The latest crackdown on Acehnese asylum-seekers and recognised refugees is deeply regretted. The government's incapability to deal with them in a humanitarian way entrenches our country in the Third World category. The situation demonstrates Malaysia's failure to be progressive in matters of human rights, by taking the easy way out in dealing with asylum-seekers and refugees.

The arguments put forward by the government and the premature statement by Foreign Affairs Minister Syed Hamid Albar show that the principles behind the many government-sponsored peace exercises are mere deception.

'Malaysians For Peace', the 'Caring Society' campaign, and many more remain only a conceptual commitment for the public to see - merely for decorative purposes.

The true spirit and aspiration behind the themes of humanity and goodwill are made irrelevant by the clear manner of Malaysia's double standards in the face of a humanitarian conflict. The principles of humanity are universal.

In past years, Malaysia been involved in protecting victims of conflict, including many from Bosnia, Afghanistan, Palestine and even Iraq. Support was even handed out during the mass exodus of Vietnamese boat people from the late 1970s.

The principles that triggered their flight into our country are the same as that faced by the Acehnese. Despite this fact staring at the government, it refuses to give in and consider any basis on which asylum can be considered, including the temporary protection (TP) status offered by United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

While Malaysia is not a party to the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, it is nonetheless bound by the fundamental principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits any person being returned to a country where they face serious human rights violations.

This principle, outlined in Article 33 of the 1951 Convention and in numerous other international instruments and declarations of the UN General Assembly, is a norm of customary international law and is binding on all states.

TP may assist democratic states in mediating competing public demands - that asylum not be a back door to immigration, but that humanitarian ideals be sustained. However, the important aspect of being on the receiving end of a mass influx stimulates demands international solidarity.

Responsibility-sharing has long been noted as a vital aspect of refugee protection and proposals for construction of such regimes have aroused intense interest. While the barriers to creating sustainable and concrete responsibility-sharing remain high, the prospect of mutual insurance against heavy and unpredictable risk attracts states to participate in discussions of TP formalisation.

Responsibility-sharing may involve a variety of supportive measures. Even under the current individuated system, wealthier states give financial support to international humanitarian agencies and heavily burdened states of refuge.

Third states may also offer to resettle selected refugees. Further, third states may intervene to reduce conflict or rebuild shattered institutions in states of origin so as to facilitate safe and dignified return.

Under the 1967 Declaration on Territorial Asylum: "where a state finds difficulty in granting or continuing to grant asylum, states individually or jointly or through the United Nations shall consider, in a spirit of international solidarity, appropriate measures to lighten the burden on that state".

For example, the Kosovo situation is an interesting illustration of ad hoc responsibility sharing. Several states participated in the organised evacuation of refugees from regional temporary protection, recognising that a concrete manifestation of solidarity was vital to securing minimal protection in the face of mass influx.

TP has been an effective interim response in situations of mass influx; where individualised refugee status determination is infeasible and where the international community has made a concerted commitment to provide resettlement or intervention to restore conditions for safe repatriation.

Seeing that the notion of responsibility-sharing and regional solidarity is the paramount policy of Asean and in recognising Malaysia's good bilateral relations with Indonesia , the need to provide temporary protection should be considered.

Furthermore, Malaysia as a country that subscribes to Islamic values should take note of the concept of 'Hijrah' that marks one of the fundamental points in the history of Islam. The Hijrah refers to the Prophet's migration from Mecca to Madinah. The word Hijrah means to leave a place to seek sanctuary or freedom from persecution or freedom of religion or any other purpose.

As a country that subscribes to Islam, the plight of Acehnese asylum-seekers should be recognised by the government in name of Islamic brotherhood and in solidarity.

During our celebration of Merdeka, the flying of flags is not vital to our demonstration of patriotism - it is time to move away from treating the notion of Malaysians For Peace and Caring Society as mere decoration and move towards the true spirit and aspiration embodied in those themes.