Malaysia needs a temporary pause on refugee intake

MALAYSIA'S long-standing role as a host country for refugees, particularly Rohingyas, reflects both humanitarian concern and regional responsibility. However, the increasing complexity of displacement in South-East Asia requires Malaysia to move beyond ad hoc responses to establishing a more comprehensive legal, institutional and diplomatic framework before accepting further refugee arrivals on a significant scale.

A temporary halt or strict limitation on new refugee intake should not be seen as a rejection of humanitarian responsibility. Rather, it should be framed as a necessary governance measure to ensure that Malaysia can manage refugee protection in an orderly, sustainable and legitimate way.

At present, Malaysia faces several structural constraints. The country is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and refugees remain without a fully codified legal status under domestic law. This creates uncertainty for government agencies, refugees, employers, civil society organisations and host communities.

In practice, many refugees live in a legal grey area: they may be tolerated on humanitarian grounds, but they remain vulnerable to arrest, exploitation and social resentment while facing limited access to services and employment.

For this reason, the government should first consolidate a strong national policy architecture. This should include clear legislation or administrative rules defining refugee status, registration procedures, rights and limitations, access to work, responsibilities of employers, data protection safeguards, coordination between federal and state agencies, and mechanisms for monitoring and enforcement.

A comprehensive framework would allow the government to distinguish clearly between refugees, asylum seekers, irregular migrants, victims of trafficking and other categories of non-citizens. This distinction is essential for both humanitarian protection and national security.

Such a framework is also necessary to reduce public tension.

Malaysians may worry about job competition, pressure on local services, crime, settlement permanence or unequal treatment between citizens and non-citizens. These concerns should be addressed through transparent policy design, regular public communication, credible data and clear limits on what refugee protection does and does not provide.

A structured policy framework can reassure the public that refugee management is under government control and aligned with national interests.

The new DPP (Dokumen Pendaftaran Pelarian or Refugee Registration Document) framework may be seen as an important step towards more systematic refugee documentation and governance.

Documentation alone is not sufficient, however. It must be embedded within a broader institutional framework that connects registration with protection, labour-market regulation, service access, security screening, and durable solutions. Without these elements, documentation risks becoming a technical exercise rather than a meaningful policy solution.

A more proactive diplomatic posture on resettlement must also be adopted. For too long, refugee resettlement has depended heavily on third-party facilitation, particularly through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

While UNHCR remains an important humanitarian partner, we should not rely primarily on external agencies to negotiate outcomes that directly affect our national capacity and social stability. The government should engage more directly with leaders of developed countries, including resettlement states in North America, Europe, East Asia and Oceania, to secure clearer responsibility-sharing commitments.

This diplomatic approach should be strategic and high-level. We should press for predictable annual resettlement quotas, faster processing of vulnerable cases, support for education and skills pathways, and financial contributions to refugee-hosting infrastructure.

We should also seek bilateral and multilateral agreements that recognise Malaysia's role as a major host country and ensure that responsibility is shared more equitably. Refugee protection cannot be sustainable if countries of first asylum carry the burden while wealthier states provide only limited resettlement opportunities.

A temporary pause on new intake would therefore provide Malaysia with the policy space needed to negotiate from a stronger position. It would allow the government to review

existing numbers, strengthen registration, identify priority protection cases, regulate work access, improve inter-agency coordination and develop a coherent diplomatic strategy.

This would make Malaysia’s refugee policy more credible domestically and more effective internationally.

ASSOC PROF DR MASHITAH HAMIDI

Head, Malaysian Population and Migration Research Centre

Universiti Malaya