Navigating social landscapes: Exploring the social well-being of Bangladeshi migrant workers in Malaysia

Abstract

This study investigated the social well-being of Bangladeshi migrant workers in Malaysia’s construction sector, specifically in the Klang Valley area in Malaysia. Quantitative data were collected from 220 participants through structured interviews using a standardized questionnaire. The research used five dimensions (social integration, social acceptance, social contribution, social actualization and social coherence) and 33 indicators of social well-being where data were calculated through statistical analyses, including mean, standard deviation and the Friedman test. The findings revealed significant insights into the dimensions of social well-being among migrant workers. Social integration exhibited variations, with disagreement on community belonging but agreement on the value placed on individuals by society. Social coherence highlighted an understanding of Malaysian society but disagreement on its simplicity. Social actualization indicated agreement on society’s progress but disagreement on the role of laws and government. Social acceptance showcased agreement on positive qualities but disagreement on self-centeredness. The results of the Friedman Test indicated notable differences among the groups examined in the study. These findings underscore the importance of addressing various dimensions of well-being and understanding the attitudes and beliefs of migrant workers to foster inclusive and cohesive communities. Findings can guide development practitioners, human rights workers, organizations and policymakers in formulating effective strategies and policies to enhance the social well-being of migrant workers, promoting a more supportive and inclusive community environment.

Keywords

migrant workers social well-being social integration community inclusion Malaysia Bangladesh

Introduction

In an increasingly interconnected world, characterized by rapid globalization and cross-border movement, migration has emerged as a significant global issue with profound impacts on both the countries of origin and destination. Migrant workers, driven by aspirations of better economic prospects and improved livelihoods, often undertake arduous journeys, leaving behind their homes and families (notably in, Kuhnt, 2019; Reza et al., 2019, 2022; Sewpersad and Maharaj, 2023). Upon arriving in their host countries, they encounter a multitude of challenges that can significantly shape their experiences and well-being. Among these challenges, the concept of social well-being stands as a critical aspect that profoundly influences the overall quality of life and successful integration of migrant workers into the host society. Social well-being encompasses the dimensions of social integration, acceptance, contribution, actualization and coherence, reflecting the individual’s sense of belonging, recognition, participation, personal growth and harmony within the societal fabric. Understanding and addressing the social well-being of migrant workers is paramount in fostering inclusive and cohesive communities that embrace diversity and promote the overall welfare of individuals.

The growing trend of migrant workers from developing and poor countries going to developed and richer countries is influenced by a multitude of push and pull factors (notably in, Hare, 1999; Solimano, 2010; Oishi, 2005; Reza et al., 2019). In the case of Bangladesh, a significant number of individuals seek opportunities abroad—such as in Malaysia—for a better life and improved economic prospects (notably, Dannecker, 2005; Reza et al., 2019; Erling et al., 2015; Reza and Subramaniam, 2019). Push factors, often prevalent in developing and poor countries, include limited job opportunities, low wages, poverty, political instability and inadequate social services. These factors create a compelling drive for individuals to seek employment opportunities elsewhere, where they hope to escape economic hardships and secure a higher standard of living for themselves and their families. On the other hand, pull factors in developed and richer countries, such as Malaysia, include stronger economies, higher wages, better employment prospects, advanced infrastructure and improved living conditions (Hoo et al., 2014; Reza et al., 2019; Reza and Subramaniam, 2019). These factors attract migrant workers by offering the promise of greater economic stability, upward mobility and access to better social services and opportunities for personal and professional growth. The combination of push factors in the home country and pull factors in the destination country creates a powerful incentive for individuals from countries like Bangladesh to migrate in search of a better life. However, it is essential to recognize that the decision to migrate is often driven by complex circumstances and personal aspirations, with individuals weighing the potential benefits against the risks and challenges associated with leaving their homeland.

Table 1 presents the year-wise total number of foreign migrant workers in Malaysia from 2015 to 2022, categorized by their country of origin. The data shows that the number of Bangladeshi migrant workers increased from 282,437 in 2015 to 544,652 in 2018, reaching its peak during that year. However, there was a subsequent decline in the number of Bangladeshi workers, with 433,336 recorded in 2022. The fluctuations in the figures could be influenced by factors such as changes in labor demands, economic conditions and government policies. Despite the fluctuations, Bangladesh remained a significant source country for migrant workers in Malaysia throughout the given years.

Table 1.

Year-wise total number of foreign migrant workers in Malaysia by country of origin (2015 to 2022).

Country of origin	Years
Country of origin	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Indonesia	835,965	758,487	720,464	713,925	694,408	519,219	370,686	365,692
Nepal	502,596	405,336	388,836	346,313	298,846	241,106	180,259	202,860
Bangladesh	282,437	252,365	271,100	544,652	571,445	447,577	353,209	433,336
India	139,751	119,984	117,314	120,978	109,099	81,422	55,543	62,661
Myanmar	145,652	138,492	114,507	111,802	160,147	138,423	117,408	121,597
Pakistan	72,931	62,745	58,510	62,627	57,565	40,995	30,188	41,721
Philippines	65,096	58,366	55,184	20,054	51,785	39,447	39,154	39,134
Vietnam	484,26	32,549	25,088	20,054	16,396	11,860	9198	11,533
China	13,174	13,441	20,442	16,434	13,029	8962	3664	4212
Others*	29,007	24,604	25,932	25,959	26,831	16,084	12,600**	20,652**
Total	2,135,035	1,866,369	1,797,377	1,982,798	1,999,551	1,545,095	1,171,909	1,303,398

Note: Others*: Thailand, Sri Lanka, Cambodia and Laos; others **: Thailand, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Laos, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

Source: Immigration Department of Malaysia (2023).

This study aims to address the lack of comprehensive assessment of social well-being among Bangladeshi migrant workers in Malaysia (Reza et al., 2019, 2024). Previous research has only explored certain aspects of their well-being, and there is a need for a more focused examination of their overall social well-being. Understanding their social well-being is crucial not only for gaining insights into their living conditions, social integration and overall quality of life in the host country but also for comprehending their motivations for migrating, leaving and staying, as these factors significantly impact their social well-being as migrants. The rationale for conducting this study is multi-fold. Firstly, Bangladeshi migrant workers constitute a significant portion of Malaysia’s construction sector workforce, yet their social well-being has received scant attention. By conducting a comprehensive assessment, this study aims to identify the social challenges and needs faced by these workers, which can inform targeted interventions and policies. Secondly, social well-being plays a pivotal role in overall well-being and mental health. Examining the social dimensions of well-being among Bangladeshi migrant workers can contribute to understanding factors that influence their adaptation, social support networks and sense of belonging in the host country. This knowledge can help improve interventions and support systems to enhance their social well-being. Thirdly, this study addresses the existing knowledge gap in the literature. While previous studies have touched upon specific aspects of well-being, a comprehensive assessment is lacking. By systematically examining the social well-being of Bangladeshi migrant workers, this study aims to contribute to the existing body of knowledge and provide insights that can inform future research and policymaking efforts.

