Refugee protection in ASEAN

national failures, regional responsibilities

People's Empowerment Foundation (PEF), November 2010 1/546 Nuan Chan Road Klongkum, Bungkum Bangkok 10230, Thailand tel./fax: (+66) 29466104 e-mail: info@peoplesempowerment.org web: http://www.peoplesempowerment.org

Acknowledgements PEF would like to thank all who provided information for this report, particularly the refugees and asylum seekers who shared their stories. Special thanks to Ang Chanrith in Cambodia, Abdul Hamid and Abdul Ghani in Malaysia, and Abdul Kalem, Ven. Son Sinan and Ven. Thach Veasna in Thailand for their time and dedication in assisting with interviews. We are also appreciative of Veerawit Tianchainan, Executive Director of the Thai Committee for Refugees (TCR), and Anoop Sukumaran, Coordinator of the Asia-Pacific Refugee Rights Network (APRRN), for their valuable analysis and suggestions. researched and written by Pei Palmgren research funded by the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy

cover photo: Rohingya refugees in the Immigration Detention Center, Bangkok, Thailand / Pei Palmgren

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. INTRODUCTION: NATIONAL FAILURES AND REGIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES II. STATELESS ROHINGYA Excluded and Abused in Burma Squalor and insecurity in Bangladesh Illegal economic migrants in Thailand Criminalized and vulnerable in Malaysia III. PERSECUTED KHMER KROM Landlessness, poverty, and human rights abuse in Vietnam Statelessness and insecurity in Cambodia Searching for refuge in Thailand IV. LAO HMONG ON THE RUN Hiding in the jungles of Laos Warehoused in Thailand Forced repatriation V. CONCLUSION: TOWARDS REGIONAL SOLUTIONS VI. RECOMMENDATIONS TO ASEAN

2 3 4 5 5 6 8 10 10 11 14 15 16 16 18 19 20

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Countries in Southeast Asia act as origins, transit routes, and destinations for an increasing number of refugees, asylum-seekers, and other forcibly displaced people from the region and other parts of the world. Fleeing conflict, persecution, and other dire circumstances in their home countries, they are continually left vulnerable to a variety of human rights abuses carried out by both state and non-state actors in multiple countries. Sadly, such refugee problems are being severely neglected in the context of mixed migration. While regulating the inflows of migrants, governments of popular destination countries lack mechanisms for identifying refugees in need of protection, instead criminalizing them along with other undocumented migrants. This has led to the persistent suffering and overall conditions of human insecurity for some of the regions most vulnerable people. Considering the failure of individual states to protect the rights of refugees, as well as the cross-border implications of refugee problems, it is time for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to take a lead in developing more fair and effective forms of refugee protection at the regional level. So far, ASEAN has come up short in addressing current refugee problems that require close dialogue and cooperation among several member states and others in the international community. The Rohingya, Khmer Krom, and Lao Hmong refugee situations reflect the complexity, diversity, and urgency of such problems. These cases demonstrate several glaring gaps in refugee protection in multiple ASEAN member states and raise challenges for improved protection at the regional level. Denied citizenship by Burmas 1982 Citizenship Law, the Rohingya are a stateless ethnic minority who suffer from severe oppression and human rights abuse at the hands of the countrys military regime. Fleeing harsh treatment and conditions, the Rohingya face great dangers while being transported on dilapidated boats from Bangladesh to Thailand (as well as beyond), risking drowning and starvation along the way. Considered illegal economic migrants in Thailand, the Rohingya are subject to refused entry, arrest, prolonged detention and deportation. In Malaysia, Rohingyas also confront a hostile environment characterized by immigration raids and cycles of arrest, detention, and deportation, at times directly into the hands of human traffickers. Unable to rely on any government to protect their rights, the Rohingya are an extremely insecure stateless population in need of regional protection. The small but growing number of Khmer Krom asylum seekers in Thailand is a manifestation of a larger human rights crisis existing throughout three countries of Southeast Asia. Persecuted for peacefully demanding their rights to practice religion and own land, monks and land rights activists have fled southern Vietnam to neighboring Cambodia, where they are promised citizenship as Khmer people. Documents required for citizenship are often difficult to obtain, however, leaving many Khmer Krom stateless yet unable to apply for asylum with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Khmer Krom monks who fled persecution in Vietnam are particularly vulnerable in Cambodia, where they are closely monitored by authorities and treated as dangerous dissidents. Many resort to living in Thailand, deprived of rights and fearing arrest and deportation while waiting on asylum bids. Thousands of Lao Hmong live in the jungles of Laos, fearing violence and death at the hands of Lao soldiers who have been suspicious of the Hmong since their involvement with the CIA and American army during the war in Vietnam. Thousands fled to Thailand beginning in 2005 and were eventually contained in a makeshift camp, where the government denied the UNHCR access on grounds that the Hmong were illegal economic migrants. A smaller group of Hmong refugees, already recognized by the UNHCR, was arrested in Bangkok and detained for 3 years in the Nong Khai detention center. They were eventually granted visas to be resettled in third countries but instead were forcibly deported to Laos along with the thousands of Hmong from the camp. Disturbing reports of coercion and other forms of mistreatment in the Laos resettlement camps have been left unverified due to the highly restricted nature of the repatriation process. With hundreds of thousands of refugees, asylum seekers, and other forcibly displaced people in Southeast Asia falling through the cracks of national legal and administrative mechanisms inadequate to ensure their rights, it is time for ASEAN to include refugee rights protection on its regional community-building agenda. Alternatives to the criminalization and detention of refugees, the most vulnerable people in ASEAN, must be found in order to achieve the stated goals of a people-oriented regional community. ASEAN and its newly established human rights commission can address problems by facilitating multilateral dialogues and actions, including participation of civil society organizations and direct stakeholders, on the most pressing refugee situations. In particular, a regional agreement identifying core principles, standards of treatment, and shared responsibility for refugee protection among ASEAN member states can contribute substantially to solutions to refugee problems.
2

I. INTRODUCTION: NATIONAL FAILURES AND REGIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES

counter to these responsibilities, regularly threatening the human rights and security of refugees and asylum seekers. Rather than protecting refugees, states in Southeast Asia have been compounding problems by arresting, detaining, and at times dangerously deporting those in need of protection, in the latter case violating the principle of non-refoulement,1 a cornerstone of international refugee protection. Moreover, the criminalization of refugees and asylum seekers has left many vulnerable to a variety of additional human rights abuses carried out by corrupt officials, exploitative employers, human traffickers and other state and nonstate actors throughout the region. Given the failure of individual states to protect the rights of refugees, it is now crucial for ASEAN to take a lead in developing more fair and effective forms of refugee protection at the regional level. As refugee crises are cross-border in nature, impacting states beyond the country of origin, involving a variety of actors operating in and throughout several locations, and constituting problems that exist between and across multiple countries, multilateral cooperation at the regional level is necessary. Furthermore, if ASEAN wishes to fulfill its stated commitments to building a people-oriented regional community that respects human rights and is inclusive of all people in Southeast Asia, it must urge member states to seek alternatives to the criminalization and detention of refugees, the most marginalized members of this envisioned community. This report aims to highlight key issues and concerns related to refugee protection, or lack thereof, in Southeast Asia by outlining three refugee case studies the Rohingya, Khmer Krom, and Lao Hmong. While not serving as an exhaustive illustration of all refugee and forcibly displaced people issues in the region, these cases illuminate several glaring gaps in refugee protection in multiple ASEAN countries. The report considers ASEANs recent responses to refugee problems and urges the bloc to affirm refugee rights and strengthen protection throughout the region. Recommendations for developing a regional refugee protection framework are offered to ASEAN.

