In a democracy, public policy proposals are often debated by people via the media, public forums and in parliaments by the elected representatives of the people.
Through this process of debate, proposals are accepted, rejected or amended after taking into account one’s national or foreign policy interests as well as international legal and human rights obligations.
The manner in which the announcement was made about the refugee deal between Australia and Malaysia highlighted once again that discussions and decisions on crucial public policies are often made by a few individuals within the government without any form of openness, transparency or public deliberation.
In the deal, Australia will send 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia for processing and in return, Canberra will accept 4,000 people already assessed to be refugees from Malaysia for resettlement over a period of four years.
One just has to look at Timor-Leste - Asia's newest and one of its poorest nations- to see how much more mature and transparent the decision making process was on this similar issue.
In July last year as Australia's Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre suffered overcrowding, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gilliard proposed a refugee processing centre in Timor-Leste to ease their burden. Similarly to what has been proposed in Malaysia, this offshore centre would keep refugees at a distance while the Australian authorities processed their asylum requests.
Timor-Leste’s Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao responded to the request by stating that his government would consider the request after receiving more information from the Australian government..
The proposal then led to a public debate in the country. Many civil society activists objected to the setting up of the centre arguing that many Timorese could not handle the burden of refugees when many in the country continue to face unemployment, malnutrition and homelessness. The Timorese felt it was just a way for the Australian government to shift its responsibility on this issue to them. They called on the people of Timor-Leste to reject the proposal
Civil society groups also publicly criticised President Jose Ramos Horta for making a statement that he has given the 'green light' to this Australian government policy.
This forced the government to take the proposal to their national parliament to be debated and voted on. All 34 Timorese lawmakers who were present unanimously rejected the proposal to host a refugee processing centre in their country
Australian officials continued to maintain that the processing-centre proposal was still on the table to try and save face until the whole affair simply went away. Gillard then backed away from naming East Timor as the location for such a centre suggesting she had been misunderstood or misquoted in an earlier speech.
On May 8, our Prime Minister Najib Razak announced the refugee deal adding that the timing of when the exchange will begin is yet to be finalised. There was no consultation with relevant stakeholders or with the public prior to this announcement. There wasn’t even a consideration that this issue should be debated in Parliament before a decision was made. This is sad state of ‘democracy’ that we live in.
Nevertheless, over the last week in Malaysia, we have seen a range of concerns raised about this plan from individuals, activists and even lawmakers. Many have citied the inhumane and degrading conditions in our detention centres and the fact Malaysia continues to use ‘caning’ as a form of punishment for immigration violations. It is also a major concern since Malaysia is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
If we are “an example of a thriving democracy that is active and vibrant” as the prime minister claimed in February this year, will he now listen to the voice of the people and review this deal? Or will he ignore the people and have the blood of many more asylum seekers on his hands?
