Latest news with #PalermoProtocol
Daily Tribune
3 days ago
- Daily Tribune
New office for trafficking victims
The Ministry of Interior has established a specialised office under the General Directorate of Criminal Investigation and Forensic Science to support victims of human trafficking. The office, aligned with international standards, provides a safe environment for victims to give testimony and includes a dedicated space for children. It aims to enhance cooperation with judicial authorities from investigation to prosecution. This step reflects Bahrain's commitment to combating trafficking in persons, in line with Law No. 1 of 2008 with Respect to Trafficking in Persons and the Palermo Protocol, ratified under Law No. (4) of 2004.
Focus Malaysia
28-07-2025
- Politics
- Focus Malaysia
Is KLIA 'counter setting' a symptom of deeper migrant exploitation?
THE recent detention of an enforcement officer at Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) Terminal 1 has renewed public scrutiny over a clandestine practice known as 'counter setting'. This tactic, where individuals are allowed to bypass formal immigration procedures, raises serious concerns not only regarding border security and official corruption but also about structural vulnerabilities in Malaysia's migration management, labour demands and institutional accountability. Last November, nearly 50 immigration officers were reassigned following investigations by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) into a similar syndicate operating at KLIA. A senior immigration officer, believed to be the mastermind behind the network, is expected to face charges over a human trafficking ring that allegedly facilitated the unlawful entry of foreign nationals without immigration clearance. The act of 'counter-setting' which involves corruption at borders is a well-recognised enabler of both human trafficking and migrant smuggling. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) identifies bribery and abuse of power as systemic 'pull factors' that facilitate transnational crime. In this context, 'counter setting' is not just negligence, it is an institutional gateway for illicit entry under the guise of administrative authority. However, criminalising rogue officers should not automatically lead to the assumption that all individuals who passed through these compromised checkpoints are victims of trafficking or knowingly complicit in smuggling. Trafficking vs. smuggling Public discourse frequently conflates 'migration', 'trafficking' and 'smuggling' as either criminal or victimhood, obscuring nuanced legal distinctions. Under both the UN Trafficking Protocol (Palermo Protocol) and Malaysia's Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 (ATIPSOM), human trafficking consists of three essential elements: Act (e.g., recruitment, transportation), Means (e.g., coercion, fraud, abuse of power), and Purpose (e.g., exploitation such as forced labour or sexual servitude). However, ATIPSOM does not clearly criminalise attempts to traffic nor does it automatically recognise someone as a trafficked person simply because they entered the country irregularly. As studies have established, most trafficking victims enter Malaysia legally which means that they are in possession of valid passport and are even given a 30-day visa free entry if they are from Southeast Asian countries. Therefore, it is nearly impossible to establish the key component of 'exploitation' unless it is evidently demonstrated at the border entry. Mere facilitation without evidence of exploitation does not constitute trafficking. By contrast, migrant smuggling involves consensual facilitation of unlawful entry in exchange for financial gain. Once the border is crossed, the smuggling transaction ends. In such cases, the migrant is typically treated as an offender who have breached immigration laws. An individual's status only becomes 'irregular' if immigration officers on arrival fail to stamp or process their entry. This administrative omission does not by itself amount to criminal conduct or evidence of trafficking. This brings us to a critical question: how can authorities establish that the individuals who entered via 'counter setting' were trafficked, smuggled, or simply irregular migrants? Without evidence of coercion or exploitation, these individuals remain at best suspects or irregular entrants. As many of us has experienced, it is extremely difficult for individuals to board international flights to Malaysia without valid travel documents. Multiple layers of checks include immigration clearance at the point of departure, airline document verification, and pre-boarding checks by flight crew. This may not necessarily be the case when entering Malaysia through land. For example, Malaysia's land borders especially in areas such as Rantau Panjang, Sungai Golok and Wang Kelian are far more porous. In Wang Kelian, a one-kilometre 'no man's land' separates Thai and Malaysian posts, making unsupervised crossings possible. Arrests involving undocumented Myanmar nationals and the unregulated movement of Malaysians into Thailand highlight systemic gaps in surveillance and border management. Labour agents and recruitment networks Malaysia's fluctuating labour policies such as the temporary freeze (and subsequent lifting) on the intake of Bangladeshi workers, for example, have created a market of desperation. To fulfil recruitment contracts or avoid refunding fees, unscrupulous agents may resort to corrupt arrangements with enforcement personnel to smuggle workers into the country. One major concern is the licensing regime. In Malaysia, work agents are not required to possess individual licences. Licences are tied to agencies, creating a regulatory blind spot. Some agents operate without registration; others exploit legal platforms while engaging in parallel black-market operations. Disturbingly, many such agents are