Several ASEAN countries act as origins, transit routes, and destinations for an increasing number of refugees, asylum-seekers, and other forcibly displaced people migrating throughout Southeast Asia in search of peace and human security. People from ethnic minority groups continually flee conflict and persecution in Burma (Myanmar), thousands of Muslim civilians have been displaced by fighting in the southern Philippines, and members of religious minorities have escaped repression in Vietnam, for example, most seeking refuge in nearby countries. In addition, a growing number of refugees displaced by conflicts in such countries as Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, and Iraq have been arriving in Southeast Asia to seek asylum or in transit to destinations beyond the region. Distinct from other migrants, refugees are completely deprived of rights regularly associated with citizenship and nationality and face grave dangers in their countries of origin. Importantly, refugee movements in Southeast Asia are occurring within a regional context of mixed migration, which includes a diverse jumble of not only refugees but also economic migrants leaving varying socioeconomic circumstances at home in search of improved livelihood prospects elsewhere. Such migrants often traverse borders and settle in new locations through the same means and routes as asylum seekers, making it difficult to distinguish between migrants looking for employment and refugees in urgent need of protection. Instead, states have lumped refugees in the same legal category as other undocumented migrants, effectively criminalizing them as illegal in national immigration frameworks. Without recognition of the distinct rights of refugees and asylum seekers, governments and their national immigration systems have failed to protect refugees in the region. Of the ten ASEAN member states, only Cambodia and the Philippines are state parties to the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 protocol, while more popular destination countries lack adequate procedures to identify and protect refugees. Though ASEAN states are bound by customary international law and obligated to uphold the rights stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), including those relating to refugees, government policies and practices have run

Methodology To learn about the current situation of the three refugee groups discussed in this report, Peoples Empowerment Foundation (PEF) conducted field visits and interviews

1 Non-refoulement is a principle of customary international law that forbids the expulsion of a refugee into an area where the person might be subjected to persecution. It is considered binding on all states, regardless of whether or not they have ratified a relevant treaty.

Non-protection in an international context

The countries in blue are non-members to the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, most existing in South and Southeast Asia. Only two ASEAN countries, Cambodia and the Philippines, are state parties to the convention.

Southeast Asia

Source: UNHCR, October 2008

with Rohingya, Khmer Krom, and Lao Hmong refugees and asylum seekers in three countries. Rohingya refugees and asylum seekers were interviewed in Bangkok, Thailand and Kuala Lumpur and Penang, Malaysia. Khmer Krom refugees, asylum seekers, and other migrants were interviewed in Phnom Penh, Kandal, and Takeo provinces of Cambodia, as well as in Bangkok. A discussion session with a small group of Lao Hmong refugees was held in Bangkok. In addition, offices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) were consulted in Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, and Phnom Penh, as were several nongovernmental and community-based organizations involved with refugee assistance and rights monitoring and protection in the three countries. A draft of this report was presented during the Refugees and Displaced People workshop at the ASEAN Peoples Forum (APF) in Hanoi, Vietnam on 25 September 2010. The workshop was organized by PEF in cooperation with the Thai Committee for Refugees

(TCR) and the Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network (APRRN) and attended by civil society actors from throughout Southeast Asia. Recommendations for better refugee rights protection in the region were agreed upon by workshop participants and included in the final APF statement to ASEAN leaders. These recommendations, as well as content and analysis in this report, were finalized through consultations between PEF, TCR and the coordinator of APPRN for inclusion in the report.

II. STATELESS ROHINGYA

In early 2009, Rohingya refugees received a rush of international attention when six boatloads of them were discovered within a span of 6 weeks in the Andaman Sea. Reports soon surfaced that officers of the Thai

Navy had abused the Rohingya before towing them out to sea and sending them adrift without food, water, or functioning engines. It was found that over 1,000 Rohingya had been pulled to sea before being picked up by the Indonesian Navy, with over 300 believed to have drowned. 2 From these events, the world was alerted to the existence of a new boat people in Southeast Asia. The Rohingya refugee crisis, however, has existed for many years, rooted in Burma and dispersed throughout Southeast Asia and beyond. A look at the current problems faced by exiled Rohingya in the region reveals serious human rights issues involving an array of state and non-state actors, including but not limited to human trafficking, prolonged detention, extortion and labor exploitation, statelessness, and an overall state of human insecurity.

the ruling military regime. Such abuses, described to us by Rohingya refugees living in Thailand and Malaysia, and documented in articles and human rights reports,7 include land confiscation and forced displacement, religious intolerance, rape and sexual violence, arbitrary restrictions on marriage, forced labor, stringent restrictions on movement at local and national levels, arbitrary taxation on land and crop yields, and other forms of harassment. In addition, humanitarian problems in northern Arakan are compounded by extreme poverty and an absence of development initiatives.8 Due to the severity and persistence of such persecution, masses of Rohingya have realized that staying in Burma is no longer an option. Since mass exoduses in 1978 and 1991/92, hundreds of thousands have continued to flee Burma, ending up in Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, and some Middle Eastern countries, with no option to return home safely. More recently, groups have turned up in Cambodia and Indonesia, with some traveling as far as Australia in hopes of acquiring asylum.

Excluded and Abused in Burma The Rohingya are a Muslim ethnic minority group descended from a mix of Arakanese Buddhists, Chittagonian Bengalis and Arabic sea traders.3 In customs, religion and language, they share several similarities with neighboring Chittagonian Bengalis.4 Numbering nearly 2 million total, an estimated 800,000 Rohingya live in Burmas Arakan state, while one million are believed to live in exile in Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, the Middle East and elsewhere.5 The conditions leading to such a dispersion outside of Burma have a legal basis in the countrys 1982 Citizenship Law,6 which excludes the Rohingya from the list of 135 officially recognized ethnic groups in Burma and thus denies them citizenship. On this basis, the Burmese military junta regards the Rohingya as foreign residents, rendering them stateless people with no rights associated with Burma or any other nation. As an excluded minority, the Rohingya suffer from severe and systematic human rights violations carried out by

Squalor and insecurity in Bangladesh Though not occurring in an ASEAN country, the conditions suffered by Rohingya in Bangladesh contribute directly to the regional crisis. Adjacent to northern Arakan state, Bangladesh has received the most Rohingyas, with approximately 28,000 living in two officially recognized camps in the Coxs Bazaar district of Southern Bangladesh (pending repatriation), another 4,000 in a settlement near Kutupalong, and 9,000 in the unofficial Leda site.9 As the Bangladeshi government ceased granting refugee status to Rohingyas in 1993, they are no longer being registered, and approximately 200,000 live in the country with no official documentation. For several reasons, Bangladesh has proven unsafe for

2 Indonesias Poor Welcome Sea Refugees, New York Times, April 18, 2009, <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/world/asia/19indo.html? scp=7&sq=rohingya&st=cse>, (accessed August 19, 2010). 3 Mathieson, David Scott, Plight of the Damned: Burmas Rohingya. Global Asia, Volume 4, Number 1, Spring 2009, pg. 86-91. 4 Lewa, Chris, Asias New Boat People, Forced Migration Review, Issue 30, April 2008, pg. 40-42. 5 Refugees International, Rohingya: Burmas Forgotten Minority, December 2008. 6 Burma Citizenship Law, October 1982, <www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b4f71b.html>, (accessed August 2, 2009). 7 See, for example, Irish Centre for Human Rights, Crimes against Humanity in Western Burma: The Situation of the Rohingyas, 2010; Lewa, Chris, The Rohingya: Forced Migration and Statelessness, Forced Migration in the South Asia Region: Displacement, Human Rights and Conflict Resolution, Ed. Mishra, Omprakash, Jadavpur University Centre for Refugee Studies, 2004. 8 Equal Rights Trust, Trapped in a Cycle of Flight: Stateless Rohingya in Malaysia. January 2010, pg. 5. 9 Refugees International, Rohingya: Burmas Forgotten Minority, December 2008.

Rohingya asylum seekers. Bangladesh has no legal framework for refugees, regarding them as illegal economic migrants rather than people in need of protection. This designation is reflected in government practice. Border officials have regularly pushed back Rohingya trying to enter the country, and raids at border crossing points are also common. More recently, Bangladesh law enforcement agencies have escalated their crackdown on unregistered Rohingya refugees, resulting in the arrest of over 500 Rohingyas within the first two months of 2010, some of which were jailed on illegal immigration charges and others pushed back across the Burmese border.10 Those living in unofficial camps and settlement areas are subjected to overcrowding, food insecurity, lack of clean water and poor sanitation, leading to starvation, malnutrition and a variety of illnesses.11 Unofficial camp populations are also subject to arbitrary arrest and detention if they leave. These poor conditions, in addition to insecure legal status and an increasingly xenophobic local population, compel many Rohingya to move beyond Bangladesh in search of a decent life elsewhere. In recent years, Bangladesh has served as a transit country for Rohingyas who depart on boats headed to Thailand and beyond.

