Thousands of refugees at risk of arrest in nationwide raid in Malaysia

freemalaysiatoday

Tens of thousands of refugees and asylum seekers are at undue risk of being arrested arrest in the upcoming raids all over Malaysia.

On Saturday afternoon, Feb 11, at the beautiful Central Market and Kota Raya in downtown Kuala Lumpur, while many tourists and locals shopped, more than 100 people (including illegal migrant workers, asylum seekers, and refugees) were arrested for illegally working.

Just 20 minutes after the arrests were finished, one looking at the market would never even have known that anything out of the ordinary had occurred. Onlookers must be unaware of the situation involving many of the arrested and the at risk individuals for arrest.

Approximately 40 of the arrested people were refugees and asylum seekers that came to Malaysia trying to escape the violations of their basic human rights by the Myanmar government.

These refugees and asylum seekers didn’t come to Malaysia to work like many of the immigrants that the ministry recently asked to register under the Illegal Immigrant Comprehensive Settlement Programme (6P).

The 6P doesn’t pertain to the refugees or asylum seekers. The refugees and asylum seekers are simply waiting to be registered with UNHCR and then resettled. The refugees and asylum seekers are more than willing to register with the ministry too, which was stated (at least twice in The Star) would become available early January 2012. No such registration became available.

This registration would have then provided proof of status and exclusion from arrest for these individuals and those at risk in the upcoming raids by Rela, Immigration, and the Malaysian police.

The “Big Sweep” starts this Thursday.

Without the means to support oneself or family, tens of thousands are left to wait. At this time, there is no way to register with UNHCR or the Malaysian government leaving the refugees without proof of status, not allowed to legally work, dormant in their quest for resettlement, and vulnerable to arrest possibly leading to detainment for up to six months for refugees (who are registered with UNHCR) and possibly longer for asylum seekers.

All of the arrested are currently being detained at the KLIA Camp. Action must be taken to stop the wasting of more precious time, resources, and human energy on this undirected attack on innocent people.

The Plight of Burmese Refugees in Malaysia

Posted on February 15, 2012

 

With three inspirational young Burmese refuges attending the ELS CIEP course at Bukit Bintang centre, the students, teachers and staff know well how tough life can be for these natives of the Southeast Asian country of Myanmar. In amazing group effort, the Bukit Bintang students, teachers, staff and corporate ELS management came together to raise funds for United Learning Centre – a volunteer run centre located near Bukit Bintang that provides free daily education and childcare for children of Burmese refugees. Several students and staff visited the centre one rainy afternoon in December and presented the refugees and centre staff with food, toys, sports equipment, educational material and other treats. There were plenty of smiles as the children presented an impromptu art “workshop” for the visitors! 

UN High Commissioner talks refugee issues

Broadcast: 13/02/2012

Reporter: Chris Uhlmann

The United Nations' High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, is visiting Australia and joins us to discuss the issues facing asylum seekers in Australia and around the world.

Transcript

CHRIS UHLMANN, PRESENTER: With the political fight moving to the economy and the weather slowing the steady stream of boat arrivals, there's been a brief lull in the border protection battle. One man who can put Australia's problems in context is former Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Guterres. That's because he's been the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees since 2005. He's on a visit to Australia and I spoke with him earlier from Canberra. 

Antonio Guterres, welcome to the program.

ANTONIO GUTERRES, UN HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES: It's a pleasure to be here.

CHRIS UHLMANN: It's the Australian Government's stated policy to engage Malaysia in taking some of the people that are seeking asylum here. What's your view on that?

ANTONIO GUTERRES: Well first of all I think it's important to say that Australia has always been a very important pillar of the international asylum system. Australia has received 750,000 refugees until now. Australia's one of the most successful, if not the most successful resettlement program in the world with a large number of people being successfully integrated in the Australian society. Now, it's also true that if one looks at the number of boat people that comes into Australia, it's a relatively small number compared with other regions of the world, and so to a certain extent we always find these debates a little bit inflated in Australia, and we would prefer, to be honest, that these cases could be resettled - could be processed in the country itself. Having said so, we will always be considering whatever proposal the Australian Government makes of co-operation with other countries in the region, having always one essential concern that all protection problems of the people are adequately met and it was based on that that we have issued our own opinions when consulted about that agreement with Malaysia.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Isn't it the view of the UNHCR that if the Australian Government is to send asylum seekers to another country, that country should be a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention?

ANTONIO GUTERRES: I think that, as I said, our preference is always that these situations are solved in Australia itself. In mechanisms of international cooperation what is important is to guarantee that effective protection is granted, that people cannot - will not be refouled, that people can have humane reception conditions, they will not have arbitrary detention, that they have access to educational systems and employment. And so it's not only a question of knowing whether a country is or not signatory to the Convention, it's a question of knowing whether a country is able to fully respect these protection concerns.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And is Malaysia such a country?

ANTONIO GUTERRES: Well, as I said, we gave our opinion about the conditions that should be met. The agreement did not move forward. If any agreement of this nature will in the future be conceded we will issuing again be issuing our opinions. But I repeat: we consider that the preferred solution is always for countries to process the asylum requests of those that reach their territory.

CHRIS UHLMANN: What about the policy of mandatory detention? There are now more than 1,000 people who have been in detention for more than a year. 750 have spent more than 548 days in detention and 173 have been in detention for more than two years. Is that acceptable?

ANTONIO GUTERRES: Well, that was in the very centre of the very open and constructive discussions today, both with the Prime Minister, the members of the Government and the Opposition. Detention is the area in which we would like improvements to be made in the sense that detention should be more an exception and less a rule and that of course detention conditions should be improved. I saw a commitment of the Government to look seriously into that. Another issue that was discussed has to do with the security assessments and - in order to make the process to be quicker and to introduce some checks and balances into it. So, there are aspects of progress to be made, and as I said, they were in the very centre of the discussions I had to today with the Australian authorities. And very encouraged by the openness in those discussions.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And did you also discuss the 506 children who are in alternative places of detention on Christmas Island and the mainland?

ANTONIO GUTERRES: Yes, we discussed all aspects related to, as I said, detention and security assessments and this is the area where, as I said, we hope that we will be able to witness - some progress has already happened, but there is still a long way to go and I hope that there will be an important movement forward in the near future.

CHRIS UHLMANN: The Opposition says that if it comes to power, it will tow boats back to Indonesia. Is that viable or even safe?

ANTONIO GUTERRES: We have been very clearly saying that we are ready to discuss with any government any policy of international cooperation in this area. But we don't think that pushbacks are a solution. We have clearly opposed pushbacks in the Italian case in the Mediterranean in the recent past before the Libyan crisis, and we think that that is clearly a violation in relation to the '51 Convention. As I said, we would prefer situations like this to be processed in the country. We are ready to consider international mechanisms that meet protection requirements, and we also are concerned with the fact that smugglers and traffickers are very active in the world and with dramatic violation of human rights of the people that suffer their action. 

