Malaysia's civil society organisations have launched a coordinated push for a more balanced national approach to refugee issues, following a high-level conference in Kuala Lumpur that produced ten resolutions aimed at guiding government policy. The gathering, held on June 20 in conjunction with World Refugee Day 2026, brought together representatives from non-governmental organisations, academic experts, humanitarian agencies, international bodies and community leaders at the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) Malaysia. The resolutions represent a significant effort to reframe the refugee debate in Malaysia, moving beyond polarised narratives that have increasingly characterised public discourse on the issue.

Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM) president Ahmad Fahmi Mohd Samsudin announced that the resolutions and accompanying declaration would be formally presented to Members of Parliament and relevant government agencies to catalyse policy development. The conference was jointly organised by Global Peace Mission (GPM) Malaysia, ABIM and IAIS Malaysia, reflecting an intentional coalition-building approach designed to give the advocacy effort greater legitimacy and reach. Ahmad Fahmi emphasised that the resolutions were grounded in the practical knowledge and direct experience of NGOs working on the ground with refugee populations, positioning the civil society input as evidence-based rather than purely idealistic.

A critical motivation behind the conference was the recognition that anti-refugee sentiment has been rising in Malaysia, fuelled by misinformation and polarised media narratives. Ahmad Fahmi articulated the concern that unchecked xenophobic feelings directed toward refugee communities could metastasize into broader social divisions. The leadership stressed the importance of reclaiming the middle ground in public discourse, acknowledging legitimate security and community concerns while simultaneously rejecting dehumanising rhetoric. This strategy suggests that civil society recognises the government's genuine need to balance humanitarian obligations with domestic concerns—a position that may resonate more effectively with policymakers than purely advocacy-focused messaging.

The conference resolutions explicitly reject all forms of hatred, discrimination, dehumanisation and inflammatory speech directed at refugees, asylum seekers and other marginalised groups. Importantly, the resolutions simultaneously affirm that legitimate public concerns about security, law enforcement, social welfare and community stability are valid and warrant careful, evidence-based attention. This dual approach attempts to thread a needle that has proven difficult in Malaysian politics: validating community anxieties without endorsing xenophobia. The framework suggests that refugee policy need not be presented as a binary choice between humanitarian compassion and national security.

Among the concrete policy recommendations, the resolutions call on the government to collaborate with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other international partners to substantially improve data collection, refugee registration and documentation systems. Better-managed administrative processes could theoretically reduce public anxiety by increasing transparency and orderliness in how refugee populations are tracked and managed. This represents a pragmatic recognition that part of public concern stems from uncertainty about numbers and backgrounds of refugee populations within Malaysia. Enhanced systems would provide government and civil society with reliable information for policy discussions and public communication.

A significant emphasis emerged around countering misinformation and xenophobic narratives that spread rapidly through digital channels. The resolutions specifically called for strengthened public education, media literacy initiatives and targeted efforts to combat hate speech and disinformation campaigns online. Malaysia's experience with rapid viral spread of divisive content on social media has made this concern particularly acute. The resolutions also supported the creation of dedicated mechanisms to help NGOs, activists and humanitarian organisations respond to attacks, slander and organised disinformation campaigns—acknowledging that civil society advocates themselves have become targets of online harassment.

Malaysia's position as a non-signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention provides unique context for this policy debate. Despite not formally committing to international refugee protocols, Malaysia has extensive practical experience managing refugee populations, having sheltered communities from Vietnam, Syria, Bosnia and Palestine over several decades. Ahmad Fahmi referenced this history to demonstrate that refugee management is not theoretical for Malaysia but an established aspect of the country's humanitarian practice. This framing positions the resolutions not as imposing external standards on Malaysia but as building on existing Malaysian experience and values.

The conference timing during World Refugee Day 2026 was deliberately symbolic, linking Malaysia's policy discussions to global refugee awareness efforts. However, the particularised Malaysian approach evident in the resolutions—emphasising the balancing of national interests with humanitarian duties—suggests that the civil society coalition is not simply importing international refugee advocacy frameworks. Rather, they are attempting to construct a distinctly Malaysian refugee policy model that acknowledges both the country's economic constraints and its Islamic and humanitarian traditions.

The planned follow-up engagement with the Home Ministry and National Security Council (MKN) indicates that civil society intends to maintain momentum beyond the conference itself. Ahmad Fahmi's statement about seeking continued discussions with security and governance bodies suggests recognition that refugee policy ultimately falls within the purview of security and interior ministry functions. This engagement strategy potentially increases the likelihood that civil society input will influence actual policy formulation rather than remaining confined to advocacy circles.

For Malaysia specifically, these resolutions arrive amid broader regional discussions about migration, refugee protection and border management across Southeast Asia. As the region experiences demographic shifts, climate-related displacement and ongoing conflicts in neighbouring areas, Malaysia's refugee policy will likely influence how other Southeast Asian nations approach similar challenges. The resolutions' emphasis on evidence-based policymaking and balanced approaches could establish a template for regional dialogue on refugee issues.

The conference also highlights the agency of Malaysian civil society in shaping national policy conversations. Rather than waiting for government initiatives, the coalition of ABIM, GPM Malaysia and IAIS Malaysia actively convened stakeholders and produced detailed resolutions for government consideration. This proactive approach reflects growing sophistication in how civil society engages with policymakers in Malaysia, moving beyond reactive criticism toward constructive policy proposals. The emphasis on dialogue with government bodies rather than confrontation suggests a pragmatic assessment of how change is most likely to occur within Malaysia's political context.

Looking forward, the success of these resolutions in influencing actual government policy will depend on several factors: the receptiveness of relevant ministries to civil society input, the mobilisation of parliamentary interest in refugee issues, and whether public opinion can be shifted away from purely securitised framings toward more nuanced perspectives. The resolutions themselves represent consensus-building among diverse stakeholders, which inherently involves compromise and qualification. Whether this carefully balanced approach will satisfy both humanitarian advocates and security-conscious policymakers remains to be seen.