0

Smuggling of Migrants & Its Implications towards Human Security of the Rohingya Refugees in Malaysia

Refugees’ plight and means to seek asylum have been concentrated to an irregular route. Though regular travel is possible, refugees and asylum seekers are more likely to embark irregular means albeit perilous. In the case of Rohingya refugees and their search for safe-haven in Malaysia, the use of smuggler or interchangeably called as “agents” and “travel coordinators” is not uncommon. A series of fieldworks engaging key informants and eyewitnesses among Rohingya refugees have unfolded the principle profiles of smugglers, modi operandi and routes of smuggling that are typically employed in their illegal operation. The study also found that in some cases but not uncommon, smuggling of Rohingya refugees does not always constitute “exploitative” elements that threaten their human security. Nevertheless, majority eyewitnesses sampled in this study have uncovered dimensions of “exploitative” exploitations throughout smuggling process. “Exploitative” exploitation involves elements of “deception”, “use of violence” and “coercion” that are considered wrongful and inhumane. Furthermore, it has greater potential to provoke smuggled Rohingyas’ economic and personal-community securities within the paradigm of human security.

Andika Ab. WahabPhD Candidate

Institute of Malaysian & International Studies (IKMAS)National University of Malaysia (UKM)

This paper was presented at the 3rd International Conference on International Relations & Development (ICIRD), Chulalongkorn University, 22-23 August 2013.

This paper has also been published in Conference proceeding which can be fully accessed at http://www.flipsnack.com/7FDEB6BA9F7/ftjfo35m

For further info on the Conference, please visit http://www.icird.org/

Expert

PDF Trial

1

Introduction

Refugees’ plight and means to seek asylum have been concentrated to an irregular route. Though regular travel is possible, refugees and asylum seekers are more likely to embark irregular means albeit perilous. In the case of Rohingya refugees and their search for safe-haven in Malaysia, the use of smuggler or interchangeably called as “agents” and “travel coordinators” is not uncommon.

In a broader framework, this study is an attempt to critically review relationship between smuggling of migrant, refugee and human security (HS) studies. There is a strong connection among these studies but limited empirical research weakens conceptual linkages.Gaps in empirical researches are one of the critical loopholes not only in smuggling of migrants but also in HS studies. These loopholes afterwards will confine efforts to provoke the traditional paradigm in understanding issues and challenges especially in cross-border disputes that emerged in the post-Cold War. It may also discourage attempt to shift state-centric to a more people-centric approach that has been mainstreamed by the defenders of the HS concept.

This study focuses its empirical research on SM concerning smuggled Rohingya victims in Malaysia. A number of interview sessions were initiated with key informants, some of them were self-appointed to be part of the smuggling rings as well as eyewitnesses (Rohingya) including those arrived Malaysia in the post-June 2012’s communal violence erupted between the Muslim Rohingya and Buddhist Arakanese in Arakan state of Burma. This study is based on anecdotal cases of which findings are generated and presented narratively. To this end, this study attempts to optimize ground findings to be analyzed within the framework of HS study.

Reviewing Smuggling of Migrants (SM) and Refugee

Smuggling of migrant is an absolute international crime that often been associated with cross-border movement of migrants. Solutions to overcome SM have never been one-dimensional(Koko 2008). The driving forces of this crime are complex and therefore the strategies in tackling it should not exclude the notions of human rights, development and economics as well as cultural dimension. The use of smugglers is important as a means to reach a destination country for various reasons including for seeking employment and/or political sanctuary.

The term SM has been used in a non-standardized form either for policy papers and/or for academic exercises. These include illegal immigrant smuggling, illegal smuggling, smuggling of alien and alien trafficking (Salt & Hogarth 2000; Bruckert & Parent 2002: 5). The term SM has also been interchangeably referred to human trafficking. Salt and Hogarth (2000), for instance have identified at least 22 different terminologies that have been used widely to refer to human trafficking. Among these terminologies, some are referring to SM.There is a potential confusion of having variety terminologies to refer to a particular

Expert

PDF Trial

2

phenomenon. However, it is always the legally-binding definition being a backdrop of these terminologies.

The United Nation’s Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Air and Sea (Smuggling Protocol), which is supplementing the UN Convention on Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) defines SM as;

“... procurement, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit, of the illegal entry of a person into a State Party of which the person is not a national or a permanent resident”.

Though the definition of SM is a universally agreed upon definition at international level, it is fluctuated at national level and it may vary from one country to another. In Malaysia, the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Smuggling of Migrants (hereinafter written as ATIPSOM 2007) Section 26(C) defines SM as;

“… arranging, facilitating or organizing, directly or indirectly, a person’s unlawful entry into or through, or unlawful exit from, any country of which the person is not a citizen or permanent resident either knowing or having reason to believe that the person’s entry or exit is unlawful”.

Victims of SM are non-citizens with various migrant statuses including those labelled as refugees and asylum seekers. However, migrant workers or economic migrants consist of documented and undocumented are dominating the list of victims with various forms of exploitations associated with their involvement.

In Malaysia, involvement of refugees, particularly Rohingya as victims of smuggling is not uncommon. It has been proven in a number of fact-finding missions and international reports (TIP; HEI 2012; AI 2010; Human Rights Watch) as well as press reports. Despite extensive media coverage on Rohingya’s involvement as victims of smuggling, their experiences and vulnerability to another humanitarian crime namely trafficking are also strikingly alarming.

Unlike migrant worker, refugee is a legally defined status in international refugee law and as such, owing particular status and rights enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention. According to the 1951 Refugee Convention (hereinafter written as 1951 Refugee Convention), refugee means;

“…owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it...”

Expert

PDF Trial

3

In the context of Malaysia, as it is not a state party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, the term ‘refugee’ and rights stipulated under the convention are not recognized. Meanwhile, the Malaysian Immigration Act 1959/63, by definition, does not distinguish refugee and undocumented immigrant and therefore imposes comparable height of punishment including imprisonment, fine and/or cane. This has been a major factor that leads to their vulnerability to various forms of threats and deprivations especially in socio-economic and political dimensions.

