第一次听到她的名字是1995年，当她将一份长长的阐述外劳在扣留营里遭到不人道对待的备忘录后，将扣留营黑幕公布于世的时候。接着，1996年她被逮，后来更援引《1984年印刷机与出版法令》第8A（2）条款控告她“蓄意发表不实消息”。
她是我对于人权课题的启蒙老师 -- 因为她，我认识到我们马来西亚执法单位的不公正。因为她，我认识到外劳、外来移民和我们一样都是人，都应该享有最基本的权益及照顾。
长长7年的审讯，2003年当法庭判她罪名成立，需做一年的监狱 -- 这的判决曾经伤透了很多积极参与社会运动，相信正义的人。
希望可以透过揭发事情的真相，捍卫这些弱势群体的朋友，最后因此而必需为她的正义坐牢。这是相信世间仍然存有正义的我无法理解的事情。
我在妇女援助中心工作的这些日子里，我时常有机会接触艾琳，即使我知道她和我的顶头大上司有点过节，但是我从不掩饰我对她的敬爱。
因为反贩卖人口的工作，我和她、她的妹妹常一同出席一些会议。从她的身上，我看到一位坚持捍卫身为一个人的基本权益而奋斗的勇士，散发的光芒。有几次，看到她拿着拐杖，慢慢、辛苦的走每一步路，但是仍然坚持的身影，我就很想拥抱她、很想哭。
能够认识您，和您共事 -- 我很感恩。恭喜您。
Why I defend migrant workers
“Migrants are human beings. They have the same rights as all of us,” so said Irene Fernandez when asked why she has dedicated her life to helping foreign workers whom Malaysians have invited into our country, and for some, into our homes.
They are here for the good life we have and we have a responsibility to protect them while they are in our country. We are accountable for what we do to them.
“Without them, we would not have the same economic growth we are enjoying today with the kind of cheap labour they are used for,” Fernandez told Malaysiakini in a one-hour interview at her office in Tenaganita. “Some of them go through the same kind of servitude and slavery that is supposedly banished from this country. If I’m in another country, I would expect the people there to protect me. If we cannot protect migrants, then we have no rights to have migrants here at all.”
But the Tenaganita director also drew parallels between the new migrant workers and those who have come to Malaysia from impoverished India and China in the last century.“It is very similar to how the British colonialists used migrant labour in the plantations as cheap labour. Today, we are reacting because as descendants of those migrants who were marginalised, we have that consciousness that we cannot remain marginalised.
“History is repeating itself. I am a product of that, I know what my parents went through. If we do not respond, our children will also suffer at the hands of the same oppressive government.”
The following is an abstract of the one-hour interview 24 hours after the High Court acquitted Fernandez, 64, of the charge of maliciously publishing false news on the conditions of immigration detention centres after a 13-year-long battle.In a memorandum released in 1995 entitled 'Abuse, Torture and Dehumanised Conditions of Migrant Workers in Detention Centres', Fernandez had alleged incidences of torture as well as deaths of undocumented migrants who were detained in the camps
How did you react when you were acquitted?
I didn’t believe that at that point yesterday (Monday) I would be set free and acquitted. I expected the trial to go on this whole week, and the judge would give his judgment, and that’s when things would be much clearer.
But when the prosecution (deputy public prosecutor Shamsul Sulaiman) stood up to say that ‘in order to ensure justice, we will not oppose the appeal’, I knew.
How did you feel?
I was surprised. I believed I’ve been right all this time and I believed I spoke the truth. What I didn’t quite believe in was the judicial system and how independent it is. So, it did come as a surprise.
My first reaction was I gasped, I covered my face and I cried, because 13 years is a very long time. It's been a 13-year struggle with a lot of restrictions. Therefore, it really was to say, 'I'm free'. There is excitement. There is hope. (But) the battle is not over.
The younger generations may not be aware of what exactly had led to the court case. Tell us about the controversial memorandum that you submitted to the government.
We all knew about the conditions in the immigration detention centres. You yourself (referring to Malaysiakini editor-in-chief Steven Gan) had done your own independent research and interviews and found that there were deaths in the (Semenyih detention) camp, and there were attempts to publish these findings in a special issue of The Sun. It didn’t see the light of day.
And so since Tenaganita had done interviews during its course of research on migration, health and HIV/AIDS and we had the information, we called a press conference, sent a memorandum to the government on the conditions, in this case, of the detention centres where these migrant workers were being held.
I had sent it (memorandum) to all relevant agencies and expected that at the least they would do their own investigations and hold accountable all the officers responsible for the torture and abuse and deaths in the camp.
What was in the memorandum?
It was horrific - horrific because there were deaths in the camps. We had migrants who said they had seen 20 deaths. They held the detainees in their arms as they died. There were abuses. There was denial of sufficient food and water. People died from beri-beri. There were at least 46 deaths.
When the government holds people under custody, you have to hold them responsible so that the lives are protected under that custody. So when people die from beri-beri - that is blatant torture and abuse. It’s like a planned or organised, premeditated murder. You see the guy shrinking, but there’s no access to treatment, and then he died. How can you just let go?
