation and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.