Conceptual and theoretical framework

Globally, there are millions of regular and irregular migrant workers, with approximately 169 million migrant workers internationally employed as of 2019 (Popova and Rakotonarivo, 2021). Migrant workers strive to work in foreign countries to improve their standard of living and achieve greater economic stability. In Malaysia, migrant workers come from over 12 Asian countries, with the majority originating from Indonesia, Bangladesh, Nepal, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand and the Philippines (DOSM, 2017). Studies have explored various aspects of migrant workers’ socioeconomic conditions, human rights, gender roles, wages, policies and employment experiences in Malaysia (Ahmed, 1998; Dannecker, 2009; Rahman et al., 2014; Rasiah et al., 2015; Sarker, 2016; Ullah, 2010). These studies shed light on the contributions and challenges of migrant workers in the country.

Migration policy and laws for migrant workers in Malaysia have been a subject of concern and criticism due to various issues and limitations (Devadason and Meng, 2014; Kaur, 2010, 2014). Malaysia, being the largest labor importer in Asia, has a significant presence of foreign migrant workers, accounting for approximately 21 percent of the country’s workforce. The migration policies and regulations have been flawed, with frequent revisions and an ad-hoc approach, resulting in a large number of migrant workers and increasing numbers of undocumented workers. The policies have also failed to recognize the contributions of migrant workers to Malaysia’s development (Devadason and Meng, 2014). Moreover, the employment and levy systems have been ineffective, leading to the exploitation and abuse of migrant workers. The chronology of policies and regulations related to migrant workers in Malaysia highlights the inconsistencies and challenges faced in managing the inflow of foreign workers. These limitations call for the need to address the issues and develop more comprehensive and effective migration policies (Devadason and Meng, 2014).

The conceptual definition of well-being is multifaceted and lacks a consensus. It encompasses various dimensions such as physical, emotional, psychological and socioeconomic aspects. Well-being refers to a state of comfort, health, happiness and overall prosperity. Assessing well-being is complex due to its subjective nature and individual perceptions. Different frameworks highlight diverse elements of well-being, including mental well-being, psychological needs fulfillment and psychosocial aspects. It is closely linked to socioeconomic perspectives and factors such as income, quality of life and environment. Well-being is often measured through multiple dimensions, including material living standards, health, education, social connections and economic and physical security (Gillett-Swan and Sargeant, 2015; La Placa et al., 2013; Merriam-Webster, 2024; Pacáková, 2012; Stiglitz et al., 2009).

Social well-being refers to the enlightenment and advancement of the social life of individuals, involving a sense of involvement with others and communities (Shapiro and Keyes, 2008). It goes beyond mere happiness and contentment, emphasizing active engagement and social inclusion (Hashemi et al., 2016). The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes social well-being as a central component of overall health (Shapiro and Keyes, 2008). It encompasses concepts such as belonging, social inclusion, quality of life and cultural and spiritual aspects (Keyes, 1998). Objective criteria like gross domestic product (GDP) and behavioral indicators like community participation are used to measure social well-being (Andrews and Withey, 1976; Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 2000). The societal perspective of social well-being focuses on socioeconomic development, social determinants of health and government accountability (Figueras and McKee, 2012; Porter et al., 2013).

The nature and characteristics of social well-being encompass several facets. Personality traits like extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness play a significant role in individuals’ social well-being (Rath and Harter, 2010). Mental health and physical health, as well as connectivity with the larger community, also influence social well-being. Friendliness, outgoingness and activeness contribute to this concept (Jany-Catrice, 2009). The elements of social well-being involve being one’s own best friend, investing time in the social community and finding a life partner (Aked et al., 2008; Miringoff, 2003). Being self-aware and establishing a positive relationship with oneself help combat loneliness and depression (Aked et al., 2008). Investing time in social communities nurtures social connections and a support network. Finding a life partner is crucial for long-term companionship and sharing life experiences (Miringoff, 2003). These elements collectively contribute to individuals’ social well-being, fostering a sense of belonging, fulfillment and support in their social lives.

The literature on theories of social well-being encompasses a diverse range of perspectives and approaches that aim to understand and measure the various dimensions of social functioning, interaction and satisfaction within a society. Hashemi et al. (2016) reviewed several dominant theories of social well-being, categorizing them into individual and societal approaches. The individual view focuses on the interactions of individuals within a society, with Keyes (1998) highlighting social integration, sense of belonging, interdependence, collective consciousness and collective fate as potential benefits. Keyes emphasizes an individual perspective, describing social well-being as the evaluation of one’s circumstances and functioning within society. Conversely, the societal approach aims to provide a broad picture of a society, considering key aspects like education, health, work and safety (Miringoff, 2003).

Hashemi et al. (2016) utilized a conceptual model and selected specific domains and indicators to monitor social well-being in Iran, encompassing 37 variables related to social health, social integration, social contribution, social coherence, social actualization, social acceptance, social support and social functioning. Accessing accurate accounts and documents for comparing social well-being can be challenging for less economically developed countries (Diener et al., 2009). Models of social well-being face limitations in gathering comprehensive data on various aspects of social life and standard of living. These models should also consider economic and psychological factors that influence social well-being but might be overlooked. Inadequate measurement of social factors can restrict the use of social well-being models in policymaking (Hashemi et al., 2016).

Larson (1996) emphasized that measures of social well-being should reflect internal responses to stimuli, such as feelings, thoughts and behaviors related to satisfaction with the social environment. He identified two facets of individual-level social well-being: Social adjustment and social support (McDowell and Newell, 1987). Social adjustment pertains to satisfaction with relationships and social roles, while social support encompasses trust, reliability and the sense of mattering to others and society (Larson, 1993). Measurements of social well-being at the societal level provide insights into the current status and prospects of communities. The societal well-being view addresses socioeconomic development, social determinants of health, inequities and government accountability (Figueras and McKee, 2012; Porter et al., 2013).

The theoretical framework underpinning the assessment of social well-being in our research is based on Keyes’s (1998) work, which identifies the requisite factors for measurement. Keyes identified five major dimensions that are relevant for analyzing the most common aspects of social well-being (see Table 2). In the present research focused on the social well-being of migrant workers in Malaysia, this theoretical framework can be complemented with the primary findings to provide more depth and support the research findings. The authors aim to examine how these dimensions of social well-being affect migrant workers in Malaysia. It is important to note that this research has contextualized these indicators within the local context of Malaysia.

Table 2.

Keyes’s indicators of social well-being.

Domains	Indicators of social well-being
Social integration	Social cohesion. Cultural estrangement. Social isolation. Class consciousness
Social contribution	Belief. Efficacy. Responsibility. Valued society. Social alienation
Social coherence	Perception of quality, organization and operation. Feel part of the society. Feel meaningful life. Discernable, sensible and predictable life. Ability to maintain unpredictable and traumatic life events
Social actualization	Self-realization. Self-determination. Evaluation of potentiality of society. Evaluation of trajectory of society. Fatalism. Powerlessness
Social acceptance	Social trust. Favorable view of human nature. Positive self-personalities. Acceptance of good and bad aspects. Good mental health

Source: Authors, based on Keyes (1998).

