1. The Malaysian Federation on the Rohingya
COUNTRY: The Malaysian Federation
TOPIC AREA: The Unceasing Persecution of Rohingya Refugees
COMMITTEE: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Clashes of religious identity and ethnic disparity amongst Burmese communities in
1989 to this day has been a major obstacle for Myanmar’s leaders. Differences between these
communities brew distrust and discrimination within the population, threatening the rise of
refugees in the area. The growing animosity between the Burmese government, different
religious and ethnic groups regarding the Rohingya’s rights of citizenship has been a brutal
and ruthless one, igniting mass violence over time. Burmese authorities took it a step further
with the launching of Operation Naga Min in 1978, aimed at rooting out people they deemed
illegal. [1] Having been brought to the Rakhine state of Burma from Bangladesh during pre-
colonial times by the British, the Rohingya were stripped of their citizenship and deprived of
fundamental human rights from claims of the Burmese government. They are yet to be
acknowledge as citizens under the 1982 Citizenship Act, deemed to be illegal immigrants by
state authorities. Partisans of the minority group have pointed to evidence of early Rohingya
settlements as far back as the 15th century, stating the rightful acknowledgement of their
citizenship. [2] Being shoved further into the margins of society, their situation became
marked with constant struggle, impoverishment, and loss of life, leading to mass
displacement of stateless persons and increased trafficking activities. Disputes between
opposing groups erupted, triggered by allegations from both parties killing 150,000 and
displacing 100,000 in mere months. Many oppressed became desperate to leave the country,
seeking refuge in neighboring nations, giving into trafficking out of fear of repression,
discrimination, and prosecution. The gravity of the situation has turned dire, a disheartening
reality for the Rohingyas; drawing in the attention of the international community. [3]
CURRENT CONDITION
The Rohingya crisis have expanded beyond the borders of Myanmar, mounting the
problem to an international level. Many Rohingyas seek refuge in neighboring nations, of
whom were welcomed with adverse gestures; some with open arms, others with reluctance.
Concerning the reality of the refugees influx that puts burden on many developing countries,
many fear them to be detrimental to the social, political, and economic balance of said nation;
putting them at a difficult position. [4] Subjected to forced labour, holding no land rights, and
experiencing severe limitations on their freedom of movement, there is not much that the
Rohingya can do; leaving them vulnerable to exploitation and trafficking, where they are
treated as commodities. Unable to buy their freedom back, traffickers market them as slaves.
Providentially, ASEAN efforts to combat trafficking has increased over the years; a joint
trafficking eradication team was recently created. In the wake of recent violence in Myanmar,
the Rohingya were directed to internment camps for safety by Burmese government;
however, more often than not, the opposite happens. Confined to these internment camps and
ringed by armed guards, the Rohingya fall victim to starvation, disease and even death.With
restrictions against aid groups and diminishing supplies, there is a limit to alleviate the
conditions. [5] Through UNHCR, the international community has assisted more than an
estimated 800,000 stateless persons in temporary camps, supporting health coverage and food
distribution. With the support of ASEAN, regional response was forward yet tentative due to
the lack of responsiveness and cooperation from concerning nations. [6]

2. POSITION OF THE MALAYSIAN FEDERATION
The plight of the Rohingya can no longer be ignored by the governments of Southeast
Asia. As the Chairman of ASEAN, Malaysia has exhibited credible leadership in its response
to the Rohingya crisis. Malaysia expresses the urgency for a long-lasting solution that can
only be achieved through change within Myanmar, supported by an inclusive ASEAN
community to develop conducive measures to tackle this issue once and for all. Malaysia is
currently opening its borders indefinitely in light of recent events. [7] Malaysia has assisted
more than 150,000+ refugees with de facto UNHCR status from its joint rescue missions with
neighboring countries and contributed over 20,16 million USD in supplies and protection
programs. The Malaysian Immigration Act protects refugees under international human rights
standards, where they are given permits to temporary residency, education, and work. The
government has reached out to local NGOs and grassroots movements to build schools,
provide access to healthcare, legal services and protection letters. [8] Furthermore, Malaysia
has taken steps to reduce the number of illegal immigrants by working with its regional
neighbors. The UNHCR has not yet been able to provide the level of support needed by
developing host nations to carry out these programs effectively. [9] However, the state
remains committed in supporting the Myanmar government to encourage peace in the
Rakhine state with the coexistence, tolerance and acceptance among the various faiths and
ethnicities. Through leading the exchange of dialogues in regional conferences, Malaysia
played a key role in diplomatic talks with Myanmar and ASEAN members to diffuse tensions
in the region and subsequently vivifying the most conciliatory response from the Myanmar
government to date. [10] Our nation remains committed to the peaceful settlement of this
issue. We recognize Rohingya’s citizenship rights to be acknowledged.