foreign nationals already residing in Malaysia, which helps them gain the trust of vulnerable migrant communities. Upon arrival, many of these migrants are placed in overcrowded accommodation and squalid conditions. They are also subjected to long hours of work, meagre pay, and minimal legal protection. While exploitative, these conditions do not always rise to the legal threshold of trafficking unless all the trafficking elements are clearly present. Malaysia must move beyond reactive enforcement and address the systemic factors that enable counter setting and migration-related abuse. A rights-based and reform-oriented strategy should include stricter employer vetting procedures and meaningful penalties for labour exploitation as well as crackdowns on unlicensed and unscrupulous agents, including those operating under legal facades, among others. Conclusively, it is evident that the KLIA 'counter setting' scandal is not just about corrupt officers, it exposes systemic cracks in Malaysia's migration governance, labour recruitment processes, and institutional safeguards. While prosecuting offenders is necessary, structural reforms must follow to protect migrants' rights and preserve the integrity of our borders. To strike a balance between national security and human dignity, Malaysia must clearly distinguish between 'victims', 'offenders', and 'irregular migrants' and, above all, recognise the human realities behind each case. ‒ July 28, 2025 Dr Haezreena Begum Abdul Hamid is a Criminologist and Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Malaya. The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia. Main image: Malaysiakini
New Straits Times
28-07-2025
- New Straits Times
Beyond KLIA: Unpacking Malaysia's systemic migration challenges
The recent detention of an enforcement officer at Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) Terminal 1 has renewed public scrutiny over a clandestine practice known as 'counter setting,' where individuals are allowed to bypass formal immigration procedures. The act of "counter-setting" which involves corruption at borders is a well-recognised enabler of both human trafficking and migrant smuggling. Thus, "counter setting" is not just negligence, it is an institutional gateway for illicit entry under the guise of administrative authority. Under the UN Trafficking Protocol (Palermo Protocol) and Malaysia's Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 (ATIPSOM), human trafficking consists of three essential elements: Act (e.g., recruitment, transportation), Means (e.g., coercion, fraud, abuse of power), and Purpose (e.g., exploitation such as forced labour or sexual servitude). As studies has established, most trafficking victims enter Malaysia legally which means that they are in possession of valid passport and are even given a 30-day visa free entry if they are from Southeast Asian countries. By contrast, migrant smuggling involves consensual facilitation of unlawful entry in exchange for financial gain. In addition, it is extremely difficult for individuals to board international flights to Malaysia without valid travel documents. This may not necessarily be the case when entering Malaysia through land. For example, Malaysia's land borders especially in areas such as Rantau Panjang, Sungai Golok, and Wang Kelian are far more porous. In Wang Kelian, a one-kilometre "no man's land" separates Thai and Malaysian posts, making unsupervised crossings possible Malaysia's fluctuating labour policies such as the temporary freeze (and subsequent lifting) on the intake of Bangladeshi workers for example, have created a market of desperation. One major concern is the licensing regime. In Malaysia, work agents are not required to possess individual licences. Some agents operate without registration; others exploit legal platforms while engaging in parallel black-market operations. Disturbingly, many such agents are foreign nationals already residing in Malaysia, which helps them gain the trust of vulnerable migrant communities. Malaysia must move beyond reactive enforcement and address the systemic factors that enable counter setting and migration-related abuse. A rights-based and reform-oriented strategy should include stricter employer vetting procedures and meaningful penalties for labour exploitation; crackdowns on unlicensed and unscrupulous agents, including those operating under legal facades; enhance institutional oversight across border enforcement agencies to prevent corruption; implement a victim-centred approach that treats irregular entrants as potential victims unless complicity is proven; and ratify the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all migrant workers and members of their families. The KLIA "counter setting" scandal exposes systemic cracks in Malaysia's migration governance, labour recruitment processes, and institutional safeguards. While prosecuting offenders is necessary, structural reforms must follow to protect migrants' rights and preserve the integrity of our borders. Criminologist and Senior Lecturer Faculty of Law, University Malaya
IOL News
29-04-2025
- IOL News
The Joshlin Smith case: A pivotal moment in South Africa's battle against child trafficking