Numerous studies have examined various aspects of social well-being both globally and in Malaysia, but no comprehensive study has addressed all its components with a specific focus on migrant workers’ social well-being. Poor working and living conditions significantly impact the social well-being of migrant workers. They often face crowded and substandard living conditions, inadequate access to healthcare and work-related risks that lead to physical and mental health issues. The prevalence of depression, musculoskeletal pain and various diseases is higher among migrant workers compared to the general population (Alswaidi et al., 2013; Hansen and Donohoe, 2003; Nadim et al., 2016; Nasir et al., 2023; Sunam, 2023). These conditions highlight the urgent need for improved working and living conditions to safeguard the social well-being of migrant workers.

There seems to be an underlying assumption in the studies conducted on the cultural, environmental and economic contexts of migrants, implying a direct correlation with their social well-being. However, it is important for the paper to acknowledge the fallacy in presuming that migrants—solely due to improved financial status—are immune to physiological and psychological distress. On the contrary, their status as migrants might intensify or exacerbate social distress, challenging the notion of solely attributing well-being to economic factors (Khai, 2022; Loganathan et al., 2019; Nielsen et al., 2012; Nielsen and Sendjaya, 2014; Reza et al., 2019).

Moreover, workplace insecurity poses a significant challenge to the social well-being of migrant workers. They often endure physical abuse, fear of sexual abuse and strained intergroup relations, contributing to a distressing social environment. Additionally, economic hardships, coupled with restrictions on social rights and limited freedom and choice in the workplace, further compound their well-being issues (Khai, 2022; Loganathan et al., 2019; Nielsen et al., 2012; Nielsen and Sendjaya, 2014; Reza et al., 2019). Addressing workplace insecurity and providing adequate social support are imperative for promoting the social well-being of migrant workers amidst these challenging circumstances.

This study addresses the lack of comprehensive assessment of social well-being among Bangladeshi migrant workers in Malaysia. While some aspects of their well-being have been explored previously, a comprehensive understanding is still missing. Understanding their social well-being is crucial for insights into their living conditions, social integration and overall quality of social life in the host country. The main objective of this study is to assess the social well-being of Bangladeshi migrant workers employed in Malaysia’s construction sector. By shedding light on their social challenges and needs, this study aims to inform targeted interventions and policies. To achieve this, the study will use Keyes’ (1998) framework, which includes dimensions like social integration, social acceptance, social contribution, social actualization and social coherence. The findings from this research will provide valuable information for future research and policymaking efforts focused on improving the social well-being of Bangladeshi migrant workers in Malaysia.

Research methods and data

Study site selection

This study was conducted in the Klang Valley region, encompassing Kuala Lumpur and Selangor, Malaysia. The Klang Valley was chosen due to its significance as a residence and workplace for approximately 50 percent of international labor migrants in Malaysia (Noh et al., 2016). Specific locations within the Klang Valley were selected for this research, including Kotaraya Bangla market, Brickfields, Subang Jaya Section 15, Merdeka PNB-118 construction project at Jalan Hang Jebat near Hang Tuah station, Kongsi nearby construction site at Sri Rampai and the Bangladesh High Commission area at Ampang in Kuala Lumpur. These locations were chosen for their proximity to the workplaces and residences of many Bangladeshi migrant workers, commonly known as Kongsi.

Research design and data collection methods

This study employed a quantitative research approach and utilized a survey method for data collection. A closed-ended structured questionnaire was developed and administered through face-to-face interviews. The survey specifically targeted Bangladeshi migrant workers in the construction sector. This method is commonly employed in social science research as it allows for the formulation of questions that address the research objectives, focusing on major themes and sub-themes (Dick, 2004; Patton, 2002). The survey questionnaire employed a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” (strongly disagree = 5, disagree = 4, undecided = 3, agree = 2, and strongly agree = 1) to assess economic and social well-being conditions based on well-being approaches. Additionally, demographic and socioeconomic questions were included in the questionnaire. In August 2016, the questionnaire underwent a pretest with 30 Bangladeshi construction migrant workers in Malaysia. This pretest aimed to ensure that the survey questionnaire was clear and easily understood by the respondents. Data were collected between October 2016 and April 2017. The tools used for data collection, including the interview schedule and guidelines for in-depth case interviews, were developed in Bengali and validated by a faculty member from the Department of Linguistics at the University of Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Sampling and respondents

To determine the appropriate sample size, we reviewed previous studies on migrant workers in Malaysia. Sample sizes in these studies ranged from 150 to 600. For instance, Zaman and Hussain (2019) and Karim and Diah (2015) conducted their study with sample sizes of 225 and 200, respectively, on international labor migration in Malaysia. Stevens et al. (2012) explored international migration in the United Kingdom involving 254 participants. Ullah (2010) examined international labor migration in Hong Kong and Malaysia with a sample size of 126. Noh et al. (2016), Sarker (2016), Rahman et al. (2014), and Tharmaseelan et al. (2010) conducted studies with sample sizes of 600, 400, 215 and 210, respectively, focusing on international labor migration in Malaysia and New Zealand.

To calculate the sample size for the present study, Slovin’s formula was used:

n = \frac{N}{1 + N e^{2}}

where• n = sample size• N = population size (105,387)• e = level of precision.

Using a 90 percent level of confidence (α = 0.10) and a population size of 105,387, the calculated sample size was 100. However, considering the implications of the study and previous research on international migration, it was observed that sample sizes in quantitative studies ranged from 126 to 600. Taking these factors into account, a sample size of 220 was determined as suitable for the present study, considering time, capacity, finances, participant management and control.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

This study followed specific inclusion and exclusion criteria when selecting the sampled respondents. The criteria included selecting documented Bangladeshi workers from the construction sector, aged between 23 and 55 years, with a minimum work experience of five years in Malaysia. This duration of work experience was deemed sufficient to ensure that the participants had a comprehensive understanding of the indicators related to social well-being issues.

Data analysis techniques

Descriptive analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS 21.0 to analyze the quantitative data related to various factors concerning Bangladeshi migrant workers in Malaysia. Reliability and normality tests were performed on the collected data prior to analysis. The reliability tests showed high Cronbach alpha values, indicating data reliability. The data was first analyzed using the mean ( $\bar{x}$ ) and standard deviation (σ) to assess the average and variability of responses. However, the normality test revealed a non-normal distribution of data for economic and social well-being. As a result, non-parametric tests, such as the Friedman test, were employed to further analyze the data. The Friedman test revealed significant differences in opinions among the indicators (p < 0.1).

Reliability and validity

The questionnaire was pretested with 30 Bangladeshi construction migrant workers in Malaysia to ensure clarity and effectiveness. Data consistency and reliability were established, and minor corrections were made based on the pretest results. The collected data were deemed reliable, demonstrating consistency and relevance to previous literature (Marczyk et al., 2005). Construct validity ensured accurate measurement of variables, while internal validity explored causal relationships. However, the study acknowledges limitations in generalizability due to the restricted area and data collection (Marczyk et al., 2005).

