Complete Report
Findings from a Mixed-Methods Study of Zomi Refugee Experiences, Wellbeing, and Community in Urban Malaysia
Executive summary
Zomi families, churches, educators, community leaders, and mutual-aid networks already hold substantial knowledge about displacement and everyday life in Malaysia. Much of that knowledge has remained dispersed across personal experience, local-language materials, and organizational records. This report brings a defined body of Zomi-specific survey and interview evidence into a form that can be cited, examined, challenged, and extended. It complements community knowledge and earlier documentation; it does not claim to speak for every Zomi person in Malaysia.
The study’s overall objective was to describe and interpret the conditions shaping daily life for Zomi adults living in urban Malaysia. It examined documentation, enforcement and movement, work, housing, healthcare, children’s learning, emotional wellbeing, support, information, trust, participant priorities, and future planning. Considering these domains together made it possible to show how practical conditions, household responsibilities, relationships, and institutional decisions interacted without forcing a single narrative or treating hardship as the whole of any participant’s life.
Key findings
Thirty of 90 survey participants reported UNHCR-related documentation, 26 pending documentation circumstances, 32 no documents, and two other circumstances. Fifty-six of 90 participants (62%) reported high fear of being stopped or checked. Seventy-nine (88%) said they at least sometimes avoided places because of documentation concerns, and 46 (51%) said fear changed normal routines sometimes or more often. Interviews showed that documents could lower a hospital charge, support verification, or assist after detention, while community-issued cards could identify whom to call.
Sixty-three of 90 participants (70%) were working. Among current workers with available data, 42 of 61 (69%) reported typical days of at least nine hours; 18 of 62 (29%) reported late or missing pay at least once in the previous three months; and 17 of 62 (27%) reported unsafe conditions or injury risk. Interviews showed that employers could also provide housing, meals, transport, or medical help. These supports could be generous and stabilizing while making job loss consequential across several parts of household life.
Seventy-five of 90 participants (83%) agreed that rent was difficult to pay, 45 (50%) reported that three or more people shared their sleeping room, and 28 (31%) had moved at least twice in the previous 12 months. Shared and employer-linked arrangements often made shelter affordable and enabled care, but they could also limit privacy, negotiating power, or the ability to leave. A stable address did not necessarily mean that the arrangement was affordable, freely chosen, or easy to replace.
A pharmacy was the usual first response to illness for 41 of 90 participants (46%), and home care for 38 (42%). Twenty participants (22%) reported needing healthcare but not going in the previous three months, while 49 (54%) disagreed that healthcare felt safe for people like them. Interviews located breakdowns before and after the visible point of care: travel, documentation, registration, language, cost, work time, caregiving, medicine, and follow-up. A relative, employer, interpreter, or community worker could make care possible without resolving every later step.
Forty-eight survey participants reported children under 18 in their household. Of those household reports, 26 indicated church- or community-based learning, five formal learning, one home schooling, one a mixed arrangement, and 15 no current school or learning arrangement; six of the 15 cited children being below school age. Twenty-four of 48 participants (50%) disagreed that children could learn safely and consistently. Interviews identified fees, transport, language, placement, household time, additional learning needs, and uncertain progression as distinct links. These are adult household reports, not child-level enrollment, attendance, dropout, or learning estimates.
All 90 survey participants completed the PHQ-8 and GAD-7. Forty-two (47%) had a PHQ-8 score of 10 or higher, 48 (53%) had a GAD-7 score of 10 or higher, and 56 (62%) screened positive on at least one; 34 screened positive on both. The measures do not establish diagnosis, cause, treatment need, or current safety. Interview participants more often described worry, pressure, fear, exhaustion, sleeplessness, and uncertainty in everyday language. Faith, family, work, study, and service could provide purpose and calm while material pressures remained.
Sixty-nine of 90 survey participants (77%) reported having someone to rely on no more than sometimes during the previous month. Friends and family were the most frequently selected information source at 62 of 90 (69%), followed by church leaders at 31 (34%) and WhatsApp or Facebook groups at 25 (28%). Relatives, churches, community organizations, employers, teachers, and interpreters often made systems usable; they could not guarantee money, continuity, legal authorization, or an institution’s final decision.
Job protections and safer access to healthcare were each selected among the top priorities by 48 of 90 participants (53%), and safe transportation by 45 (50%). Legal information, housing stability, emergency cash, education support, language support, protection from raids or extortion, and mental health or community support also appeared. The survey fields contained irregular selection counts and mismatches, so they are evidence of participant-entered priorities, not a validated ranking or a mandate from the whole community.
Counts and percentages describe the 90 survey records or smaller eligible bases within a nonprobability sample. They are not statistically generalizable to all Zomi adults in Malaysia. Derived indicators are exploratory and unvalidated, and PHQ-8 and GAD-7 results are screening findings, not diagnoses. Methods are detailed in Chapter 4 of the report and limitations in Chapter 17.
How the evidence should and should not be used
The study is strongest as a bounded description of 90 survey records and a transparent interpretation of a separate 36-person interview corpus. Together, they provide a documented basis for attention, dialogue, carefully bounded pilots, institutional review, and more rigorous future research.
Inside the report
The report opens with an executive summary and closes with notes and a bibliography. Chapter 16 presents 11 author recommendations that are evidence-grounded but provisional: none was tested, costed, legally evaluated, or assessed for feasibility.
Download and cite
PDF Download
Complete report, first edition, Version 1.0
The full 149-page report, free to read and share non-commercially with attribution under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Participant quotations and participant-level data require separate permission from the publisher.
Suggested Citation
Tuang, S. L. (2026). Lives in limbo: Findings from a mixed-methods study of Zomi refugee experiences, wellbeing, and community in urban Malaysia. Zomi Community USA. https://zomicommunityresearch.org