Reviewing Concept of Human Security

The concept of HS was firstly advocated by the United Nations of Development Programme (UNDP) through its Human Development Report (HDR) 1994. From its inaugural, it has been widely adopted by state and non-state actors in various fields including human rights, human development as well as peace and security studies. A number of terminologies have been used in order to define the concept in their own ways, perspective and specificity. The terms such as “extreme vulnerable” and “powerlessness” (Astri Suhkre 1999); “freedom from want and fear” and “people-centred” (UNDP 1994); “human freedom and potential” (Japan 1999); “safeguard”, “vital core” and “critical pervasive” (Alkire 2002) have also been employed either as proper working concepts or be part of their respective HS’s interpretations.

For the purpose of this study, it is important to include dimension of “exploitation” as a way to understanding HS concept especially when it comes to issues that are related to transnational organized crimes and people on the move. Hence, this study tends to adopt a more broader HS’s definition which includes socio-economic and personal-community security. HS can only be achieved if immoral and inhumane exploitation that threatens socio-economic and personal-community security prevented and eliminated. Apart from dimension of “exploitation”, another closely relevant in this context is dimension of “vulnerability”, which unfortunately not to be further elaborated in this short debate yet important to emphasize.

“Exploitation” in this study is not that of technical and economistic - or exploitation in the Marxist sense or more precisely the oppression of the proletariat (the workers) by the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) due to scarce resources as advocated by Karl Marx and/or economic inequality by Max Weber (Kendall 2012: 19). The term “exploitation” in this study is rather be centred as a normative term, or in this context, it is an essentially a moral concept linking it to a number of other terminologies to visualize whether such exploitations are morally bad and “exploitative”.1 On the issues of trafficking and smuggling, for instance, exploitation is considered exploitative when immoral activities such as “fraud”, “deception”, “threat”, “use of force or coercion”, “abduction”, “fraud”, “abuse of power” are evidently found.2

1 “Exploitation” in this study largely derived from perspectives that associated with scholars such as Robert Goodin (Goodin 1987) and Alan Wertheimer (Wertheimer 1996).

2 The Malaysian Anti-Trafficking and Smuggling of Migrants Act (ATIPSOM) 2007 (Section 13) stipulates at least eight forms of actions that are considered as “exploitative” and therefore can be

Expert

PDF Trial

4

The adoption of this definition reclines largely from two groups of HS advocates. The first duo is Tadjbakhsh & M. Chenoy3 in their comprehensive account on HS concept. The second advocate group is, and called themselves as Bangi’s human security group (Baghus)4. The selection of both Tadjbakhsh & M. Chenoy and Baghus on this study revolved around the need to address on the issue of specificities and appropriateness of the concept when applied in the context of SEA region and, of course, the main subject of this study - issues that are multifaceted and cross-border such as trafficking, smuggling and refugee movement. The need to modify the HS concept is a matter of relevancy and feasibility so that the concept would not just ‘hot air’ but applicable in the SEA Archipelago.

For the purpose of operationalization, this study adopts two main components that are embedded in the interpretations of HS advocated by these two groups of advocates. The first component is socio-economic security borrowed and extended from that of Tadjbakhsh & M. Chenoy’s perspective on HS. The second component called personal-community security advocated by Baghus group. These two components are employed in the second last section of this study, in order to analyze the implications of SM towards Rohingya refugees in Malaysia.

Threats that are associated in the component of socio-economic security are considered tangible and objective (such as unemployment, insufficient income, dismal access to healthcare and quality of education) (Tadjbakhsh & M. Chenoy 2007: 14). However, in the case of refugees in Malaysia, this study focuses on the absence of the right to work and unemployment that can lead to incidence of poverty and its closer associations such as inaccessibility to basic needs such as education, healthcare, housing and foods. In the case of smuggling, in debt position to smugglers or agents who brought them to Malaysia may cause refugees in a cycle of poverty and fear of crime inflicted by perpetrators. Unemployment (or employed in a non-formal sector and unrecognized) brings economic uncertainty and life under-development.

Baghus approach in personal-community security emphasizes that the aim of this component is “… to protect people who are identifiable members of a particular group from physical violence, crime, manipulation, torture, domestic abuse and harassment, from both

punished with imprisonment and shall also be liable to fine. These eights actions include “threat”, “use of force or coercion”, “abduction”, “fraud”, “deception”, “abuse of power”, “abuse of the position of vulnerable person” and “the giving and receiving of payments or benefits to obtain the consent of a person having control over the trafficked person”. See ATIPSOM 2007 (amended 2010).

3 Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh and Anuradha M. Chenoy are both scholars in international relations. Their account on HS concept derived from the book entitled “Human Security: Concepts and Implications”. This book traces the key evolutions in the development of HS, of course, the various definitions and critiques, how it correlates to other mainstream concepts and of to politics and policy. See Tadjbakhsh & M. Chenoy 2007.

4 Bangi’s Human Security approach (Baghus) is an extended and modified model of HS based on the UNDP’s 1994 human security concept with a particular dimension being included from the UNESCO’s concept (cultural security). Bangi is a name of district whereas the National University of Malaysia (UKM) is located. The idea of Bangi’s human security approach is to offer a complementary framework, an approach that is tailored to conditions on human security of SEA by taking into account the specificities of the region. See Rashilah et. al. 2012

Expert

PDF Trial

5

state and non-state actors.” (Rashilah et. al. 2012: 584-585). This clearly informs that threats emerged in this component are physical and subjective. Meanwhile, the perpetrators are not limited to criminal, ethnic and political groups (non-state) but also the state actors. In the case of SM and HT, the involvement of state actors is closely related to issues of abuse of power, bribery and corruption and trade of human beings among enforcement personnel. Element of exploitation, in many forms such as fraud, deception and coercion, is usually being the backdrop of these immoral activities. Baghus HS approach (2012: 585) accentuates the central idea of this component as “…protecting members of society who are vulnerable including women, children, frail people, elderly, disabled, suffered from disease/illness and the minority group”. It also includes people who are suffering from the negative impacts of uneven development, discrimination, inequitable treatment, globalization, corruption and organized criminal activity (Rashilah et. al. 2012: 585).