Ethical consideration

The researcher adhered to the ethical guidelines set by the University of Malaya Research Ethics Committee (UMREC). Approval was obtained by submitting a research proposal, and written permission was obtained from the relevant department and supervisors. Verbal consent was obtained from the respondents prior to conducting interviews and the research objective as well as potential benefits were explained to them.

Results

Socioeconomic status of the migrant workers

Table 3 presents the socioeconomic profile of migrant workers, indicating that a significant portion falls within the age range of 28 to 32 years (30.5 percent), with a notable proportion having completed secondary education (52.3 percent). Moreover, a large majority of the migrant workers are married (78.6 percent) and have three to four dependents (46.3 percent). The primary reason for migration appears to be for better income opportunities (83.2 percent), with a substantial portion relying on loans from relatives as the source of funds for migration (59.1 percent). The data highlights that a significant percentage of workers have long working hours and earn moderate incomes. Many workers report workplace injuries, while a majority have access to healthcare. However, a high proportion of workers face social threats in employment. The data also reveals that workers often live in shared apartment houses, with a significant percentage experiencing poor housing conditions. A notable portion of workers lack community support but rely on social media and smartphones for communication. Public transport is extensively used by all workers. These findings provide insights into the social realities of Bangladeshi migrant workers, emphasizing the challenges they face in their work environments, housing conditions and community integration, while also underscoring their reliance on technology and public transport for communication and mobility.

Table 3.

Major socioeconomic profile of the Bangladeshi migrant workers in Malaysia.

Socioeconomic profile	%
Age (years)
28–32	30.5
33–37	19.1
Education level
Primary	28.2
Secondary	52.3
Marital status
Married	78.6
Unmarried	20.9
Number of dependents members
3–4	46.3
5–6	26.4
Reasons for migration
Better income	83.2
Poverty	36.8
Source of fund for migration
Loan from relatives	59.1
Land sale	20.5
Workers’ highest working hours (10–12)	70
Highest monthly income (MYR 1,501-2,500)	61
Injury in workplace	57
Access to health treatment	82
Social threat in employment (delay payment, overtime, police threat, unscrupulous, etc.)	89
Living apartment house with groups	64
Poor housing condition	40
Workers did not get any support from community	30
Social media as main communication	66
Smartphone use	78
Public transport use	100

Note: Table only includes the highest number. MYR = Malaysian ringgits.

Social integration

Table 4 provides respondents’ opinions (in percentage) on social integration across various indicators. Notably, the indicator “belong to the local community” had the highest percentage of respondents expressing disagreement (73.2 percent), while the indicator “local society value you as a person” had the highest percentage of agreement (78.6 percent). These results underscore the presence of distinct variations in opinions regarding social integration, emphasizing the need to address different aspects of social integration for fostering inclusive and cohesive communities.

Table 4.

Respondents’ opinions on social integration.

Indicators of social integration	Level of opinions (%)					Mean ( $\bar{x}$ )	Standard deviation (σ)	Friedman test
Indicators of social integration	Strongly disagreed	Disagree	Undecided	Agree	Strongly agree	Mean ( $\bar{x}$ )	Standard deviation (σ)	Mean rank	Chi-square (df)	p-value
Belong to the local community	35	38.2	6.4	20	0.5	2.1	1.1	3.43	119.93	<0.1
Important part in the local community	33.2	45.5	5.5	15.5	0.5	2.0	1.0	3.30
Local community would listen to you	22.3	35	8.6	34.1	0	2.5	1.2	4.26
Close to other people of the local community	23.6	39.1	4.1	33.2	0	2.5	1.2	4.03
Local community as source of comfort	23.2	46.4	2.7	25.5	2.3	2.4	1.2	4.02
Local community would take you seriously	23.2	38.2	6.4	32.3	0	2.5	1.2	4.11
Local society value you as a person	13.6	34.1	7.7	44.1	0.5	2.8	1.2	4.86

Social contribution

Table 5 provides an analysis of respondents’ opinions (in percentage) on social contributions. Notably, respondents expressed a strong agreement that their behavior has some impact on others in the local community (75.5 percent strongly agree), while they were more divided on the importance of their contribution to the local society (18.2 percent strongly agree). The mean ranks and chi-square values reflect the differing levels of significance and provide insights into the varying perceptions of social contributions. These findings highlight the need to understand individuals’ attitudes and beliefs regarding their social impact to foster a sense of civic engagement and enhance social contributions within the community.

Table 5.

Respondents’ opinions on social contributions.

Indicators of social contributions	Level of opinions (%)					Mean ( $\bar{x}$ )	Standard deviation (σ)	Friedman test
Indicators of social contributions	Strongly disagreed	Disagree	Undecided	Agree	Strongly agree	Mean ( $\bar{x}$ )	Standard deviation (σ)	Mean rank	Chi-square (df)	p-value
Behavior has some impact on others in local community	0.9	9.1	9.5	75.5	5.0	3.7	0.7	2.56	198.81	<0.1
Have something valuable to give to Malaysian society	0.	5.0	2.7	84.1	8.2	4.0	0.6	3.30
Daily activities are worthwhile for local community	0.	0.9	2.3	85.5	11.4	4.1	0.4	3.70
Time and energy to give anything to local community	0.	1.4	1.8	83.6	13.2	4.1	0.4	3.84
Your work provides an important product for society	0.9	2.3	0.5	74.5	21.8	4.1	0.6	4.17
Important contribution to the local society	4.1	9.5	2.7	65.5	18.2	3.8	1.0	3.43

Social coherence

Table 6 presents respondents’ opinions (in percentage) on social coherence in Malaysia. Notably, respondents expressed a higher level of disagreement when it comes to finding the local society in Malaysia simple (49.5 percent disagree or strongly disagree), while they showed a higher level of agreement in understanding what is happening in Malaysian society (53.2 percent agree). The mean ranks and chi-square values indicate the degree of significance and provide insights into the differing perceptions of social coherence. These findings highlight the need to enhance understanding and clarity regarding the social fabric of Malaysia and the local culture to foster a sense of social cohesion and coherence in the community.

Table 6.

Respondents’ opinions on social coherence.

