Topic conflict:

The dynamics between the Rohingya refugee community and the local population in Malaysia
present a complex interplay of socio-economic, cultural, and legal factors. While the Rohingya
community seeks refuge and a chance for a better life, the local community grapples with potential
cultural clashes, resource competition, and perceived threats to social harmony. Central to this
interplay is the role of legal structures, or rather, the lack thereof. Weber's conflict theory, which
suggests that power dynamics and resource distribution contribute significantly to societal tensions,
provides an apt lens through which this dynamic can be examined.

In Malaysia, the absence of a formal legal framework for refugees, compounded by their
categorization as "undocumented foreigners," underscores the way laws—or their absence—can
inadvertently perpetuate imbalances and sow seeds of discontent. This is especially palpable in
situations where the Rohingya community faces restrictions and potential punishments, while
simultaneously being denied basic rights and services. The perception of Rohingyas being both
'invisible' in a legal sense and yet visibly different in a socio-cultural sense creates a dichotomy that is
ripe for analysis using conflict theory. Weber's emphasis on how laws and regulations can sometimes
reflect and enforce dominant group interests makes this theoretical perspective especially pertinent.
The potential for laws, even when absent or indirectly applied, to influence public opinion and
behavior aligns closely with the research objectives of exploring perceptions, analyzing legal factors
contributing to tensions, and understanding the hopes and aspirations of both communities in the
context of Malaysia's socio-legal environment.

Conflict theory, in the context of the sociology of law, offers a stark contrast to the functionalist view
of society. Instead of seeing society as a harmonious entity, conflict theory highlights the ongoing
struggle for dominance among various groups. This struggle is not just about overt power plays; it's
about controlling scarce resources, with power being both a coveted asset and a means of coercion.
Such a perspective asserts that power dynamics underpin societal structures, making it vital to
understanding how these structures operate.

Diving deeper, laws and regulations don't simply emerge in a vacuum. While many see them as
instruments upholding societal cohesion, conflict theorists argue that they often cater to those in
power, reinforcing their dominance. This suggests that legal structures aren't neutral; they echo the
prevailing power dynamics in society. Moreover, ideologies and values aren't mere philosophical
concepts. They are tools employed by groups to mold laws and policies in their favor, making laws
less about justice and more about advancing the interests of dominant factions.

The roots of conflict theory can be traced back to influential figures like Marx and Weber. However,
it's Weber's focus on how social positions influence power dynamics and how ideas can legitimize or
challenge these dynamics that lends depth to the theory in the realm of law. Such insights become
pivotal in scenarios like Malaysia's refugee situation, where the legal landscape can be murky or
even antagonistic towards groups like the Rohingyas. Conflict theory thus offers a lens to dissect the
interplay of laws, policies, and societal views, revealing the complexities inherent in such situations.

The dynamics between the Rohingya refugee community and the local population in Malaysia
present a complex interplay of socio-economic, cultural, and legal factors. While the Rohingya
community seeks refuge and a chance for a better life, the local community grapples with potential
cultural clashes, resource competition, and perceived threats to social harmony. Central to this
interplay is the role of legal structures, or rather, the lack thereof. Weber's conflict theory, which
suggests that power dynamics and resource distribution contribute significantly to societal tensions,
provides an apt lens through which this dynamic can be examined.

In Malaysia, the absence of a formal legal framework for refugees, compounded by their
categorization as "undocumented foreigners," underscores the way laws—or their absence—can
inadvertently perpetuate imbalances and sow seeds of discontent. This is especially palpable in
situations where the Rohingya community faces restrictions and potential punishments, while
simultaneously being denied basic rights and services. The perception of Rohingyas being both
'invisible' in a legal sense and yet visibly different in a socio-cultural sense creates a dichotomy that is
ripe for analysis using conflict theory. Weber's emphasis on how laws and regulations can sometimes
reflect and enforce dominant group interests makes this theoretical perspective especially pertinent.
The potential for laws, even when absent or indirectly applied, to influence public opinion and
behavior aligns closely with the research objectives of exploring perceptions, analyzing legal factors
contributing to tensions, and understanding the hopes and aspirations of both communities in the
context of Malaysia's socio-legal environment.

Max Weber's conceptualization of conflict centers around the idea that it is a system of authority or
power. He draws a clear distinction between authority and power, where power inclines towards a
mere blind trust, while authority represents a legitimized power that has garnered widespread
acceptance. Interestingly, when comparing Weber's perspective with that of Parsons, the
delineation between power and authority appears to blur. Both theorists concur that the primary
function of power is to control or direct a particular unit, filling a void left by unfulfilled normative
values. Parsons, in particular, underscores the point where the need for authority arises from the
entire system's requirements.

individuals, driven by the need to maintain their status quo, resist change because they can perceive
and interpret it. Weber, unlike Marx, believed that human actions were propelled by various
interests. These interests aren't limited to material gains; they can be idealistic. While the primary
human concern might be to sustain material life, people also seek meaning derived from their life
situations and experiences. It is essential to decipher these interests to comprehend the root of
human emotions like suffering or happiness. Weber's nuanced approach views society as a
multifaceted entity. Rather than foreseeing society becoming more compact, he investigates the
factors that have historically contributed to its compactness.