The adoption of these two components and of the HS concept, in a bigger framework, is not for the purpose to quantitatively measure the threats and its impacts towards Rohingya refugees. In fact, as it has been emphasized earlier, it is a normative way of analyzing the impacts of such exploitative activities that threaten economic and personal-community security of the referent object. The dimension of exploitation is a key unit of measurement to be employed in the analysis of this study. The next section attempts to discuss the historical inflow of Rohingya to Malaysia and its current population followed by socio-economic and political contexts that are associated with their existence in the country.

Rohingya refugees in Malaysia

The Muslim Rohingya refugees have a long and meandering history back to the Arakan state of Burma. Despite overwhelmed censures that led to political action and non-recognition of Rohingyas’ citizenship in Burma, existing records and documents have proven their existence in Burma as early as twelfth century5 especially in the Northern Arakan namely Maungdaw and Buthidaung townships (Human Rights Watch 1999).

Existing studies have indicated at least four series of major exodus involving huge number of Rohingyas from Burma to its neighbouring states (refer table 1). The first exodus was taken place between the years 1942-1945 involving about 22,000 Rohingya fled to Bangladesh (East Pakistan prior to independence). The reason for the first exodus due to communal violence erupted between Buddhist Rakhine and Rohingya Muslim of Arakan. The second mass outflow took place in 1978 involving approximately 220,000 Rohingya to Bangladesh. It was even 10 times bigger in terms of number of Rohingya involved compared to the first exodus. Reports (for instance, Irish Human Rights Centre 2010) have indicated that larger proportion of these refugees fled to Bangladesh and concentrated to the areas of Cox’ Bazar

5 Refer to the Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO). Nov. 1982. A memorandum of the Burma Citizenship Law of 1982, Unpublished Paper. RSO. 1992. The problems of Rohingya Muslims of Arakan In Burma, Unpublished Paper. Rohingya Patriotic Front (RPF). 1976. Rohingya Outcry and Demands. Unpublished Paper. Arakan Rohingya National Organization (ARNO). 1999. Peaceful Coexistence, Newsletter, Vol. 1. Issue 2, April: p. 1.

Expert

PDF Trial

6

and unknown numbers believed to have had moved to Thailand and Malaysia. The thirdmassive outflow occurred in 1990s where about 250,000-270,000 Rohingyas fled to Bangladesh. In the meantime, about 15,000 Rohingyas believed to have left Bangladesh and sought protection in Malaysia between 1991 and 1992. The last (fourth) exodus taken place just recently from September 2012 to April 2013 involving 27,800 Rohingyas (until April 2013) reached largely in three countries including Bangladesh, Thailand and Malaysia. On this particular note, it has been indicated that one-third (or approximately 9,000 people) of 27, 800 Rohingya been arrived in Malaysia within that period. If we would like to make an assumption on how many Rohingyas have already left Burma, these four major exoduses makes a reasonable prediction, which is 627,000 Rohingyas.

Table 1: Major Migration Outflows of Burmese Rohingyas (estimates) & Point of Destination

Years (period)

Outflow/Exit Burma (No. of

Rohingya)

Repatriated to Burma (No. of

Rohingya)

Point of Destination Source(s)

1942-1945 22,000 - Bangladesh Medecins Sans Frontiers 2002: 10

February-May 1978

220,000 - Bangladesh (concentrated at Cox’s Bazaar)

Irish Human Rights Centre 2010: 91

May 1991-March 1992

250,000-270,000

- Bangladesh (Cox’s Bazaar)

Irish Human Rights Centre 2010: 26FIDH 2000: 8

1991-1992 15,000 - Malaysia Samuel Cheong 2011: 50

1992-1993 - 50,000 Burma FIDH 2000: 8

September 1994

- 177,653 Burma FIDH 2000: 10

1996 23,000 Burma FIDH 2000: 101996-1999 50,000-

100,000- Bangladesh FIDH 2000: 44

2004-2006 8,000 - Malaysia Chris Lewa 2008

October 2012-April

2013

27,800 - Bangladesh, Thailand & Malaysia

UNHCR 2013, Human Rights Watch (2013)

Total (Estimate)

627,000 250,653 N.A

Source(s): Adapted and modified from various reports

Expert

PDF Trial

7

Factors contributing to these four-series of exodus are varied ranging from incidences that are related to communal violence, rights persecution by the military personnel, forced labour and religious persecutions. However, the major causal factor is revolved around the formulation of the 1974 Emergency Immigration Act that stripped the Rohingyas of their nationality, rendering them aliens in their homeland (Medicins Sans Frontier 2002: 10). Furthermore, the 1982 Citizenship Law caused greater hopelessness for Rohingyas to gain full Burmese citizenship and placing them in relative legal limbo that is statelessness (Irish Centre for Human Rights 2010: 26).

The first arrival of Rohingya to Malaysia is hardly to identify. Nevertheless, it has been verbally stipulated that there was an inflow of Rohingya in late 1970s following the implementation of the 1974 Emergency Immigration and ‘Nagamin’ operation took place in Arakan state of Burma. 6 However, there are three distinct periods where Rohingya understandably to have had arrived Malaysia in large number. The first was between 1991-1992 involving 15,000 Rohingyas followed by period between 2004 and 2006 involving 8,000 Rohingyas. Sectarian violence erupted between ethnic Rohingya and Rakhine in a number of townships in Arakan state of Burma caused another wave of inflow of Rohingya into Malaysia involving at least one-third of the estimated 27,800 Rohingya or 9, 000 Rohingyas. This estimate is sensible because data recorded by Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) showed about 3, 000 Rohingya were detained in all MOHA’s immigration depots throughout Peninsular Malasyia, as at the end of May 2013. These 3, 000 Rohingya detainees are new comers those intercepted by enforcement agencies on their way to enter Malaysia between September 2012 to April 2013. Despite these major exoduses, individual and smaller groups of Rohingya continue to enter Malaysia clandestinely and/or legally through various means of travel and entry points annually.