Perilousmigra-onbysea

Before reaching Thailand, many Rohingya face hazardous conditions on boat journeys from Bangladesh (sometimes directly from Burma). Most pay traffickers to take them on crowded boats often exceeding 100 people, while others pool money in large groups to purchase a boat that they navigate themselves. Between October 2006 and March 2008, an estimated 9,000 Rohingya traveled on rickety boats destined for Thailand and Malaysia, with an estimated 7,500 arriving in southern Thailand since the 2006/2007 sailing season.12 During the voyage, boat passengers are cramped tightly against each other, often unable to lie down to sleep. Rations of food and water regularly run low, resulting in hunger and starvation on the last legs of the journey. For example, two refugees we spoke with in Penang, Malaysia reported that 13 out of 105 people on their boat died after the engine gave out and they drifted for 4 days without food before being helped by Burmese fishermen.13 The decrepit condition of many of the overcrowded boats also poses the great risk sinking in the ocean.
Deten-on,deporta-onandpushback

Illegal economic migrants in Thailand Though international attention to Rohingya refugees arriving in Thailand peaked in 2009, as a neighboring country to Burma, Thailand has been a destination for Rohingyas for over twenty years. In the past, overland crossings into Thailand were more common. Several Rohingya we spoke with in Bangkok walked across the border from Myawaddy to Mae Sot over ten years ago and have been living and working in Thailands informal labor sector ever since. More recent arrivals come by boat and stay temporarily in transit to Malaysia, the preferred country of destination. As recent reports have shown, Rohingyas arriving in Thailand find themselves vulnerable and insecure in the context of the countrys strict immigration policy.

Those fortunate enough to survive the boat journey arrive to a country that doesnt recognize refugees but instead regards them as illegal economic migrants subject to detention and deportation under the Thai Immigration Act of 1979.14 Though Thailand has hosted tens of thousands of refugees, mostly from Burma, over the last 30 years, the country has no refugee law and is not party to the UN refugee convention and its protocol. With the Thai Provincial Admissions Board (PAB) assuming refugee processing operations for all migrants coming from Burma since 2005, newly arriving Rohingya are unable to seek asylum through the UNHCR. In the context of illegal immigration, Rohingya who reach the southern coast of Thailand by boat are arrested upon arrival and put in police lockup for several days before being transferred to an immigration detention center (IDC), where they spend months in cramped and unsanitary quarters before being deported. Several Rohingya reported experiences of deportation to an

10 The Arakan Project, Unregistered Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh: Crackdown, forced displacement, and hunger, February 2010. 11 Physicians for Human Rights, Stateless and Starving: Persecuted Rohingya Flee Burma and Starve in Bangladesh, March 2010. 12 Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma (ALTSEAN), Rohingya, Asylum Seekers and Migrants from Burma: A Human Security Priority for ASEAN, February 16, 2009, pgs. 5-7. 13 Interview with two Rohingya refugees in Taman Brown commune, Gelugor district, Penang, Malaysia; July 31, 2010. 14 Thai Immigration Act, 1979, <http://www.immigration.go.th/nov2004/en/doc/Immigration_Act.pdf>, (accessed August 24, 2009).

other illnesses due to improper ventilation, lack of exercise, and months of sleep on the cement floor.16 Two detainees died in custody. Once in Bangkok, a group of Bangladeshis was identified and sent back to their country, one man died, and the rest still remain, detained indefinitely with no clear policy or intended government action in sight.
Ge;ngbyintheinformallaborsector

Rohingya detained in the IDC in Bangkok / photo: Pei Palmgren

area in Myawaddy, directly across the Thai border, where trafficking/smuggling agents wait for potential clients. Those with enough money stay in safe houses near the border before being smuggled back into Thailand, many choosing to go further to Malaysia. More recently, the practice of arrest, detention and deportation has been succeeded by a strict push-back policy, whereby boats carrying Rohingya refugees are expelled to sea upon arrival to Thai shores. After the 2009 revelations that the Thai Navy had sent several boats adrift without food or working engines, the government vowed to investigate incidents but stayed committed to their policy of barred entrance, ostensibly to offset a perceived pull factor. Most recently, in March 2010, authorities pushed back a boat of 93 Rohingya, this time with rations and a working engine.15 The current situation of a group of Rohingya captured off the coast of southern Thailand in late 2008 exhibits another troubling response to Rohingya refugees arriving in Thailand. Before being transferred to the immigration detention center in Bangkok, 55 of these boat passengers were detained in Ranong, where they suffered from respiratory problems, muscle atrophy, and

Rohingya who manage to enter Thailand undetected join an older generation of Rohingya refugees, many who have lived in the country for over a decade. While their lives are significantly better compared to their time in Burma and Bangladesh, Rohingya in Thailand still face certain levels of insecurity as illegal migrants. Those living in Bangkok selling roti, for example, are subject to police harassment, required bribes, and the constant prospect of arrest, detention, and deportation. A Rohingya roti seller in Bangkok told us that he is required to pay local police 2,000 baht per month, bribing 4 departments at 500 each, to ensure that he will be allowed to stay and earn his living.17 Several others told of experiences of being arrested, thrown in the IDC, and then sent to the Mae Sot border where they were taken to the Burma side and put in jail. They were able to return by paying a 1,800 baht bribe, split between Thai immigration and Burmese border officials. Those without money were reportedly turned over to the Burmese government, never heard from again. Not recognized as refugees, Rohingya have had to rely on Thai migrant labor procedures to gain minimal levels of security. For years, Rohingya and other undocumented workers in Thailand were able to apply for temporary work permits, renewable each year, which allowed them to stay in the country (though they werent a guaranteed safeguard against deportation without bribe money). A new nationality verification process, however, requires proof of identity documents, such as passports, before applying for a work permit, something that Rohingya, as stateless people, are unable to obtain.

15 The boat subsequently arrived in Malaysia where passengers were detained before being registered by the UNHCR and eventually released to Rohingya communities in Kuala Lumpur and Penang with the help of the community-based Rohingya Society in Malaysia (RSM). 16 Peoples Empowerment Foundation, Report: Visit to Rohingya Detainees in the Immigration Detention Center, Ranong, August 16, 2009. 17 PEF interview with Rohingya man in Bangkok, August 13, 2010.

Criminalized and vulnerable in Malaysia Ranked in 2009 by the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants as one of the 10 worst places for refugees for the second consecutive year,18 Malaysia is home to 90,000-170,000 refugees and asylum-seekers.19 Among them, an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 Rohingya currently live in Malaysia, 20 with approximately 19,000 registered by the UNHCR at the time of writing. Rohingya we spoke with in Kuala Lumpur and Penang reported stories of being smuggled across the ThaiMalaysia border. The journeys usually involved a foot crossing or cramped van/truck ride in which refugees are hidden among luggage or other cargo, a nighttime trek through the jungle, and a van, taxi, or bus ride to the destination city. Most Rohingya coming to Malaysia settle in Kuala Lumpur or Penang, while communities also exist in Johor, Kedah, and Terengganu. The most popular destination for Rohingya, Malaysia is arguably the least safe place for refugees and asylum seekers in Southeast Asia.
LegalframeworkandUNHCRopera-ons

After years of issuing Rohingyas with temporary protection letters and then UNHCR identity cards, all such processes were halted at the end of 2005 after the Malaysian government announced that it would issue IMM13 temporary residence permits to the Rohingya. This scheme was soon suspended, however, due to allegations of corruption and fraud in the Rohingya community-led registrations, and the government has yet to resume such registrations.22 The UNHCR resumed their registration efforts in 2009 and is currently active in registering Rohingya refugees, with over 19,000 registered to date and an estimated 1,000-2,000 yet to be registered.23
Targetedasillegal

Like Thailand, Malaysia has yet to become a state party to the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol and has no legal or administrative framework for refugee protection. Rohingya and other refugees and asylum seekers are regarded as illegal immigrants, lumped in the same legal category as other undocumented migrants. All are subject to prosecution under the Immigration Act of 1959/1963 (amended in 2002),21 which renders refugees vulnerable to arrest, imprisonment, caning, detention and deportation. With no government procedure in place for granting asylum or registering refugees, such operations are handled by the UNHCR office in Kuala Lumpur, which has varying capacity to protect refugees depending on levels of government cooperation. The UNHCR now reports that their relationship with the Malaysian government is the best that its ever been, with increased ability to intervene when refugees are arrested and improved access to detention camps and centers, where they are now able to register refugees.