So, we are ready to also cooperate with states in order to make sure that mechanisms are created to crack down on smugglers and traffickers, and at the same time, to protect people and to grant people access to places where they can be protected without having to suffer the very negative impact of, as I said, the violations of human rights they suffer in the hands of smugglers and traffickers into today's world. Not only in Australia. If you look at numbers, about 6,000 people came to Australia last year, but to Italy and Malta, 58,000; to Yemen, 100,000. So this is a global problem, in which the numbers in Australia are still relatively small and that is why we believe that this debate has sometimes been inflated out of proportion with the reality of the problem in itself and that there is - there should be a scope for a calm and rational approach to these questions in a way that could meet the protection requirements of people.

CHRIS UHLMANN: If I could just ask you a final question as the former Prime Minister of Portugal: how concerned are you that Greece will buckle under this harsh austerity drive?

ANTONIO GUTERRES: Well, I mean, obviously as a - as a European I'm very worried with the present situation in Europe and especially in the southern part of Europe. Levels of unemployment have grown enormously, people are suffering and this is a very challenging situation. And I hope that Europe will be able to put together mechanisms of solidarity and support that will hope these countries cope with huge challenges they are facing and reduce the very negative impact, especially on vulnerable people.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Antonio Guterres, thankyou.

ANTONIO GUTERRES: Thankyou very much.

Malaysia's migration paradox

By Joachim Francis Xavier , February 14, 2012

A large segment of Malaysian society and the government in particular seem clearly xenophobic towards migrant workers, asylum seekers and refugees. Yet in an oxymoronic way, Malaysia continues to insist on having these foreigners on her soil.
More recently, Malaysia has thrown its arms wide open to asylum seekers heading to Australia, risking life and limb for a better future. How does one explain this rather bizarre phenomenon?
According to statistics by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) office in Kuala Lumpur, as of January 2012 there were approximately 97,000 refugees and asylum seekers in the country, with many more asylum seekers knocking on its doors every day for refugees status. Most are from Myanmar (91 per cent) while the rest are from Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
These are men, women and children who have fled their country owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted. They make arduous journeys to countries like Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Australia in the fervent hope that the host country will offer them protection.
Unfortunately, protection is not exactly what they receive in Malaysia. Asylum seekers and refugees have no legal status here, and while the authorities have assured UNHCR and civil society that they will not be disturbed, asylum seekers and refugees are frequently subjected to brutal raids, arrest, detention and sometimes deportation.Adults are not allowed to work in the formal sector while children of these foreigners have no access to government schools. Most live precariously in rudimentary conditions such as shacks, construction sites and even jungles fringing big cities.
There are also reports of extortion, physical abuse and human trafficking. Not surprisingly, Malaysia has been the subject of numerous international reports documenting the appalling treatment received by asylum seekers and refugees.
The World Refugee Survey commissioned by the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants in 2007 ranked Malaysia among the ten worst countries for refugees, together with Kenya, Sudan and Bangladesh. A 2010 Amnesty International report recorded numerous cases of foreigner abuse including trafficking by Malaysian security forces at the Thai-Malaysia border, some as recent as 2009.
Due to the frequent raids, detention camps are often filled to breaking point and living conditions are distressing. In an attempt to reduce this overcrowding, Malaysia negotiated with Myanmar a detainee-swap deal, under which Malaysia will return Myanmar detainees in exchange for Malaysian detainees held in Myanmar prisons.
When the deal hit the news in October 2011, it drew heavy fire from civil society including the Malaysia Bar Council and SUARAM, a national human rights NGO. It is unclear if Malaysia went ahead with the deal.
Having observed this xenophobic attitude for over 20 years, any right thinking person would conclude that Malaysia has a serious problem with asylum seekers and refugees. She wants them out. So it is a wonder that Malaysia has now taken a position that suggests she can't get enough of them.
This appears to be the case when one considers how hard Malaysia campaigned for the Australia-Malaysia refugee swap deal, touted as the 'Malaysia solution'. The Australian government signed an agreement with the Malaysian government on 25 July 2011 to ship 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia in exchange for 4000 of its refugees.
Civil societies in both countries were up in arms over the deal and staged a dramatic campaign to bring it down. Both governments defended it with everything they had. However by 31 August 2011 the deal was in tatters when the High Court of Australia declared the agreement 'invalid' for not meeting human rights standards stipulated in Australian law, particularly in relation to the 1951 UN Convention relating to refugees, which Australia is party to but not Malaysia.
The Australian government then decided to move Parliament to amend the law to 'legalise' the deal but all this came to a grinding and embarrassing halt when Prime Minister Julia Gillard abandoned the bill at the last moment on 13 October 2011.
That was not the end of the matter. On 25 January 2012, Malaysian Home Minister Hishamuddin Hussein once again offered to host asylum seekers in Malaysia. This time the invitation was made out to any country. He also expressed his disappointment that the Malaysia solution with Australia failed and blamed it on the Australian government.
Why the sudden interest? Could it be that the Malaysian government has begun to see that vulnerable people deserve care and protection? Or is it now clearer to the government that asylum seekers and refugees are not criminals looking to rob its host but people needing help?
If this is the case, then it is odd that Malaysia would continue to deny asylum seekers and refugees a legally recognised status. Maintaining that these are undocumented persons in the eyes of the law clearly debunks any suggestion that Malaysia has seen the light, even a dim one.
Perhaps Malaysia feels it is time to uphold basic human rights for all people regardless of nationality, including the right to protection against persecution. After all, under the leadership of Prime Minister Najib Razak, the government has unleashed a slew of reforms that promise to guarantee more civil liberties. Isn't it possible that he would want to extend the same attitude towards foreigners?
If this is so, it is hard to explain Malaysia's objection to signing the 1951 UN Convention relating to refugees, which comprehensively states the standards a country ought to observe if it was serious about respecting the basic rights of asylum seekers and refugees.
It would also be extremely hard to rationalise why Malaysia audaciously objected to human rights provisions in the refugee swap deal when first negotiated with Australia. It is clear that Malaysia is not interested in human rights for asylum seekers and refugees. In fact the converse is probably true.
What about a purely arithmetic rationale? It makes economic sense to take in 800 asylum seekers from Australia and in return send 4000 processed refugees. The numbers are clearly in Malaysia's favor. The net outflow of 3200 unwanted foreigners would reduce the congestion in detention centers and by extension Malaysia's financial burden of hosting them for long periods.
This seems the best explanation for Malaysia's interest in asylum seekers and refugees, until one considers yet another figure: 1 billion ringgit. That is the cost of the deal, reportedly borne so kindly by the Australian government. Considering that asylum seekers are turned away before they touch Australian soil, it is a fair assumption that the bulk of the 1 billion ringgit would be spent in Malaysia.
One could speculate that the money would be utilised to put up new facilities, supply catering, make transportation and security arrangements and purchase equipment. Of course this would necessarily mean Malaysia would have the added burden of having to dole out mouth-watering contracts to salivating companies. Are we to assume that this would be done in a careful and transparent manner underpinned by the principle that the best man with the best price gets the job?
Then there is the inevitable benefit that jobs would be created and the Malaysian economy would receive a boost even if in a small way. Might this have been a motivation underlying Malaysia's sudden love affair with swap deals?
All this talk about swap deals has to be juxtaposed against the fast changing political landscape in Myanmar, the biggest source country of asylum seekers and refugees in Malaysia. Myanmar President Thein Sein seems to be a man in a hurry to set things right in his country. It is entirely possible the dream of a peaceful Myanmar may become a reality soon, and with that the unrelenting wave of asylum seekers and refugees is likely to recede.
When that happens, it would not matter why Malaysia courted asylum seekers and refugees, for by that time there would be no more of them knocking on her doors begging for entry. All that would be left would be the hollow cries of feigned love incessantly bouncing off the stained walls of selfishness, greed and xenophobia. 