It is impossible to present the absolute number of Rohingya refugees residing Malaysia overtime. However, data gathered from multiple sources would be able to inform at least rough depiction of Rohingya population and its share to total number of Myanmar refugees and asylum seekers overall in Malaysia. Number of Rohingyas residing Malaysia increased almost six-fold from estimated 5,000 (2001) to 28,120 individuals in year 2013(refer to figure 1). It is unsurprisingly as it was claimed that about 3,000 of Rohingyas penetrated illicitly into Kelantan of Malaysia from Ranong and Satun (Thailand) every year(3,000 Rohingya diseludup 2012). Interestingly, population of Myanmar refugees registered with UNHCR Malaysia in overall (not excluding Rohingya) enlarged almost 20 times from 5,151 (2001) to 94,760 (2013). Out of this total figure (2013), Rohingyas make up only 29.7%. The largest proportion dominated by another ethnic minority from Myanmar, the Chin, with share about 34% (absolute number, 32,460 individuals) of the total Myanmar refugees registered with UNHCR. This suggests that Malaysia is not only being a ‘melting pot’ for Rohingyas but also other ethnic minorities from Burma such as the Chin, Karen, Mon, Shan and Burmese Muslim. However, it is noteworthy to inform that it was in 2005 where the non-Rohingya of Myanmar refugees began to escalate.

6 Interview with Deputy President of Rohingya Society Malaysia (RSM), Abdul Ghani Abdul Rahman, January 31st, 2013 at Ampang, Kuala Lumpur.

Expert

PDF Trial

8

Despite non-recognition towards UNHCR-card holders and the absence of written legal protection, Malaysian enforcement agencies do not usually arrest and detain recognized refugees, very lately. If there is an arrest and detention, information of their arrest is circulated to UNHCR office for immediate intervention. Over time, government treatments towards Rohingya are inconsistent despite intentions to offer privileges on humanitarian basis compared to other ethnic refugees from Burma. In 1992, the Malaysian government had granted limited 6-month working permits exclusively for Rohingyas (Human Rights Watch 1999) and later in 2004, there was a proposal to issue a special pass for Rohingyas coded name as IMM 13 to allow Rohingya to work legally in the country (Azharudin & Azlinariah 2012). However, both initiatives were not lasting. In fact, unsympathetic actions were executed to arrest, detain and deport Rohingyas. This suggests that despite intentions to offer privileges for Rohingyas but in reality, they end up facing similar treatments like other refugee groups. Rohingyas are also subject to uncertain period of detention, subjected to bribery by enforcement personnel and victimized in the cases of smuggling and trafficking.

Figure 1: Rohingya Population and Its Share to Registered Myanmar Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Malaysia, 2001-20137

Source(s): Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM), Azharudin, M.D. & Azlinariah, Ab. (2012) and UNHCR Statistical Data (Malaysia), United States Committee for Refugees & Immigrants (USCRI 2002).

7 Number of Rohingya refugees & asylum seekers shown are not entirely registered with UNHCR Kuala Lumpur. It consists of population estimated by various organizations & Rohingya community as well as UNHCR official data.

Expert

PDF Trial

9

Despite the absence of the right to work, study found that majority of Rohingya especially those residing in urban settings such as Kuala Lumpur and Selangor either employed illegally or self-employed. For employed Rohingya, it is not uncommon that their work is on part time basis, daily and hourly paid, short term and based on manual labour such as painting and welding.8 There is a larger fraction among Rohingya population especially in urban areas are self-employed in a number of economic activities. Among them collecting and selling recycle items, grass-cutting, landscaping, wiring and running grocery stores mainly in the Rohingya dominated settlement.

Rohingya and other refugee children are not allowed to access to national education system. There are about 3,843 Rohingya children between 5 to 17 years old registered with UNHCR while thousands other are remained unregistered and/or waiting to be approved of their refugee applications. According to Azizah Kassim (2013), among those registered children, only 40.1% or 1,561 children have access to informal schooling run either by UNHCR-funded NGOs or refugee-run learning centres. It is acknowledged that there are thousands of Rohingya children left behind this informal schooling system and result in alarming educational deprivation. Health and access to regular hospitalization is another dilemma facing refugees and Rohingya. Despite 50% discounts offered for registered refugees to get access to government facilities, access to hospitalization is remained poor due to security concern.

Smuggling of Migrants (SM) & Rohingya Refugees

This section presents the field findings derived from a number of interview sessions with key informants and 10 in-depth interviews with respondents. It presents the nature of the SM and HT involving Rohingya refugees respectively. Among those principle accounts that are unfolded as following: the profiles of the smugglers and trafficker, the business model, modi operandi as well as process and means of victimization committed by smugglers/traffickers towards Rohingya refugees.

Profile of Smugglers

The nature of SM is hardly to be generalized. It can be done in many ways with ultimate aim to gain as much profits as they can with less risk and costs. The elasticity of this crime makes it scarcely to be confronted especially by enforcement agencies. To understand the nature of SM, one should firstly comprehend the profiles of smugglers. The study found that smugglers profiles are stretchy. Even the term smuggler is not always used in their day-to-day operation from the process of recruitment until the last service payment on their arrival is made. A number of terms that often been used to replace smuggler such as “the agent”, “travel coordinator”, “the coordinator” and “travel agency staff”. According to a respondent;

8 Interview with Respondent 5 on April 23rd, 2013, Kuala Lumpur.

Expert

PDF Trial

10

“We call smuggler as a travel coordinator and sometimes agent. The word smuggler is sensitive for them because this term is illegal in nature and sounds bad. On the contrary, travel coordinator is like a travel agent, which facilitates our travel from Myanmar to Malaysia even though it still involves illegal migration process. We also use travel coordinator to replace smuggler because this agent has a registered (legal) travel agency based in Yanggon and in Kuala Lumpur to facilitate our journey. They are entrepreneurs”.9

Smuggling activity is also frequently committed in a group or network of individual and sometimes associated and/or hiding behind group of entrepreneurs, particularly those have business related to travelling and tourism industry as well as import-export kind of business activities. However, as informed by a key informant who has experience in bringing people from Bangladesh to Malaysia, these criminal groups mostly do not have any other work except this business (smuggling) in a full-time basis.10 He however emphasized that not all smugglers are cruel, inhumane and “exploitative” because to the end, it is a business and they (smugglers) rely on their customer’s satisfaction.

