1. What is the travel ban propoal really about?

This initiative proposes that all visitors entering Malaysia via e-Visa on Arrival (e-VOA) be asked a simple, standardised question:

 “Have you ever participated in, facilitated, or aided and abetted in the commission of genocide?”

Many countries (US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) include questions on their visa application forms, arrival cards, or immigration screening processes related to crimes against humanity, including genocide. The language might differ slightly, but the intent is the same: to deny entry to individuals involved in serious international crimes.

 This is not a ban on any nationality. It is a screening tool to deny entry to individuals credibly linked to acts of genocide, as documented by the International Court of Justice.

No. The proposal targets acts, not identities. It does not single out individuals based on religion, ethnicity, or nationality. It applies universally to anyone involved in genocide—just as the Nuremberg trials, Rwanda Tribunal, and ICTY (Yugoslavia) did.

Symbolism can become policy leadership. Malaysia already does not have diplomatic ties with Israel. Many IDF soldiers hold second passports (e.g. U.S., UK, EU) and may enter Malaysia through these. As such, as seen in the Maldives’ passport ban on Israelis, such acts signal a moral and legal stance. Moreover, many individuals who served in the IDF hold dual citizenships—American, European, Australian—making entry through other passports likely.

No. Malaysia has sovereign control over who enters its borders. Section 8(3)(k) of the Immigration Act 1959/63 already allows exclusion of “undesirable immigrants.” The Genocide Convention and Geneva Conventions (to which Malaysia is a signatory) provide strong international legal grounding for such exclusions.

“Following orders” has never been a full legal defence under international law. The Nuremberg Principles and every major war crimes tribunal since have held that individual accountability remains. IDF soldiers and foreign fighters have been documented by name and photo committing or enabling war crimes. This proposal helps build a future case archive—a precursor to prosecution.

This proposal doesn’t seek to “punish,” but to create consequences. Every young adult must ask:

 “Is serving in a genocidal campaign worth losing access to the world?”

 Refusenik movements in Israel already show this deterrent works. By signalling consequences now, we plant the seed for long-term accountability and help reduce future participation.

Like all visa processes, lying on an immigration form is grounds for immediate denial of entry or future deportation if discovered. Social media and intelligence sources already document the activities of IDF soldiers. This question is about creating a legal framework to act.

As an aside but point to consider – What if a tourist (perhaps of dual nationality) is discovered with an IDF card on the street, having committed no violation of the laws of Malaysia during his or her stay? What is the next step? Is it deportation? If they lied on the Immigration form – there are and should be local laws that will bring consequences to this. While anecdotal, it is important to think about issues such as these – which may arise, as well as our stand on it as Malaysians. Do we want genocidal war criminals in our midst?

Not at all. This is grounded in international law, national security principles, and moral precedent. The ICTY, ICTR, and ICC all began their work years after atrocities occurred. This proposal creates the evidence trail now—before perpetrators disappear into impunity.

 

Most of these tribunals had their work cut out for them, bringing perpetrators to justice over the course of years, if not decades. 

  • Protects national security by denying entry to perpetrators of mass violence.
  • Positions Malaysia as a global leader in genocide prevention.
  • Aligns with MADANI values of compassion, justice, and peace.
  • Builds regional momentum for ASEAN-wide cooperation on justice mechanisms.

The proposal recommends:
 Including the genocide-related question in digital arrival cards / e-VOA systems.
 Compiling a watchlist cross-referenced with open-source data and ICC complaints.
 Using existing immigration frameworks and task forces to review flagged applications.

This measure is the first step that will hopefully lead to many subsequent steps like prosecution whether it be within our borders or not.

Anticipated Criticisms and Strategic Responses to Malaysia’s Genocide Travel Ban Initiative

1. Hypocrisy: What about the Rohingya?

Criticism:
“How can Malaysia call for action on Gaza when Rohingya genocide victims remain unprotected and some are detained or deported from Malaysia?”