---

Joachim Francis Xavier is a legally trained social activist who has worked for the Penang Catholic diocese for over ten years. He is chair of the Malaysian Catholic Bishops' Episcopal Commission for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerants. This article originally appeared in UCAN.

Myanmar reforms trigger calls for Malaysia's refugee ratification

Malaysia's human rights activists say that Malaysia must now ratify the 1951 UN Refugee Convention as the military-junta led Myanmar is now opening up its democratic space and engaging in a dialogue with its most famous opposition icon, Aung San Suu Kyi.

The asylum seekers from Myanmar form the largest group of refugees in Malaysia.According to the official statistics, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or UNHCR recorded 61,412 Myanmar refugees out of the total 66,137 in 2010.

Pointing out that the Malaysian government had raised concerns that ratifying the Convention would trigger an influx of refugees, human rights workers say that the reforms in Myanmar signals the possibility of refugees returning home.

See the Video

They also accuse Malaysia of not wanting to shoulder the responsibility of abiding by an international regulation.

Malaysia recently got into trouble for entering into an agreement with Australia to ship 800 refugees from Australia to Malaysia and resettle 4000 refugees from Malaysia over five years.

The swap plan fell through due to strong protests from human rights workers and lawyers in both countries who alleged Malaysia does not meet the human rights standards stipulated in Australian law.

Malaysian government leaders meanwhile say that the refugees in Malaysia are treated well. Malaysia is also yet to ratify the UN Convention against Torture.

Political observers in the country say that the treatment of refugees would be a sticking point for the government during the general election which is expected to be called by June this year. And meanwhile human rights activists say they would continue lobbying the government to ratify the 1951 UN Refugee Convention to allow the refugees to have a legal status in the country.

Source : http://presstv.com/

Myanmar to Singapore: Help us become a rich country again

Zimmetro — In the 1940-1950s, Myanmar was the wealthiest nation in Southeast Asia, a country who was on its way to become the second developed nation in Asia after Japan. By 1950, Myanmar was the first Asian economic tiger, whose economy was on fast-track development. At the end of 1960 Myanmar had built up the largest pool of qualified, educated workforce in Southeast Asia.

The country is extremely rich in natural resources, it has oil, gas, teak & timber, tin, antimony, zinc, copper, tungsten, lead, coal, marble & limestone, gems, plus huge hydro-power and agricultural capacities. It was once the world’s largest exporter of rice, with Myanmar helping to alleviate severe famines in India last time, but today it is the one plagued by starvation. The country supplied 75% of the world’s teak, and is also well-known for its precious stones like sapphires, pearls and jade. 90% of the world’s rubies come from Myanmar, whose red stones are prized for their purity and hue.

But a military coup d’etat in 1962 destroyed Myanmar and plunged it into one of the world’s most impoverished country today. With the fall of Myanmar, the Southeast Asia richest title shifted to Brunei, the oil-rich sultanate however, is incapable of progressive industrialization, and was later overrun by Singapore.

Today, the formerly richest Southeast Asian nation is seeking help from the currently richest Southeast Asian nation in economic development.

Myanmar president Thein Sein

Singapore is now the wealthiest and most successful nation in Southeast Asia, but it wasn’t like that 50 years ago. The island merged into the federation of Malaysia in 1963 in hope to resolve its high unemployment, stagnating economy and the security threats posed by revolutionary elements at that time. Malaysia however, failed to bring prosperity to Singapore. Kuala Lumpur enacted prohibitive measures against Singaporean trade, while Indonesia, as part of its Konfrontasi with Malaysia, bombed Singapore’s Orchard Road. The island also saw itself rocked by racial riots and economy weakened.

Racial and economic disagreements became so intense between both that Singapore was expelled from Malaysia in 1965. The new country immediately faced unemployment and housing crisis. Coupled with low level of education and lack of natural resources, much of the international media was skeptical of Singapore’s survival at that time. Most portrayed two future scenarios for the island; either be attacked by the Indonesian military or forcibly re-integrated into the Malaysia Federation on unfavorable terms.

Singapore 1960s

But the island who once had little money and little hope, not only survived but thrived. Singapore becomes one of the world’s most prosperous nation, with a highly developed free market economy, strong international trading links, and one of the highest per capita GDP in Asia. It now has the most advanced military and technological capabilities in Southeast Asia, and topped almost all economic rankings in the region. This impressed Myanmar, who has been silently admiring it till now.

Myanmar president Thein Sein came to Singapore this week with a big delegation, for the signing of and agreement on economic co-operation in areas ranging of everything from tourism to law to education to technology to finance to economic advising to investment, and to thanking Singapore for its loyal support over the years. When Myanmar was shunned and sanctioned by the West, it was Singapore, as an international trading hub, who helped it to continue trading with the rest of the world. Now that Myanmar has opened up its economy, naturally it is coming down to reward Singapore for everything it did in the past.

Myanmar this week signed agreements with Singapore on almost everything economic.

Myanmar intends to learn from Singapore’s expertise in finance, law, public services and education to help kick-start economic development, and Singapore has agreed to send advisers to Myanmar to train their Burmese counterparts across a range of areas, including economic planning, central banking, trade facilitation and legal reforms, according to a statement issued yesterday by Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Myanmar has also expressed vast interest in area of technology and in engineering, it has likewise signed agreement for Singapore to provide vocational training to its schools. It would basically mean Myanmar sought to practice the Singaporean system in its country.

Singapore will also help Myanmar, which has a population of roughly 55 million people, build a base of skilled workers, according to the statement. Its young people lack the skills as workers in other Asian countries, partly because of past isolation and also because of underinvestment in education.

