Figure 14. Home tow nship of households w ith a relative remaining in Myanmar Figure 15. Reasons why respondents’ relatives remained in Myanmar Trapped due to ongoing conflict 36% Didn’t have the means to move 19% Maungdaw 30% Married into a family that stayed 48% Buthidaung 24% Was living in a safe place 14% Didn’t want to leave home 14% Don’t know 9% Was living in an IDP camp 3% In jail 3% 21% Rathedaung 463 respondents provided information about 967 relatives remaining in Myanmar; multiple response n = 463 Travel to Malaysia by boat is a way for Rohingya to find refuge and seek a better life Despite the cost and risks, which are well known in the camps, some people interviewed during the study continued to view travel to Malaysia in a favorable light.26 Hafsa and Amin are a married couple who live in the makeshift camps with seven of their nine children. The family was once affluent in Myanmar. According to Amin, they owned 18 acres of land, as well as many cattle and a fish hatchery. “The fish business brought in 10 million kyat per year in profits, establishing my family’s affluence, but it was confiscated by the Myanmar military.” This occurred in the 1980s, Amin says, adding that the family’s remaining forest and grazing lands were also confiscated while he was away studying. In 2012 and 2014, they paid over 4.2 million kyat to finance each of their two eldest sons’ boat journeys from Myanmar to Malaysia. To come up with this sum, Hafsa sold her gold and Amin sold other remaining family assets. Although the family had lost most of their former wealth by the time of the two sons’ migration, Amin still feared that his sons would face targeted harassment as educated and wealthy young men. (The view that well-off Rohingya were subject to added scrutiny by authorities was expressed during numerous interviews in this study, and higher-income families are more likely to have an incarcerated family member.) Hafsa and Amin have not recovered the payments they made to smugglers for the journeys. Amin explains the sons’ escape as both a life-saving necessity and an investment in the family’s future, though not one undertaken in the hope of financial gain. “I would definitely send my other children anywhere possible if I got another opportunity,” Amin says. “The camp is unsafe and a bad place to live. Though the boat travel is risky, life is more peaceful and secure afterwards.” Though one son occasionally sends a small remittance, the other does not. He recently married a Rohingya woman who resettled in New Zealand and is saving everything as he makes plans to join her there. Hafsa and Amin say they have no regrets, but separation is painful for the family. Amin says he misses his sons “every second of every day.” He never envisioned having a family living across broad distances. “Our family was a closely knit one, never even eating lunch or dinner apart,” he adds. “I have no idea when I will see my sons again. Video calls make the separation bearable. Our family has somewhat adjusted to the new normal.” 18