Indicators of social coherence	Level of opinions (%)					Mean ( $\bar{x}$ )	Standard deviation (σ)	Friedman test
Indicators of social coherence	Strongly disagreed	Disagree	Undecided	Agree	Strongly agree	Mean ( $\bar{x}$ )	Standard deviation (σ)	Mean rank	Chi-square (df)	p-value
Local society in Malaysia is simple for me	11.8	49.5	4.5	30	4.1	2.7	1.1	2.80	417.70	<0.1
It makes sense what is going on the Malaysian society	3.2	35.5	5.5	53.2	2.7	3.2	1.0	3.49
Understand what is happening in Malaysian society	2.3	35.5	5	55	2.3	3.2	1.0	3.53
Understand most of the local culture in Malaysia	2.7	29.1	4.1	61.4	2.7	3.3	1.0	3.77
It is worthy to understand local society in Malaysia	1.4	5	5	65.5	23.2	4.0	0.8	5.20
Easy to predict what will happen next in Malaysia	25.9	45	6.8	19.1	3.2	2.3	1.1	2.20

Social actualization

Table 7 presents respondents’ opinions (in percentage) on social actualization. Among the indicators, respondents expressed a higher level of agreement that society is progressing (65 percent agree or strongly agree) and continuously evolving (77.3 percent agree or strongly agree). On the other hand, respondents showed a higher level of disagreement regarding the perception that laws and government make their lives better (49.1 percent disagree or strongly disagree). The mean ranks and chi-square values reveal the varying degrees of significance and provide insights into the differing perceptions of social actualization. These findings highlight the need to further examine the factors influencing social progress, improvement and productivity in Malaysian society. Understanding and addressing the concerns raised regarding the role of laws, government and social progress are crucial for fostering a society that is continually evolving and better for everyone.

Table 7.

Respondents’ opinions on social actualization.

Indicators of social actualization	Level of opinions (%)					Mean ( $\bar{x}$ )	Standard deviation (σ)	Friedman test
Indicators of social actualization	Strongly disagreed	Disagree	Undecided	Agree	Strongly agree	Mean ( $\bar{x}$ )	Standard deviation (σ)	Mean rank	Chi-square (df)	p-value
Society is progressing	1.4	18.6	8.6	65	6.4	3.6	0.9	4.78	237.28	<0.1
Society is improving for people like you	1.4	29.5	13.6	54.5	0.9	3.2	0.9	3.55
Laws and government make your life better	5	49.1	15.9	30	0.	2.7	1.0	2.60
Society is continuously evolving	0.	10.5	10	77.3	2.3	3.7	0.7	4.93
Society is productive	0.9	13.2	18.6	66.8	0.5	3.5	0.8	4.26
Social progress is there for you	0.	20	12.7	65.9	1.4	3.5	0.8	4.14
Malaysia is better place for everyone	2.7	23.6	13.6	59.5	0.5	3.3	0.9	3.73

Social acceptance

Table 8 provides insights into respondents’ opinions (in percentage) on social acceptance. Among the indicators, respondents expressed a higher level of agreement that people in the local community are reliable (47.3 percent agree or strongly agree), kind (49.1 percent agree or strongly agree), trustworthy (45 percent agree or strongly agree) and care about others in the community (39.5 percent agree or strongly agree). On the other hand, respondents showed a higher level of disagreement regarding the perception that people in the local community are self-centered (50.9 percent disagree or strongly disagree) and live only for themselves (54.1 percent disagree or strongly disagree). The mean ranks and chi-square values reflect the varying degrees of significance and provide insights into the differing perceptions of social acceptance. These findings highlight the importance of fostering a sense of reliability, kindness, trustworthiness and care within the local community. Addressing the concerns raised about self-centeredness and dishonesty is essential for promoting a more accepting and supportive community environment.

Table 8.

Respondents’ opinions on social acceptance.

Indicators of social acceptance	Level of opinions (%)					Mean ( $\bar{x}$ )	Standard deviation (σ)	Friedman test
Indicators of social acceptance	Strongly disagreed	Disagree	Undecided	Agree	Strongly agree	Mean ( $\bar{x}$ )	Standard deviation (σ)	Mean rank	Chi-square (df)	p-value
People are reliable in the local community	5	34.1	12.7	47.3	0.9	3.1	1.0	4.65	330.10	<0.1
People are kind in the local community	7.3	31.8	8.6	49.1	3.2	3.1	1.1	4.66
People are self-centered in local community	25.9	50.9	10.5	11.8	0.9	2.1	1.0	2.65
People are trustworthy in the local community	5	33.6	11.8	45	4.5	3.1	1.1	4.73
People live only for themselves	20.5	54.1	11.8	12.7	0.9	2.2	0.9	2.67
People are more and most dishonest	1.4	40.5	25.9	30.5	1.8	2.9	0.9	4.55
People care about others in the community	6.8	46.8	5.9	39.5	0.9	2.8	1.1	4.10

Overall social well-being

Migrant workers’ social well-being is evaluated based on five key dimensions: Social contribution, social actualization, social coherence, social integration and social acceptance. These dimensions are used to create a social well-being index, which provides a comprehensive assessment of migrant workers’ well-being. The index summarizes the quantitative findings, highlighting the dominant indicators within each dimension (see Table 9). In terms of social contribution, positive behaviors, value orientation and productivity are highly valued and associated with higher social well-being. Migrant workers who display positive behaviors, uphold certain values and contribute productively to society are considered important contributors to social well-being. Their investment of time, energy and labor power in Malaysia’s development is recognized as a significant social contribution. Importantly, migrant workers themselves perceive their contribution as valuable not only economically but also for society. Social actualization, which emphasizes the feeling of social progress, is crucial for well-being. Migrant workers who experience a sense of progress and improvement in their social circumstances report higher levels of well-being. However, there are negative sentiments regarding the perception of social progress benefiting only certain groups, indicating potential inequities in the distribution of benefits and opportunities.

Table 9.

Social well-being evaluation (measured by higher propensity).

Social indicators	Variables	Dominant directions
Social contribution	Behavioral	Highly positive
	Value orientation	Highly positive
	Productive	Highly positive
Social actualization	Feeling well social progress	Highly positive
	Feeling as better for workers	Negative
	Harmonious regulation	Negative
Social coherence	Feeling of complexity	Positive
	Feeling of understanding	Highly positive
	Feeling of prediction	Highly positive
Social integration	Feeling of belongingness	Highly
	Feeling closeness	Highly positive
	Treated as human	Negative
Social acceptance	Locals as kind-reliable	Positive
	Locals as fraternal	Negative
	Locals as honest	Positive

Note: Highly positive or negative means more than 65 percent, positive or negative means more than 50 percent.

The dimension of social coherence reflects the perception of complexity and understanding within society. A positive perception of complexity indicates an acknowledgment of the multifaceted nature of social dynamics. Additionally, a high level of understanding suggests a comprehensive grasp of the intricate interplay of various social factors. Social integration plays a significant role in migrant workers’ well-being, encompassing a strong sense of belonging and closeness. When migrant workers feel connected to and accepted by their host society, it positively influences their overall well-being. However, negative attitudes are observed regarding how locals treat migrant workers as human beings, underscoring the importance of promoting respectful and inclusive interactions. Finally, social acceptance is influenced by the perception of locals as kind, reliable and honest. When locals are viewed favorably in these aspects, it creates a positive social environment and fosters social acceptance. However, there are some negative sentiments concerning locals being perceived as fraternal, indicating potential challenges in building stronger social connections.

Discussion

The findings from the study revealed significant insights into the major dimensions of social well-being for migrant workers in Malaysia. The analysis of social integration highlighted distinct variations in opinions, with a higher level of disagreement regarding belonging to the local community but a higher level of agreement regarding the value placed on individuals by the local society. Understanding and addressing different aspects of social integration are crucial for fostering inclusive and cohesive communities. In terms of social contribution, respondents strongly agreed that their behavior had an impact on others in the local community, while opinions were divided on the importance of their contribution to the local society. This emphasized the importance of understanding individuals’ attitudes and beliefs to enhance their social contributions effectively.

