Statelessness Working Paper Series No. 2016/07 Philippines, Cambodia and East Timor), is neither a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the 1954 Convention nor the 1961 Convention. As such, the inconsistency of asylum policy is not highlighted by the international community at treaty bodies or at the Universal Periodic Review. 4. The flip side of the coin There is no doubt that the burden of hosting refugees and stateless persons within the South East Asian region falls primarily in the hands of certain countries such as Thailand and Malaysia, due to their geographical location. Prior to the massive exodus of refugees from the Middle East to Europe, the former High Commissioner of the UN Refugee Agency, Antonio Guterres, stated that “Overall, it’s still the developing world that is carrying the lion’s share of responsibility for hosting refugees.”34 Although the quote above may not reflect the current situation of refugee influx into Europe, on cannot deny that countries such as Malaysia and Thailand host large numbers of refugees and stateless persons and these numbers only seem to be growing. As there is no policy for the integration of refugees or stateless persons in Malaysia, refugees and stateless persons, such as the Rohingya, arrive in this country only to be housed temporarily. However, based on the various ad hoc policies that seem to favour Muslim refugees, there is a glimmer of hope for some refugees—such as the Rohingya—that they may be able to attain some status in the country. The lack of accession to the relevant treaties by Malaysia has only created a situation whereby some refugees and stateless persons are protected whilst in Malaysia, while others are not similarly protected. With the lack of accession to the relevant treaties, the issue of protection becomes discretionary and not obligatory. Ensuring that the authorities exercise this discretion in a manner that benefits refugees and stateless persons is of utmost importance. 5. Conclusion As existing policy in Malaysia relating to refugees and stateless persons is created and applied on an ad hoc basis, the argument can be made that a policy vacuum exists in the country.35 There is uncertainty within the governmental authorities as to how to deal with refugees and stateless persons. This, in turn, leads to partiality among groups or communities that arrive in the country seeking asylum or hope to be recognized stateless. Without the assistance of UNHCR, Human Rights Commissions such as SUHAKAM, and non-governmental organisations such as the Malaysian Social Research Institute (MSRI) or Asylum Access, among others, refugees and stateless persons could possibly spend months or even years in detention. 36 Executive departments have broad and discretionary powers to place persons in (indefinite) detention. Such inconsistencies are not aligned with international human rights standards and need to be addressed by the executive who ultimately have the prerogative to accede to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the 1954 Convention and the 1961 Convention. Accessions to these conventions would steer the course for greater consistency in policy-making, and creating awareness of the 34 Anon, ‘What now for boat people’, The Star, 22 May 2011, p 23. S.V. Dev, ‘Accounting for State Approaches to Asylum Seekers in Australia and Malaysia: The Significance of “National” Identity and “Exclusive” Citizenship in the Struggle against “Irregular” Mobility’ p 52. 36 Anon, ‘What now for boat people’, The Star, 22 May 2011, p 23. 35 6