In powerful closing arguments on Tuesday, Senior State Advocate Zelda Swanepoel described the Joshlin Smith case as unlike any South Africa has seen before, a heartbreaking story where the victim's voice has not been heard. The six-year-old girl went missing from her Middelpos home in Saldanha Bay on February 19, 2024. Her mother, Racquel 'Kelly' Smith, her boyfriend, Jacquen 'Boeta' Appollis, and their friend, Steveno 'Steffie' van Rhyn, were charged with kidnapping and human trafficking. They have pleaded not guilty. Former accused Lourentia 'Renz' Lombaard testified that Kelly sold her daughter to a sangoma for R20 000. Addressing the Western Cape High Court, Swanepoel explained that in most human trafficking cases, the child is recovered and can testify about what happened. But Joshlin remains missing. Her absence, Swanepoel said, makes this case unprecedented. 'Usually, in a TIP (Trafficking in Persons) case, the most important source of information is the victim,' she told the court. 'In this case, we don't have that.' Drawing on extensive research and a recent article that she submitted as an authority, Swanepoel said that although South Africa has dealt with child trafficking before, those cases were very different. In the past, in three matters, undercover police operations intervened before any actual harm occurred. The children were never fully handed over to criminals. But Joshlin's situation is different. 'This is the first time we are dealing with a case where the child is truly gone,' Swanepoel emphasised. 'That is why this case is so important, not only for justice for Joshlin but also for the development of our law.' According to the State, the evidence shows that Joshlin was sold in a planned agreement between the accused parties. Swanepoel described this as 'modern-day slavery', the commodification of a human being for exploitation. 'A person is never supposed to be a commodity,' she argued. 'It sounds bizarre to the reasonable person that a child could be sold. But sadly, that is the reality we are facing.' Because South African law historically had no crime specifically criminalising the selling of a person, Swanepoel explained that legislation was introduced to close this gap, following international obligations like the Palermo Protocol. Swanepoel broke down the elements of trafficking as set out in South African law under Section 4(1) of the Prevention and Combating of Trafficking in Persons Act (PACOTIP). She explained that trafficking requires three elements: The act - what was done, The means - how it was done, and The purpose - exploitation. However, when the victim is a child, as in Joshlin's case, only two elements are required: the act and the purpose. The 'means' such as force or coercion is not necessary to prove, because children are inherently vulnerable. 'Section 11 of our legislation removes the need to prove the means when a child is trafficked,' Swanepoel said, referring the court to previous cases she had prosecuted where this principle was upheld. Swanepoel urged the court to recognise the gravity of the allegations. 'This is a very important case, not only because of Joshlin, but because it shapes how South Africa protects its most vulnerable.' The trial continues. Cape Argus
IOL News
29-04-2025
- IOL News
Joshlin Smith case: A landmark trial in South Africa's fight against human trafficking
In powerful closing arguments on Tuesday, Senior State Advocate Zelda Swanepoel described the Joshlin Smith case as unlike any South Africa has seen before, a heartbreaking story where the victim's voice has not been heard. The six-year-old girl went missing from her Middelpos home in Saldanha Bay on February 19, 2024. Her mother, Racquel 'Kelly' Smith, her boyfriend, Jacquen 'Boeta' Appollis, and their friend, Steveno 'Steffie' van Rhyn, were charged with kidnapping and human trafficking. They have pleaded not guilty. Former accused Lourentia 'Renz' Lombaard testified that Kelly sold her daughter to a sangoma for R20 000. Addressing the Western Cape High Court, Swanepoel explained that in most human trafficking cases, the child is recovered and can testify about what happened. But Joshlin remains missing. Her absence, Swanepoel said, makes this case unprecedented. 'Usually, in a TIP (Trafficking in Persons) case, the most important source of information is the victim,' she told the court. 'In this case, we don't have that.' Drawing on extensive research and a recent article that she submitted as an authority, Swanepoel said that although South Africa has dealt with child trafficking before, those cases were very different. In the past, in three matters, undercover police operations intervened before any actual harm occurred. The children were never fully handed over to criminals. But Joshlin's situation is different. 'This is the first time we are dealing with a case where the child is truly gone,' Swanepoel emphasised. 'That is why this case is so important, not only for justice for Joshlin but also for the development of our law.' According to the State, the evidence shows that Joshlin was sold in a planned agreement between the accused parties. Swanepoel described this as 'modern-day slavery', the commodification of a human being for exploitation. 'A person is never supposed to be a commodity,' she argued. 'It sounds bizarre to the reasonable person that a child could be sold. But sadly, that is the reality we are facing.' Because South African law historically had no crime specifically criminalising the selling of a person, Swanepoel explained that legislation was introduced to close this gap, following international obligations like the Palermo Protocol. Swanepoel broke down the elements of trafficking as set out in South African law under Section 4(1) of the Prevention and Combating of Trafficking in Persons Act (PACOTIP). She explained that trafficking requires three elements: The act - what was done, The means - how it was done, and The purpose - exploitation. However, when the victim is a child, as in Joshlin's case, only two elements are required: the act and the purpose. The 'means' such as force or coercion is not necessary to prove, because children are inherently vulnerable. 'Section 11 of our legislation removes the need to prove the means when a child is trafficked,' Swanepoel said, referring the court to previous cases she had prosecuted where this principle was upheld. Swanepoel urged the court to recognise the gravity of the allegations. 'This is a very important case, not only because of Joshlin, but because it shapes how South Africa protects its most vulnerable.' The trial continues.