The dimension of social coherence revealed a higher level of disagreement regarding the simplicity of the local society but a higher level of agreement in understanding what is happening in Malaysian society. Enhancing understanding and clarity surrounding the social fabric and local culture is essential for fostering social cohesion. Social actualization findings indicated a higher level of agreement on society’s progress and continuous evolution, but a higher level of disagreement concerning the perception that laws and government made lives better. Further examination of factors influencing social progress is necessary for fostering a society that continually evolves and improves. Finally, in terms of social acceptance, respondents expressed agreement regarding the reliability, kindness, trustworthiness and care of people in the local community, while disagreeing with the perception of them being self-centered or living only for themselves. Fostering positive qualities within the community is crucial for creating an accepting and supportive environment. Overall, these findings underscore the need to address different dimensions of social well-being, understand the attitudes and beliefs of migrant workers and take appropriate actions to foster inclusive, cohesive and supportive communities in Malaysia.

When examining social integration, our study revealed distinct variations in opinions among different indicators. Notably, the indicator “belong to the local community” had a high percentage of respondents expressing disagreement, suggesting potential challenges in fostering a sense of belonging for migrant workers. This finding aligns with previous research by Loganathan et al. (2019), Guo (2013), Deng and Marlowe (2013), Ravasi et al. (2015), Ertorer et al. (2022), Aning (2023), Almutairi (2015), Yanar et al. (2022), Haug (2000), Beresnevičiūtė (2003) and Hack-Polay et al. (2020) which highlighted the difficulties faced by migrant workers in integrating into local communities due to cultural differences and language barriers. However, our study also found a high percentage of agreement in the indicator “local society value you as a person,” indicating that there is recognition and appreciation for migrant workers within the broader society. This finding is consistent with the findings of Preibisch (2004), Tunon and Baruah (2012), Mak and Barker (2006), and Dedeoglu (2014), who emphasized the importance of valuing the contributions of migrant workers for promoting social integration.

In terms of social contribution, our study revealed mixed opinions on the importance of migrant workers’ contributions to the local society. This finding echoes the findings of Charoensukmongkol and Phungsoonthorn (2022), Di Napoli et al. (2021) and Diop et al. (2017), who reported varying perceptions among local communities regarding the value and impact of migrant workers’ contributions. It highlights the need for further dialogue and understanding between different stakeholders to foster a more inclusive and supportive environment that recognizes the positive contributions of migrant workers.

Regarding social coherence, our study found a higher level of disagreement regarding the simplicity of the local society but a higher level of agreement in understanding what is happening in Malaysian society. This finding aligns with the studies by Faas et al. (2014), Taylor and Foster (2015), Benton et al. (2018) and Ng et al. (2023), which emphasized the complexity of social dynamics in Malaysia and the importance of enhancing understanding and clarity. It suggests the need for efforts to promote better communication and education about the diverse aspects of Malaysian society, thereby fostering a sense of social cohesion among migrant workers.

In terms of social actualization, our study revealed agreement on the perception of society progressing and evolving. This finding is consistent with the findings of Tunon and Baruah (2012), who highlighted the positive perception of social progress among migrant workers. However, our study also found disagreement regarding the perception that laws and government make lives better. This finding echoes the concerns raised in the study by Reza et al. (2019), Reza and Subramaniam (2019) and Huang et al. (2020), which emphasized the need for policies that address the specific needs and challenges faced by migrant workers to improve their well-being and social actualization.

Lastly, our study found agreement on positive qualities, such as reliability, kindness, trustworthiness and care within the local community. This aligns with previous research by Weng-Wai et al. (2022), who emphasized the importance of promoting positive social norms and attitudes for enhancing social acceptance. However, our study also revealed some negative sentiments regarding locals being perceived as self-centered or living only for themselves. This finding highlights the need for interventions that address stereotypes and promote more inclusive attitudes and behaviors within the community.

Overall, comparing the findings of this study with previous research underscored the ongoing challenges faced by migrant workers in terms of social integration, contribution, coherence, actualization and acceptance (notably cited by Bobowik et al., 2015; Reza et al., 2019; Reza and Subramaniam, 2019; Reza et al., 2022). It highlights the need for continued efforts to address these dimensions and create an inclusive and supportive environment for migrant workers in Malaysia. Future research should further explore the underlying factors contributing to these findings and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving the social well-being of migrant workers.

Conclusions

Based on Keyes’s (1998) social well-being indicators, this quantitative study revealed significant insights into the major dimensions of social well-being for migrant workers in Malaysia. However, there are several limitations to consider. Firstly, the findings may not be generalizable beyond the specific context of migrant workers in Malaysia, limiting their applicability to other populations or settings. Secondly, the study’s sample size and representativeness might have been insufficient, potentially compromising the external validity of the results. Thirdly, this study lies in the potential lack of comprehension among Bangladeshi migrant workers, particularly those with low levels of education, regarding the significance of the indicators of well-being, compounded by the absence of access to the questionnaire used in the research. Another limitation of this study is its potential bias, which may hinder a comprehensive understanding of the situation, emphasizing the need for cross-cutting and comparative research, such as incorporating interviews with Malaysian citizens, to provide a more balanced perspective. Furthermore, the exclusive reliance on a quantitative approach may have overlooked the nuanced experiences and perspectives of migrant workers, suggesting that a mixed-methods approach would have yielded a more comprehensive understanding of social well-being.

Despite these limitations, the research provided intriguing findings on the components of social well-being. It shed light on the variations in social integration and contribution, highlighting the importance of understanding the attitudes and beliefs of migrant workers. The study emphasized the crucial role of enhancing understanding of the local society and culture in fostering social coherence. Moreover, it emphasized the need for further examination of factors influencing social progress. Creating an accepting and supportive environment was found to be contingent upon fostering positive qualities within the community. Overall, these findings underscore the significance of addressing different dimensions of social well-being, understanding the attitudes and beliefs of migrant workers and taking appropriate actions to foster inclusive, cohesive and supportive communities in Malaysia.

Furthermore, the paper should recognize the imperative of replicating the study on other migrant groups and in various migration sites. Diversifying the study’s scope to encompass a broader spectrum of migrant populations and different migration settings holds immense value. By conducting similar research among other migrant communities, such as those from different countries or regions, and in alternative migration sites within Malaysia or other countries, a more comprehensive understanding of social well-being among migrant workers can be achieved. This expansion would enable researchers to explore the nuanced experiences and challenges faced by diverse migrant groups, taking into account cultural, socioeconomic and contextual differences. Moreover, replicating the study in different migration sites could uncover unique factors influencing social well-being, considering variations in local policies, societal attitudes and access to resources. Ultimately, this broader approach to research would not only enhance the generalizability and applicability of the findings but also contribute to a more holistic understanding of the complexities surrounding migrant workers’ social well-being across diverse contexts.