Unfortunately, recognition of refugee status from the UNHCR hasnt translated to sufficient rights protection for Rohingya and other refugees in Malaysia. All such migrants are deprived of such basic rights as access to healthcare and to schools for their children. In addition, they are unable to work legally and are thus limited to the unsteady and exploitative informal labor sector. In February 2010, Secretary General for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Datuk Mahmood Bin Adam, announced plans to issue temporary ID cards for UNHCR-recognized refugees, stressing that they cannot work here, but can do odd jobs.24 Such cards had yet to be issued at the time of writing. Adding to their burdens, Rohingya refugees live in constant fear of arrest, detention, and possible deportation. Established in 1972 to maintain peace and security in the country, the Peoples Volunteer Corps (RELA) acts primarily to conduct raids and arrest of illegal immigrants. Since 2005, RELA has had expanded powers to use firearms, raid premises and arrest refugees and other undocumented migrants without warrant. RELA often conducts joint operations with police and the Immigration Department, during which large numbers of refugees are rounded up and arrested. In 2006 and 2007, there were several raids targeted specifically toward Rohingya refugees. Though RELA is said to have toned down its aggressive pursuance of Rohingyas, several we spoke with expressed their persistent fear of immigration raids. In

18 United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, World Refugee Survey 2009. 19 Amnesty International, Abused and Abandoned: Refugees Denied Rights in Malaysia, June 2010, pg. 3. 20 Equal Rights Trust, Trapped in a Cycle of Flight: Stateless Rohingya in Malaysia. January 2010, pg. 6. 21 Malaysia Immigration Act, 1959-1963, <http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b54c0.html> (accessed August 12, 2010). 22 Equal Rights Trust, Trapped in a Cycle of Flight: Stateless Rohingya in Malaysia. January 2010, pg. 35. 23 Consultation with UNHCR officers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 26 July 2010. 24 Amnesty International, Abused and Abandoned: Refugees Denied Rights in Malaysia, June 2010, pg, 12.

April 2010, a young Rohingya man living in Penang had to flee the construction site where he works when 30 to 40 RELA officers arrived during lunch-hour looking for undocumented workers.25 Those with UNHCR cards were not taken, while 19 lacking documents, including Rohingya, Indonesian, and Chinese migrant workers, were arrested and put in detention. As he hasnt been registered with the UNHCR, he ran with others and managed to escape. He still works at the site and lives in fear of the next raid.

VulnerabletoHumanTracking

In the recent past, deportation from detention centers directly into the hands of human traffickers at the ThaiMalaysia border was a prevalent problem for Rohingya and other refugees arrested in Malaysia. Collusion existed between prison guards, immigration authorities from both Malaysia and Thailand, and human traffickers, with deals often struck within detention centers where brokers were given easy access.27

The experience of a 33-year old Rohingya man living in Kuala Lumpur is consistent with other deportation reports. Though in possession of a UNHCR card, this man and his family were arrested during a nighttime raid at his house in July 2007. After a short stay in an immigration depot, he was detained for two months in Ajil detention camp and then deported to the Thai-Malaysia border, where he was sold to traffickers.28 He was then held there for Undocumented migrants rounded up and detained after a RELA immigration raid in days, unable to pay for his entry back Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. / photos: Mien Ly into Malaysia and threatened to be sold to a fishing boat, until a friend sent him the If arrested, Rohingya and other refugees are detained in required 2,000 ringgits to be smuggled back across the one of 13 immigration detention centers or depots, border. where they live in overcrowded and grimy conditions, lacking health care, sufficient food supplies, and clean drinking water. Fortunately, UNHCR access to such centers has improved dramatically since 2009, and they now have the ability to work for release of refugees and register asylum seekers inside the centers. Recognition of UNHCR cards by police, immigration officials, and RELA is also said to be improving as a result of improved training efforts. There are recent reports, however, of immigration officers in detention centers demanding bribes from refugees and asylum seekers wanting to meet UNHCR officers, limiting the improved access to those able to pay for it.26 Testimonies in other reports29 reveal similar experiences of deportation and being forced to pay a trafficking fee to escape a life of bonded labor on Thai fishing boats. Many have also reported beatings throughout the process, by RELA officials, in detention, and by traffickers. It is believed that a few thousand Burmese migrants, including Rohingya, have been taken to the border in this manner in recent years.30 Fortunately, this practice has reportedly been phased out, with the UNHCR reporting that no deportations have occurred since July 2009. Organizations involved with refugee victim assistance and rights monitoring also report that they havent been informed of recent deportations, though they are careful to not be overly

25 PEF interview with Rohingya man in Jalan Perma, Taman Brown, Gelugor, Penang, Malaysia, July 31, 2010. 26 Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), Malaysia Human Rights Report 2009: Civil and Political Rights, 2010, pg. 134. 27 Equal Rights Trust, Trapped in a Cycle of Flight: Stateless Rohingya in Malaysia, January 2010, pg. 23. 28 PEF interview with Rohingya man in Taman Mudah, Cheres, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, July 16, 2010. 29 Equal Rights Trust, Trapped in a Cycle of Flight: Stateless Rohingya in Malaysia. January 2010; United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Trafficking and Extortion of Burmese Migrants in Malaysia and Southern Thailand, April 3, 2009; Tenaganita, The Revolving Door: Modern Day Slavery Refugees, 2008. 30 United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Trafficking and Extortion of Burmese Migrants in Malaysia and Southern Thailand, April 3, 2009.

optimistic about the permanence of this improvement. Possible reasons for such improvement include increased international attention to the problem, for example the downgrading of Malaysia in the 2009 US Trafficking in Persons Report31 and an April 2009 report to the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which implicated Malaysian officials in the trafficking of Burmese refugees.32 Following such attention, several immigration officials were arrested on trafficking charges. While the cycle of back-and-forth deportation and trafficking of refugees across the Thai-Malaysia border, aided by corrupt immigration officials, appears to have ceased, trafficking from Thailand to Malaysia still exists and pervasive trafficking networks are still active in both countries as well as in Bangladesh and North Arakan. Many Rohingya themselves are involved in these networks, which operate in collusion with law enforcement officials in different locations and stages of trafficking. More recently, in 2009 many refugees and asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, and Burma (including some Rohingya) began boarding boats in southern Malaysia headed to Australia via Indonesia, in hopes of being resettled.33 Thus, while there have been some improvements in combating trafficking of refugees to and from Malaysia, there are still networks active in profiting from the fears and hopes of refugees desperate for a decent future.

Krom refugees is low compared to those of other displaced groups in the region, they are a manifestation of a larger human rights crisis involving ranging forms of persecution, legal uncertainty and statelessness, and varying levels of human insecurity in three countries of Southeast Asia.

Landlessness, poverty, and human rights abuse in Vietnam The Khmer Krom (lower Khmer) are a Khmer ethnic group from the Mekong Delta, the southernmost region of Vietnam bordering Cambodia, the Gulf of Thailand, and the South China Sea. Most speak Khmer as their primary language and the vast majority practice Theravada Buddhism, a form that is particularly marginalized in a country already wary of religious organization. While the Vietnamese government has for years pinned the Khmer population at just over one million, other sources estimate up to 13 million Khmer Krom people living in the country.34 The largest ethnic minority group in the Mekong Deltas 13 provinces, the Khmer Krom are mainly concentrated in the following: Soc Trang, Tra Vinh, Kien Giang, An Giang, Bac Lieu, Can Tho, Vinh Long, and Ca Mau.35 Referred to as Kampuchea Krom (Lower Cambodia) by its Khmer inhabitants as well as by many Cambodians who regard the area as a lost portion of the ancestral homeland of Khmer people, the Mekong Delta provinces were once incorporated as part of the French protectorate, Cochinchina, before being ceded to Vietnam in 1949. This colonial remapping is at the root of the current crisis faced by Khmer Krom inside Vietnam and elsewhere. Landlessness and poverty are intertwined problems suffered by the ethnic Khmer of the Mekong Delta, an area with the largest number of low-income people and the 2nd highest level of landlessness in Vietnam.36 Relying heavily on agriculture for their livelihoods, Khmer Krom people have been devastated by decades of land reform policies and practices that have effectively

III. PERSECUTED KHMER KROM

Nearly 300 Khmer Krom refugees and asylum-seekers currently live in Bangkok. A small number have been recognized as refugees by the UNHCR, with a handful being granted asylum in 3rd countries. Most, however, are lying low in a country that regards them as illegal immigrants. Though the number of recognized Khmer

31 The United States Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, 10th Edition, June 2009; Malaysia was downgraded to Tier 3, indicating that the government did not fully comply with minimum standards and werent making significant efforts to do so. Malaysia was upgraded to Tier 2 Watch List in 2010 for making significant efforts to comply with standards. 32 United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Trafficking and Extortion of Burmese Migrants in Malaysia and Southern Thailand, April 3, 2009. 33 Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), Malaysia Human Rights Report 2009: Civil and Political Rights, 2010, pg. 135. 34 Religion, politics and race, Phnom Penh Post, May 4-17, 2007. 35 Human Rights Watch, On the Margins: Rights Abuses of Ethnic Khmer in Vietnams Mekong Delta, January 2009, pg. 14. 36 AusAID, Mekong Delta Poverty Analysis, 2004, pg. 21.