Under a pact between the two nations signed Monday, Singapore will engage in and help Myanmar modernize its economy and open itself further to foreign investment. Analysts have said that working with Singapore, one of Asia’s main financial centers, could help accelerate economic reforms if Myanmar’s leaders decide to emulate some of the wealthy city-state’s financial institutions. It is also possible some Myanmar companies might seek to list on Singapore’s stock exchange to raise capital.

Myanmar to Singapore: We have long admired you

“We have turned a new page in our country in order to create better conditions in Myanmar. We want to give a brighter future for our people.” Thein Sein said in a lavish dinner hosted in Singapore. The pact also calls on Singapore to share its best practices in trade, tourism and urban planning with Myanmar, in return, resource-rich but largely untapped Myanmar will offer attractive opportunities for Singapore businesses tapping its resources. This is especially ideal for Singapore, who lacks natural resources.

Myanmar recently had taken up some positive steps, including the release of political prisoners, easing of social restrictions, economic reforms, and shown willingness to implement changes based on international advices. Confidence is growing in Myanmar and businesses from many countries have been eager to explore investments in Myanmar – a large and untapped market in Asia, where many sectors of the economy have been underdeveloped.

The U.S. has restored full diplomatic relations and the European Union has reversed visa bans against some senior Myanmar officials. Both the U.S. and EU have signaled they could ease sanctions if Myanmar continues to improve. Singapore has been working with Myanmar to urge the U.S. in lifting the sanctions. Singapore President Tony Tan said the wealthy city-state would strengthen economic cooperation and business links with Myanmar, and guide the country as it emerges from decades of political and economic isolation.

Myanmar’s delights: Each factory worker at US$30-50 per month only

Under military rule, Myanmar had long been a thorn in the side of ASEAN, hobbling the bloc’s relations with Western powers because of the jailing of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and allegations of widespread rights abuses. Suu Kyi now has been released from detention as part of the reforms and is now campaigning for a parliamentary seat in elections scheduled in April.

Thein Sein becomes the new president of Burma (Myanmar) since March 2011. He is widely regarded to be a moderate and reformist who seeks economic prosperity and development for Myanmar. Under his governance, investments have been flocking in and Myanmar now record a faster economic growth than neighboring Thailand and Malaysia.

With the West looking at easing sanctions and businesses closely watching the reforms, Myanmar needs to prepare for an anticipated increase in investments and tourism, analysts said.

Myanmar 2010

Myanmar has rich natural resources, including gold, gas, teak, oil, jade and gems and a large pool of low-cost labour. The country also boasts an array of tourism attractions with its appealing colonial architecture, picturesque temples and golden beaches.

“If all goes well, Burma certainly looks forward to being welcomed from the political wilderness,” said Song Seng Wun, a regional economist with Malaysian bank CIMB. “It looks like the new Burmese leadership are in a hurry to catch up in the shortest possible time,” he told AFP.

“After so many years of isolation, their capacity to handle the expected inflow of investments and set up the much-needed regulatory frameworks have to be brought up to scratch as quickly as possible. Done correctly, Myanmar may even experience an economic boom akin to that of the four Asian economic tigers (Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea).”

Singapore: a major player in Southeast Asia trade and investment

Singapore’s economic clout is widely felt throughout Southeast Asia, its investments is so prevalent in Bangkok that the Thais have a saying the city is owned by Singaporeans. The sale of Shin Corporation, one of Thailand largest conglomerates, to Singapore in 2006 caused great controversy and highlighted the stranglehold Singapore has over Thai businesses. Singapore acts as technological consultant to most major Bruneian IT firms, and a huge chunk of Bruneian imports are traded over Singaporean port. Unlike most Southeast Asian countries, multinationals in Brunei are operated from Singaporean offices.

Singapore invested so massively in Indonesia that its investments made up nearly one-third of Indonesian foreign investment. The island is expected to increase its investments in Indonesia this year by 50%, a move that delighted Indonesia. Indonesia has stated that Singapore is now its most important economic partner in the region. After the departure of Malaysia’s Mahathir, Singaporean investments in Malaysia surged rapidly that there is fear among Malaysian leadership its Southern state, Johor, may be ‘swallowed up’ by Singaporeans.

Can Myanmar recover after 50 years?

Following Vietnam’s industrial boom, Singapore is investing in over 973 projects there, putting the city-state the second biggest investor in Vietnam after Taiwan. Vietnam has reaffirmed Singapore as its most important economic partner in Southeast Asia. Singapore has investments, though not very significant, in Philippines real estate, retail, hospitality, energy and information and communication industries. The city-state has been reluctant to invest more as the Filipino economy is slow to take off all these years. The Philippines however, acknowledged Singaporean economic achievements and constantly use it as benchmark for economic development. Philippines Central Bank, for instance, estimated that it would take the Philippines 45 years to develop to the current economic status of Singapore.

Singaporean firms have been rubbing their hands in anticipation at the opportunities arising from Myanmar’s moves to liberalize its economy. Industries ranging from education to manufacturing see plenty of potential in what is fast shaping up to be a rich new frontier for business. Those riches could be unlocked by Singapore’s close ties with the country, which were manifested on Monday when the memorandum of understanding was inked.

Source : http://www.zimbabwemetro.com/

Elkridge Man Brings Refugees to Howard County

Zo Tum Hmung, a human rights activist from Elkridge, has helped bring hundreds of refugees to Howard County.

For reasons similar to those of the pilgrims seeking religious refuge in America, Hmung says Chin people in Burma are persecuted by the Buddhist military regimes and become refugees for practicing Christianity.

Hmung was one of the first refugees from Burma to relocate in Howard County almost 10 years ago.

Since then, Hmung and other volunteers have secured jobs, apartments and schools for other families as they come from temporary homes in Malaysia. He estimates close to 1,000 Chin people have moved to the county since 2007, most of whom live near Savage.

Hmung works for the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Malaysia—a country housing more than 80,000 Burmese refugees, which is where he finds the families.

"I have been telling them that ... Howard County is one of the best counties in the United States," Hmung told Patch."I spread out the news about Howard County, so they came here."

He said Newsweek ranking the county as the third richest in the nation and Education Week ranking Maryland public schools best in the nation really convinced families of refugees to come.

According to Patti Caplan, spokeswoman for the Howard County Public School System, the English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program for the county has expanded from 1,253 students five years ago to 2,250 this school year—an 80 percent increase.

Source : http://elkridge.patch.com/

Savage Opens Arms, Classrooms to Burmese Families

Just before 11 a.m. on Jan. 18, a man wearing a heavy coat and hat walked into the front office of Bollman Bridge Elementary School, speaking quiet fragments of sentences in English.

Laurel Conran, a teacher at the school, watched. She had seen this interaction between parents and secretaries before.

The man is one of dozens of refugees from the Chin State in Burma who relocated to the Savage area for work at a nearby produce plant.

