Malaysia is a primary destination for displaced people in Southeast Asia, yet its absence from international refugee protection frameworks leaves refugees navigating profound insecurity and uncertainty in their daily lives. For nearly two decades, anthropologist Gerhard Hoffstaedter has studied how refugees in the country navigate lives shaped by legal exclusion, economic insecurity, and social discrimination. His new book, Lives in Limbo: Refugee Place-Making and Survival in Malaysia, explores how Chin and Rohingya refugees create meaningful lives despite these constraints. Published by APARC, the book is now out and distributed by Stanford University Press. 

Hoffstaedter, an associate professor of anthropology at the University of Queensland, was a Lee Kong Chian NUS-Stanford Fellow on Southeast Asia at APARC in 2024. We spoke with him about his book, the changing landscape of refugee studies, and the lessons long-term ethnographic research offers for understanding displacement. Watch the interview on our YouTube channel.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our news and research updates >

Beyond Victimhood

Hoffstaedter began his research during his doctoral studies in Malaysia, where he encountered Chin and Rohingya refugees while studying Malay Muslim identity. He initially understood their experiences primarily through their lack of legal status. Over the course of his fieldwork, however, he came to recognize the many ways refugees build livelihoods, sustain cultural traditions, and establish communities despite structural barriers.

“I came to see how they themselves make place, make a home for themselves, even in very difficult situations and in, you know, sometimes horrendous situations,” he explains.

This is a key insight from Lives in Limbo. Rather than portraying refugees exclusively as victims or exceptional figures who overcome extraordinary adversity, Hoffstaedter focuses on the everyday practices through which people create meaning and pursue better lives. “I think the majority inhabit that middle part. And that's what I wanted to write about,” he says.

Hoffstaedter while building rapport through shared activities, such as a fishing trip with Chin refugee community members.

His research documents how work, religious gatherings, cultural celebrations, farming, and sports help refugees cultivate belonging in a country where they lack formal recognition. One example is a Rohingya Football Club Hoffstaedter was involved with. Competing against local teams gave Rohingya players opportunities to demonstrate their skills and gain recognition beyond their own communities.

As Hoffstaedter explains, “So they can't be citizens here. They don't have a legal standing, but they can for a moment be soccer stars and kind of, you know, win the game ten-nil, and celebrate and be really good at something, and be recognized by other people for that skill that they have.”

These experiences illustrate how seemingly ordinary activities can become meaningful ways to assert identity and belonging in precarious environments where legal avenues for recognition are unavailable.
 

Understanding the Polycrisis of Refugee Life

The book employs the notion of “polycrisis” to examine how legal exclusion, economic insecurity, health risks, and discrimination compound one another. The COVID-19 pandemic amplified these overlapping pressures in Malaysia, where Rohingya refugees were increasingly scapegoated and subjected to restrictions on movement.

For Hoffstaedter, such developments show how broader political and social crises can intensify the vulnerability of already marginalized communities.

“[W]e could see the coming together of multiple crises that were accelerating and making life much, much harder for certain populations because of that compounding of multiple crises acting on particular populations.”

Hoffstaedter also examines Malaysia’s inconsistent approach to refugee protection. Although the country has periodically provided sanctuary and work authorization to displaced populations, it lacks a comprehensive legal framework recognizing refugees. Comparing Chin and Rohingya experiences, he shows how religion, cultural affinity, international advocacy, and geopolitical interests can influence who receives protection. The differences in treatment reveal how refugee protection depends on arbitrary political priorities rather than consistent rights.
 

What Anthropology Can Contribute to Refugee Policy

In discussing the book, Hoffstaedter argues that understanding displacement requires looking beyond border crossings and dramatic humanitarian emergencies to examine how migration policies shape everyday life. Long-term ethnographic research can reveal the historical and political forces behind these policies, as well as the realities that broad categories such as “refugee” and “economic migrant” often obscure.

“The things that anthropology can bring to the table are things that policy and politics often ignore. And it's that depth of time, and it's that engagement with people on the ground over a long period of time to see the history and the importance of that history and how some of these things are arbitrary and very recent and are driven by their own logics that are not logical at all, but they have an internal logic.”