The study emphasized the significance of addressing various aspects of social integration, contribution, coherence and acceptance to enhance the overall well-being of migrant workers. Moving forward, it is crucial to consider these dimensions and take appropriate actions to foster inclusive, supportive and culturally sensitive environments for migrant workers in Malaysia. By doing so, we can work toward creating a society that values and supports the well-being of all its members, irrespective of their background or origin.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Md Mohsin Reza

M Rezaul Islam

Thirunaukarasu Subramaniam

References

Ahmed

(1998) The impact of the Asian crisis on migrant workers: Bangladesh perspectives. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 7(2-3): 369-393. DOI: 10.1177/011719689800700212.

Aked

Marks

Cordon

et al. (2008) Five Ways to Wellbeing: Communicating the Evidence. Report for New Economics Foundation (NEF), 22 October. London: NEF. Available at: https://neweconomics.org/2008/10/five-ways-to-wellbeing.

Almutairi

(2015) Problems immigrants face in host countries. International Business & Economics Research Journal 14(4): 691-698. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297750585_Problems_Immigrants_Face_In_Host_Countries.

Alswaidi

Memish

Al Hakeem

et al. (2013) Saudi Arabian expatriate worker fitness-screening programme: A review of 14 years of data. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal 19(7): 664-670. Available at: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/118568.

Andrews

Withey

(1976) Social Indicators of Well-Being: Americans’ Perceptions of Life Quality. New York: Plenum Press.

Aning

(2023) Language Barriers among Immigrant Communities. Senior Project for Western Washington University (WWU) Honors College, Senior Project no. 638. Bellingham: WWU. Available at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwu_honors/638.

Benton

Silva

Somerville

(2018) Applying Behavioral Insights to Support Immigrant Integration and Social Cohesion. Research for Integration Futures Working Group, October. Brussels: Migration Policy Institute Europe. Available at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/BehaviouralInsightsIntegration-Final.pdf.

Beresnevičiūtė

(2003) Dimensions of social integration: Appraisal of theoretical approaches. Etniškumo studijos 96-108. Available at: https://www.lituanistika.lt/content/35381.

Bobowik

Basabe

Páez

(2015) The bright side of migration: Hedonic, psychological, and social well-being in immigrants in Spain. Social Science Research 51: 189-204. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.09.011.

10.

Charoensukmongkol

Phungsoonthorn

(2022) The effect of cultural intelligence of top management on pro-diversity work climate and work attitudes of Myanmar migrant workers in Thailand. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion 41(5): 760-777. DOI: 10.1108/EDI-11-2020-0339.

11.

Coleman

(1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94: S95-S120. DOI: 10.1086/228943.

12.

Dannecker

(2005) Transnational migration and the transformation of gender relations: The case of Bangladeshi labour migrants. Current Sociology 53(4): 655-674. DOI: 10.1177/0011392105052720.

13.

Dannecker

(2009) Migrant visions of development: A gendered approach. Population, Space and Place 15(2): 119-132. DOI: 10.1002/psp.533.

14.

Dedeoglu

(2014) Migrants, Work and Social Integration: Women’s Labour in the Turkish Ethnic Economy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

15.

Deng

Marlowe

(2013) Refugee resettlement and parenting in a different context. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies 11(4): 416-430. DOI: 10.1080/15562948.2013.793441.

16.

Department of Statistics Malaysia (DOSM) (2017) Statistics and publications. Ministry of Economy DOSM Official Portal. Available at: https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=home/indexandmenu_id=b2ROaWpITmQ5NnAvMHVmRjRkZzlBQT09 (accessed 12 May 2023).

17.

Devadason

Meng

(2014) Policies and laws regulating migrant workers in Malaysia: A critical appraisal. Journal of Contemporary Asia 44(1): 19-35. DOI: 10.1080/00472336.2013.826420.

18.

Di Napoli

Rossi

Baralla

et al. (2021) Self-perceived workplace discrimination and mental health among immigrant workers in Italy: A cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry 21: 1-11. DOI: 10.1186/s12888-021-03077-6.

19.

Dick

(2004) Discourse analysis. In: Cassell

Symon

(eds) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: Sage Publications Ltd, pp. 203-213.

20.

Diener

Lucas

Schimmack

et al. (2009) Limitations of economic and social indicators. In: Diener

Lucas

Schimmack

et al. (eds) Well-Being for Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 23-45.

21.

Diop

Johnston

et al. (2017) Citizens’ attitudes towards migrant workers in Qatar. Migration and Development 6(1): 144-160. DOI: 10.1080/21632324.2015.1112558.

22.

Erling

Seargeant

Solly

et al. (2015) English for Economic Development: A Case Study of Migrant Workers from Bangladesh. Report for British Council. London: British Council. Available at: https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/publications/case-studies-insights-and-research/english-economic-development-case-study-migrant.

23.

Ertorer

Long

Fellin

et al. (2022) Immigrant perceptions of integration in the Canadian workplace. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion 41(7): 1091-1111. DOI: 10.1108/EDI-02-2019-0086.

24.

Faas

Hajisoteriou

Angelides

(2014) Intercultural education in Europe: Policies, practices and trends. British Educational Research Journal 40(2): 300-318. DOI: 10.1002/berj.3080.

25.

Figueras

McKee

(eds) (2012) Health Systems, Health, Wealth and Societal Well-Being: Assessing the Case for Investing in Health Systems. Berskshire: Open University Press.

26.

Gillett-Swan

Sargeant

(2015) Wellbeing as a process of accrual: Beyond subjectivity and beyond the moment. Social Indicators Research 121: 135-148. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-014-0634-6.

27.

Guo

(2013) Economic integration of recent Chinese immigrants in Canada’s second-tier cities: The triple glass effect and immigrants’ downward social mobility. Canadian Ethnic Studies 45(3): 95-115. DOI: 10.1353/ces.2013.0047.

28.

Hack-Polay

Tenna Ogbaburu

Rahman

et al. (2020) Immigrant entrepreneurs in rural England—An examination of the socio-cultural barriers facing migrant small businesses in Lincolnshire. Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit 35(7): 676-694. DOI: 10.1177/0269094220988852.

29.

Hansen

Donohoe

(2003) Health issues of migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 14(2): 153-164. DOI: 10.1353/hpu.2010.0790.

30.

Hare

(1999) ‘Push’ versus ‘pull’ factors in migration outflows and returns: Determinants of migration status and spell duration among China’s rural population. Journal of Development Studies 35(3): 45-72. DOI: 10.1080/00220389908422573.

31.

Haug

(2000) National and immigrant minorities: Problems of measurement and definition. Genus 56(1/2): 133-147. Available at: https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/29788633.

32.

Hashemi

Pourmalek

Tehrani

et al. (2016) Monitoring social well-being in Iran. Social Indicators Research 129: 1-12. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-015-1087-2.

33.

Hoo

Zainal

SRM

Chai

(2014) Return intentions of Malaysia’s diaspora: The push and pull factors. Case Studies in Business and Management 1(1): 140-151. DOI: 10.5296/csbm.v1i1.5863.

