Wednesday, December 03, 2003
December 3rd
Time to Play Catch-Up
Check out my photos at: http://photos.yahoo.com/jill_schnoebelen
or click on the link in the left column (I'm so proud I learned how to put that there!).
Malaysia International Visitors' Programme
So, from November 9-17th, I was an invited participant on a program sponsored by the Institute for Strategic and International Studies, a Malaysian think tank. I was not prepared for what grand treatment I would be given---somehow they mistook me for someone important enough to be pampered and treated like royalty!
We were put up in the Mandarian Orient Hotel; I got my own air conditioned room, with hot water and a bathtub even. After three weeks at the UIA campus, this was paradise. AND lots and lots of meals at really nice restuarants, where I could order as many drinks as I wanted and dessert and not have to pay! Then they even FLEW us to Langkawi, a famous island vacation spot of the west coast in the north, not far from Thailand. We went snorkeling and ate lots of fish. I opted out of one dinner to go to a night market with a Malay lifeguard I met and learned to say: "saya sudah pergi ke Langkawi, makan ekan, lihat laut dan pantai." Translated: I went to Langkawi, ate fish, and saw the sea and beach. It's always good (and easier) to learn language from locals--especially cute ones like Anuar!
Of course, there was actually something to be learned during this week as well. They arranged meetings for us with government officials (Minister of Defense, Minister of Foreign Affairs--one of these two will likely become the Deputy Prime Minister), the chief of police, economists, editors of newspapers, etc. The others on the program included two professor Fulbrighters, two French journalists, a South Korean TV news anchor, a few other Asian journalists who deal mostly with money and economic matters, and a St. Louis lawyer on the American Muslim Council. They were an interesting crew, but after more than a week, I found it difficult to be with them constantly, trying to think of things to say to them (all much older, professionals).
The week gave me a great overview of a lot of issues and I'm glad it came at the beginning of my trip. However, I don't think we got a completely honest view of Malaysia--we got the primped, made up version. For example, at the Conference on Torture, I heard first hand accounts of torture happening here. But when I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs why Malaysia hadn't signed the Convention Against Torture, he said that there was no torture happening in Malaysia, and that many countries sign the treaties but do not implement them in actuality.
We also visited an NGO called "Sisters in Islam," which works for women's rights and education and pushes "progressive" Islam...Not that they're changing it, but that the one true Islam needs to be understood in the socio-economic time the Quran was revealed and in its entirety, not just parts (ie multiple wives allowed, but goes on to say must treat equally and fairly and virtually impossible to, so would show that though permissiable, not encouraged). Or the idea that women should only inherit 1/2 of what a man does is in a situation where men are responsible for providing for the women, but that in today's society they do not, so it shouldn't be assumed to apply (idea that with rights come responsiblity, without responsibility, don't have that same entitlement). I have a feeling that the group has both strong supporters and strong opponents. My friends i asked about it dismissed them, saying that they were interpreting the Quran their way and that you can't do this. My thought was, at least the way the Sisters in Islam sell it, Islam is more acceptable to me/the west. I think it was with the idea to be like, "look, West, Islam is okay."
Regarding refugees, it seems that Malaysia doesn't want to make their neighbors mad and claim that the issue is internal to those countries. Regional politics is a sad excuse to not protect vulnerable, persecuted people. But the more I talk to people, I realize that they don't seem to be aware of these issues--they see the foreigners as the cause of social ills--just want the government wants, to be able to scapegoat them. Even SUHAKAM, the Human Rights Comission (funded by the government, supposedly independent, but not), said that the first issue to look at was that the people are illegal, so they can't do anything for them even if there are human rights abuses. There is a big problem if the government refuses to recognize that their is a difference between illegal immigrants, migrant workers, and refugees...
Malayisa has released a "Smartcard" national ID. The card acts a license, an ATM card, has access to medical health information from blood type and meds to xrays, is like a passport (though they have a physical passport as well since other countries don't have the system equipment yet). It is encoded, so that one type of information is not accessible to another (i.e. doctors can't look at bank statements, immigration officials can't look at medical reports). At first I thought it sounded like an efficient, good system, but then thought "Big Brother"...