PROPOSED ACTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS
1. Recommends the Unconditional Protection of Refugees
Welcomes the efforts of UNHCR, member state governments, and relevant bodies to
strengthen regional capabilities and capacities to protect the rights of refugees. Suggests the
involved and affiliated organizations to establish monitoring missions in Rakhine state to
reduce tensions and foster peace between opposing parties. Endorses opening safe routes to
sanctuary for refugees and the granting of asylum to refugees and allow them to remain until
conditions become conducive for their return in safety. Further requests UN temporary
resettlement programs to ease integration to host nation’s societies.
2. Further Invites Efforts of Reinforcing Trafficking Policies
Implement emergency responses for seafaring refugees, including the networking of relevant
national agencies to enhance information exchange and dissemination of criminals,
methodologies, arrests, and trends in trafficking by utilizing modern telecommunications
technology. Considers developing regional treaties on cooperation in criminal justice for
mutual legal assistance and extradition at the investigative, prosecutorial and judicial level.
3. Supports the Streamlining of Legal Frameworks and International Law
Deplores the need for inter-communal dialogue and conflict resolution to be prioritized in
Rakhine state to address community segregation. Regrets the lack of facilitation in capacity
building and financial support from developed nations, recommends establishing more
inclusive, definite, and nationally appropriate legal framework and revision of previous
conventions to harmonize policies of member states and unite guidelines to action.

3. APPENDIX
1. Constantine, Greg. “Exiled to Nowhere: Burma’s Rohingya.” 2012. Print. United
Kingdom: Refugees International.
2. Poling, Gregory B. “Separating Fact from Fiction about Myanmar’s Rohingya.” Center for
Strategic and International Studies. N.p. 13 February, 2014. Web. 7 November, 2015.
3. “2015 UNHCR Country Operations Profile – Myanmar.” UNHCR: The United Nations
Refugee Agency. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. N.d. Web. 8 November,
2015.
4. Gomez, Margarita Puerto and Christensen, Asger. “The Impacts of Refugees on
Neighboring Countries.” The World Bank: World Development Report. 29 July, 2010. Web.
9 November, 2015.
5. Motlag, Jason. “These Aren’t Refugee Camps, They’re Concentration Camps.” TIME
World Magazine. TIMES. 17 June, 2014. Web. 9 November, 2015.
6. Russel, Sharon Stanton. “Refugees: Risks and Challenges Worldwide.” The Online Journal
of the Migration Policy Institute. N.p. 1 November, 2002. Web. 10 November, 2015.
7. Xiong, David Han Guo. “Rohingya Refugee Crisis: Testing Malaysia’s ASEAN
Chairmanship.” Relief Web. Nanyang Technological University. 28 May, 2015. Web. 10
November, 2015.
8. “2015 UNHCR Country Operations Profile – Malaysia.” UNHCR: The United Nations
Refugee Agency. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. N.d. Web. 10 November,
2015.
9. Kelley, Ninette et al. “Protection Gaps Framework for Analysis: Enhancing Protection of
Refugees.” 2008. Strenghtening Protection Capacity Project. Print. Geneva: United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees.
10. Teff, Melaine and Yoshikawa, Lynn. “Malaysia: Invest in Solutions for Refugees.”
Refugees International Field Report on Malaysia. Lawyers for Liberty. N.p. 19 April, 2011.
Web. 11 November, 2015.