His research highlights an ongoing contradiction in Malaysia and elsewhere: the economy depends on migrant labor, yet undocumented workers remain excluded from the protections associated with legal status. Hoffstaedter calls for a broader reconsideration of how governments approach migration and the people whose labor sustains their economies.

The time he spent as a fellow at APARC provided him with opportunities to engage with policymakers and consider how ethnographic research can inform practical responses to displacement. As he explains, “It really brought home to so many ex-politicians or State Department officials how to translate all that knowledge that we amass over long periods of fieldwork. How do we make that digestible?”

By focusing on Chin and Rohingya refugees’ everyday experiences, Lives in Limbo reconsiders existing narratives of displacement and offers readers a more nuanced understanding of how people create community and pursue belonging amid precarity. Hoffstaedter invites readers and policymakers alike to look beyond legal categories and humanitarian crises to recognize the people building meaningful lives within them.

Learn more about the book and purchase it from Stanford University Press. 

This essay was first published by Seoul National University's Institute for Future Strategy. You can also view the Korean version.

Technological hegemony surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a central facet of national economies and security. Global competition among countries and corporations to secure high-level talent has intensified into a matter of survival. Worldwide demand for AI talent now exceeds supply by more than threefold. In Silicon Valley, AI dominates the discussion, and competition among big tech firms to attract talent is escalating. Ultimately, the rivalry between the United States and China will be decided not only by capital or technology but by who succeeds in attracting and retaining global talent.

In South Korea, concerns over talent outflows from Korea are growing. Last year, Korea ranked fourth among the 38 OECD countries in terms of AI talent outflow. Compared to other advanced economies, Korea’s AI industrial ecosystem remains underdeveloped, while overseas firms offer better compensation and research environments. The recent phenomenon of 56 Seoul National University professors relocating abroad over the past four years, a “new brain drain,” must be understood in this broader structural context.

This reality is also clearly reflected in the Global Talent Competitiveness Index, published annually by INSEAD. Korea ranked 31st this year, a position disproportionately low relative to its economic standing, and fell seven places compared to two years ago. In particular, Korea performed poorly in attracting and retaining talent, ranking 55th and 37th, respectively. These findings suggest that, beyond economic incentives, social, cultural, and environmental factors play a decisive role in talent mobility.

Korea’s talent outflow is especially alarming because it coincides with record-low fertility rates and rapid population aging. Before this convergence hardens into irreversible decline, Korea must establish a Ministry of Human Resources to oversee a comprehensive national talent strategy and devise systemic measures for talent development, attraction, and utilization.
 

Talent Portfolio Theory
 

In a recent book published by Stanford University Press, The Four Talent Giants, I proposed a framework titled “talent portfolio theory.” Just as financial investment strategies adopt a portfolio approach, national talent strategies should also be portfolio-based, emphasizing diversification to minimize risk and continuous adjustment (rebalancing). In other words, just as financial portfolios are composed of cash, stocks, real estate, and bonds, talent portfolios consist of four elements—the “4B's”: brain train, brain gain, brain circulation, and brain linkage.

Moreover, just as investors design different portfolios, each country’s talent portfolio varies depending on its economic needs as well as cultural and institutional contexts. Japan, Australia, China, and India (all discussed in the book) include all four B's but have constructed distinct portfolios that contributed to their respective economic development. A portfolio approach transcends the traditional binary of “brain drain versus brain gain” and offers a more comprehensive and flexible framework for understanding national talent strategy, one that is particularly relevant for Korea.

First, “brain train” refers to developing domestic human resources through education and training. It is a fundamental element of any portfolio. In Japan’s portfolio in particular, homegrown talent accounts for a large share. Japan has favored domestically educated and trained talent over foreign or overseas-trained individuals, making them the backbone of its economic development.