Random
I saw my first episode of Fear Factor at the hotel. One of the challenges was eating some gross part of a pig (the rectum perhaps?!?), but it was censored out.
When I'm around foreigners, I tend to notice how they speak very loudly. It is a very American thing to do. And Schnoebelen, of course. It makes me cringe.
When in Langkawi, I had this momentarily fear that it was because of women like me that Dahab (Egypt town on Red Sea) is the way that it is (male workers very aggressive and flirtatious, but in overbearing way that can really wear on you). I had approached a Malay lifeguard, Anuar, to ask him when the boat would be leaving, but also because I wanted to talk to him. Langkawi men are not obnoxious as Dahab men are, but what if in a few years, it becomes that way because foreign women somehow encourage it? Was Dahab ever like Langkawi? But it's more complicated than that: I used to think that Dahab would be perfect without the men as they are there, but realized that things in Langkawi were a bit...boring and almost wished that I was getting attention from someone!
Trial for "Karachi 13"
On November 21, I went to the Second High Court for a hearing related to 13 Malaysian students who are suspected of having received militant training in Pakistan. They were first arrested in Pakistan two months ago, but released and deported. When they arrived, the students (aged 16 to 25) were arrested by the police who claimed that they could have been trained as the next generation of the Jemaah Islamiah (JI) militant organization. They were detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA), which gives the government a license to basically arrest anyone they deem to be a threat to national security, without having to bring charges and with no right to a trial. The sentence is for an initial 2 years, renewable indefinitely. The ISA is used often to jail political opponents. In the 60s, the government merely had to claim someone was a Communist in order to jail him (not unlike the days of McCarthy). Today, terrorism is used as an excuse to jail people. (In the 70s, trade unionists; in the 80s, opposition politicians; in the 90s, NGO workers and non-Sunni branches of Islam.)
The only thing to do is file a habeas corpus motion that there was some procedural error that makes the detention unlawful. That was what this hearing was for.
Now, my first thought was: if these kids are terrorists-in-the-making, then they deserve to be behind bars. But, then I thought about it. The effect of the ISA is not unlike Guantanamo Bay--people being placed behind bars, without knowing the charges against them, without seeing any evidence, without getting a free and fair trail, without knowing when they will be free. And they very well could be innocent. Is this what the War on Terror has done to me: to believe that national security really should trump human rights?!? Egads. Luckily, that was just my first knee-jerk response.
This gave me a chance to reflect on my intended career path of human rights lawyer. To be a human rights defender, you have to defend the system and all individuals. There can be no picking and choosing based on some ability I believe I have to know someone's guilt or innocence. There are standards to be upheld regardless of who the person is or what they did/did not do. I guess leading up to this, I always just envisioned defending those that needed defending (refugees, certainly not terrorists) or prosecuting the bad (rapists, murderers, etc., but not woman who kill their abusive husbands).
Unlike the Egyptian courthouse that I saw (broken windows, dirty, metal cage for detained, people selling tea and consessions like it was a baseball game), this was more in lines with an American courtroom. The differences: a photograph of the King and Queen; lawyers in big, black robes; no security checkpoints. I was also told that crossing your legs was not allowed once the judge was in the room because it was a sign of disrespect--I watched and when I saw others crossing their legs later, I did too regardless. There were three woman wearing niqab (full veil), which is a rare thing for Malay women to do. Is this indicative of the families being ultra conservative? Is it a sign that there houses may be the breeding ground for extremists? (After the session ended, I spoke to one of them, who was actually not related to any of the students, but her husband was detained under the ISA earlier this year for suspected terrorist activities...she seemed nice. Her eyes smiled and sparkled in a way that I do not believe could have been hiding some deep-seated hatred of me for being American.)
It felt strange to be sitting in that courtroom, as an American. I wondered how it was that other people were perceiving me. Did they think I was checking up and making sure Malaysia was being harsh on terrorists or that I work for the CIA?