The conversation took a minute longer than it normally would without the communication gap, but the fact that the man could speak any English is at least partly Conran's doing.

Conran is a teacher for English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and, with the help from a partner at Coastal Sunbelt Produce, she created a six-week program to help the Chin-speaking employees, who have many children at Bollman Bridge, learn basic English skills.

"They're learning work vocabulary and some of the school vocabulary that the children are learning, so they can have that link between home and school," Conran told Patch.

Lisa Chertok, a Bollman Bridge parent and Coastal Sunbelt employee, teamed up with Conran to implement the program in the fall of 2010. In November, their work earned them the Community Builder Award from Howard County as well as highlights in the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun and Voice of America.

Henry Thang, 10, a fifth-grader at Bollman Bridge, said he is not the only one in his family making an effort to learn the local language.

"My mom has a teacher who comes to our house and now she knows a little English," said Thang. "She has a binder and we learn English together."

Thang's classmates all agreed that life is very different in America, at least some of it for the better.

"In Malaysia, there was no space to play outside. Around here, there is space to exercise and play sports," Thang said.

Tin Iang, a Bollman Bridge parent and line worker at Coastal Sunbelt, can now read some English. Iang said, via an employee translator, that she has learned more about American culture, as well as the business that pays her.

"How to take care of children–that was a big improvement," said Iang.

"Research shows that students do better in school when their parents are involved," said Howard County schools spokesperson Patti Caplan. "It is more difficult for this to happen when language and cultural barriers exist."

According to Caplan, the ESOL program for the county has expanded from 1,253 students five years ago to 2,250 this school year–an 80 percent increase.

Bollman Bridge principal Jonathan Davis sees the adult program as a unifying force for the Savage community.

"In my first year as principal, many of the adult [Chin] men wanted to meet with me. They wanted to know who the new leader of the school was," said Davis. "We don't have to do that meeting anymore because they trust us and know we're going to do this outreach.

"I personally can call or email my child's teacher and speak the educational lingo, but this program begins to break down some of those barriers for the Chin parents," Davis said.

School issues have only been one struggle. Parents come to Conran with a range of concerns, from break-ins to beeping smoke detectors. She says the program is designed to help them with many things that Americans take for granted as common knowledge.

Before the refugees came to the area, Conran was teaching roughly 20 kids at the school. Within the past four years, her group has grown to almost 90. With a growing immigrant student population, Conran said the school needed to lend a helping hand to their new neighbors.

"It takes a community to teach families that are coming from abroad," said Conran. "The English-speaking families want to welcome them, but they don't know how to start."

Conran spoke to parents about the ESOL program at a PTA meeting in 2010 and Chertok approached her about the recent influx of Burmese families.

After getting permission from Coastal Sunbelt management, Conran and Chertok put together a program pairing 25 English-speaking employees with 25 non-English speakers one hour a week for six weeks during a lunch break.

Chertok got involved with the Bollman Bridge PTA in 2005, when her son was in the school. She said she noticed the influx of Chin families from coat drives and shoe drives that parents organized for the students.

"The kids had never experienced a winter before," said Chertok.

Chertok and Conran spent 10 months organizing the curriculum and coordinating speakers from Howard Community College, the local fire department and other community centers to show all of the resources offered by the county.

"Sometimes we would have students out three or four days and we don't know what happened," says Conran, "Now they can call and leave a message."

According to school officials, Bollman Bridge was especially affected by the influx of the refugees, since many of the workers live near the produce plant.

Zo Tum Hmung, a human rights activist from Elkridge, is a volunteer for the local Chin community who helped bring the Chin families to Howard County. He was one of the first refugees from Burma to relocate in Howard County almost 10 years ago.

Since then, Hmung and other volunteers have secured jobs, apartments and schools for the families as they come from temporary homes in Malaysia. He estimates close to 1,000 Chin people have moved to the county since 2007, most of whom live near Savage.

"I have been telling them that Maryland, and especially Howard County, is one of the best counties in the United States," Hmung told Patch. He said reports from Newsweek ranking the county as the third richest in the nation, and Education Week ranking Maryland public schools best in the nation really convinced families of refugees to come.

"I spread out the news about Howard County, so they came here," Hmung said. "Back in my village, there is no road transportation, there is no electricity, there is no water supply–there is no bank at all…So here, everything is new."

Hmung also works for the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Malaysia–a country housing more than 80,000 Burmese refugees, according to the UNHCR website–and this is where he finds the families.

Hmung said many of these refugees–parents and grandparents mostly–would eventually like to be welcomed back into Burma, which has been ruled by military regimes since 1962, but he knows the children are making strong connections to Savage and America as a whole.

For reasons similar to those of the pilgrims seeking religious refuge in America, Hmung says Chin people in Burma are persecuted by the Buddhist military regimes and become refugees for practicing Christianity.

"America is a great country–this is a land of opportunity, this is a land of freedom," Hmung said.

Despite their being able to embrace plumbing, electricity and cell phones, Hmung says the families are still in need of assistance to completely adjust to American culture, and learning English is a crucial part of that.

"We try to pair them up by their interests and the ages of their children. Parents always love to talk about their children," says Conran.

In three six-week sessions, they have instructed nearly 100 people who learned how to call 9-1-1, change batteries in their smoke detectors, use basic appliances like ovens and register children for school.

"[Laurel and Lisa's] work to better integrate these Burmese families into the Savage community is worthy of great praise and helps demonstrate how critical schools and businesses can be in strengthening our families and our communities," said Howard County Executive Ken Ulman.

Teacher Bios:

Laurel Conran has taught English Speakers of Other Languages for 10 years at Bollman Bridge Elementary School in Jesup. Conran earned her Masters of Arts  in Instructional Systems Development/English as a Second Language from the University of Maryland, and a Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education from Towson University.

Lisa Chertok lives in Columbia, MD. Chertok was born in Scotland and grew up in Uniontown, PA. Her mother is from Louisville, KY, and her  father is from Bombay, India. She graduated from Penn State University and studied International Marketing and French.

Source : http://savage-guilford.patch.com

FY 2012 Funding Opportunity Announcement for NGO Programs Benefiting Burmese Refugees in Thailand, Bangladesh and Malaysia

Funding Opportunity Number: PRM-ANE-12-CA-EA-02032012-TH-BGD-MYA

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number: 19.511- Overseas Refugee Assistance Programs for East Asia

Announcement issuance date: Friday, February 3, 2012

Proposal submission deadline: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 at 12:00 p.m. noon (EST). Proposals submitted after this deadline will not be considered.

ADVISORY: PRM strongly recommends submitting your proposal early to allow time to address any difficulties that may arise.

Proposed Program Start Dates: March 15 – September 28, 2012

Duration of Activity:

Program plans for Thailand from 12 to 24 months will be considered. Applicants may submit multi-year proposals with activities and budgets that do not exceed 24 months from the proposed start date. Actual awards will not exceed 12 months in duration. Multi-year proposals selected for funding by PRM will be funded in 12-month increments and must include results-based indictors within the first 12 months.  