“Smuggling business has huge market. Every day we receive calls from relatives in Malaysia to bring their family either from Bangladesh, Thailand or Burma to Malaysia. Therefore, if we treat our previous customers badly, these people (the relatives) will not rely on our service in the future. They might find other smuggler”.11

The roles of smugglers are diverse and they are related to their status in the network’s hierarchical. The lower levels they are, the more dangerous and risky roles they play. Among the roles executed by this level are recruiting and soliciting potential victims, accompanying and escorting victims, coordinating the travel including navigating boat/ship or driving any kind of land vehicles (bus/van/car) as well as spotting and reporting on the presence of enforcement agencies on the field. These roles are risky because they are the one who might face enforcement personnel or involved in unexpected incidents such as shipwreck. In contrast, the higher-ranking smugglers in the hierarchy play the safest roles. They just need to coordinate the travel through phone, arranging their stooges to welcome the victims at destination country and to make sure payment is made on time.12

Modi Operandi

Network or group of smugglers are not necessarily organized. They might have networks or business partners in other countries to facilitate their business but strategies and modi operandi are not usually centralized and well coordinated. Smugglers especially the

9 Interview with Respondent 1 on March 27th 2013, Kuala Lumpur.10 Interview with key informant 1 on April 3rd 2013, Kuala Lumpur. 11 Ibid.12 Interview with key informant 2 on April 22nd 2013, Kuala Lumpur.

Expert

PDF Trial

11

messenger and travel coordinator are also amateurish and inefficient with the route they used, be it the land or sea routes. A respondent informs;

“We were arrested at the Thai-Burma border by Burmese enforcement agency because our travel coordinator used land route close to villages. We were unlucky because the villagers informed our presence there and we all got arrested in a night raid”. 13

On another case, respondent informs that smugglers have no contingency plan wherever and whenever their activities being identified by enforcement personnel or in the event where unexpected incident taken place.

Unlike criminal network or group of smugglers, individual smuggler has a little freedom, independent yet unorganized. Individual smuggler usually is unprofessional and often use their common sense or at least past migration experience. Individual smuggler is multitasked in the sense that he or she can play all the major roles in the SM activity such as recruiter, broker, forger and even messenger. Individual smuggler can also be a Rohingya and the way they recruit victims is usually through his/her social network and communal proxy.

“I was approached by a Rohingya in our village (Buthidaung) and this Rohingya arranged for my travel along the way from Yanggon to East Peninsular Malaysia. This agent brought and escorted me and seven other Rohingyas. Along the migration process, he decided almost all decisions like which route to take andwhich village we should stop. Whenever we asked where we were heading to, this person said he did not arrange the route but he had experience passing through the routes. He only passed over all of us (eight Rohingyas) in Kelantan (Thai-Malaysia border) to a Malaysian, of which this Malaysian escorted us to Kuala Lumpur”.14

Cost for getting smuggling service is varied and it is determined by a number of factors such as type of smuggler (individual or network/group), level of professionalism and track record as to ensure security aspect during the travel, routes and transportation used throughout the journey as well as mode of payment (one-off/lump sum payment or instalment). The cost for smuggling is hardly to be generalized as it involves various kinds of sub-services such as supplying foods, providing shelters, agent’s fees and transportation. In a number of incidences, extra payment imposed by agents for anonymous or irrational reason especially when victims choose to pay instalment or in percentage of the total cost. The failure to pay for this extra cost may possibly caused victim to be traded to other agent in Thailand. A number of smuggled Rohingyas do not know the cost for their travel as it was arranged and paid by their relatives who have already settled in Malaysia.

Typical routes used for SM activities are usually by land and sea. There is a possibility to use air route as informed by a respondent but this study does not cover this path. For sea routes, fishing boat is the common vehicle. Exit doors used to smuggle Rohingyas are plenty,

13 Interview with Respondent 2 on May 12th 2013, Selangor. 14 Interview with Respondent 5 on April 23rd, 2013, Kuala Lumpur.

Expert

PDF Trial

12

be it through land or sea routes. According to Unit Pembanterasan Penyeludupan (UPP) (Anti-Smuggling Unit) under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA), there are at least 186 of irregular routes (used as exit-entry doors) throughout Peninsular Malaysia of which 150 of it located in Kelantan (East Peninsular Malaysia) (‘PDRM Rekod 562’ 2013). In terms of sea routes, Peninsular Malaysia alone has about 1, 737 kilometres nautical coastal immensity making it easier for smugglers to infiltrate Malaysian territory illegally. A former smuggler informs that SM can also be done through regular routes.

“What the smuggler does is just to have a deal, to bribe the enforcement personnel and they can just simply pass through the check point. But not all capable to doing it unless you have a good contact with enforcement personnel”.15

The study also found that a larger proportion of smuggled Rohingya interviewed particularly the new comers do not aware of the entry door or at least the state they were smuggled in. The lack of knowledge about Malaysia’s geographical landscape makes Rohingya vulnerable in many ways.

Victimization of Smuggled Rohingya Refugees

SM does not always “exploitative”. It has been revealed by Respondent 1 that his smugglers they called as travel coordinators are a group of entrepreneurs. According to him, smuggling is their (smuggler) business and therefore they treat individual who uses their service exactly as what a restaurant’s manager treats his/her customers. This has provoked the mainstream thinking that SM is an exploitative activity. In the case of refugees, especially Rohingya, the use of smuggler is crucial to enable them to flee persecutions in their homeland. Otherwise, they might face risks to their life and their family. In that sense, SM activity can be a mutually beneficial and not necessarily result “exploitative” kind of exploitation. However, not all SM activities are non-exploitative. In fact, as informed by respondents, they are victimized in a range of events and means.