By contrast, Australia places greater emphasis on “brain gain.” Brain gain involves importing foreign labor, and approximately 30 percent of Australia’s workforce is foreign-born. Until the 1970s, Australia upheld the “White Australia” policy, but a major shift toward multiculturalism subsequently elevated brain gain to a central position in its portfolio. Brain gain pathways include the study-to-work route, where international students remain for employment, and the work-to-migration route, where individuals enter on work visas and later settle. Australia has effectively utilized both pathways.

“Brain circulation” involves bringing back nationals who were educated or employed abroad, and it has been critical to China’s portfolio. Following China’s opening in the 1980s, Chinese nationals came to represent the largest share of participants in the global talent market, including international students. Approximately 80 percent of them returned to China after the 2000s. Known as haigui (sea turtles), these returnees played prominent roles in China’s science, technology, education, and economy, supported by numerous central and local government programs designed to promote talent circulation.

“Brain linkage” refers to those who do not return home after studying or working abroad but instead serve as bridges between their host countries and their homeland. By leveraging their local networks, social capital, they support their home country from abroad, making this a key component of India’s portfolio. India refers to them as a “brain bank” or “brain deposit,” exemplified by leaders of Silicon Valley big tech firms such as Google CEO Sundar Pichai.

However, all talent portfolios carry inherent risks. When adjustment is delayed or fails, risks can escalate into crises with negative effects on the broader economy. The experiences of the four countries illustrate this point.

Japan has faced two major risks. A talent strategy centered on domestic talent weakened its global competitiveness, while demographic decline reduced its labor pool. Although Japan actively attracted foreign students to increase brain gain, its exclusive social and cultural environment limited their integration into the workforce after graduation. While there are many reasons behind Japan’s “lost 30 years” since the 1990s, one factor was its failure to adjust a portfolio overly concentrated on domestic talent in a timely manner.

Australia has confronted rising anti-immigration sentiment and tensions with China. Public concern grew over excessive immigration and perceived threats to national identity, prompting the government to tighten immigration policies. Amid conflict with China, Australia diversified its foreign talent sources from China to India and Southeast Asia. The pandemic, which restricted cross-border mobility, dealt a severe blow to Australia’s talent attraction efforts.

In China’s case, despite aggressive brain circulation policies, top-tier global talent has remained hesitant to return, as relinquishing careers built abroad is not easy. China accordingly shifted its focus toward brain linkage for these elite individuals. At the same time, brain circulation and linkage strategies became a source of friction with the United States, and rising anti-immigration and anti-China sentiment in the U.S. and Europe reduced opportunities for study and employment abroad. Recently, China has adjusted its portfolio to strengthen domestic talent development.

India, despite its strong brain linkage, remains vulnerable to brain drain. However, as economic opportunities expand domestically, return migration has increased, gradually reshaping its portfolio composition.
 

What Should Korea’s Talent Portfolio Strategy Be?

What, then, about Korea? Let us examine Korea’s situation by comparing it with the four countries through the lens of talent portfolio theory.

Brain train: Human resources have been critical to Korea’s economic development, with the government playing a central role. Key examples include preferential policies for technical and commercial high schools during the 1970s under the Park Chung Hee administration to support industrialization, and efforts to internationalize universities in the 1990s as part of globalization. While less dominant than in Japan, brain train has constituted a significant share of Korea’s talent portfolio.

Brain gain: Korea has imported low- and semi-skilled labor from China and Southeast Asia to fill so-called 3D jobs, but attraction of global high-level talent has remained limited. As in Japan, social exclusivity and cultural barriers continue to impede integration.

Brain circulation: Comparable to China, brain circulation has played a vital role in Korea’s economic development. Overseas education and experience have carried strong premiums, and China explicitly benchmarked Korea and Taiwan when designing its own policies.

Brain linkage: Compared to brain circulation, brain linkage has, until recently, occupied a relatively small share of Korea’s portfolio.

Facing the AI era, low fertility, and the crisis of a new brain drain, what strategy should Korea pursue in the global competition for talent? As noted above, rather than fragmented and ad hoc measures, Korea must comprehensively review and continuously adjust its talent strategy through a portfolio approach.