Agreements may be renewable for an additional 12-month period contingent upon available funding, strong performance, and continuing need. 

Continued funding after the initial 12-month award requires the submission of a noncompeting continuation application as detailed in the “Application Requirements for Proposals for Multi-Year Funding” section below. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) receiving awards under these terms will be required to submit continuation applications at least three months in advance of the end of the 12-month period of activities. Please see the “Proposal Content, Formatting, and Templates” section for additional guidance.

Program plans for Bangladesh and Malaysia should be no more than 12 months. Applicants must re-compete for PRM funding each year.

For all programs, in funding a project one year, PRM makes no representations that it will continue to fund the project in successive years and encourages applicants to seek a wide array of donors to ensure long-term and diverse funding sources. PRM will prioritize project proposals that demonstrate strong coordination and integration of services with other NGO partners on the Thailand-Burma border.

Current Funding Priorities for Assistance to Burmese Refugees in Thailand:

PRM will prioritize funding for proposed NGO activities that best meet the Bureau’s priorities in Thailand for Burmese refugees in camps along the Thai-Burma border as identified below.

Health (including curative, preventative, reproductive health, mental health and psychosocial care), HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, Water and Sanitation, and Gender-Based Violence:

PRM will accept proposals from NGOs for activities that focus on the following priorities in Mae La, Umpiem, Nu Po, and Ban Don Yang camps:

a. Improved access to quality health care services, including reproductive healthcare, with a particular emphasis on the health and nutritional needs of children under five and pregnant and lactating women and improved access to services for persons with disabilities and their families;

b. Improved camp water and sanitation and other environmental infrastructure, including protection and development of the water resource in Mae La and in the host villages in Tak Province;

c. Improved quality of life of refugee populations by addressing their psychosocial needs and developing income-generating activities, with an emphasis on the development of skills and vocational training to achieve a measure of self-sufficiency and a reasonable livelihood; and

d. Strengthened community capacity to prevent Gender-Based Violence (GBV) and better respond to the health, psychosocial, safety, and justice needs of GBV survivors.

Current Funding Priorities for Assistance to Burmese Rohingya in Bangladesh: 

Priority will be given to proposals that promote a holistic, district-wide approach to both registered Rohingya refugees living inside the two official refugee camps, Kutupalong and Nayapara, and unregistered Rohingya and local Bangladeshi host population living outside of the camps.

(1) Proposed activities in the two official refugee camps, Kutupalong and Nayapara, should support the following priorities:

a. Expanded skills training to include income generating activities, with an emphasis on the development of skills and vocational training to achieve a measure of self-sufficiency and a reasonable livelihood;

b. Strengthened ongoing healthcare (including reproductive health), education services, and psychosocial programming, particularly through integrating and expanding support to the disabled;

c. Expanded community mobilization programs, especially in support of the existing community-based counseling system for conflict resolution;

d. Improved physical infrastructure in the camps, including shelter and interior roads; and

e. Improved knowledge of and enhanced capacity to identify and respond to GBV, and increased capacity of service providers to incorporate GBV prevention and response into their activities.

(2) Proposals that incorporate unregistered Rohingya living outside of the two official camps, Kutupalong and Nayapara, should link the above priority sectors with the following activities:

a. Expanded access to justice by strengthening law and order in the sub-districts where the camps are located, specifically to combat GBV and support survivors; and

b. Expanded access to education for refugee children that would serve both Rohingya and Bangladeshi students, where Rohingya make up 50% of the targeted beneficiaries.

Current Funding Priorities for Assistance to Burmese Refugees in Malaysia:

(1) Healthcare:

PRM will accept proposals from NGOs to provide primary healthcare, medical services, mental health and psychosocial support to the urban Burmese refugee population in Kuala Lumpur and Klang Valley, including the implementation of mobile health clinics to immigration detention centers.

(2) Education:

PRM will accept proposals from NGOs to provide quality educational opportunities for school-aged refugee children. Proposed activities should focus on strengthening refugee community capacity to provide education to children and youth and improving the quality of Refugee Community Schools, including through building the capacity of refugee teachers.

 (3) Gender-Based Violence (GBV):

PRM will accept proposals from NGOs to provide humanitarian assistance to address the following priorities:

a. Improved knowledge of GBV within refugee and host communities;

b. Improved capacity of target communities to identify and effectively respond to GBV through healthcare (including reproductive health), psychosocial, safety, justice and other services that involve refugee and host community members in their design and implementation; and

c. Improved capacity of service providers to incorporate GBV prevention and response activities, including multi-sectoral referral services.

PRM will accept proposals from any NGO working in the above mentioned sectors although, given budgetary constraints, priority will be given to proposals from organizations that can demonstrate:

· A working relationship with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), current UNHCR funding, and/or a letter of support from UNHCR for the proposed activities and/or overall country program (this letter should highlight the gap in services the proposed program is designed to address);

· A proven track record in providing proposed assistance both in the sector and specified location;

· Evidence of coordination with international organizations (IOs) and other NGOs working in the same area or sector as well as – where possible – local authorities;

· A concrete implementation plan with well-conceived objectives and indicators that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and reliable, time-bound and trackable (SMART), have established baselines, and include at least one outcome or impact indicator per objective; objectives should be clearly linked to the sectors in the RFP;

· A budget that is appropriate for meeting the objectives and demonstrates co-funding by non-US government sources;

· Appropriate targeting of beneficiaries in coordination with UNHCR and other relevant organizations. Because of PRM's mandate to provide protection, assistance, and sustainable solutions for refugees and victims of conflict, PRM considers funding only those projects that include a target beneficiary base of at least 50% refugees.

· Adherence to relevant international standards for humanitarian assistance. See PRM’s General NGO Guidelines for a complete list of sector-specific standards.

International Organizations (IOs) that are engaged in programs relevant to the assistance addressed by this PRM funding announcement should ensure that these programs are made known to PRM on or before the closing date of this funding announcement so that PRM can evaluate all IO and NGO programs for funding consideration.

As stated in the General NGO Guidelines, PRM looks favorably on cost-sharing efforts and seeks to support projects with a diverse donor base and/or resources from the submitting organization.

Proposal Submission Requirements:

See “How to Apply” (http://www.grants.gov/applicants/applicant_faqs.jsp#applying) on Grants.gov for complete details on requirements, and note the following highlights:

· Proposals must be submitted via Grants.gov. Organizations not registered with Grants.gov should register well in advance of the March 6, 2012 deadline as it can take up to two weeks to finalize registration (sometimes longer for non-U.S. based NGOs to get the required registration numbers). To register with Grants.gov, organizations must first receive a DUNS number and register with the Central Contract Registry (CCR) which can take weeks and sometimes months. See “Applicant FAQs” section on Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov/help/applicant_faqs.jsp#applying) for complete details on registering.

