Statelessness Working Paper Series No. 2016/07 During the economic crisis of 1997-98, in order to curb illegal immigration, the State government instituted a ‘legalization drive’ and made Filipinos re-register as refugees by virtue of their earlier entry into Sabah from the Philippines in the 1970s under President Marcos rule in the Philippines. In 2001, due to the strained relationship between the Malaysian and Philippine government,26 the refugee status of Filipinos was revoked and further stay was conditional only upon receiving work permits. 27 The IMM13 documents were again sought after to gain access to lawful employment, education and healthcare. The erratic policies of the Sabah State government have contributed to the next generation of Filipinos in Sabah being at risk of statelessness. Their recourse would be to acquire nationality in Malaysia through naturalisation which is a discretionary grant of nationality. As Malaysia is not bound by the 1951 Refugee Convention, the 1954 Convention, or the 1961 Convention, there is no obligation to create laws or specific procedures that allow for the granting of asylum or registering of refugees within the State. Nor is there an obligation to repatriate those who are no longer or not considered to be refugees. This coupled with the difficulties in accessing nationality via naturalisation in Malaysia has led to the increase in the number of stateless persons in Sabah. 3.4 Malaysian policy and the Rohingya In recent years, the Burmese have been arriving in Malaysia in vast numbers. The Burmese began arriving in Malaysia in the 1980s and predominantly consist of Christian Chins and the Muslim Rohingya.28 While in Malaysia, the Burmese Chins were promised resettlement by the United States of America through the intervention of UNHCR. At the same time, the stateless Rohingya were promised IMM13 status in the year 2004.29 The process was initiated in 2006, but was halted as the registration exercise was being abused by those with the responsibility of registering the Rohingya whereby the wrong people were getting the privilege.30 Other asylum seekers coming from Burma include Myanmar Muslims, Mon, Kachins and other ethnic minorities.31 The Rohingya are both stateless and have strong claims to recognition as refugees when abroad as they are not considered to be one of the official races of Myanmar32 and have suffered various forms of persecution in Myanmar. Due to their predicament, they have the increased opportunity of being granted asylum. Nevertheless various inconsistencies in governmental practice have been noted in relation to asylum seekers and refugees as stipulated above. Vas Dev is of the view that government statements about asylum seekers have been varied and the fluctuations reflect the absence of a consistent policy pertaining to asylum seekers and refugees.33 As stipulated in the earlier sub-topic, Malaysia, as with various other South East Asian countries (apart from 26 In 2000, the terrorist group known as the Abu Sayyaf, kidnapped foreign tourists and Malaysian from a resort on the island of Sipadan. This caused a strain the relationship between the two countries. 27 Asian Migration News, 30 April 2001 as cited in A. Kaur, ‘Refugees and Refugee Policy in Malaysia’, p 87. 28 A. Kaur, ‘Refugees and Refugee Policy in Malaysia’, p 87. 29 M.H. Adnan, ‘Refugee issues in Malaysia: The need for a proactive, human rights based solution’ (2007) 12 UN EAC Asia Papers, p 5. 30 TENAGANITA, Stop Trafficking People; The Revolving Door; Modern Day Slavery Refugees, TENAGANITA Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2008, p 21. 31 UNHCR Fact Sheet, May 2011, UNHCR Kuala Lumpur. 32 C. Lewa, ‘North Arakan: an open prison for the Rohingya in Burma’ (April 2009) 32 Forced Migration Review, p 11. 33 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’ (2009) 16 Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, p 46. 5