If Rohingyas were only supposed to stay in Malaysia temporarily, why are they still here after decades?

With the Rohingya issue back in the spotlight, many people are asking whether they should stay or be sent back. But before debating what should happen next, there's a more important question that rarely gets discussed.

How did Malaysia end up in this situation in the first place?

To answer that, we need to start with Malaysia's relationship with refugees.

The Rohingya were not the first refugees Malaysia ever hosted.

During the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees fled their country following the Vietnam War. Many arrived by boat across Southeast Asia and became known as the "boat people."

Malaysia became one of the countries that provided temporary refuge. Refugee camps were established while international agencies coordinated long-term solutions. 

Most of the refugees were eventually resettled in countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia and France.

The camps eventually closed.

Malaysia also hosted refugees from conflicts in Bosnia during the 1990s. Many Bosnians later returned home after the war ended, while others were resettled elsewhere.

In both cases, the arrangement was largely temporary.

Refugees arrived, international organisations became involved and a long-term solution eventually emerged.

This history matters because it shaped expectations.

When Rohingya refugees began arriving from Myanmar, many assumed the same pattern would repeat itself.

The story begins in Myanmar's Rakhine State, where the Rohingya faced decades of restrictions on citizenship, movement, education and employment. 

Periodic crackdowns forced people to flee, but the crisis reached a much larger scale in the years leading up to and following 2017.

Malaysia became a destination for several reasons. 

It was a Muslim-majority country, it offered more opportunities than refugee camps and existing Rohingya communities made it easier for newcomers to settle.

As more people arrived, migration networks expanded.

The situation did not develop under a single government.

Rohingya refugees were already arriving during Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's first administration. 

At the time, estimates placed the population at roughly 10,000 to 40,000, relatively small and attracting little public attention. 

Like previous refugee groups, they were largely managed through a combination of immigration policies and registration by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

Under Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, arrivals continued. 

The numbers gradually grew to around 40,000 to 60,000, but Malaysia still did not establish a formal refugee framework. 

This was not seen as an urgent crisis, as many assumed refugees would eventually be resettled elsewhere or return home if conditions improved.

The issue became far more visible during Datuk Seri Najib Razak's administration.

The escalation during this period happened for two main reasons. 

First, the 2015 Southeast Asian boat crisis left thousands of migrants and refugees stranded at sea, forcing Malaysia into regional coordination efforts and bringing the issue into global headlines. 

By this stage, estimates already placed the Rohingya population in Malaysia at around 40,000 to 60,000.

Second, discussions began around more structured responses, including the idea of allowing temporary work arrangements for Rohingya refugees to reduce dependency and manage their presence more systematically.

Then in 2017, Myanmar’s military crackdown triggered a massive new wave of displacement. 

This pushed the Rohingya population in Malaysia past roughly 100,000, with later estimates reaching up to 150,000 including registered refugees and asylum seekers. 

Unlike earlier years, this was no longer just a humanitarian concern but a major international crisis.

Najib publicly condemned Myanmar’s actions and took a highly visible stance, including leading a large solidarity rally in Kuala Lumpur. 

From this point onward, the Rohingya issue was no longer low-profile. It had become politically and diplomatically visible, both domestically and across the region.

As a result, the Rohingya situation shifted from a relatively low-profile migration issue into a highly visible regional humanitarian and political crisis. 

It was this combination of increased displacement and increased visibility that made the issue far more prominent than in earlier administrations.

After 2018, a succession of governments inherited a situation that was no longer temporary. 

Mahathir's second administration, followed by Muhyiddin Yassin, Ismail Sabri Yaakob and Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, all faced the same reality: a refugee population that had continued growing while long-term solutions remained out of reach.

The issue became even more complicated during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

As Malaysia struggled with lockdowns, economic uncertainty and public health concerns, new boats carrying Rohingya refugees continued arriving. 

In 2020, the government took a firmer stance by refusing some new arrivals while still providing humanitarian assistance such as food and supplies. 

The episode highlighted a growing reality: what had once been treated as a temporary refugee situation was becoming a long-term challenge with no clear end in sight.

Public attitudes also began to change. Concerns over illegal immigration, employment, public services, and social integration became more prominent. 

As a result, government policy increasingly focused on border enforcement, controlling new arrivals and managing a situation that previous administrations had expected would eventually resolve itself.

Like previous refugee situations, many assumed the Rohingya crisis would be temporary.

The expectation was that refugees would eventually return home when conditions improved or be accepted by third countries through international resettlement programmes.

But this time, neither happened on a meaningful scale.

Myanmar remained unsafe for large-scale return. At the same time, resettlement opportunities fell far short of the number of people seeking them.

This is where the Rohingya situation differs from the Vietnamese refugees decades earlier.

When Vietnamese refugees arrived, major Western countries committed substantial resettlement quotas. Hundreds of thousands were accepted over time, creating a pathway out of the temporary camps.

No comparable international effort emerged for the Rohingya.

Countries that traditionally accepted refugees continued to take some people, but not in numbers large enough to solve the problem. 

Meanwhile, the global refugee population had grown dramatically, with crises unfolding in Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Venezuela, Ukraine and elsewhere.

The result was a bottleneck.

People who were expected to stay temporarily remained for years. Then decades.

What began as a humanitarian response slowly became a long-term policy challenge.

This is why the debate today is so contentious.

Many Malaysians look at the situation and ask why the international community never delivered the long-term solutions that existed in previous refugee crises.

Others argue that after decades of residence, the reality on the ground can no longer be treated as temporary.

But whichever position one takes, understanding the history matters.

The Rohingya issue did not appear overnight and it did not emerge because of a single decision by a single government.

It developed over decades through a combination of persecution in Myanmar, regional migration routes, humanitarian responses, limited resettlement opportunities and a refugee system that assumed temporary protection would eventually become a permanent solution.

For the Vietnamese boat people, that transition eventually happened.

For the Rohingya, it largely never did.

And that may be the most important fact in this entire debate. 

Malaysia was never expected to become a long-term destination for the Rohingya. 

The expectation was that they would eventually return home or be resettled elsewhere. 

Decades later, neither solution has happened at the scale required, leaving Malaysia to manage a situation that was never designed to last this long.