Rohingya nationality remains firmly in place. Any attempts to deport or ‘repatriate’ Rohingya under current conditions would expose them to a well-documented and continuing risk of genocide, persecution, arbitrary detention, torture, and other serious human rights violations, in breach of the principle of non-refoulement under international law.2 How the rise in hate speech and increased hostility has negatively impacted the lived realities across Rohingya communities. Online hate campaigns and misinformation have fuelled hostility towards Rohingya communities and normalised discrimination, harassment, and violence. At least 100 Rohingya individuals have been evicted from their homes, with more facing increasing discrimination from landlords. At least nine alternative schools have been forced to close following threats and harassment, while children are experiencing bullying and violence. Thousands of Rohingya continue to live under the constant threat of arrest and prolonged immigration detention, often without meaningful judicial review or any realistic prospect of release. Unable to work lawfully, many remain trapped in poverty and vulnerable to exploitation. This climate of hostility has created a profound chilling e]ect, community members report being afraid to seek protection, register with UNHCR, report abuse, speak publicly about their experiences, access services, or exercise their basic rights for fear that visibility itself might expose them to harassment, evictions, detention or further discrimination. Malaysian authorities must take prompt and e]ective action to investigate and respond to online incitement targeting Rohingya communities. Malaysia’s new opaque Refugee Registration Document (DPP) scheme that replaces UNHCR’s registration role is deeply concerning. We are deeply concerned with the suspension of UNHCR registrations and the lack of transparency of the Dokumen Pendaftaran Pelarian (DPP). The government has yet to publicly explain the legal basis of the DPP scheme, its eligibility criteria, appeal mechanisms, safeguards for children and vulnerable groups, or how personal data will be collected, stored and protected. We are equally deeply concerned that the Malaysian government has said that the DPP scheme will ultimately lead to only three possible outcomes: repatriation, third-country resettlement, or deportation for legal o]enders. A registration system that records the presence of stateless people while o]ering no legal status, no meaningful rights, and no pathway to durable solutions risks institutionalising statelessness rather than addressing it. ASEAN's response must address Rohingya right to nationality. Having placed the Myanmar crisis on the regional agenda during its ASEAN Chairship in 2025, Malaysia must sustain this momentum and continue pressing ASEAN to address the root causes of Rohingya displacement, particularly their systematic denial of nationality. ASEAN and its Member States have collectively committed, through the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, to Malaysia is not party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons or the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. As a result, Malaysian law does not recognise refugees or asylum seekers as a distinct legal category from other noncitizens without immigration status, nor does it provide a domestic refugee status determination procedure. In the absence of a national asylum framework, UNHCR conducts refugee status determination and issues documentation to refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia. The absence of treaty ratification, however, does not relieve Malaysia of its obligations under customary international law, including the principle of non-refoulement, or its obligations under other international treaties to which it is a party. 2