This section attempts to explain in what ways victimization exists in SM among Rohingya refugees. In explaining this, the study looks at dimension of exploitation. In this regards, it should be emphasized here that exploitation could exist in many ways. It can be exploitation based on mutual benefits or can be considered as “non-exploitative”. In contrast, it can be the bad, immoral and wrongful exploitation – considered in this study as “exploitative”. This study covers “exploitative” exploitation in order to explain victimizationof smuggled Rohingya refugees. In determining whether such exploitations are “exploitative”, this study uses a number of working concepts or means that visualizes elements of exploitative. These include “deception”, “violence” and “coercion”.

Deception

An interview with a new comer (Rohingya) revealed that he was a victim of deception by his agent. 16 Deception may take place in the early stage of smuggling especially in the

15 Interview with key informant 1 on April 3rd 2013, Kuala Lumpur.

Expert

PDF Trial

13

recruitment process. Situations in Arakan are currently strained due to communal violence between the Muslim Arakan and the Buddhist Rakhine. Knowing that, the agents take advantage and try to recruit as many Rohingyas as they can and bring them out from that conflicted area. Deception occurs in many ways. These include false promises and deceptive offer by agents. Furthermore, desperation and lack of knowledge makes Rohingya vulnerable to such deceptions.

“One agent came to my village and offered a very interesting offer. The agent informed that we (Rohingya) who want to take a boat and seek protection in Malaysia do not need to pay in lump-sum. They offered us a very flexible payment scheme. The agent also promised that they will find jobs for us and ensure we will have access to UNHCR office in Kuala Lumpur. But what I found when I reached Malaysia is that all the promises were false and in fact we were threatened to pay manifold costs for their smuggling service. Seven months have passed but we still unemployed and not been able to access to UNHCR”.17

“The reason why I decided to flee my village because the agent promised to send me to Malaysia where I can reunite with my brothers. It cost me almost RM5,000 to had been smuggled but I and four other Rohingyas were sent off in Thailand instead of Malaysia. Even worse, we were arrested by Thai army and imprisoned for six months. The agent did not fulfil their promises even though we had paid the whole cost for the smuggling”.18

Use of Violence

The use of violence in the smuggling activity is not uncommon. But to find eyewitnesses has been a difficult and challenging task. Not all respondents (Rohingya) ready to share their experience when it comes to matters that are tragic and sensitive. Furthermore, smuggled victims usually afraid to share such experiences. The use of violence correlates with the use of weapons in conducting their smuggling activities. A respondent informed that the use of weapons is necessary for smugglers, be it gun or knife.19 If the weapons not to be used to threaten smuggled Rohingya, it can be used to protect themselves from any threats throughout the smuggling process.20 These smugglers mostly dangerous, criminals and; fractions among themselves are common in their business. The use of violence may involve killings of the smuggled victims, physical torture and sexual harassment.

“They were about 250 Rohingyas in an obsolete fishing boat and it was overcrowded. We were heading straightaway from Sittwe (Arakan) to Malaysia. They were at least five agents and the crews on the boat. After three-day of journey, we were still sailing and had lack of foods and drinking water. Rohingyas on the

16 Interview with Respondent 7 on March 21st 2013, Kuala Lumpur. 17 Ibid.18 Interview with Respondent 8 on April 2nd 2013, Kuala Lumpur.19 Interview with Respondent 9 on April 2nd 2013, Kuala Lumpur.20 Ibid.

Expert

PDF Trial

14

boat were panic and attempted to request foods from the agents. In a chaotic circumstance, one of the agents released firing and three Rohingyas been killed. The agents cut off the food supply and caused a few other Rohingyas died due to innutrition. In the meantime, countless Rohingya men were physically tortured. From about 250 Rohingyas on the boat, there were only approximately 200 of us rescued by Malaysian navy (Malaysia’s maritime enforcement agency) when our boat intercepted. The agents successfully escaped a day before we were intercepted.”21

“There was a female Rohingya in our group, I believed she was about late 20s. Agents sexually harassed the girl because her relatives did not pay second payment for smuggling her to Malaysia. None of us had courage to protect her and finally she was left at Ranong instead of sending her to Malaysia. We do not know what happened to her after that but we believe she was under the custody of the agents until her relatives pay the whole cost. Otherwise, she could be traded. We are not sure”.22

Coercion (use of force)

Element of coercion or use of force may occur in many ways. Coercion is a loose definition but in convention interpretation, it is an act where force (usually physical) is put upon individual to compel him/her to do something against his/her will. At certain events, coercionmay involve indignity and cause violence, injury and loss of life. A new comer (Rohingya) informed that he and a few other villagers were forced to leave their villages by a group of Rakhine people. It is against their will because not all Rohingyas would like to leave their villages, properties and businesses. To facilitate this forced evacuation, the Rakhine people had gained assistance from the Nasaka (Burmese border army) to force them to get on the fishing boat from Sittwe and they were forced to begin their sailing with limited foods and petrol.

“We were on extremely overcrowded fishing boat. Men, women and children approximately 30 people on the boat which supposedly to carry maximum five people. We did not have sufficient foods and clean water while petrol was limited to bring us to even Phuket or Ranong (Thailand). It was a desperate journey and we did not have any alternative”.23

On another incident, smuggled Rohingyas were also forced to stay in an overcrowded transit shelter in Satun (Thailand). They were placed at a dilapidated house with more than 100 smuggled victims living together while waiting to be transited to Perlis (North Peninsular Malaysia). According to eyewitness, this incident was heartbreaking and cruel.24 Because of overcrowded situations, three smuggled victims become paralyzed including a respondent to

21 Interview with Respondent 10 on April 17th 2013, Kuala Lumpur.22 Interview with Respondent 11 on April 17th 2013, Kuala Lumpur.23 Interview with Respondent 12 on April 17th 2013, Kuala Lumpur.24 Interview with Respondent 13 on February 12th 2013, Kuala Lumpur.

Expert

PDF Trial

15

this research. The victims were including non-Rohingya refugees who used same agents to be smuggled to Malaysia.