· If you encounter technical difficulties with Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Help Desk at support@grants.gov or by calling 1-800-518-4726. Applicants who are unable to submit applications via Grants.gov due to Grants.gov technical difficulties and who have reported the problem(s) to the Grants.gov help desk and received a case number and had a service request opened to research the problem(s), should contact PRM Program Officer Hoa Tran at (202) 453-9289 or TranHT3@state.gov to determine whether an alternative method of submission is appropriate.

· Do not wait until the last minute to submit your application on Grants.gov. Applicants who have done so in the past and experienced technical difficulties were not able to meet the deadline. PRM strongly recommends submitting your proposal early to avoid submission delays. We recommend that organizations, particularly first-time applicants, submit applications via Grants.gov no later than one week before the deadline to avoid last-minute technical difficulties that could result in an application not being considered.

· Applications must be submitted under the authority of the Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) at the applicant organization. Having proposals submitted by agency headquarters helps to avoid possible technical problems.

· Pursuant to U.S. Code, Title 218, Section 1001, stated on OMB Standard Form 424 (SF-424), Department of State is authorized to consolidate the certifications and assurances required by Federal law or regulations for its federal assistance programs. The list of certifications and assurances can be found at: http://fa.statebuy.state.gov/content.asp?content_id=161&menu_id=68 )

· NGOs that have not received PRM funding prior to the U.S. Government fiscal year ending September 30, 2004 must be prepared to demonstrate that they meet the financial and accounting requirements of the U.S. Government by submitting copies of 1) the most recent external financial audit, 2) non-profit tax status under IRS 501 (c)(3), 3) a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, and 4) an Employer ID (EIN)/Federal Tax Identification number.

Proposal Content, Formatting and Template:

Please refer to the “Proposal Submission and Review Process” section in the General NGO Guidelines. PRM strongly encourages organizations applying for PRM funding to use the PRM recommended proposal and budget templates. Templates can be requested by sending an email to PRM's NGO Coordinator. You must type “PRM NGO Templates” in the subject line to receive an automated reply containing the templates. 

In addition to referencing the General NGO Guidelines, applicants for Thailand proposing multi-year programs should adhere to the following guidance:

Applicants may submit proposals that include multi-year strategies presented in 12-month cycles for a period not to exceed 24 months from the proposed start date. Fully developed programs with detailed budgets, objectives and indicators are required for all years of activities. These can be updated yearly upon submission of continuation applications. Applicants should note that they may use PRM’s recommended multi-year proposal template, which is different from the single year template. Multi-year funding applicants may also use PRM’s standard budget template and should submit a separate budget sheet for each project year. Multi-year proposals using PRM’s templates must be no more than 30 pages in length. If the applicant does not use PRM’s recommended templates, proposals must not exceed 25 pages in length. Organizations may choose to attach work plans, activity calendars, and/or logical frameworks as addendums/appendices to the proposal. These attachments do not count toward the page limit total.

PLEASE TAKE SPECIAL NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN PRM’s NGO GUIDELINES:

This announcement is designed to accompany PRM’s General NGO Guidelines, which contain additional administrative information and explain in detail PRM’s NGO funding strategy and priorities. Please use both the General NGO Guidelines and this announcement to ensure that the proposed activities are in line with PRM’s priorities and that your proposal submission is in full compliance with PRM requirements. Proposal submissions that do not meet all of the requirements outlined in these guidelines will not be considered. PRM recommends using the proposal and budget templates that are available upon email request from PRM's NGO Coordinator. Please send an email, with the phrase “PRM NGO templates” in the subject line, to PRM’s NGO Coordinator.

· Proposals should outline how the NGO will acknowledge PRM funding. If an organization believes that publicly acknowledging the receipt of USG funding for a particular PRM-funded project could potentially endanger the lives of the beneficiaries and/or the organization staff, invite suspicion about the organization’s motives, or alienate the organization from the population it is trying to help, it must provide a brief explanation in its proposal as to why it should be exempted from this requirement.

· Focus on outcome or impact indicators as much as possible. At a minimum, each objective should have one outcome or impact indicator. Wherever possible, baselines should be established before the start of the project.

· To increase PRM’s ability to track the impact of PRM funding, include specific information on locations of projects and beneficiaries. Any project involving the building or maintenance of physical infrastructure must include coordinates of site locations (place name, P-Code, latitude and longitude coordinates).

· Budget must include a specific breakdown of funds being provided by UNHCR, other USG agencies, other donors, and your own organization. PRM strongly encourages multi-lateral support for humanitarian programs.

· Organizations that received PRM funding in FY 2011 for activities that are being proposed for funding under this announcement must include the most recent quarterly progress report against indicators outlined in the cooperative agreement. If an organization’s last quarterly report was submitted more than six weeks prior to the submission of a proposal in response to this funding announcement, the organization must include, with its most recent quarterly report, updates that show any significant progress made on objectives since the last report.

Application Requirements for Proposals for Multi-Year Funding

Multi-year applications selected for funding by PRM will be funded in 12 month increments based on the proposals submitted in the competing application and as approved by PRM. Continued funding after the initial 12 month award requires the submission of a noncompeting continuation application as follows:

· Continuation applications must be submitted not later than 90 days before the proposed start date of the award (e.g., if funding the next budget period is to begin on September 1, submit your application by June 1). Late applications will jeopardize continued funding.

· Applications must be signed by the Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) at the applicant organization on the submitted SF-424.

· Pursuant to U.S. Code, Title 218, Section 1001, stated on OMB Standard Form 424 (SF-424), Department of State is authorized to consolidate the certifications and assurances required by Federal law or regulations for its federal assistance programs. The list of certifications and assurances can be found at: http://fa.statebuy.state.gov/content.asp?content_id=161&menu_id=68 )

· Proposal Content, Formatting and Templates: Please refer to the guidance contained in PRM’s General NGO Guidelines. The total budget should not exceed the amount which is listed on the current Federal Assistance Award. You must submit a complete application including:

• Signed completed SF-424.
• Proposal reflecting objectives and indicators for the continuation period.
• Budget for the continuation period.
• Budget narrative.
• Most recent Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA), if applicable.

Information on the amount of unexpended funds to include a statement of the estimated cumulative total dollar amount taking into consideration the actual expenditures shown on the Financial Status Report. Note that funds are available for expenditure only during the period in which they are awarded.

Reports and Reporting Requirements:

Program reporting: PRM requires quarterly and final program reports describing and analyzing the results of activities undertaken during the validity period of the agreement. It is highly suggested that NGOs receiving PRM funding use the PRM recommended program report template. To request this template, send an email with the phrase “PRM NGO templates” in the subject line to PRM's NGO Coordinator.