10

redistributed the majority of formerly Khmer Kromowned land to the Vietnamese government and ethnic Vietnamese farmers.37 Land-grabs by corrupt government officials persisted in subsequent years, leading to land rights protests that grew in the 1990s. An escalation of such protests occurred in 2007 and 2008 with increasingly severe repression.38 Fearing harsh reprisal from the Vietnamese government, many known leaders of such protests have fled the country.

particularly for monks, and leaving the country without prior authorization is prohibited. Freedoms of expression and assembly are also regularly abused, as evidenced in restrictions on Khmer language publications and harsh repression of peaceful demonstrations.

Violations of civil and political rights were made most clear during the police crackdown on peaceful monk protests and land rights demonstrations that Despite guarantees of occurred in 2007 and freedom of belief and 2008, deemed by Human religion in the Vietnamese Rights Watch as bareconstitution,39 persistent knuckled, indefensible threats to religious and political repression.40 cultural freedoms of the The monk demonstrations, Khmer Krom are common. calling for more religious Vietnamese authorities freedom and Khmer Five defrocked Khmer Krom monks, eventually given asylum and strictly control local language/culture resettled in the Netherlands and Sweden. / photo: Lenny Thach practices among Khmer education, resulted in the Buddhists, making arrest and eventual intrusive decisions about religious ceremonies, content defrocking (disrobing) of several activist monks, despite of curriculum, internal elections of chief monks, and pledges by authorities to address the monks more recently, disciplinary measures. The confiscation, concerns.41 destruction, and neglect of Khmer Krom pagodas has Around the same time, growing numbers of protests by also angered religious rights activists, as these poor and landless farmers were met with harsh structures serve as centers for the preservation of repression tactics, including the use of dogs and electric Khmer religion, culture and identity. Practice of Khmer batons to disperse crowds.42 As with the monk language is under threat as well, with some police protests, arrest and increasingly stringent surveillance reportedly prohibiting Khmer instruction in Pagoda of activist leaders followed, leading to prevalent fears of schools, the only sources of such education. government reprisal. These fears have prompted many Though article 69 of the Vietnamese constitution known activists to flee the country, with several espouses a commendable list of civil liberties, practices eventually ending up in Thailand as asylum seekers. in relation to the Khmer Krom (among other ethnic minorities and religious groups) consistently run counter to such obligations as well as to those outlined in the Statelessness and insecurity in Cambodia International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Vietnam is a state party. Freedom of Fleeing desperate poverty, landlessness, and an overall movement is restricted at local and national levels, environment of discrimination against ethnic Khmers in

37 Khmer Krom Federation, The Khmer Krom Journey to Self-Determination, 2009, pg. 167. 38 On the Margins: Rights Abuses of Ethnic Khmer in Vietnams Mekong Delta, Human Rights Watch, January 2009, pg. 47 39 1992 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (As Amended 25 December 2001), Article 70. 40 Vietnam: Halt Abuses of Ethnic Khmer in Mekong Delta, Human Rights Watch statement, January 2009. 41 Human Rights Watch, On the Margins: Rights Abuses of Ethnic Khmer in Vietnams Mekong Delta, January 2009, pgs. 27-43. 42 Ibid. 44-48.

11

Vietnam, since the early 1980s hundreds of thousands of Khmer Krom (the majority not asylum seekers) have made the surreptitious journey out of their villages and through unofficial border crossings usually on foot with the help of locals living along the border in search of better lives in neighboring Cambodia, a country with language and religion common to the Khmers from Vietnam. Religious and land rights activists have migrated more recently to seek protection from Vietnamese government reprisal. Gaining such protection from the Cambodian government, however, has proven complicated and disheartening for many.
Unfullledci-zenshippromisesanddeniedasylum

that they change their birthplace to a Cambodian location and their surnames to those that dont reveal Khmer Krom identity. Every individual we interviewed who was able to obtain an identification card did so through this process of denied identity. In one case, an entire village of 104 people was denied ID cards until making these changes.46 Though this recent trend suggests that more people are gaining citizenship and avoiding statelessness, it is nevertheless problematic

The Cambodian Law on Nationality, adopted in 1996, states that any person who has one or both parents of Khmer nationality is afforded rights as a Cambodian citizen,43 offering a vague definition of citizenship that is open to interpretation by government officials responsible for implementation. The Cambodian government has, however, made repeated statements affirming full citizenship and corresponding state protection for Khmer Krom people from Vietnam.44 Unfortunately, government practices have proven contradictory to their statements, instead taking the form of discriminatory, inconsistent, and ambiguous processes of citizenship recognition at commune and district levels that have rendered many Khmer Krom stateless.45 Khmer Krom residents we spoke with reported discrimination by local officials administering registration campaigns, including intentional neglect of Khmer Krom households during notifications, deferrals of Khmer Krom registration to future registration phases that never occur, and outright denial of registration opportunities based on Khmer Krom identity. Corruption among local officials in the form of demanded bribes for services promised by the government was also reported. Such actions have effectively restricted the poorest Khmer Krom individuals and families from the citizenship registration process. More recently, Khmer Krom individuals and communities who have lived in the country for years have been able to obtain identification cards only under the condition
Stateless Khmer Krom children, Kandal province, Cambodia. / photo: Pei Palmgren

that Khmer Krom are forced to renounce their identity and falsify information to obtain proof of citizenship. Rather than helping those fleeing persecution in Vietnam, the governments citizenship promise has only complicated the process of asylum seeking for Khmer Krom in Cambodia. Though Cambodia is party to the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, the governments insistence that ethnic Khmers from Vietnam are automatic Cambodian citizens precludes their refugee status in Cambodia. Prior to 2005, Khmer Krom were able to seek asylum in Cambodia and several successfully gained refugee status with the UNHCR in Phnom Penh. The asylum application process ended, however, after the Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a letter to the UNHCR assuring them that the Khmer Krom have full citizenship status in the country.47

43 Cambodia Law on Nationality, article 4, <http://www.interior.gov.kh/uploads/files/Law_on_Nationality.pdf> (accessed August 10, 2010). 44 Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs letter No. 1419, August 2, 2005; Letter from the deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Minister of justice, letter No. 7725, November 21, 2006; His Excellency Deputy Prime Minister Hor Namhong meets with the US Assistant Secretary of State, Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of Cambodia to the United Nations Monthly Bulletin, March 2007, <http://www.un.int/cambodia/Bulletin_Files/March07/ Minister_HOR_Namhong_meets_with_US.pdf> (accessed August 10, 2010). 45 See Khmer Kampuchea Krom Human Rights Organization, Report: Problem Assessment/survey and 2007 Project Monitoring, Koh Kong and Sihanoukville, May 11, 2007; Khmer Kampuchea Krom Human Rights Organization, Report: On Collecting the Issues and Statistics of Khmer Kampuchea Krom in the Communities of Ka-Orm Samnor Commune, Leuk Dek District, Kandal Province, July 30, 2007. 46 PEF interview with Khmer Krom community leader of Khsom Village, Baneay Dec Commune, Kien Svay District, Kandal Province, Cambodia, July 10, 2010. 47 Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs letter No. 1419, August 2, 2005.

12

Since the 2005 citizenship affirmation, the UNHCR has not allowed any asylum applications to be submitted by Khmer Krom who have fled Vietnam, maintaining that, as a refugee agency, they are unable to offer protection and/or assistance to people within their country of citizenship. The government-run refugee agency, which has recently assumed control of refugee status determination in the country, will undoubtedly continue to deny any asylum bids from those that they assert are Cambodian citizens. Without the prospect of gaining refugee status, some asylum seekers have attempted to gain the citizenship that is promised to them, which proves to be a frustrating and often futile process. For example, a group of 24 Khmer Krom asylum seekers who were deported from Thailand to Poipet, Cambodia, in December 2009 spent months, with the help of local NGOs and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human rights (OHCHR), trying to gain identification cards to live legally in Cambodia. With their legal status in limbo, they were eventually denied identification cards on the basis of having no fixed address, yet they were unable to find jobs and rent homes without first having the cards.48 Those unable to obtain citizenship documents are living as stateless people without full rights afforded to citizens. As such, they face several social and economic disadvantages, including lack of access to healthcare, restricted employment opportunities, inability to vote, denial of birth certificates and education for children, limits to free travel, and restrictions on owning land.49 The lack of a regularized citizenship registration process for the Khmer Krom in Cambodia is contributing a crisis of statelessness that affects both asylum seekers and other Khmer Krom migrant communities. Such conditions of statelessness are in turn potential causes of refugee situations that could grow if left unaddressed.

