As former director of Jesuit Refugee Service Southern Sudan David Palmer remarked in his article yesterday, passion often trumps reasoned argument in discussion of asylum seekers. So I welcome the clarity and courtesy with which he makes his ethical case for the Malaysian solution. Although I agree with many of his points, I would like, with equal civility, to argue against his conclusions.
The core of David's argument that the Malaysian solution is ethical lies in his analysis of the argument from proximity: the moral obligation to meet the claims of people who make their claim on us in our own territory.
He argues that in an age when distance is relativised, proximity is not a decisive factor. The appeal to proximity, too, ignores other factors that are equally important: the relative needs of different groups of refugees; the unequal resources of these asylum seekers compared to others, and the need to maintain public support for refugee programs by controlling entry to Australia. He concludes that the Malaysian solution balances these different demands in an ethically acceptable way.
I agree with David that the core of the argument lies in the ethical significance we give to proximity. We both accept that an ethical refugee policy must be fair and attend to the relative needs of different asylum seekers. We differ about the point at which fairness and need should be taken into account, and so on how they are relevant to ethical judgment of the Malaysian solution.
David and I may also differ in the starting point of our ethical thinking. His reflection begins from above with a broad overview of the elements involved in a refugee policy abstracted from the people who are involved. Perhaps that is how thinking about policy works. My concern is that this starting point encourages the assumption that the only relevant ethical question to be asked about policy is whether it will bring the greatest benefit for the greatest number.
My reflection begins from the concrete dignity and experience of the people about whose treatment ethical questions are raised.
In this case these are the people who will be the objects of the Malaysian solution, and particularly those who discover that they will be sent to Malaysia as a result of the policy. The Malaysian solution is defined by the swapping of particular asylum seekers for others, and the sending of those who arrived by boat to live in Malaysia without lasting