Brain train: Korea must cultivate talent for future industries, particularly in science and engineering. Training should be aligned with AI-related fields to better match university output with corporate demand. The excessive concentration of top students in medical schools must be corrected. Support mechanisms to retain domestic talent should be strengthened. A recent Bank of Korea survey of 1,916 science and engineering master’s and doctoral degree holders working domestically found that 42.9 percent of science and engineering master’s and doctoral graduates are considering overseas employment within three years—an alarming signal. While brain train will remain vital, its relative share is likely to decline.

Brain gain: As demographic crises intensify and the share of brain train diminishes, the necessity and importance of brain gain will grow. In particular, Korea must actively utilize the more than 300,000 foreign students currently in the country as human and social capital. At present, universities focus merely on filling enrollment quotas, and most foreign students either leave Korea immediately after graduation or remain employed only briefly. This, too, constitutes a form of brain drain. To increase the share of brain gain in the portfolio, foreign students must be managed holistically from selection to graduation and employment. While immigration is ultimately inevitable, it must be approached cautiously and deliberately, considering its impact on the domestic labor market and anti-immigration sentiment. Australia’s successful experience offers useful lessons.

Brain circulation: Although it occupies a relatively modest share of Korea’s portfolio, a certain level should be maintained. With declining numbers of students studying abroad and reduced inclination among overseas Koreans to return, care must be taken to prevent a sharp drop in this component. Otherwise, Korea risks losing global competitiveness, as Japan’s experience warns.

Brain linkage: Alongside brain gain, brain linkage is crucial to Korea’s portfolio adjustment. Key target groups include departing domestic talent (the new brain drain), foreign students, and the diaspora. Although their likelihood of reemployment in Korea is low, their potential for exchange and collaboration with Korea remains open. Like India, Korea should foster and support brain linkage by treating them as a “brain bank” or “brain deposit.”
 

Toward the Establishment of a Ministry of Human Resources

At the national level, a control tower is needed to design an optimal talent portfolio and make timely adjustments. Korea should establish a Ministry of Human Resources by consolidating functions currently dispersed across the Ministry of Education (universities and graduate schools), the Ministry of Science and ICT (R&D), and the Ministry of Employment and Labor (foreign employment support). It is worth recalling that Singapore, ranked first globally in talent competitiveness, established its Ministry of Manpower early on. Expanded and reorganized from the Ministry of Labor in 1998, it played a pivotal role in transforming Singapore into a talent powerhouse. Through education and development investments, Singapore strengthened domestic talent competitiveness while opening its doors to multinational talent, and it also implemented policies to promote talent circulation and linkage. From the perspective of talent portfolio theory, Singapore represents a successful case of diversification and continuous adjustment. In the increasingly fierce global competition for talent in the AI era, nations and firms that fall behind cannot secure their future. Korea is no exception.

We are pleased to share the publication of a new volume, Cold War Refugees: Connected Histories of Displacement and Migration across Postcolonial Asia, edited by the Korea Program's Yumi Moon, associate professor in Stanford's Department of History.

The book, now available from Stanford University Press, revisits Cold War history by examining the identities, cultures, and agendas of the many refugees forced to flee their homes across East, Southeast, and South Asia due to the great power conflict between the US and the USSR. Moon's book draws on multilingual archival sources and presents these displaced peoples as historical actors in their own right, not mere subjects of government actions. Exploring the local, regional, and global contexts of displacement through five cases —Taiwan, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, and Pakistan — this volume sheds new light on understudied aspects of Cold War history.

The book's chapters — written by Phi-Vân Nguyen, Dominic Meng-Hsuan Yang, Yumi Moon, Ijlal Muzaffar, Robert D. Crews, Sabauon Nasseri, and Aishwary Kumar — explore Vietnam's 1954 partition, refugees displaced from Zhejiang to Taiwan, North Korean refugees in South Korea from 1945–50, the Cold War legacy in Karachi, and Afghan refugees.

Purchase Cold War Refugees at www.sup.org and receive 20% off with the code MOON20.