RepressionandinsecurityofKhmerKromac-vists

Throughout 2007, several incidents occurred that highlighted the lack of rights and security enjoyed by politically active Khmer Krom monks in Cambodia, many of whom fled government reprisal after protest crackdowns in Vietnam. On February 27, fifty-two such monks holding a peaceful demonstration in support of fellow monks in Vietnam were stopped by over 150 Cambodian police wielding shields, tear gas, electric batons and guns outside of the Vietnamese embassy in Phnom Penh.50 The monks were held in buses and threatened with defrocking before being released after intervention from local human rights workers.51 Later that night, one of the monks, Eang Sok Thoen, was found dead in his pagoda with his throat slit in three places. Within 24 hours the death was labeled a suicide and the body was buried before an autopsy or any investigation could be conducted.52 Rights workers believe that the death was a murder likely related to the demonstrations. Subsequent incidents occurred throughout 2007, during which monks attempting to deliver letters to the Vietnamese embassy in Phnom Penh protesting the defrocking, imprisonment, and disappearance of monks in Vietnam were confronted by heavily armed police and in one case a group of unidentified civilians and local monks. Such incidents resulted in clashes, a nighttime beating of a Khmer Krom monk on his way home, and the use of electric batons by police who chased and beat monks as they fled the heavily shielded embassy. 53 Seemingly in response to the earlier demonstrations, on June 8, Supreme Patriarch, Non Nget, chief of Phnom Penh monks, issued a directive in conjunction with the Minister of Cults and Religion, Khun Haing, ordering monks in the country to stop taking part in such protests. In addition, monks known to have participated in the 2007 demonstrations reported being under close surveillance by Cambodian authorities, with one telling

48 Khmer Krom ID denied, The Phnom Penh Post, February 22, 2010. 49 Khmer Kampuchea Krom Human Rights Organization, 2008 Annual Narrative Report, December 2008; PEF interviews with Khmer Krom people in Takeo and Kandal provinces, Cambodia, July 10-12, 2010. 50 50 Monks Stage Protest Near Vietnamese Embassy, The Cambodia Daily, February 28, 2007. 51 LICADHO, Attacks & Threats Against Human Rights Defenders in Cambodia, 2007, August 2008. 52 Ibid. 53 LICADHO, Attacks & Threats Against Human Rights Defenders in Cambodia, 2007, August 2008; Khmer Kampuchea Krom Monks Chased and Assaulted by Police in Phnom Penh, CCHR-CHRAC-CLEC-LICADHO Media Statement, December 17, 2007.

13

us that he was compelled to go into temporary hiding due to continual harassment and threats of arrest. 54 Furthermore, it is widely believed among monks and human rights workers that Vietnamese spies, recognized as regular visitors to pagodas, are also involved in monitoring Khmer Krom monk activities within Cambodia. The above incidents and surveillance measures clearly indicate a concerted effort on the part of Cambodian authorities to curb any political activity, however peaceful, of Khmer Krom monks. Such efforts seem to be working, as no further demonstrations have occurred since the end of 2007. Several monks we interviewed expressed their fear of being politically active and their lack of confidence in the Cambodian government to protect them, especially after the death of Eang Sok Thoen and the arrest, deportation, and sentencing in Vietnam of Tim Sakhorn,55 a leading activist monk who had previously been defrocked for allegedly breaching Buddhist discipline and causing a split in national and international unity, especially between the two countries of Cambodia and Vietnam.56 The Tim Sakhorn case is especially alarming, as it highlights the cross-border collaboration that is taking place between Cambodia and Vietnamese governments in suppressing Khmer Krom activism, revealed in various

helping to combat what he called plots and operations of hostile forces opposing the Vietnamese revolution, also accusing Khmer Krom activists of trying to oppose and destroy.58 Such cross-border collaboration has also been reported in cases involving non-monks, such as the attempted arrest of a man in Cambodia by Vietnamese police for distributing Khmer Krom-related books.59 Considering the strict repression of Khmer Krom political activity in Cambodia and the ability Vietnamese authorities have in monitoring and arresting dissidents in the country, it is understandable that those who feared reprisal inside Vietnam are also afraid for their security in Cambodia. Such a fear has compelled an increasing number of Khmer Krom rights activists to seek asylum in Thailand.

Searching for refuge in Thailand Many Khmer Krom activists on the blacklist of the Vietnamese government have escaped to Thailand due to insecurity in Cambodia, crossing the border covertly by foot with the help of locals. There are currently nearly 300 Khmer Krom refugees living in Bangkok, regarded as illegal immigrants by the Thai government. Already rejected or with diminishing prospects of asylum, many live in poor and insecure conditions, distressed by constant fear of arrest and deportation.
SeekingasyluminBangkok

In early 2007, the UNHCR in Bangkok provided several Khmer Krom asylum seekers with certificates that minimized the threat of deportation, and Left: Khmer Krom kids in Bangkok, unable to attend school; Right: preparing ingredients for a few were granted refugee local food vendors / photos: Ang Chanrith status. As the situation in Vietnam and Cambodia internal Vietnamese government reports and memos.57 deteriorated in late 2008, increasing numbers began Recently, Vietnams deputy minister of public security, arriving, and over 40 Khmer Krom have now been Tran Dai Quang, lauded Cambodian authorities for

54 PEF interview with 28-year-old Khmer Krom monk in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, July 13 2010. 55 See Human Rights Watch, On the Margins: Rights Abuses of Ethnic Khmer in Vietnams Mekong Delta, January 2009, pg. 68; After his initial disappearance, Sakhorn was sentenced to a year in prison by a court in An Giang province for violating Vietnams national unity policy under article 87 of the countrys penal code. He was subsequently released and allowed to return to Cambodia. He eventually fled to Thailand and gained asylum in Sweden, where he now lives. 56 Tep Vong Orders Khmer Krom Monk Defrocked, The Cambodia Daily, July 2, 2007. 57 Human Rights Watch, On the Margins: Rights Abuses of Ethnic Khmer in Vietnams Mekong Delta, January 2009, pg. 75. 58 Vietnam applauds Cambodias help in combating plots, Deutsche Presse Agentur, August 4, 2010. 59 Khmer Krom man on the run from Vietnamese arrest (inside Cambodia!), Radio Free Asia, February 22, 2009.

14

recognized as refugees, while over 100 have been rejected.60 In addition, 6 monks who fled to Bangkok after their arrest and subsequent release in Vietnam were eventually granted asylum and resettlement. Many Khmer Krom, however, have been denied asylum due to lack of or insufficient documentation proving serious threats of individual persecution by the Vietnamese government, such as written arrest warrants or records of imprisonment, which are difficult to obtain given the arbitrary nature of their arrests. Others have had difficulty with applications because of misconceptions of citizenship recognition in Cambodia. With the UNHCR understanding that all Khmer Krom are granted Cambodian citizenship, asylum applicants must substantiate persecution in both countries to be recognized as refugees in Thailand. This complicates the asylum application process, as complex circumstances of citizenship denial and insecurity in Cambodia may not yet be fully understood.
Lingeringrisksofdeporta-on

group we talked to reported earning an average of 100 baht per day doing informal tasks for Thais at the local market, such as food preparation and cleaning. A handful of men have found temporary work on construction sites. Fearing arrest, many stay at home during the day and go out looking for work at night, which limits the opportunities available. Their status as illegal immigrants has also left many vulnerable to labor exploitation by employers who can easily withhold payment from illegal migrants too afraid to turn to authorities. A handful of Khmer Krom have been able to register, with the help of local NGOs, as temporary migrant workers, which offers them some levels of security. Given the lack of stable employment opportunities, those residing in and around Bangkok live as some of the poorest and most marginalized people in Thai society. Many have problems earning enough money to provide adequate supplies of food for their families and at times resort to begging from local Buddhist temples. Securing decent housing is also a challenge. Khmer Krom and other refugees are restricted to the poorest areas of Bangkok that have relatively affordable rent. Without legal status, they must rely on supportive Thai people to help them rent houses, providing the Thai friends money to pay rent in their names. Lack of access to education for children and healthcare are also of great concern to those we spoke with. Many requested access to public schooling but were rejected because the government doesnt accept children of noncitizens who were not born in the country. None of the children who live in the community we visited were attending school, a heartbreaking reality for the parents, who become very emotional when talking about the uncertain future of their children. As non-citizens, the Khmer Krom have no access to healthcare and cannot go to hospitals for proper treatment of illnesses, instead limited to insufficient remedies from the pharmacy. With little hope of gaining asylum, these conditions are the norm for Khmer Krom in Thailand who are becoming increasingly dejected about their limited prospects for the future.

