Representatives from civil society, academia, and humanitarian organisations gathered at the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) Malaysia on June 20 to adopt a series of resolutions aimed at reshaping Malaysia's approach to refugee management. The Kuala Lumpur: Solidarity with Refugees Conference, organised jointly by Global Peace Mission (GPM) Malaysia, Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM), and IAIS Malaysia, brought together stakeholders during World Refugee Day 2026 to deliberate on solutions to pressing challenges facing refugee populations and host communities alike.

The 10 resolutions represent a collaborative effort to bridge growing divides over refugee issues in the country. ABIM president Ahmad Fahmi Mohd Samsudin underscored that these measures emerged from the practical expertise of non-governmental organisations working directly with vulnerable refugee communities. The declared intention is to provide government policymakers with evidence-based recommendations that can inform more sophisticated and effective policy responses. Crucially, organisers plan to present these resolutions to Members of Parliament and key stakeholders, laying groundwork for broader legislative and administrative discussions.

Malaysia's historical context as a host nation adds particular weight to these deliberations. Although the country has never ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention, it has accumulated decades of experience managing refugee populations fleeing conflict and persecution across multiple regions. From Vietnamese refugees during the Cold War era through Syrian and Palestinian populations in more recent years, Malaysia has developed institutional capacity in humanitarian management. This accumulated experience, Ahmad Fahmi emphasised, positions the country well to articulate pragmatic approaches that others might learn from, yet current public sentiment toward refugees has become increasingly fraught.

One of the conference's central objectives was addressing what organisers describe as widespread misconceptions and misinformation about refugee populations. Ahmad Fahmi articulated a concern that anti-refugee rhetoric, if left unaddressed, risks metastasising into broader social divisions. This observation reflects growing global trends where xenophobic sentiment becomes a vector for other forms of intolerance. The resolutions therefore call explicitly for strengthened public education and media literacy initiatives designed to combat hate speech and disinformation on social platforms. For Malaysian society, where social media wields considerable influence on public discourse, such initiatives carry particular urgency.

The resolutions acknowledge a crucial tension in refugee policy formulation: the need to address legitimate public anxieties regarding security, law enforcement capacity, and community social cohesion while simultaneously rejecting dehumanisation and discrimination. Rather than framing refugee concerns as purely humanitarian or security matters, the conference participants adopted a both-and approach. They recognised that public worries about resource allocation, criminal justice outcomes, and cultural integration require serious, fact-based examination. Simultaneously, they rejected wholesale rejection of refugee populations as incompatible with Malaysia's constitutional and ethical commitments.

A significant portion of the adopted resolutions focuses on improved data infrastructure. Participants called for strengthened collaboration between the government, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and international partners to enhance refugee registration, documentation, and data collection systems. Better information management serves multiple objectives: it enables more transparent and orderly administration of refugee affairs, provides government agencies with accurate intelligence for planning and resource allocation, and creates verifiable information that can counteract false narratives. In Malaysia's context, improved data systems could defuse anxieties rooted in speculation and rumour.

The resolutions further extended protection to humanitarian workers themselves, who have faced escalating attacks and disinformation campaigns online. The conference called for establishing mechanisms supporting civil society organisations, activists, and humanitarian bodies facing coordinated hate campaigns and false accusations on social media. This protection of civic space represents an implicit recognition that public policy debate becomes impossible when those advocating for vulnerable populations face systematic harassment and reputational damage. For Southeast Asia more broadly, defending spaces where humanitarian concerns can be legitimately discussed remains essential.

Ahmad Fahmi stressed that the conference aimed to reposition refugee discourse in Malaysia toward what he described as the middle ground, moving away from polarised narratives that pit national interest against humanitarian obligation. Such framing has proven influential in neighbouring countries experiencing similar refugee challenges, yet it often obscures opportunities for integration and positive outcomes. By emphasising both legitimate concerns and humanitarian imperatives, the resolutions suggest a more nuanced policy approach capable of sustaining public support while protecting vulnerable populations.

The timing of these resolutions, coinciding with World Refugee Day, carries symbolic weight. Globally, refugee populations have reached historic highs, driven by persistent conflicts, climate-related displacement, and economic instability. Southeast Asia, as a region hosting millions of displaced persons alongside complex humanitarian corridors, faces mounting pressure to develop coherent policies. Malaysia's willingness to engage in structured deliberation about these challenges, bringing diverse stakeholders to the table, demonstrates recognition that refugee management requires multifaceted solutions rather than unilateral governmental action.

Moving forward, the conference organisers have committed to follow-up discussions with key ministries, particularly the Home Ministry and the National Security Council (MKN). Such engagement represents an opportunity to translate conference resolutions into concrete policy adjustments. The Malaysian government's receptiveness to these recommendations will signal whether structural changes in refugee administration are forthcoming. Success would require balancing institutional concerns about sovereignty and security with humanitarian obligations and practical recognition that refugee populations contribute meaningfully to Malaysian society across multiple sectors.

The resolutions ultimately reflect an emerging consensus among Malaysia's civil society that refugee challenges cannot be addressed through security frameworks alone. Instead, they demand integrated approaches combining robust data systems, public education, protection of humanitarian space, and legitimate security considerations. For a nation with Malaysia's constitutional commitments and humanitarian traditions, these resolutions provide a foundation for policy evolution that neither abandons vulnerability populations nor ignores public concerns. Whether policymakers embrace this invitation to recalibrate refugee policy remains the critical question facing Malaysian governance in coming months.