rohingya refugees continue to risk overcrowded, barely sea‑worthy crossings of the Andaman Sea, even as Islamic charitable networks in Indonesia raised US$2. 8 billion last year — funds that present an immediate financing opportunity for lifesaving search and rescue. In 2025, 5, 160 people undertook sea and river journeys on 131 boats, and UNHCR data shows that nearly one in five people travelling across the Andaman Sea was dead or missing that year. Maritime response capabilities remain fragmented and underfunded.
Why this matters right now
The scale and lethality of these crossings make the issue urgent. The movement of 5, 160 people on 131 boats in 2025 has translated into a high fatality rate: UNHCR data shows “nearly one in five people travelling across the Andaman Sea was reported dead or missing in 2025. ” Those numbers amplify the operational strain on regional emergency services and underscore a mismatch between humanitarian need and available maritime rescue capacity. Political restrictions and limited budgets in Southeast Asian countries have left search and rescue services underfunded and fragmented, slowing response times and increasing the risk of loss of life at sea. For rohingya fleeing Rakhine State or precarious camps in Bangladesh, the consequences are immediate and often fatal.
Rohingya rescues and the role of Islamic philanthropy
Islamic philanthropic institutions and networks in Indonesia and the region have already built significant fundraising and operational capacity that could be applied to maritime rescue. In Indonesia, three major institutions — Badan Amil Zakat Nasional (BAZNAS), LazisNu and Dompet Dhuafa — collectively raised about 43 trillion rupiah in 2024, roughly US$2. 8 billion. Much of that collection is channelled through zakat, waqf, infaq and sadaqah, and many organisations are non‑state actors able to mobilise funds rapidly.
Past regional initiatives demonstrate operational precedent. SEAHUM (Southeast Asia Humanitarian Committee), established in Jakarta in 2012, has focused on Rohingya humanitarian issues and has worked to build relations between Islamic humanitarian organisations and state authorities. SEAHUM members played a role in 2015 funding shelters and food assistance, showing how philanthropic schemes can translate into direct support on the ground. Islamic philanthropic groups have also demonstrated expertise in search and rescue for disaster victims, suggesting that existing logistics and donor channels could be adapted to the Andaman Sea context to deliver faster response times for rohingya at sea.
Expert perspectives and regional consequences
Operational experts and institutional experience point to a public–private partnership model as the most feasible pathway to scale maritime rescue without ceding state authority over maritime security. The model outlined in regional analysis keeps the state in charge of operations while inviting private funding for operational costs, technological upgrades and vessels. The Mediterranean example cited in international comparisons shows that faith‑based coalitions can fund and operate rescue efforts; in Germany, a church‑based alliance has built civil society capacity and secured financial support from faith institutions to back search and rescue.
UNHCR data and regional frameworks matter here. The 2010 ASEAN Declaration on Search and Rescue Operations at Sea emphasises the primacy of saving lives, but commitments require funding and coordination to be effective. Islamic philanthropic organisations — non‑state entities with demonstrated fundraising reach — could close part of that financing gap. That said, integrating privately funded assets into national maritime response structures requires clear coordination protocols, sustained funding commitments, and political willingness from coastal states to accept auxiliary rescue capacity.
SEAHUM’s networking work and the capacity shown by BAZNAS, LazisNu and Dompet Dhuafa provide concrete entry points: funds collected through zakat and other social donations can be channelled to rapid deployment capabilities, while existing humanitarian networks can support logistics and sheltering once people reach land. The challenge remains aligning donors, governments and humanitarian agencies so that emergency rescue and post‑rescue care operate as a seamless continuum rather than disparate efforts.
With maritime deaths continuing, the policy and operational question is whether this sizable philanthropic pool will be mobilised for search and rescue and linked into state responses — and how that reallocation would be governed to maintain neutrality, accountability and operational safety. Will Islamic philanthropy be converted into coordinated lifelines for those risking the Andaman Sea, and can regional actors design the governance that makes those lifelines reliable for rohingya in distress?
