Illustration showing Bangladeshi passports against the backdrop of Myanmar and Bangladesh, highlighting legal and policy questions surrounding Rohingya passport renewals and overseas migration. Illustration: The Times of Jumland
On January 29, 2026, Bangladesh’s Foreign Affairs Adviser, Md Touhid Hossain, announced that the government is issuing or renewing Bangladeshi passports for about 69,000 Rohingya people living in Saudi Arabia. According to reports from Prothom Alo and The Daily Star, this decision came after Saudi authorities asked for assistance to resolve residency and visa problems faced by these individuals. Hossain also stated clearly that renewing passports does not mean granting Bangladeshi citizenship.
This announcement raises important legal and policy questions that directly affect Bangladesh’s overseas labor migration system.
The government says many of these Rohingya individuals travelled to Saudi Arabia years ago using Bangladeshi passports issued at a time when passport controls were weak, and documentation was often handwritten or manually processed. Officials explain that the current passport renewals are meant to solve technical problems abroad as a humanitarian and diplomatic measure, not as a change in citizenship policy.
However, this explanation creates a fundamental legal conflict.
Under Bangladeshi law, a citizen is defined as a person who meets specific legal requirements for nationality. Passports are issued only to citizens. There is no clear legal provision that allows refugees or stateless persons to obtain Bangladeshi passports if they are not citizens. A Bangladeshi passport records the holder’s nationality as Bangladeshi. Internationally, passports are treated as proof of nationality. Other countries rely on the documents issued by a state and do not examine a person’s ethnic, historical, or political background.
This leads to a clear and serious question. If a Rohingya person holds a passport stating Bangladeshi nationality, how can the government say that the document is not linked to citizenship? When official documents and official explanations do not align, public trust in the system is weakened.
The challenge of securing overseas work is critical for young people in Bangladesh. Every year, many join training programs, take loans, and wait through long application processes. Despite these efforts, they face limited job openings and intense competition. Countries such as Japan, South Korea, and the Gulf states strictly limit the number of foreign workers they accept each year.
International labor migration systems depend on documents. Passports, not personal background or intention, decide who can enter. When someone uses a Bangladeshi passport, they enter the same migration process as Bangladeshi citizens. This leads many young people to ask an unavoidable question: if a Rohingya person travels abroad using a Bangladeshi passport, are they competing for the same jobs as Bangladeshi citizens who have prepared for years? If so, who should have the first legal right to those opportunities?
The wider impact on migration is also significant. The Rohingya are a stateless population from Myanmar, meaning they are not recognized as citizens by any state. Most do not hold valid Myanmar passports and cannot legally travel as Myanmar nationals. Obtaining a Bangladeshi passport changes this situation entirely. Once such a document is issued and accepted internationally, it can be used to apply for visas, work permits, and travel to many countries under the nationality stated in the passport.
If Rohingya individuals were able to reach Saudi Arabia using Bangladeshi passports, there is no clear assurance that the same route has not been used, or will not be used, to travel to other countries as well. Passport-based migration systems do not operate selectively. When one country accepts a passport, others often do the same.
This issue is especially important for countries like Japan, which are increasing the recruitment of workers from Bangladesh due to labor shortages. Japan’s immigration system is document-based. If a passport is valid and lists the holder as Bangladeshi, Japanese authorities will treat the person accordingly. Japan does not examine nationality disputes or administrative failures in sending countries. That responsibility remains with Bangladesh.
At the same time, the Bangladeshi government has not publicly clarified whether similar verification or review processes are being conducted for Rohingya individuals travelling or applying to travel to countries other than Saudi Arabia. This lack of clarity has increased public concern and uncertainty.
These questions focus on how Bangladesh manages citizenship, passports, and international responsibility. They do not question the suffering or dignity of the Rohingya people as individuals. Unclear systems, however, create long-term legal and diplomatic risks.
One final question, therefore, remains. If a Rohingya person goes abroad as a Bangladeshi worker, is that legal under Bangladeshi law, or is nationality status being altered through administrative documents? If passports do not confirm citizenship, what legal function do they serve under Bangladeshi and international law?
Bangladesh cannot resolve this issue through silence or technical explanations alone. If passport practices are changing, the government must explain them openly and allow public discussion. Millions of young citizens depend on overseas employment, and their trust depends on a system that is fair, clear, and transparent.
Reporting by Prothom Alo and The Daily Star has brought this issue into public discussion. The responsibility now lies with the state to answer these questions clearly, before uncertainty over passports turns into a deeper crisis of confidence in citizenship and opportunity.