The use of these three means “deception”, “violence” and “coercion” has accentuated dimension of victimization in smuggling activities concerning Rohingya refugees. Though some of the incidents taken place before their departure, smuggled victims were on their way to Malaysia. The anecdotal studies in each means have also drawn attention on the element of “exploitative” in each event endured by Rohingyas. Next, study attempts to analyze such “exploitative” actions towards their human security. The components employed in analyzing their human security broken down into two areas, economic security and; personal-community security.

The Implications of SM towards Rohingyas’ Human Security

Economic Security of Rohingya Refugees

Cost for smuggling is varied and it can up to manifold to what have been agreed earlier. Agents usually impose higher interests and some additional fees if smuggled victims agreed to pay by instalment or in portion according to services provided by smugglers. Not all smuggled victims are sponsored by their relatives who worked outside Burma and raised money for their smuggling fees. A number of respondents informed that they have had to get their own travel cost, as they do not have relatives currently settling in Malaysia or Thailand. A respondent informed that even though he has relatives in Bangladesh, but they are unemployed and unable to cover his smuggling cost.25

Other than relying on relatives to sponsor their travel’s cost, Rohingyas usually sell and/or take in pawn of their businesses, livestock and personal belonging to agents, creditors or friends/relatives in Burma. There are agents-linked creditors who offered loans for smuggled victims but imposed higher loan interests. Some Rohingyas were given loan from these creditors and they only need to make full payment including loan interests upon their arrival in Malaysia. The study however found that many smuggled Rohingyas unable to repay the loan (with interests) upon their arrival. They would only be able to repay the loan after they get employed but usually will take time. With low-paying jobs and uncertainty due to their employment status, smuggled Rohingyas burdened with repayment of loans and interests imposed by agents-linked creditors. For smuggled Rohingyas those unemployed and do not have income to repay their loans, they rely on assistance from the Rohingya community. But this does not always help them to settle repayment of loans.

Repayment of loans, unemployment and low-paying jobs plus uncertainty due to their legal status has accumulatively positioned Rohingya in a circle of poverty. This income uncertainty and poverty have a direct implication to their day-to-day survival including access to basic needs such as foods, healthcare, housing and education for their children. In Malaysia, there is no refugee camp or a proper refugee-shelter where Rohingya could stay temporarily. None of the Rohingya’s Community-based Organization (CBO) has shelter to house the new

25 Interview with Respondent 8 on April 2nd 2013, Kuala Lumpur.

Expert

PDF Trial

16

comers and first time arrivals. According to president of Rohingya Society Malaysia (RSM), Dr. Hamid, Rohingya CBOs have problem to assist and protect the new comers because they do not have enough resources to cover.26 What they can do, according to Dr. Hamid is to inform their relatives or at least anyone who has similar township to assist them temporarily. If the new comer is from Buthidaung, RSM activists will look for someone who belongs to this township to take care of this new comer.

Poverty among Rohingya refugees is at chronic stage and need urgent intervention from all stakeholders including UNHCR and related Malaysian government agencies such as Welfare Department. Though been given protection from arrest and detention, Rohingya refugees have been complaining on their difficulty to get financial and material assistances from UNHCR. UNHCR has also been involved in supporting Rohingya communities to develop refugee-run learning centre, but thousands of school-age Rohingya children remained unschooled. Poverty among Rohingya refugees in Malaysia is not just about income poverty. It associates with other social deprivations as well as access to basic needs. The strength of economic security within the paradigm of HS is its ability to recognize menaces beyond income and unemployment to include other related social deprivations.

Personal-Community Security of Rohingya Refugees

This component of HS covers threats beyond economic and social deprivations. In the case of smuggled Rohingya refugees to Malaysia, there are two situations in which personal-community security of Rohingyas have been threatened. First, physical violence and sexual harassment endured by smuggled Rohingyas throughout their journey up to their arrival in Malaysia. Second, abuse of power by enforcement agencies and possibility of being handed over and traded to smuggling agents at the Thai-Malaysian and/or Burma-Thai borders.

A respondent informed that physical violence committed by agents is inhumane and may result in loss of life. According to a key informant, thousands of Rohingyas children, women and men died in the hands of agents since the communal violence erupted in their hometown in 2012.

“These innocent and helpless people were tortured, sexually harassed and killed and their dead bodies were thrown into the sea. We believe that these agents have affiliated somewhere with the Burmese government and the Buddhist Rakhine to eliminate Rohingyas from the Arakan state. We were also informed that some of the smugglers were Buddhist Rakhine-linked agents and they collaborated with Rohingyas to persuade Rohingyas in Arakan to leave their villages. For those deceived by such persuasions were finally agreed to take boat and began their journey from Sittwe to Malaysia through Thailand. However, many of these people

26 Interview with President of Rohingya Society Malaysia (RSM), Dr. Abdul Hamid on March 31st 2013, Ampang, Selangor.

Expert

PDF Trial

17

did not make it and killed due to innutrition, overcrowded situation and involved in shipwreck”.27

Involvement of enforcement personnel in smuggling and trafficking of refugees especially Rohingyas is nothing new. In fact, it has been highlighted extensively in a number of international reports (U.S. Department of State 2010; U.S Committee for Refugees and Immigrants 2006; Amnesty International 2010). In 2008, Malaysia was shocked by the disclosure of human trafficking case involving enforcement officers whom allegedly trafficked detainees (many of those were Burmese refugees and asylum seekers) out from Malaysian detention centre to the Malaysia-Thailand border. The case, which was highlighted by national television NTV7 brought to Parliament by opposition Member of Parliament (MP), Charles Santiago on July 2008 (SUARAM 2008: 142). In Thailand, just recently,Human Rights Watch (HRW) calls for a thorough investigation on the allegedly rape and abduction case of a Rohingya woman sheltered at government facility in Phuket (‘Rights Group Call’ 2013). The question of how the perpetrator, which also believed as a smuggler, can get access to government shelter has been strikingly suspicious. This has called for an immediate and in-depth investigation not just towards perpetrator but also enforcement agencies involved in maintaining and safeguarding the shelter.

