JUNE 7 — The Rohingya are among the world’s most vulnerable and persecuted populations. As a stateless ethnic minority, they are neither recognised as citizens by the Myanmar government nor accepted as nationals by Bangladesh. Since the late 1970s, according to the UNHCR, more than a million Rohingya have escaped violence. They have faced systematic discrimination and exclusion. Thousands have been subjected to persecution, displacement, killings, and sexual violence, forcing many to flee their homes in search of safety and protection. As a result, neighbouring countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, and Bangladesh have become important destinations for Rohingya refugees seeking refuge from conflict and oppression.

In this context, calls to expel Rohingya refugees from Malaysia through public petitions are deeply troubling. Such actions contradict fundamental principles of humanity, compassion, and human rights. The Rohingya did not choose to become refugees; rather, they were forced into displacement by circumstances beyond their control. Demanding their removal by fellow Malaysians without considering their plight ignores the severe persecution they have endured and the lack of viable alternatives available to them.

Although Malaysia has yet to ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, the country has a long history of providing protection and shelter to displaced populations. Since the 1970s, Malaysia has hosted refugees fleeing conflict and persecution from various parts of the world. One of the earliest and most significant refugee populations received by Malaysia was the Indochinese refugees, particularly Vietnamese “boat people” who escaped war and political persecution following the conflicts in Indochina. Malaysia provided temporary refuge and humanitarian assistance until many of these refugees were eventually resettled in third countries.

Malaysia’s humanitarian tradition extends beyond the Indochinese refugee crisis. Over the decades, the country has also welcomed and supported vulnerable groups from Palestine, Syria, Bosnia, and other conflict-affected regions. During the Bosnian War in the 1990s, Malaysia played an active role in providing assistance and protection to Bosnian Muslims who were victims of ethnic cleansing and persecution. These examples demonstrate that Malaysia is not unfamiliar with hosting refugees and responding to humanitarian crises.

The willingness to shelter refugees is closely linked to Malaysia's foreign policy principles and international image.

A recurring theme in Malaysia’s diplomatic statements, speeches, and policy positions is the emphasis on humanitarian values, compassion, and solidarity with oppressed communities. Successive Malaysian governments have consistently advocated for the protection of vulnerable populations, particularly those affected by conflict, persecution, and human rights violations. Malaysia has often positioned itself as a responsible member of Asean and the international community, prepared to extend assistance to those in need.

Providing refuge to displaced persons requires understanding, tolerance, patience, and social acceptance. Refugees arrive with different cultural backgrounds, languages, and experiences. Whether they are Rohingya from Myanmar, Palestinians from Gaza, Syrians fleeing civil war, or other displaced populations, they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Therefore, efforts to mobilise public support for expelling Rohingya refugees from Malaysia represent a serious departure from the values of compassion and humanitarianism that have long characterised Malaysia’s response to vulnerable communities.

Furthermore, forcibly removing Rohingya refugees raises significant ethical and human rights concerns. The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) has consistently emphasised the importance of protecting individuals from persecution and upholding fundamental human rights. The question that must be asked is simple: where would the Rohingya go if they were expelled? The current international environment is marked by geopolitical tensions, restrictive migration policies, and declining willingness among many countries to accept refugees. Unlike previous decades, when numerous countries were willing to participate in refugee resettlement programmes, opportunities for durable solutions have become increasingly limited.

The experience of the Indochinese refugee crisis illustrates this point. Malaysia’s temporary sheltering of Vietnamese refugees was successful largely because countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and several European nations agreed to accept refugees through organised resettlement programmes. By the early 1990s, many of the refugees who had been sheltered in Malaysia were successfully resettled abroad. The final resettlement and repatriation of the “boat people” concluded in 2005. Today, however, the international landscape is very different. Anti-immigrant sentiment has increased in many countries, refugee resettlement quotas have declined, and political resistance to accepting displaced populations has grown significantly. Consequently, there are far fewer options available for refugees such as the Rohingya.

Simply pushing refugee boats back to sea or forcing refugees out of the country may appear to be an easy solution, but it does not solve the underlying humanitarian problem. Instead, such actions may expose vulnerable individuals to even greater risks. History has shown that desperate refugees undertaking dangerous sea journeys often face shipwrecks, starvation, human trafficking, exploitation, and death. If boats carrying refugees are turned away and subsequently capsize, resulting in the loss of innocent lives, the moral consequences cannot be ignored. Every human being, regardless of nationality or legal status, has the right to live with dignity and safety.

Instead of advocating for expulsion, a more constructive approach would be to engage all relevant stakeholders in meaningful discussions on how to address the challenges associated with refugee protection and integration in Malaysia. These stakeholders include government agencies, civil society organisations, international organisations, local communities, and refugee representatives themselves. Sustainable solutions can only be achieved through dialogue, cooperation, and evidence-based policymaking.

Many of the social and economic challenges associated with Rohingya refugees stem from their uncertain legal status. Because Malaysia does not formally recognise refugees in domestic law, Rohingya refugees face significant barriers in their daily lives. Most do not have the legal right to work, and their children often lack access to formal education. As a result, many Rohingya are forced to seek employment in informal sectors, undertaking difficult, low-paying, and physically demanding jobs. Without legal protection, they remain highly vulnerable to exploitation, abuse, discrimination, and unsafe working conditions.

Addressing these structural challenges requires policies that balance humanitarian considerations with national interests. Providing regulated access to employment, education, and basic services would not only improve the well-being of refugees but also reduce their vulnerability to exploitation and contribute to social stability. Such measures would enable refugees to become more self-reliant while awaiting long-term solutions.

Ultimately, the Rohingya refugee issue should be approached through the lens of humanity, compassion, and shared responsibility. The Rohingya are not a threat to be removed but a vulnerable population seeking safety from persecution and violence. Malaysia’s long-standing humanitarian tradition demonstrates that the country has both the experience and moral capacity to respond to refugee crises with dignity and compassion. Rather than turning away those in need, Malaysia should continue to uphold the values of humanity and justice that have guided its response to displaced populations for decades.

* Sheila Devi Michael is a senior lecturer at Universiti Malaya

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.