WHAT’S this that I hear?
First, the refugees. Malaysia is going to take in 3,000 refugees from Syria. That was the pledge made by our Prime Minister at the recent United Nations General Assembly.
Already there are in this country 153,850 refugees and asylum-seekers with their families (33,740 children below the age of 18). See the latest count from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) website.
The refugees are being looked after by the UNHCR office here and therefore not a major financial burden to the host country. In theory, they are in transit until a third country wants them or when they wish to return to their own country. But so far it seems that no third country has offered to take them in.
In the case of the 142,630 Rohingyas from Myanmar, their favoured destination has always been Malaysia. Even the Rohingya refugees in Acheh are heading this way. And so in this country they will live before they are eventually absorbed into the general population, unless Myanmar under the new rulers wants them back. Maybe. Maybe not.
The impression created by Malaysia at the world body’s meeting was most favourable – a fine gesture from a country with a golden heart. As a responsible member of the global village, Malaysia is doing its bit to help people in trouble in their own countries.
This act of kindness, however, may create a precedent in our future dealings with asylum-seekers. It is always a noble act to help others, if we are in a position to help, but at the same time we mustn’t forget that charity begins at home as well.
The Minister of Home Affairs has said that the new arrivals will be provided with special identity cards, given temporary jobs and shelter. Their children will be given education. To the people smugglers this is good news. Hey, haven’t we told you that there’s a land overflowing with milk and honey? Proceed ye thither.
The special favour accorded to the Syrians is seen as discriminatory to the other political refugees and asylum-seekers because the latter do not get such favourable treatment. The Rohingyas will soon demand equal treatment. Why the discrimination?
Talking about discrimination, in so far as possession of legal identification documents is concerned, KL may like to look into the situation in Sarawak and settle it once and for all. There are many people in the state whose parents are Sarawakians but possess no birth certificates on technical grounds. Late registration of birth is possible but what a hassle it is to get one document. You have to bring along all your immediate family members to the local National Registration Department office or at least a photograph of the entire family. If you cannot provide all the evidence of relationship, your application is held up, and held up, for ages. Meanwhile, you have no MyKad. So you might as well forget about the BR1M and the money from ST15 rice. And an international passport.
Your status is no better than that of a Syrian refugee.
Children of refugees in Malaysia can go to school, at least some 40 per cent of them do, out of 33,000 in Peninsular Malaysia. But the children of Sarawakians without birth certificates cannot go to school unless special permission is asked and given.
If this is not discrimination, I don’t know what is.
It is time high for the authorities to think in terms of getting every birth of a Sarawakian registered as simply as possible. There is no need to drag the whole family or a photograph of them for late registration of birth to the office when an authentic certification by a village or longhouse chief would be good enough.
I’m not recommending that someone resort to something akin to the infamous Sabah ‘Projek IC’, just lamenting the fact that in giving birth certificates to Sarawakians, conversion to certain religions is irrelevant.
Second, teachers from India.
I have also heard about the coming of teachers from India, to teach us the English language.
While we should welcome the government’s move to encourage Malaysian students to study the language, may we ask if there has been any real effort on the part of the education authorities to recruit local teachers who are good at the English language? Many of them have retired from teaching but are still keen to teach the language either as tutors or part-time teachers.
And what about those already teaching? They will be happy to undergo some further training in the teaching of the language. Also, the many graduates from universities and colleges who are jobless? They can be trained to be teachers of English too.
I’m not against foreign teachers teaching English in our schools. Sixty years ago, in four schools in Kuching, a number of teachers came from India and they were very good teachers, I must say. I was not fortunate to be taught by any of these teachers from Kerala. At St Thomas’, our English grammar teacher was Mr Francis Chen from Hong Kong, while Mr Song Thian Eng from Kuching taught the Senior Cambridge Class of 1958 a subject called Comprehension, which featured précis writing.
The art of précis writing – of compressing a long passage of 150 words into 50 words without it having lost its main message – is useful knowledge and a crucial tool for understanding, chewing and digesting long-winded reports on projects such as those prepared by professional project consultants.
Why not teachers from England, Australia and New Zealand? What’s wrong with them? They have been writing and speaking in this tongue for a long time; Anglo Saxons spoke it before their German King did; the Aussies and the Kiwis, for a couple hundred years.
What about American teachers? No, no, they haven’t spoken English for years. They keep on misspelling English words in the name of economising space.
Third, workers from Bangladesh.
The federal government has planned to bring in 1.5 million Bangladeshi workers. Does this figure include the 40,000 workers earmarked for the oil palm plantations in Sarawak?
I have written about this subject before and wish to point out again that I have nothing against the recruitment of foreign workers in general, provided that the locals are given the first chance and choice to work with better pay.
For Sarawak, there’s no need for workers further afield. A better source of labour is available just across the border. The Indonesians come with their families to earn a living and then go home when the time comes to go home, if proper (binding) agreements have been signed before their recruitment. A group of male workers coming here accompanied by wives and children are more productive than a group of bachelors from anywhere. You know what I mean.
People first
If the federal government leaders can do something special for the Syrian refugees, there is no reason why they cannot do the same for their own people who are not refugees (not yet) but need legal papers to qualify them for citizenship of the country.
In five years’ time, Malaysia will acquire the status of a developed country. What do you think of a developed nation in which many of its people are stateless while the refugees have every possibility of acquiring citizenship instead one day?
We accept foreigners on humanitarian grounds. But when we provide our people with legal documents, we do so on the grounds of fiduciary duty of a governing authority. The government owes Sarawakians. Repeat, it is a fiduciary duty to give them legal documents as long as Sarawak is part of Malaysia.
Comments can reach the writer via [email protected].