 Counterargument:
 Malaysia has taken in hundreds of thousands of Rohingya refugees over the past decades despite not being a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Unlike Western nations, Malaysia has not closed its doors to Rohingya boats during major refugee crises. This proposal is not selective sympathy—it’s about building mechanisms that benefit all victims, including the Rohingya.

(Actually this is a good precedent – we didn’t need to be a signatory to take action on the Rohingya, and we don’t need to be one for the Rome Statute to flag genociders.)

Criticism:
“If Malaysia is serious, why hasn’t it enforced similar travel bans or financial restrictions against Myanmar generals responsible for Rohingya genocide?”

 Counterargument:
 Malaysia has vocally condemned the Myanmar junta, including advocating for their exclusion from ASEAN Summits. This travel ban sets a precedent that can be extended to other genocidal actors.

Criticism:
“This goes against ASEAN’s principle of non-interference. It will alienate neighbours and damage unity.”

 Counterargument:
 ASEAN’s principle of non-interference is evolving. This proposal does not interfere in internal affairs—it exercises Malaysia’s sovereign right to control its borders.

Criticism:
“Taking a stance on genocide may offend major powers like China.”

 Counterargument:
 Malaysia is not targeting any one country. The policy is based on individual actions. China respects state sovereignty, and a rules-based Malaysia is attractive to long-term investors.

China has consistently advocated for a two-state solution, emphasizing the establishment of an independent Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated that “Gaza belongs to the Palestinian people” and that altering its status by force would only lead to further chaos.Wikipedia+1Wikipedia+1China Foreign Affairs

In July 2024, China facilitated the “Beijing Declaration,” bringing together 14 Palestinian factions, including Fatah and Hamas, to agree on forming a unity government. This move underscored China’s commitment to playing a mediating role in the conflict .The Guardian+3Wikipedia+3Le Monde.fr+3The Guardian

Additionally, China has criticized Israel’s military actions in Gaza, stating that they have gone “beyond self-defense” and calling for an immediate ceasefire. Malaysia’s proposal to include a genocide-related question in its e-Visa on Arrival (e-VOA) aligns with China’s diplomatic stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Both countries emphasize the importance of international law and the protection of human rights.

By implementing this measure, Malaysia reinforces its commitment to justice and accountability, values that resonate with China’s calls for a fair resolution to the conflict. This alignment can strengthen bilateral ties and enhance Malaysia’s position as a proactive player in international human rights advocacy.

Criticism:
 “This is just a populist anti-Israel stunt that doesn’t address other atrocities.”

 Counterargument:
 Malaysia’s opposition to Israeli war crimes is long-standing and documented. This policy targets genocide, not nationality. It can expand to other conflicts. In fact, to go further – part of being a State in the conception of what Statehood is – is a reliance on every single State to form allegiances and alliances and work together for humanity.

We have seen how going it alone, has turned out for many a State. Reliance on accepted international laws and norms are an imperative.

Criticism:
 “Malaysia has no credibility to talk about justice when corruption is rampant and race-based policies persist.”

 Counterargument:
 Malaysia’s imperfections do not invalidate its right—nor its responsibility—to act against genocide. In fact, confronting international atrocities while acknowledging and working to fix domestic shortcomings is the mark of moral maturity, not hypocrisy.

  • Every nation that has led human rights efforts has battled internal failings. The United States led the Nuremberg Trials while grappling with segregation. South Africa championed global justice after apartheid. These examples show that internal reform and external justice are not mutually exclusive—they are interdependent.
  • Malaysia’s anti-genocide stance should be seen as a reflection of its evolving aspirations, not a denial of its flaws. This initiative pushes the country toward rule-based governance, setting a new standard both globally and internally.
  • On race and inequality: Yes, Malaysia has long-standing race-based policies. But these policies are domestic debates about equity and economic redress, not actions that rise to the level of international crimes like genocide. False equivalency between internal socio-political frameworks and mass atrocity crimes weakens the moral vocabulary needed to prevent genocide.
  • On corruption: Malaysia’s current government was elected on an anti-corruption reform mandate. Taking a stance on genocide complements—not contradicts—those values. This is about establishing a national culture of accountability across all sectors and making MADANI values a continuous and practical affair.