Several of the Khmer Krom we spoke with in Thailand have asylum seeker certificates that have expired or will soon expire. Without the prospect of gaining refugee status, and afraid for their security in both Vietnam and Cambodia, these former activists have little choice but to live as illegal immigrants, marginalized and insecure. As such, they lead inconspicuous lives, avoiding activity during the day and limiting their travel out of fear of being arrested and deported. Such fear has been substantiated by the Thai governments strict deportation policy and recent record of Khmer Krom deportations. On June 13, 2009, for example, 62 Khmer Krom were arrested and 54 were eventually deported to Cambodia. Some of the deportees, many of whom fled Vietnam because of land disputes with the government, had certificates from the UNHCR recognizing their asylum applications. In December 2009, 24 Khmer Krom were deported to Cambodia, some of whom had re-entered Thailand after being deported in June. Again, several of them were in various stages of the asylum application process. After failing to obtain the documents necessary for the issuance of Cambodian ID cards, many of these Khmer Krom asylum seekers have returned to Thailand as stateless migrants.
Povertyandmarginaliza-on

IV. LAO HMONG ON THE RUN

Deprived of legitimate legal status, Khmer Krom asylum seekers rely on informal jobs to support themselves. A
60 Discussion with UNHCR Senior Protection Officer in Bangkok

In late December 2009, the Thai government forcibly returned nearly 4,500 Lao Hmong who had been living in a makeshift camp in Petchabun province back to Laos.

15

Another 158 Lao Hmong who had been detained in a Nong Khai detention center for three years were also deported, despite the fact that they had been recognized as refugees and accepted for resettlement to 3rd countries. Though the Lao government has assured Thailand and the international community that the returnees will be resettled without harm, many Hmong fear for their safety in Laos. Such an act of refoulement, as well as the conditions suffered by the refugees while in Thailand, constitutes one of the more troubling responses to a refugee crisis in the region.

provinces.66 In addition to lacking adequate food, clothing, housing, and medical care, these scattered groups are subject to attacks and persecution by the Lao military, which continually ambushes clusters of nomadic Hmong. The few journalists who have accessed the jungle encampments have reported on desperate groups of poor and malnourished families living in makeshift bamboo shacks, many having bullet and shrapnel wounds suffered while foraging for food.67 Hmong refugees we talked to in Thailand also described a severe lack of food and clothing during their time in the jungle and reported constantly having to relocate out of fear of being killed by soldiers. Those who have surrendered have reportedly been harassed, detained and subjected to various forms of ill treatment by the government.68 As such, fleeing to Thailand is thought to be the only hope for many in need of safety.

Hiding in the jungles of Laos The Hmong are a highland tribe residing in southern China, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand. They began settling as farmers in the northern mountains of Laos in the late eighteenth century and currently number 450,000, constituting 8% of the total population and the third largest ethnic group in the country.61 Beginning in the early 1960s, many ethnic Hmong fought against the Communist Pathel Lao forces as part of the CIA-funded Secret Army, formed primarily to attack communist supply routes running through the jungles of Laos. After the communist victory in Laos in 1975, the new government sent many Hmong and other opponents to re-education camps, where they were held without trial in harsh conditions for over a decade.62 An estimated 10,000 Hmong were killed in retribution during this time.63 Others fled Laos, mostly to seek refugee status in Thailand and resettle elsewhere. Between 1975 and 1996, over 125,000 Hmong refugees were resettled in third countries, most going to the United States.64 Thousands of Hmong who stayed in Laos retreated to forest areas out of fear of retribution from the new Lao government, forming an armed resistance movement that was quickly thwarted and is nonexistent today, with the exception of a few armed bandits.65 Currently, a few thousand Hmong, including women, children and elderly, still live in hiding in jungles areas of Bolikhamxay, Xieng Khouang, Vietiane, and Luang Phrabang
62 Ibid. 5 63 The Hmong and the CIA, Time, December 20, 2009.

Warehoused in Thailand For years, Thailand was the main hosting country for Hmong who fled Laos. In late 2004, many Hmong from the jungles began crossing the Mekong River into Thailand, with large numbers settling in Petchabun province. Others made their way to Bangkok and other provinces, where they lived furtively as undocumented immigrants. Though Thailand used to be known for helping to resettle the Hmong, more recently the government has implemented detention and deportation policies that have endangered many Hmong fearing persecution in Laos.
ConnedinHuaiNamKhaocamp

After first living in forests on the outskirts of Huai Nam Khao village, subsisting on food provided by local residents and working on local farms, five to six thousand Hmong asylum seekers were eventually forced to settle on the sides of the towns main road in cramped living spaces with little access to food, shelter, drinking water and healthcare (Medicins Sans Frontieres soon set up an outpatient clinic). By mid-2007, there where 7,500 Hmong living in the encampment, and soon

61 Amnesty International, Hiding in the Jungle: Hmong Under Threat, March 2007, pg. 4.

64 Amnesty International, Hiding in the Jungle: Hmong Under Threat, March 2007, pg. 5. 65 Ibid. 5. 66 Ibid. 9. 67 Out of the Jungle, Al Jazeera, March 13, 2008. < http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2008/03/2008525185848806332.html> (accessed September 1, 2010). 68 Amnesty International, Hiding in the Jungle: Hmong Under Threat, March 1007, pg. 16.

16

after they were relocated to a barbed-wire-enclosed camp three kilometers from the village center. The Huai Nam Khao camp was strictly controlled by the Thai military, which restricted movements of Hmong to inside the camps. No educational facilities for children or employment opportunities for adults existed. In addition, the UNHCR was prevented from accessing the Hmong to carry out refugee status determinations. The Thai government, maintaining that the Hmong were illegal economic migrants, refused to recognize them as asylum seekers and carried out no refugee processing of their own.

amount of food and access to clean water and proper sanitation facilities.70 In 2007, all 158 (some born in detention) Hmong refugees obtained visas to be resettled to 3rd countries after being interviewed by the UNHCR and embassies of the United States, Australia, the Netherlands, and Canada. Such resettlement, however, was denied by the Thai government, which instead deported the Hmong in Nong Khai, as well as those in the Huai Nam Kao camp, to Laos.
Vic-msofRefoulement

In May 2007, Thailand and Laos signed the Lao-Thai Committee on Border Security agreement, which allowed Thailand to send any Hmong asylumInside the camp, Medicins seekers back upon arrival Sans Frontieres (MSF) in Thailand. In September provided humanitarian aid 2007, the two countries Lao Hmong kids in Huai Nam Khao camp, Petchabun province, to the Hmong until April agreed that the Hmong in Thailand. / photo: Ann Peters 2009, when the ThaiHuai Nam Khao would be based Catholic Office for repatriated before the end Emergency Relief and Refugees (COERR) was chosen by of 2008. Though this mass repatriation was halted by the military to take over such operations. During their interventions from the UNHCR and several local and time working in the camp, MSF found that the main international human rights organizations, over one health problems suffered by the Hmong were hundred Hmong, including several children, were forcibly psychological, mainly anxiety exacerbated by the returned to Laos throughout 2007.71 Though the Lao constant fear of repatriation.69 government denied mistreatment of these returnees, they never allowed independent monitors to investigate DetainedasillegalimmigrantsinNongKhai reports that emerged of forced disappearances, torture, and arbitrary detention upon return.72 Outside of the camp, hundreds of Hmong settled in Bangkok and other provinces, living in hiding and On the morning of December 28, 2009, representatives sometimes moving so as to avoid being noticed by local from 3rd country embassies came to the Nong Khai police. Despite obtaining UNHCR certificates evidencing detention center to inform the Hmong that they would be refugee status, they still feared deportation in a country sent back to Laos for 30 days before being resettled in that fails to recognize Hmong as refugees. In 2006, the countries that accepted them. Later that evening, 194 of these Hmong (most from Laos but a few from the phone signal in the center was cut off and hundreds Vietnam) were arrested during a 6 am police raid on of soldiers came to put the Hmong on a bus headed their homes. They were sent to the IDC in Bangkok for across the border to Laos. The worst fears of those in 21 days before being transferred to the Nong Khai the Huai Nam Khao camp also came true on December detention center, where they lived in jail-like conditions 29, when police wielding shields and dressed in riot gear for three years. The handful of Hmong from Vietnam evicted the Hmong and sent them on their way to Laos. was immediately sent to that country. In the Nong Khai detention center, the refugees slept on the floor in two cells separated by gender. They were given 2 hours of exercise per day and had a limited
69 Medecins Sans Frontieres, Briefing Paper: The Situation of the Lao Hmong Refuges in Petchabun, Thailand, October 2007. 70 PEF discussion with Hmong refugees in Bangkok, August 23, 2010. 71 Medecins Sans Frontieres, Briefing Paper: The Situation of the Lao Hmong Refuges in Petchabun, Thailand, October 2007. 72 URGENT ACTION: Refugees Forcibly Returned to Laos, Amnesty International, January 13, 2010.