And beri-beri is considered a very easily treatable disease.
Exactly. It was a really, really serious issue. The torture, how people were abused, the conditions in the toilets that were blocked with excreta, the other contagious diseases. Migrants were wearing the same pants and shirt that they entered the camps with. Women had no sanitary napkins. Pregnant women could get no special care. It was really horrific.
Someone had described it as a ‘hell hole’.
I wrote that it was like concentration camps in peace times, which became one of the items in my charge sheet. It was an opinion (piece) that they had turned into a factual aspect for the charge sheet.
In March 18, 1996, I was arrested in my home and charged for publishing false news - not for criminal defamation under the Printing Presses and Publications Act. It came to be an issue of freedom of expression and the right of someone to raise the issue on behalf of the voiceless.
The intention (of the memorandum) was to inform the government in the hope that they would take action. But instead they took action against you?
Yes, to my surprise, when I returned from the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, I discovered that the police were hunting for me. The Semenyih camp commandant had filed a criminal defamation report against me, and the police used that report to investigate me.
The other surprise was that when I did go for questioning, the police were not interested in the issues. They were interested in the people who gave the information. That’s when I thought I was not going to give them (the information), because they would then go for the migrant workers who gave information.
As a researcher, it was my responsibility to hold the confidentiality that I ensured them when they gave the interviews. In the end, I gave the names of three persons who did the interviews. Two were my staff, and one was a Bangladeshi social worker.
The issue of spreading false news under the printing law has always been used against journalists, and not so much NGO activists. Perhaps this was the first time that they used it against an NGO activist for ‘publishing’ a 30-page memorandum.
I think the government has found a way to criminalise anyone who brings up an issue. The act of ‘publication’ came in when I handed the memorandum to the journalist from the New Straits Times. The handing over was considered as publishing. The journalist was not charged - the one who wrote the article was charged.
In 1996, the government was willing to criminalise activists with the Printing Press and Publications Act and the Sedition Act.
What lessons did you learn from the ordeal?
Perseverance - it’s not to compromise on human rights at all, and that truth can prevail.
But the acquittal for me does not mean that the conditions at the detention camps have changed, and that is one major disappointment. It was on a technical matter that the appeal (was allowed).
In that context, it’s only a victory in terms of my freedom - but it’s not a victory in terms of the government’s accountability.
If it was on state accountability, then the conditions would change. But Tenaganita’s recent book ‘The Revolving Door’ revealed that the conditions in the detention camps have not changed.
The abuse, particularly sexual abuse, torture, is still very entrenched. Corruption still exists. The sale of refugees by enforcement agencies, also from the testimonies, is quite clear. That struggle will continue for us.
So despite the past 13 years, you don’t think the government has improved the conditions at the detention camps?
Not really. There have been very small efforts. Once, the Ministry of Health has made attempts to get doctors into the detention camps. Also, they’re not having the same people staying in the detention centres as many are removed to the prisons, they serve their time there, and then they are deported. So you do not have many staying in the detention centres (for years), which was among the causes for the deaths.
Then there was this effort to get the prison authorities to take over the detention centres. It looks as though it didn’t work because it has gone back to the immigration authorities together with (civilian volunteer corps) Rela - which is a major blunder because Rela men have no training and they do not know how to manage a detention facility.
We have taken a number of steps backward, rather than forward.
Are the deaths still occurring?
There are less reports of that. But all the other incidences - the abuses, the diseases, the torture - are still there.
DPP Shamsul said that the government’s decision to drop the appeal was made by attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail and suggested that you should thank him for it.
I’m not happy with that comment. The prosecutor revealed that it was the decision of the attorney-general not to oppose the appeal. That shows us where the powers are and that ultimately, it's the prosecution who decides and not the judge.
I think that's the problem in the system, in the judiciary. That's why I'm not very happy when it came to the acquittal. It didn't speak from the aspect of justice or what I stood for. It didn't punish the Printing Presses and Publications Act... You can see that the power behind (the justice system) is the attorney-general. That is worrying.
They’re saying you should be thankful to the government for not proceeding with the case.
Why should I be thankful to the government? I should not have been charged in the first place. The government went into a state of denial. It didn't take responsibility for what happened. No way would I be grateful to the government because I lost 13 years of my life for nothing.
Justice is not done simply because of my acquittal. Justice can only be done when remedies are made to what I stood for, the contents of the memorandum, to freedom of expression being upheld in this country, when human rights defenders are protected.
Only when all those things are increased, then there's meaning to the acquittal. It’s not a favour that I look for.
What restrictions did you face during the trial?
My passport was held by the court, and each time I seek to leave the country, I have to go back to the court and apply, I have to use the services of a lawyer to argue out the case and get my passport.
Once, to go to an FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) conference in Beijing, my application was rejected. I had to appeal to the High Court. They said I could go, but on conditions that I report to the Malaysian embassy when I arrived, and that I could not ‘tarnish the image of the nation’, whatever that meant. I had to come back and inform them of my return, and I had return the passport immediately.