Abuse of power and alleged corruption committed by enforcement personnel either in Thailand or in Malaysia is alarming. Dimension of “exploitative” exploitation has been obviously reported. Though it has sparked off public outcry, serious investigation and conviction towards perpetrators are crucial. Legal and policy reforms are both needed to ensure security and dignity of these innocent people are protected. The component of personal-community within HS paradigm does not end by recognizing such threats and structural factors that lead to deficit of their HS. In fact, it has the potential to identify broad range of actors as well as legal and policy reforms in favour of people at risk.

Conclusion

Tense and on-going communal violence have been a major factor determining the increasing demands of this illegal SM business. SM however does not always involve “exploitative” exploitation as long as there is a mutual benefit with non-exploitative actions. This study has uncovered some of the principles profiles and modi-operandi of the SM. Though there is a possibility to have non-exploitative SM, majority eyewitnesses interviewed in this study shared their voices that “exploitative” exploitations occurred because there were elements of fraud, use of violence and coercion. These three forms of “exploitative” exploitations have finally positioned their economic and personal-community securities within the paradigm of HS at stake.

27 Interview with key informant 1 on April 3rd 2013, Kuala Lumpur.

Expert

PDF Trial

18

References

Alkire, S. (2003): A Conceptual Framework for Human Security. Working Paper No. 2. Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity (CRISE), Oxford University. Available at http://hsrgroup.org/press-room/human-securitybackgrounder .aspx

Azharudin, M.D. & Azlinariah, Ab. (2012): Air Mata Kesengsaraan Rohingya: Identiti, Penindasan dan Pelarian. Kuala Lumpur: Inteam Publishing.

Azizah Kassim. (2012 October): Workshop on Rohingya Children Education in Malaysia: Action Plan. Organized by Islamic Welfare Society of Malaysia (PERKIM) and National Security Council (MKN), Prime Minister Department, National University of Malaysia (UKM).

Bruckert, C. & Parent, C. (2002): Trafficking in Human Beings and Organized Crime: A Literature Review. Research and Evaluation Branch of Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada. Available at http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/ccaps-spcca/pdf/traffick-eng.pdf [accessed on 21 March 2013]

Cheong, S. (2011): Migration Control & the Solution Impasse in South and Southeast Asia: Implications from the Rohingya Experience. Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol. 25(1): 50-70.

Goodin, R. (1987): ‘Exploiting a Situation and Exploiting a person’. In Modern Theories of Exploitation (ed.). Reeve, A. London: Saga: 166-200

Human Rights Watch (HRW). (1999): Living in Limbo: Burmese Rohingya in Malaysia. Available at http://www.hrw.org/de/reports/2000/08/01/malaysiaburma-living-limbo-burmese-rohingyas-malaysia [accessed on 23 March 2013]

_______ (2013): All You Can Do Is Pray: Crimes against Humanity and Ethnic Cleansing of Rohingya Muslims in Burma’s Arakan State. Available at http://www.hrw.org/reports/2013/04/22/all-you-can-do-pray-0 [accessed on 11 March 2013]

Irish Centre for Human Rights Centre. (2010): Crimes against Humanity of Arakan Rohingya. National University of Ireland. Available at http://www.nuigalway.ie/human_rights[accessed on 21 January 2012]

Kokko, L. (2008): People for Sale: Three Different Approaches to Human Traffiking, Human Security Journal 6(3).

Malaysia. (1957/63): Immigration Act (Act 155). Putrajaya: Government of Malaysia.

Expert

PDF Trial

19

_______ (2007): Anti-Trafficking in Persons & Smuggling of Migrants Act (ATIPSOM) (Act 670) Amended in 2010. Putrajaya: Government of Malaysia.

_______ (2013): Unpublished Data on Detained Rohingya refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia. Malaysia’s Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA).

Medecins Sans Frontieres. (2002): 10 Years for the Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh: Past, Present and Future. Available at http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/publications /reports/2002/rohingya_report.pdf [accessed on 27 March 2013]

Rashilah, R., et. al. (2012): Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities 20(3): 577-588.

Salt, J. & Hogarth, J. (2000): Migrant Trafficking and Human Smuggling in Europe: A Review of the Evidence. Laczko, F. & Thompson, D. (eds.) Geneva: IOM: 11-164.

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), (2008): Malaysia Human Rights Report: Civil and Political Right. Petaling Jaya: SUARAM Komunikasi.

Suhkre, Astri. (1999): ‘Human Security and the Interest of States’. Security. Dialogue Vol. 30, No. 3: 265-276.

Tadjbakhsh, S. & Chenoy, A.M. (2007): Human Security: Concepts and Implications. London: Routledge.

U.S. Committee of Refugees and Migrants (USCRI). (2006): World Refugee Survey –Country Report: Malaysia. Retrieved from http://www.refugees.org/countryreports .aspx?subm=&ssm =&cid=1595 [accessed on 9 September 2012]

United Nations (UN). (1951/67): Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. General Assembly Resolution 2198 (XXI). New York: United Nations.

_______ (2000): Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. New York: United Nations (UN).

United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNCAT). (2000):General Assembly Resolution 53/111. New York: United Nations, 2000.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (1994): Human Development Report: New Dimensions of Human Security. New York: Oxford University Press. Also available at http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1994/

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Various years. Statistical Yearbook. Available at http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c4d6.html [accessed on 29 May 2013]

Expert

PDF Trial

20

Wertheimer, A. (1996): “Exploitation”. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Wood, A. (1995): “Exploitation”. Social Philosophy and Policy 12. No. 2: 136-58

‘3,000 Rohingya masuk ke Malaysia setiap tahun’ (2012): Harian Metro, December 24th.

‘PDRM Rekod 562 kes pemerdagangan orang’ (2013): Harian Metro, January 16th, p. 11.

‘Rights group calls for investigation of Rohingya rape North Phuket’ (2013): Phuket Wan, 28th June. Retrieved on June 29th, 2013 at http://phuketwan.com/tourism/rights-group-calls-investigation-rohingya-rape-north-phuket-18355/ [accessed on 29 June 2013]

Expert

PDF Trial