The detainees were not in the courtroom, and it wasn't until the morning of the hearing that lawyers had access to them (a second team). The hearing started at 11:30, though it was scheduled for 9 am. I think that something fishy was going on--they said that usually they only start a half-hour late. Was the judge waiting for instructions from above on how to rule??!
The government respondent who spoke was using Malay. The judge, however, spoke English. A few minutes into the hearing, the judge apologized to that lawyer for responding to him in English. And added that he saw that not everyone in the room was Malaysian (obviously referring to me because I was the only non-Malaysian) and that if they represented the media, he would want them to understand (or something like that). Then: "speaking English doesn't mean we're any less Malay." So the government lawyer tried to switch over to English, though he obviously wasn't as comfortable in that mode. When he read something aloud, the judge corrected his pronounciation and then said, "I think you're better off in Malay." The judge was...well, he was a jerk. The defense lawyers (all Chinese Malaysians, mostly schooled in English) were much better in English, so this was all to their advantage. My whole thought during this was: who am I!?! I don't have more of a right to understand what is going on than, say, the parents of the detained! And I felt guilt that because of me, perhaps they were missing what was going on. (I've also heard other stories where if lawyers speak English, certain judges will say repeatedly, "I can't hear you," until they switch to Malay.)
Check out a bit of the judge's logic, when discussing when to have the next hearing, if the government respondents would be ready quickly or need time: the right of the respondent lawyers to take leave/vacation outweighs the rights of the detained. Your opponent (again, this refers to the government lawyers) have their own plans, the press has its plan, not just the detained to consider. UMMM, even if the detained are INNOCENT?!?
The judge ended up disallowing the motion because it was filed by the mothers of the students. He said that the students themselves should have signed their own affidavits (but, of course, the lawyers had not even had access to them before to enable that!). So now the lawyers will have to re-file another habeas corpus application--if they can get access to the detained. 4 of the 13 have been released, but are being "monitored."
Time to Play Catch-Up
Check out my photos at: http://photos.yahoo.com/jill_schnoebelen
or click on the link in the left column (I'm so proud I learned how to put that there!).
Malaysia International Visitors' Programme
So, from November 9-17th, I was an invited participant on a program sponsored by the Institute for Strategic and International Studies, a Malaysian think tank. I was not prepared for what grand treatment I would be given---somehow they mistook me for someone important enough to be pampered and treated like royalty!
We were put up in the Mandarian Orient Hotel; I got my own air conditioned room, with hot water and a bathtub even. After three weeks at the UIA campus, this was paradise. AND lots and lots of meals at really nice restuarants, where I could order as many drinks as I wanted and dessert and not have to pay! Then they even FLEW us to Langkawi, a famous island vacation spot of the west coast in the north, not far from Thailand. We went snorkeling and ate lots of fish. I opted out of one dinner to go to a night market with a Malay lifeguard I met and learned to say: "saya sudah pergi ke Langkawi, makan ekan, lihat laut dan pantai." Translated: I went to Langkawi, ate fish, and saw the sea and beach. It's always good (and easier) to learn language from locals--especially cute ones like Anuar!
Of course, there was actually something to be learned during this week as well. They arranged meetings for us with government officials (Minister of Defense, Minister of Foreign Affairs--one of these two will likely become the Deputy Prime Minister), the chief of police, economists, editors of newspapers, etc. The others on the program included two professor Fulbrighters, two French journalists, a South Korean TV news anchor, a few other Asian journalists who deal mostly with money and economic matters, and a St. Louis lawyer on the American Muslim Council. They were an interesting crew, but after more than a week, I found it difficult to be with them constantly, trying to think of things to say to them (all much older, professionals).
The week gave me a great overview of a lot of issues and I'm glad it came at the beginning of my trip. However, I don't think we got a completely honest view of Malaysia--we got the primped, made up version. For example, at the Conference on Torture, I heard first hand accounts of torture happening here. But when I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs why Malaysia hadn't signed the Convention Against Torture, he said that there was no torture happening in Malaysia, and that many countries sign the treaties but do not implement them in actuality.