My children grew up with their mother having to go to court so many days. There were 450 days of court trial, as well as the likelihood of one year in prison. It affected fundraising (for Tenaganita) because I was seen as criminal. I faced restrictions in traveling because I was categorised as a criminal.
I could not stand for elections, which denied my whole political career. Now, my age has caught up with me - I missed two elections because case dragged on.
Some would say that we have a lot of problems in Malaysia. Why should migrant workers be a cause for your concern? Why would you put your whole life into this particular issue?
Migrants are human beings. They have the same rights as all of us. They are here for the good life we have and we have a responsibility to protect them while they are in our country. We are accountable for what we do to them. Without them, we would not have the same economic growth we are enjoying today with the kind of cheap labour they are used for.
Some of them go through the same kind of servitude and slavery that is supposedly banished from this country. We cannot compromise on human rights. Human rights is universal and indivisible. If I’m in another country, I would expect the people there to protect me. If we cannot protect migrants, then we have no rights to have migrants here at all.
What do you advise the government and Malaysians who are treating migrant workers badly?
We want to enjoy everything cheap and we want to keep prices low, and so we are happy when that is done through forced labour - their passports are held by the employers, their work permits are not renewed, they cannot leave their place of work or else they would be arrested by Immigration enforcement personnel, or Rela - but that’s fine as long as our prices are low, as long as our economy is growing,
(Malaysians tolerate) human rights violations, and I think that is fundamentally wrong and that is wrong to have such consumption patterns.
Today, it’s the migrant workers. If we don’t make the government of the day accountable for what they do (to them) now, tomorrow it will be us. We are already seeing that happening in the kind of arrests being done, the kind of labour exploitation, how the government does not have a position when our own workers are being retrenched and displaced because we can get labour cheaply. That is what is happening today.
When we have a government that is not accountable, they will create conditions where we will not be able to ask for accountability. We create a system that is oppressive, repressive and where we find that we cannot question the government of the day, their authority and what they say is supreme. That is the sorry state of affairs if we do not take care of how migrants are treated.
It is very similar to how the British colonialists used migrant labour in the plantations as cheap labour. Today, we are reacting because as descendants of those migrants who were marginalised, we have that consciousness that we cannot remain marginalised.
History is repeating itself. I am a product of that, I know what my parents went through. If we do not respond, our children will also suffer at the hands of the same oppressive government.
What are your immediate political plans?
I’m a member of PKR supreme council but I want to be part of the whole change process, and if I have the opportunity, I want to stand for elections and be a representative of the people. It’s important that I have the opportunity to be a member of parliament, to be a voice for the communities that I have been working with.
I need to spend more time at the grassroots level, and in some of the communities I’ve been working with. I also want to contribute towards strengthening the framework for the understanding of human rights. In Pakatan (Rakyat)’s agenda, how do you develop a leadership that will articulate that framework as part of the agenda for change.
There are also issues that affect gender, the interpretation and understanding of religion and faith.
Some have noted that PKR itself, however, does not seem to have come out clearly on free trade agreements and the possible effects on migrant as well as local workers.
Very recently, there was an initiative to set up a parliamentary labour and human trafficking caucus. That is an indicator of our seriousness on the issues. Human trafficking as a form of labour has not been addressed effectively. All Pakatan Rakyat MPs need to be sensitised to these issues.
Furthermore, among the five things Pakatan has promised is minimum wage for all. We do not differentiate between locals and migrants. When the minimum wage is the same, there’s no dynamic of preferring foreign workers over locals.
The current government of the day has not moved very strongly into setting up and developing a comprehensive labour policy. That’s why there’s ad hocism in recruitment, labour. Pakatan has to come up with a labour policy.
However, I think we can be definitely stronger where the FTA (free trade agreement) is concerned. A clear policy hasn’t happened as yet. I agree that we do not have a very clear policy, but we are moving into that.
In hindsight, is there anything you would change?
Maybe strategy-wise. But continuing to voice out for communities, that would only be stronger.
Any regrets?
No regrets. In spite of it all, Tenaganita has grown in recognition, recognition has grown for our community work, and there is also global recognition for what we stood for. Positive developments have come out the court case.
13 years lost ... there's no room for gratitude
Migrant workers activist Irene Fernandez finds no reason to be grateful to Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail for deciding against prolonging her 13-year court battle.
According to the 62-year-old mother of three, she should not have been charged in the first place for exposing the alleged human rights violations at immigration detention centres.
Instead of getting to the bottom of the allegations and rectifying them, she lamented that the government sought to punish her and other whistleblowers.
"Why should I be thankful to the government. I should not have been charged in the first place?" she said during an interview with Malaysiakini today."
The government went into a state of denial. It didn't take responsibility for what happened. No way would I be grateful to the government because I lost 13 years of my life for nothing," added the executive director of foreign workers' rights group, Tenaganita
Labels: 人权课题、国家
不曾犯下罪行被告堅持清白