Financial Reports: Financial reports are required within thirty (30) days following the end of each calendar year quarter during the validity period of the agreement; a final financial report covering the entire period of the agreement is required within ninety (90) days after the expiration date of the agreement.

For more details regarding PRM’s reporting requirements, please see General NGO Guidelines.

Proposal Review Process:

PRM will conduct a formal competitive review of all proposals submitted in response to this funding announcement. A review panel will evaluate submissions based on the above-referenced proposal evaluation criteria and PRM priorities in the context of available funding.

PRM may request revised proposals and/or budgets based on feedback from the panel. PRM will provide formal notifications to NGOs of final decisions taken by Bureau management.

PRM Points of Contact:

Should NGOs have technical questions related to this announcement, they should contact the PRM staff listed below prior to proposal submission. (Note: Responses to technical questions from PRM do not indicate a commitment to fund the program discussed.):

PRM Program Officer Hoa Tran, TranHT3@state.gov, 202-453-9289, Washington, D.C.

Bangkok Regional Refugee Coordinator Andrea Doyle, DoyleAL@state.gov, U.S. Embassy, Refugee and Migration Affairs, Bangkok, Thailand.

Bangkok Deputy Regional Refugee Coordinator Anjalina Sen, SenAM@state.gov, U.S. Embassy, Refugee and Migration Affairs, Bangkok, Thailand.

Source : http://m.state.gov

Reforms in Myanmar may spark refugee return

By DENIS D. GRAY, Associated Press

MAE LA REFUGEE CAMP, Thailand (AP) — The children who live in this camp for Burmese refugees have known no other life. Neither have many of their parents — or their grandparents.

Yet now, surprisingly rapid reforms and cease-fires under way in Myanmar are opening the prospects for the return of one of the world's largest refugee populations — some 1 million Burmese huddled in frontier camps and hideouts across five countries.

"There's a time for war, and a time for peace. Sixty-three years is long enough for killing," Pastor Simon Htoo told more than 300 young Burmese refugees gathered for morning prayers in a weathered, jungle church in Mae La, a camp near the Myanmar-Thai border. "Hope to see you all soon in our beautiful land."

The looming task for the international community will be massive. One of the least known diaspora of recent times includes an array of ethnic groups and religions — Buddhist, Christian and Muslim — driven from their homeland by oppression of political dissidents and brutal military campaigns against Myanmar's minorities.

The fighting and human rights abuses still persist in some areas, and even if stopped, many refugees say the hatreds, suspicions and double-crosses of past decades must be overcome before they feel safe enough to return.

One of the ethnic groups, the Karen, has been waging a guerrilla war for greater autonomy for 63 years from iron-fisted military regimes. The Kachin took up arms again last year.

"Signing a cease-fire is very easy — you can do it in a few minutes — but implementation is a different matter. That depends not on the smiles on their faces, but their sincerity, what is really in their hearts. Maybe it's another trick," Htoo, a Karen Baptist pastor, said after his sermon in this camp sheltering more than 50,000 refugees.

When they do return, the refugees will emerge from Bangladesh, India, Thailand, Malaysia and China, a refugee mass that with the Iraqis and Afghans ranks among the largest in the world.

Their living conditions vary vastly. In the fetid settlements of Bangladesh, as many as 400,000 illegal Rohingya, a Muslim ethnic minority, hover on the edge of existence. Others live in a well-established string of U.N.-recognized camps along the Thai border, home to three generations who have spent their entire lives there.

Most would be returning to border regions of razed villages, minefields, traumatized people and almost nonexistent support systems in a country that is already among the world's poorest. Many fear that with the world quick to applaud Myanmar's reforms, pressure will mount to force them back before conditions are right.

"People in the refugee camps must be given a choice: to go home, stay in Thailand or be resettled abroad. We don't trust Burmese politics because things are still very unclear," says Dr. Cynthia Maung, a refugee doctor they call "Mother Teresa of Burma" whose Thai border clinic has treated thousands. "Nobody is going back now."

Although preliminary plans for repatriation are being discussed among aid organizations and refugee leaders, roughly 1,000 are still fleeing into Thailand every month, says Jack Dunford, veteran head of the Thai Burma Border Consortium, which provides basic food and supplies to the Thai camps.

Thailand insists that there will be no forceful repatriation "until the situation is safe," Thai Foreign Ministry spokesman Thani Thongphakdi told The Associated Press. "No time frame has been set for their return."

But in Bangladesh, more than 10,000 are set for repatriation, and negotiations are under way with Myanmar for the rest to follow.

"Right now we are motivating the refugees to return home since we believe the human rights situation has improved," said Firoz Salahuddin, the Bangladesh government official in charge of the repatriation. "But it's a difficult task. Refugees are still fearful and need a lot of persuasion."

Those who qualify can seek resettlement in third countries, which have taken 114,000 from the Asian region since 2005, according to the International Organization for Migration. Of these, 90,000 have gone to the United States, with the others spread among 12 other nations, including Australia, Canada, Sweden and Japan. Up to 18,000 will be resettled this year.

The U.S. government intends to continue supporting both the refugees and increased aid to Myanmar if reforms continue. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who visited Myanmar in December, said Washington was committed to "helping the refugees for the future in their homeland, so they can become self-reliant after two decades of just being dependent on aid in the camps."

But other donors enthusiastic about the recent changes, notably the European Union, are shifting their focus and funds to Myanmar's heartland, dominated by the Burman majority, and the refugees are feeling the crunch.

Dunford says food distributions will have to be slashed further this year to a "breakpoint" 1,650 calories — well below the World Health Organization minimum daily adult requirement of 2,100. Items for shelter like bamboo and salaries of camp teachers also will be reduced.

In camps like Mae La, a warren of thatch and bamboo huts sprawled below limestone cliffs, everyone closely follows developments in Myanmar with a mix of hope, anxiety, suspicion and indecision.

"I want to go back to my country, but not now. There may be changes in the big cities, but not in the countryside," said May Soe, who fled to Thailand after Burmese soldiers killed her father and raped women in her village.

Torn between following her brother to the United States or staying, the 41-year-old medic remained behind to serve in the children's ward of Dr. Cynthia's Mae Tao clinic.

Others, like 36-year-old teacher Saw Wado, are ready to return and help rebuild the country. "We have lived at such a low level for so long that we are not afraid to go home," he said.

The Karen and other ethnic minority Christians have also retained an unwavering faith, more akin to that of the 19th century when they were converted by American missionaries.

At the camp's Care Villa, a shelter for the most severely handicapped, a group of young men — all blinded by land mines, missing arms and legs — joyously belted out a hymn.

"We don't know what the next day will bring, what the future holds for us, but God will lead the way," they sang in flawless part-harmony.

Associated Press writers Farid Hossain in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Thanyarat Doksone in Bangkok and Muneeza Naqvi in New Delhi contributed to this report.