We cannot say the Rohingya are ‘not our problem’

The Rohingya population in Malaysia — officially numbered by UNHCR at 126,144 as of February 2026 — have been here since the 1990s, having arrived in waves over the decades to flee racial discrimination and violence at the hands of Myanmar’s Buddhist majority.

Nearly 30 years on, the Rohingya’s plight doesn’t seem to have eased. Still marginalised and feared, the Muslim community has lately again become the target of vitriol from Malaysians online.

The latest controversy began on May 27, after Selayang residents raised concerns over a Hari Raya Aidiladha sacrifice ritual conducted by a group of Rohingya, complaining that blood and animal waste had been dumped into nearby drains.

Their “concerns” soon escalated to accusations, with people questioning how refugees were able to afford dozens of cattle, despite reports that the livestock had been locally sponsored. Others revived allegations that the community was a burden on public funds and stealing local jobs.

On June 1, an online petition was launched, calling for the Rohingya’s removal and arguing that their growing numbers were putting pressure on infrastructure and social services. It has already attracted half a million signatures.

The petition argues that the Rohingya have “heightened tensions within local communities, as resources that are already scarce become even more limited”. It also cites security concerns, saying crime rates have increased where refugee settlements are concentrated.

“While not all refugees are involved in such activities, the mere association has led to fear and mistrust within local communities. The petition calls upon the Malaysian government to develop a comprehensive plan to address this issue.

“We urge the authorities to collaborate with international organisations to seek alternative solutions, such as resettlement in third countries or enhanced support in their home regions in Myanmar,” it reads.

While the petition may have been worded with care, its measured tone doesn’t reflect that of Malaysians online, who’ve obliterated the fine line between airing concerns and hate speech. Calls for the Rohingya’s deaths, excused as black humour or gallows comedy, are making the rounds.

One comment on Threads reads, almost verbatim: “The best solution is to control their births, or sell them to organ-harvesting syndicates. Why should Malaysians pay monthly for them to breed like rats?”

We shouldn’t platform talk like this, but the fact remains that such dehumanising language is now common.

Some have even turned the word “Rohingya” into a slur. It’s become so bad that PAS information chief Ahmad Fadhli Shaari recently said he was considering legal action against netizens calling him “Malaysia’s first Rohingya MP”.

Obstacles to relocation

The petition isn’t wrong, though. Previous administrations never really developed a proper plan to address the issue. In fact, they avoided confronting it head-on for over 30 years. So yes, the government needs an actual, thorough plan.

That said, the two alternative solutions suggested in the petition are unlikely to work. Firstly, both proposals would require the relocation of large numbers of Rohingya people — which is easier to propose than execute.

The problem with forcibly relocating people you don’t want is that you’re not the only one who doesn’t want them. These solutions are unlikely to succeed for the same reason they haven’t happened elsewhere: very few countries would willingly accept a community of 120,000-odd people dumped on their shores.

Likewise, any plan to repatriate the community in phases and across various countries is unlikely to work because of the diplomatic complications involved. Asean leaders have discussed this exact issue over several summits, with little success.

Critics of the community point out that Malaysia has not signed the 1951 Refugee Convention and lacks a legislative or administrative framework to address refugee matters. They argue that responsibility for the Rohingya falls on Myanmar, and not Malaysia. “We already gave them temporary assistance. They must go back,” they say.

This argument, whether intentionally or not, overlooks the fact that sending the Rohingya back would expose them to the same persecution and violence they were fleeing from, which clearly isn’t an option if Malaysia wants to maintain its humanitarian credentials.

Choosing to send them back would shift the core issue to international optics and public relations: how much criticism is Malaysia willing to endure? Can it get away with such a move? Yes, these questions are callous — but so is the choice.

Ultimately, the solution is likely to be found within Malaysia itself, and must come from Putrajaya. It certainly won’t come from Asean alone, and Myanmar is unlikely to reverse its present position anytime soon.

Neither is it likely to come from UNHCR, which while being mandated to “safeguard the rights and well-being of refugees and asylum-seekers worldwide”, has no real power to compel Malaysia to adopt policy.

Of course, what the solution actually is has been repeatedly debated, which is another challenge. We’ve avoided making hard policy choices for reasons that would require a separate discussion.

Outside of repatriation, the Rohingya in Malaysia need opportunities to challenge negative perceptions of their community. Yet the least popular option — granting them citizenship to allow them full access to public education and formal employment, thus opening pathways to upward mobility and crime reduction — appears politically unviable.

Perhaps we could offer them temporary identification, similar to what is done in East Malaysia. This would grant the Rohingya partial access to education and employment. That said, determining the exact limits of such documentation would be tricky in itself.

In any case, we can’t say this isn’t our problem.

Yes, we should strengthen our borders, but Myanmar has already made the refugees now in our country our conundrum to solve. They are here, and not there. And unless the government takes real action to resolve this issue, we’ll be talking about this for another few decades.

Mikha Chan is a news editor with FMT’s English desk.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.