We also visited an NGO called "Sisters in Islam," which works for women's rights and education and pushes "progressive" Islam...Not that they're changing it, but that the one true Islam needs to be understood in the socio-economic time the Quran was revealed and in its entirety, not just parts (ie multiple wives allowed, but goes on to say must treat equally and fairly and virtually impossible to, so would show that though permissiable, not encouraged). Or the idea that women should only inherit 1/2 of what a man does is in a situation where men are responsible for providing for the women, but that in today's society they do not, so it shouldn't be assumed to apply (idea that with rights come responsiblity, without responsibility, don't have that same entitlement). I have a feeling that the group has both strong supporters and strong opponents. My friends i asked about it dismissed them, saying that they were interpreting the Quran their way and that you can't do this. My thought was, at least the way the Sisters in Islam sell it, Islam is more acceptable to me/the west. I think it was with the idea to be like, "look, West, Islam is okay."
Regarding refugees, it seems that Malaysia doesn't want to make their neighbors mad and claim that the issue is internal to those countries. Regional politics is a sad excuse to not protect vulnerable, persecuted people. But the more I talk to people, I realize that they don't seem to be aware of these issues--they see the foreigners as the cause of social ills--just want the government wants, to be able to scapegoat them. Even SUHAKAM, the Human Rights Comission (funded by the government, supposedly independent, but not), said that the first issue to look at was that the people are illegal, so they can't do anything for them even if there are human rights abuses. There is a big problem if the government refuses to recognize that their is a difference between illegal immigrants, migrant workers, and refugees...
Malayisa has released a "Smartcard" national ID. The card acts a license, an ATM card, has access to medical health information from blood type and meds to xrays, is like a passport (though they have a physical passport as well since other countries don't have the system equipment yet). It is encoded, so that one type of information is not accessible to another (i.e. doctors can't look at bank statements, immigration officials can't look at medical reports). At first I thought it sounded like an efficient, good system, but then thought "Big Brother"...
Random
I saw my first episode of Fear Factor at the hotel. One of the challenges was eating some gross part of a pig (the rectum perhaps?!?), but it was censored out.
When I'm around foreigners, I tend to notice how they speak very loudly. It is a very American thing to do. And Schnoebelen, of course. It makes me cringe.
When in Langkawi, I had this momentarily fear that it was because of women like me that Dahab (Egypt town on Red Sea) is the way that it is (male workers very aggressive and flirtatious, but in overbearing way that can really wear on you). I had approached a Malay lifeguard, Anuar, to ask him when the boat would be leaving, but also because I wanted to talk to him. Langkawi men are not obnoxious as Dahab men are, but what if in a few years, it becomes that way because foreign women somehow encourage it? Was Dahab ever like Langkawi? But it's more complicated than that: I used to think that Dahab would be perfect without the men as they are there, but realized that things in Langkawi were a bit...boring and almost wished that I was getting attention from someone!
Trial for "Karachi 13"
On November 21, I went to the Second High Court for a hearing related to 13 Malaysian students who are suspected of having received militant training in Pakistan. They were first arrested in Pakistan two months ago, but released and deported. When they arrived, the students (aged 16 to 25) were arrested by the police who claimed that they could have been trained as the next generation of the Jemaah Islamiah (JI) militant organization. They were detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA), which gives the government a license to basically arrest anyone they deem to be a threat to national security, without having to bring charges and with no right to a trial. The sentence is for an initial 2 years, renewable indefinitely. The ISA is used often to jail political opponents. In the 60s, the government merely had to claim someone was a Communist in order to jail him (not unlike the days of McCarthy). Today, terrorism is used as an excuse to jail people. (In the 70s, trade unionists; in the 80s, opposition politicians; in the 90s, NGO workers and non-Sunni branches of Islam.)