In societies undergoing significant social change, Weber observed a potent integration. Given the
freedom individuals possess to assign meaning to their existence, conflicts become likely whenever
society demands any form of adjustment. Weber ardently argued that conflict, in its essence, is an
intrinsic societal reality that must be acknowledged, ensuring society doesn't dwell in utopian
dreams devoid of disagreements or wars. This is grounded in his underlying assumptions that
societal relationships possess systemic characteristics, rife with conflict of interests. Such conflicts
predominantly arise over the distribution of finite resources and power and act as catalysts for
changes within the social framework. Weber's somewhat pessimistic stance underscores conflict as
an intrinsic principle of social existence, immune to eradication. As societies increasingly depend on
diverse resources, conflicts inevitably morph, signaling escalating societal complexities.

Weber identified the fundamental battles in social life as quests for power and dominance. He
emphasized that these struggles are not purely motivated by economic aspirations. The quest for
dominance spans beyond political entities, manifesting in various groups, including educational
institutions. Furthermore, conflicts arise from differing ideologies and values. Weber believed that
individuals don't just contest these ideologies; they weaponize them in other battles, such as
political ones. These ideological conflicts are not necessarily outcomes of material conditions; they
have their own unique causative factors.

In conclusion, when juxtaposing Marx and Weber, we observe stark differences. While both reject
the idea of a naturally harmonious society, their conflict perspectives vary. Marx sees the roots of
conflicts in the struggle for control over production means. In contrast, Weber, with his more
pessimistic outlook, sees conflict as an inescapable part of social existence, emphasizing that it goes
beyond mere economic considerations.

The dynamics of resource distribution in Selayang, where Rohingya refugees and the local
community coexist, can be understood through the lens of conflict theory. It posits, "The more
unequal the distribution of scarce resource in a system, the greater will be the conflict of interest
between dominant and subordinate segments in a system." This unequal distribution is evident in
the Rohingya's legal status as "undocumented foreigners," restricting their access to resources and
opportunities. This disparity may not only be seen by Rohingyas as an unjust system of resource
allocation but may also be perceived by the local Malaysian community as a potential threat to their
own resources.

Furthermore, the proposition that "The more subordinate segments become aware of their
collective interest, the more likely they are to question the legitimacy of the unequal distribution of
scarce resources" becomes pivotal. The Rohingya's increasing awareness of their shared interests
and challenges may propel them to question established structures, encompassing both tangible and
intangible resources. This could manifest as demands for better employment opportunities, social
recognition, or cultural respect. The local community might interpret such questioning as threats to
their societal status quo, potentially increasing tensions between the two groups.

Pin this somewhere: The theoretical foundation for this study is rooted in the paradigm of "social
facts," as conceptualized by Durkheim and elaborated upon by Ritzer. These social facts, being
objective external realities, exert influence over individual behaviors and broader societal constructs.
They dictate the ways groups and individuals perceive, interact with, and respond to their
surroundings. Within this paradigm, the research harnesses conflict theory to shed light on the
societal imbalances and inherent tensions in the interactions between Rohingya refugees and the
local community in Selayang, Malaysia.

Strengths and Limitations:

One of the strengths of employing conflict theory in this research is its ability to reveal underlying
power struggles and inequalities that may not be immediately apparent. It facilitates a
comprehensive examination of the social fabric, shedding light on both the perspectives of the
Rohingya refugees and the local community. This holistic view can lead to a more accurate
understanding of the situation.

However, it is important to acknowledge potential limitations as well. Critics may argue that conflict
theory tends to emphasize tensions and divisions within society, potentially overlooking instances of
cooperation or shared interests. To address this concern, a balanced perspective will be
incorporated, exploring not only conflicts but also potential areas of collaboration or mutual benefit.

Conclusion and Implications:

In conclusion, the chosen theoretical framework of conflict theory holds significant value for this
research. It provides a lens through which the complexities of resource distribution, power
dynamics, and conflicts between the Rohingya refugees and the local community in Selayang,
Malaysia can be analyzed and interpreted.

If the research supports the theory's propositions, it could imply that addressing the unequal
distribution of resources and fostering a sense of collective interest among the Rohingya community
may help reduce tensions and promote social harmony. Conversely, if the findings challenge these
propositions, it would call for a reevaluation of the theory's applicability in this specific context,
opening avenues for further exploration and theoretical development. Ultimately, this research has
the potential to inform policies and interventions aimed at improving the lives of both the Rohingya
refugees and the local population.