17

Forced repatriation Though told they would be taken to hotels in Vientiane, the deported Hmong from the Nong Khai detention center were instead taken to an army camp and then to a larger camp in Bolican Sai province, where many Hmong from the Huai Nam Khao camp were also taken. At this camp, they were strictly guarded by soldiers and had to be asleep by 8 pm each night. The government provided only small rations of rice and instant noodles for food. Those from Nong Khai reported being monitored much more closely than those from the camp in Petchabun. In addition, they were coerced into writing letters stating that the Lao government was taking good care of them and that they wanted to stay in Laos. Those who subsequently escaped and returned to Thailand reported to us that they were threatened and beaten before they agreed to sign the letters. After a week in the Bolican Sai camp, the Hmong returnees were moved to the Phonkham resettlement village in Borikhamxay province, where they live today (with the exception of escapees and the few who have reportedly been resettled in other villages). In this village, police strictly controlled the returnees movements and watched over them 24 hours a day. After clusters of returnees began escaping the camp, guards reportedly threatened to kill those who attempted to do the same. The government has also kept them in the dark about their situations, especially regarding the promised resettlement to 3rd countries. In February and March of 2010, foreign diplomats, journalists, and UN representatives were allowed to visit the resettlement village, though some whove since returned to Thailand reported that they were coached before each visit to report good conditions in the camps and their desire to stay in Laos rather than be resettled in 3rd countries. During the second visit, a meeting was abruptly cut short after the Hmong began expressing their fears to the delegates, and many individually reported that they felt unsafe and uncertain as to what would happen to them.73 Subsequent visits by foreigners have also been orchestrated and restricted. While we are unable to verify reports of coercion, poor living conditions, and mistreatment given by the handful of Lao Hmong who have escaped repatriation camps and returned to Thailand,74 there has been insufficient transparency from the Lao government during the ongoing repatriation process to refute them. Such a

lack of access to living conditions of Lao Hmong returnees and the overall uncertainty of their well-being raises many concerns regarding Thailand and Laos treatment of this vulnerable group as well as the broader humanitarian implications of bilateral agreements that neglect the rights of refugees. In this case, what has been poorly handled as a bilateral immigration issue now requires closer regional and international attention, with a focus on the rights of the Lao Hmong.

By the numbers: Refugees of ASEAN

C O U N T RY REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS RESIDING Burma/ Myanmar Brunei Darussalam Cambodia Indonesia Lao PDR Malaysia Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam 164 2,567 0 76,404 150 7 115,552 2,357 17,248 20,223 8,592 681 1,797 93 903 340,489 1 0 0 REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS FROM 429,252

Source: UNHCR, as of January 2010 Note: These gures reect data collected by the UNHCR and country governments and thus dont account for refugees and asylum seekers who have not been registered.

73 Resettled Hmong Feel Unsafe, Radio Free Asia, March 28, 2010, <http://www.rfa.org/english/news/laos/resettledhmong-03282010163246.html>, (accessed September 2, 2010). 74 As of November 17, 2010, those who escaped and came back to Thailand were finally allowed to be resettled to the US and Australia.

18

V. CONCLUSION: TOWARDS REGIONAL SOLUTIONS

The examples of the Rohingya, Khmer Krom, and Lao Hmong refugee situations reflect the complexity, diversity, and urgency of refugee problems that exist in Southeast Asia. The case of the stateless Rohingya illustrates a refugee crisis that is unquestionably regional in scope, born in Burma and continually spreading throughout multiple countries of Southeast Asia and beyond. The small but growing number of vulnerable Khmer Krom asylum seekers in Thailand is indicative of a larger human rights crisis rooted in Vietnam and complicated by problems of statelessness and insecure conditions in Cambodia. The recent forced return of Lao Hmong refugees back to a country where they face possible persecution exhibits an action that is contrary to key principles of international refugee protection and a frightening example for the region. So far, ASEANs response to these and other refugee problems has been severely lacking. While ASEAN identified the Rohingya boat people crisis as a regional issue in need of regional solutions, it was only informally addressed at the 14th ASEAN Summit and then referred to the Bali Process for People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crimes, an intergovernmental forum focused more on crime and security than protection of refugee rights. ASEAN officials have remained silent on other refugee situations, regarding them as internal country issues or bilateral matters. In addition, while ASEAN is developing plans for the protection of migrant worker rights, specific mention of refugees in the Roadmap for an ASEAN Community, 2009-2015 is limited to a commitment to promote cooperation for orderly repatriation of refugees/displaced persons,75 indicating the as yet limited conception of and/or consensus on fundamental priorities for refugees in the region. With stated commitments to human rights in the new ASEAN Charter, including the stipulation to establish a human rights mechanism,76 ASEAN initiated a regional human rights system that should have the ability to address refugee rights in Southeast Asia. The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) was inaugurated during the 15th ASEAN Summit in October 2009 and serves as the main mechanism tasked to promote and protect human rights and
75 Roadmap for an ASEAN Community, 2009-2015, B.3.1. 76 ASEAN Charter, Article 14. 77 AICHR Terms of Reference (TOR), Article 1(1).

fundamental freedoms of the peoples of ASEAN.77 Though still in the nascent phase of its stated evolutionary approach to human rights protection, the AICHR is the unit of ASEAN potentially able to take a lead in promoting and protecting refugee rights in the region. It can begin to do so by explicitly including such rights in the forthcoming ASEAN Declaration on Human Rights (ADHR) and by further investigating refugee situations in the region, possibly as part of the bodys planned thematic study on migration. As sustainable solutions to refugee problems are needed, AICHR should also use its mandate to facilitate the development of a regional framework for protection of refugees and asylum seekers. Precedents for such a framework exist, particularly in the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Convention governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problem in Africa and the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees. Both serve as the basis for refugee policy among state signatories, outlining essential principles and standards of treatment for refugees in Africa and Latin America, respectively, including affirmation of international human rights standards and the role of the UNHCR and emphasis of the principle of non-refoulement. These agreements can serve as examples for ASEAN to agree upon better ways to protect persecuted populations outside of their countries of origin. With hundreds of thousands of refugees, asylum seekers, and other forcibly displaced people in Southeast Asia falling through the cracks of national legal mechanisms inadequate to ensure their rights, it is time for ASEAN to include refugee rights protection in their formal agenda. Without such attention, goals for achieving an integrated people-oriented regional community by 2015 will be severely undermined by the neglect and mistreatment of some of the regions most vulnerable people. ASEAN and its newly established human rights commission can address problems by facilitating multilateral dialogues, including participation of civil society organizations and direct stakeholders, and action on the most pressing refugee situations. In particular, a regional agreement that delineates core principles, standards of treatment, and shared responsibility for refugee protection among ASEAN member states can contribute substantially to solutions to refugee problems.

19

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS TO ASEAN

Facilitate dialogues, with participation from civil society organizations and direct stakeholders, on addressing the root causes of refugee problems. Develop regional burden sharing mechanisms to address refugee issues, possibly following examples of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees (Latin America). Encourage non-signatory ASEAN states to sign, ratify, and implement the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 protocol as well as the 1954 Convention on the Status of Stateless persons. Urge ASEAN governments to implement national mechanisms to identify and legislation to protect the rights of refugees. Include the rights of refugees and stateless persons under the mandate of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) and explicitly safeguard those rights in the proposed ASEAN Declaration on Human Rights (ADHR). Urge states to respect the principle of
non-refoulement (non forcible repatriation) to countries of

origin.

Encourage ASEAN countries to actively seek alternatives to detention. Provide refugees with the same rights as citizens in keeping with principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Recognize children of refugees born in country of asylum through birth registration and birth certificates. Urge countries of asylum to provide access to health, education and livelihoods to all refugees, asylum seekers and stateless people.

20