The only thing to do is file a habeas corpus motion that there was some procedural error that makes the detention unlawful. That was what this hearing was for.
Now, my first thought was: if these kids are terrorists-in-the-making, then they deserve to be behind bars. But, then I thought about it. The effect of the ISA is not unlike Guantanamo Bay--people being placed behind bars, without knowing the charges against them, without seeing any evidence, without getting a free and fair trail, without knowing when they will be free. And they very well could be innocent. Is this what the War on Terror has done to me: to believe that national security really should trump human rights?!? Egads. Luckily, that was just my first knee-jerk response.
This gave me a chance to reflect on my intended career path of human rights lawyer. To be a human rights defender, you have to defend the system and all individuals. There can be no picking and choosing based on some ability I believe I have to know someone's guilt or innocence. There are standards to be upheld regardless of who the person is or what they did/did not do. I guess leading up to this, I always just envisioned defending those that needed defending (refugees, certainly not terrorists) or prosecuting the bad (rapists, murderers, etc., but not woman who kill their abusive husbands).
Unlike the Egyptian courthouse that I saw (broken windows, dirty, metal cage for detained, people selling tea and consessions like it was a baseball game), this was more in lines with an American courtroom. The differences: a photograph of the King and Queen; lawyers in big, black robes; no security checkpoints. I was also told that crossing your legs was not allowed once the judge was in the room because it was a sign of disrespect--I watched and when I saw others crossing their legs later, I did too regardless. There were three woman wearing niqab (full veil), which is a rare thing for Malay women to do. Is this indicative of the families being ultra conservative? Is it a sign that there houses may be the breeding ground for extremists? (After the session ended, I spoke to one of them, who was actually not related to any of the students, but her husband was detained under the ISA earlier this year for suspected terrorist activities...she seemed nice. Her eyes smiled and sparkled in a way that I do not believe could have been hiding some deep-seated hatred of me for being American.)
It felt strange to be sitting in that courtroom, as an American. I wondered how it was that other people were perceiving me. Did they think I was checking up and making sure Malaysia was being harsh on terrorists or that I work for the CIA?
The detainees were not in the courtroom, and it wasn't until the morning of the hearing that lawyers had access to them (a second team). The hearing started at 11:30, though it was scheduled for 9 am. I think that something fishy was going on--they said that usually they only start a half-hour late. Was the judge waiting for instructions from above on how to rule??!
The government respondent who spoke was using Malay. The judge, however, spoke English. A few minutes into the hearing, the judge apologized to that lawyer for responding to him in English. And added that he saw that not everyone in the room was Malaysian (obviously referring to me because I was the only non-Malaysian) and that if they represented the media, he would want them to understand (or something like that). Then: "speaking English doesn't mean we're any less Malay." So the government lawyer tried to switch over to English, though he obviously wasn't as comfortable in that mode. When he read something aloud, the judge corrected his pronounciation and then said, "I think you're better off in Malay." The judge was...well, he was a jerk. The defense lawyers (all Chinese Malaysians, mostly schooled in English) were much better in English, so this was all to their advantage. My whole thought during this was: who am I!?! I don't have more of a right to understand what is going on than, say, the parents of the detained! And I felt guilt that because of me, perhaps they were missing what was going on. (I've also heard other stories where if lawyers speak English, certain judges will say repeatedly, "I can't hear you," until they switch to Malay.)
Check out a bit of the judge's logic, when discussing when to have the next hearing, if the government respondents would be ready quickly or need time: the right of the respondent lawyers to take leave/vacation outweighs the rights of the detained. Your opponent (again, this refers to the government lawyers) have their own plans, the press has its plan, not just the detained to consider. UMMM, even if the detained are INNOCENT?!?
The judge ended up disallowing the motion because it was filed by the mothers of the students. He said that the students themselves should have signed their own affidavits (but, of course, the lawyers had not even had access to them before to enable that!). So now the lawyers will have to re-file another habeas corpus application--if they can get access to the detained. 4 of the 13 have been released, but are being "monitored."
