Should Singapore offer asylum to the Rohingya refugees?

Rohingyas have been fleeing Myanmar for many years. Last month around 7000 refugees on unsafe boats (dubbed “floating coffins”) sailed up to the shores of Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia seeking asylum. Singapore has restated its policy of not allowing refugees to enter our borders, and instead offered financial aid to support the efforts. Commenters are asking whether an affluent but small nation like Singapore has an obligation to help the refugees by offering them asylum. FIVE THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT THIS ISSUE 1. The Rohingyas are Muslims fleeting Myanmar due to alleged oppression. The Rohingyas live in Myanmar in Rakhine State near the border of Bangladesh, and are Muslim minorities who have their own unique language. There are ~800,000 living in Myanmar , with many having moved to neighbouring states legally and illegally. In 2012, there were riots in Rakhine partially due to conflicts with the Buddhist majorities, in which the Myanmese military was accused of participating in violence against them. Myanmar considers them as stateless Bengali Muslims rather than their own citizens, and have confined ~140,000 in camps . There was a mass exodus of refugees (mainly by boat) to escape supposedly increasing violence and persecution against them by the Myanmar military government. Aung San Suu Kyi has not taken a strong stance against this violence. 2. Singapore has a policy not to accept refugees or asylum seekers. The Ministry of Home Affairs has stated that “as a small country with limited land, Singapore is not in a position to accept any persons seeking political asylum or refugee status, regardless of their ethnicity or place of origin.” This echoes the 2009 position stated by the late SMS for Foreign Affairs Balaji Sadasivan in Parliament: “This has been our policy for decades. However, we will assist such persons by providing humanitarian assistance so that they can depart for a third country.” In 2012, 40 Rohingya “boat people” refugees were rescued by a Vietnamese ship which then sailed to Singapore. Singapore refused to accept the refugees, sparking a debate on how our country should handle this situation. In 1978, Singapore created a transit camp to house refugees from Vietnam as long as the UNHCR provided a guarantee that these refugees were going to be resettled in another country subsequently. This noble effort did not go as planned, and the refugees stayed on in Singapore for many decades (until 1998). Some refugees, upon finding out that they might be sent to other countries, even attempted suicide . Singapore changed the policy and rejected refugees ever since. 3. Singapore has offered financial support instead. Singapore has offered US$200,000 to help the refugees, and is considering more. Singapore also offered up to US$672million to the World Bank capital to aid in reconstruction and development efforts of countries like Myanmar. 4. Singapore has not signed the Refugee Convention, thus has no legal obligation. Singapore has not signed the 1951 Refugee Convention or the 1967 Protocol . These documents are part of International Humanitarian Law that state that countries should not reject or return a refugee to their country of origin if they fear persecution (“non-refoulement”). There is thus no legal obligation for us to accept refugees. 5. Other countries in the region have offered asylum to refugees. ASEAN has a policy of non-interference, which means that it is difficult to pressure Myanmar to resolve their issues with the Rohingyas. Philippines is a signatory to the Refugee Convention and has thus offered asylum to some. Individual fishing boats have offered food supplies and even rescued some “boat people.” Seventeen countries met on 29 May 2015 in Thailand to resolve the issue at the “ Special Meeting on Irregular Migration in the Indian Ocean ”, but Myanmar resisted long term solutions and even opposed the use of the term “Rohingya” at the discussion. POLICY DILEMMA What is the best solution for this crisis in the short run and in the long run? There are many options: (1) we could allow the rescued boat people ashore and give them temporary asylum until they are relocated to another country, but this is similar to the 1978 policy that had problems; (2) we could give them permanent asylum and house them here, but there could be social integration and crowding concerns; or (3) we could stick to the current policy of not offering asylum but providing financial support for the effort. Found an error in the brief? Let us know !