34.

Huang

Cheng

Chu

(2020) Resilience and well‐being production among vulnerable consumers facing systematic constraints. Journal of Consumer Affairs 54(4): 1328-1354. DOI: 10.1111/joca.12333.

35.

Immigration Department of Malaysia (2023) Foreign Workers. Dataset, Ministry of Home Affairs (unpublished).

36.

Jany-Catrice

(2009) The French regions and their social health. Social Indicators Research 93: 377-391. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-008-9330-8.

37.

Karim

AHMZ

Diah

(2015) Health seeking behavior of the Bangladeshi migrant workers in Malaysia: Some suggestive recommendations in adjustive context. Asian Social Science 11(10): 348-357. DOI: 10.5539/ass.v11n10p348.

38.

Kaur

(2010) Labour migration trends and policy challenges in Southeast Asia. Policy and Society 29(4): 385-397. DOI: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.09.001.

39.

Kaur

(2014) Managing labour migration in Malaysia: Guest worker programs and the regularisation of irregular labour migrants as a policy instrument. Asian Studies Review 38(3): 345-366. DOI: 10.1080/10357823.2014.934659.

40.

Keyes

CLM

(1998) Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly 61(2): 121-140. DOI: 10.2307/2787065.

41.

Khai

(2022) Social Determinants of Health and Well-being among Irregular Migrant Workers in Malaysia: A Case Study of Chin People from Myanmar. Preprint research article, 04 October. DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2080254/v1.

42.

Kuhnt

(2019) Literature Review: Drivers of Migration. Why Do People Leave Their Homes? Is There an Easy Answer? A Structured Overview of Migratory Determinants. Discussion paper for German Development Institute, Discussion paper no. 9/2019. Bonn: German Development Institute. DOI: 10.23661/dp9.2019.

43.

La Placa

McNaught

Knight

(2013) Discourse on wellbeing in research and practice. International Journal of Wellbeing 3(1): 116-125. DOI: 10.5502/ijw.v3i1.7.

44.

Larson

(1993) The measurement of social well-being. Social Indicators Research 28: 285-296. DOI: 10.1007/BF01079022.

45.

Larson

(1996) The World Health Organization’s definition of health: Social versus spiritual health. Social Indicators Research 38: 181-192. DOI: 10.1007/BF00300458.

46.

Loganathan

Rui

et al. (2019) Breaking down the barriers: Understanding migrant workers’ access to healthcare in Malaysia. PLOS ONE 14(7): 1-24. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218669.

47.

Mak

Barker

(2006) Social integration: Strategies to foster migrants’ effective participation in a group. In: Tse

Hoque

Rasanathan

et al. (eds) Second International Asian Health and Wellbeing Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, 11 November 2006, pp. 147-155. Auckland: University of Auckland.

48.

Marczyk

DeMatteo

Festinger

(2005) Essentials of Research Design and Methodology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

49.

McDowell

Newell

(1987) Quality of life and life satisfaction. In: Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 204-268.

50.

Merriam-Webster (2024) Well-being, 17 November. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/well-being (accessed 26 November 2024).

51.

Miringoff

(2003) 2003 Index of Social Health: Monitoring the Social Well-Being of the Nation. Index for Fordham Institute for Innovation in Social Policy. New York: Fordham Institute for Innovation in Social Policy. Available at: https://pratclif.com/economy/pib&critic032008_files/indexsocialhealth.pdf.

52.

Nadim

AlOtaibi

Al-Mohaimeed

et al. (2016) Depression among migrant workers in Al-Qassim, Saudi Arabia. Journal of Affective Disorders 206: 103-108. DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2016.07.037.

53.

Nasir

Haque

Awang

(2023) The challenges in providing adequate housing for migrant workers in Terengganu, Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 8(4): 1-12. DOI: 10.47405/mjssh.v8i4.2265.

54.

Rajendran

Waheduzzaman

(2023) Promoting workplace inclusion and self-efficacy among skilled migrant workers in Australia. International Journal of Manpower 44(2): 267-282. DOI: 10.1108/IJM-01-2022-0044.

55.

Nielsen

Sendjaya

(2014) Wellbeing among Indonesian labour migrants to Malaysia: Implications of the 2011 memorandum of understanding. Social Indicators Research 117: 919-938. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-013-0369-9.

56.

Nielsen

Paritski

Smyth

(2012) A minority-status perspective on intergroup relations: A study of an ethnic Chinese population in a small Italian town. Urban Studies 49(2): 307-318. DOI: 10.1177/0042098010397396.

57.

Noh

Wahab

Bakar Ah

SHA

et al. (2016) Public health services for foreign workers in Malaysia. Social Work in Public Health 31(5): 419-430. DOI: 10.1080/19371918.2015.1125321.

58.

Oishi

(2005) Women in Motion: Globalization, State Policies, and Labor Migration in Asia. Redwood: Stanford University Press.

59.

Pacáková

(2012) Bayesian estimations in insurance theory and practice. In: Iliescu

(ed) 14^th WSEAS International Conference on Mathematical and Computational Methods in Science and Engineering (MACMESE ‘12), Sliema, Malta, 07–09 September 2012, pp. 127-131. Athens: WSEAS Press.

60.

Patton

(2002) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3^rd edn). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

61.

Popova

Rakotonarivo

(2021) ILO Global Estimates on International Migrant Workers: Results and Methodology. Report for ILO. Geneva: ILO. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_808935.pdf.

62.

Porter

Stern

Loría

(2013) Social Progress Index 2013. Index for the Social Progress Initiative. Washington, DC: Social Progress Imperative. Available at: https://www.cooperativa.cl/noticias/site/artic/20130412/asocfile/20130412123648/social_progress_index_2013.pdf.

63.

Preibisch

(2004) Migrant agricultural workers and processes of social inclusion in rural Canada: Encuentros and desencuentros. Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 29(57-58): 203-239. DOI: 10.1080/08263663.2004.10816857.

64.

Putnam

(2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

65.

Rahman

Uddin

MSJ

Albaity

(2014) Socio-economic conditions of Bangladeshi migrant workers in Malaysia. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research 4(3): 246-252. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260064902_Socio-economic_Conditions_of_Bangladeshi_Migrant_Workers_in_Malaysia.

66.

Rasiah

Crinis

Lee

(2015) Industrialization and labour in Malaysia. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy 20(1): 77-99. DOI: 10.1080/13547860.2014.974327.

67.

Rath

Harter

(2010) Wellbeing: The Five Essential Elements. New York: Gallup Press.

68.

Ravasi

Salamin

Davoine

(2015) Cross-cultural adjustment of skilled migrants in a multicultural and multilingual environment: An explorative study of foreign employees and their spouses in the Swiss context. International Journal of Human Resource Management 26(10): 1335-1359. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2014.985328.

69.

Reza

Islam

Subramaniam

(2024) Unveiling the economic odyssey: Exploring the well-being of Bangladeshi migrant workers in Malaysia. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy. Epub ahead of print, 05 February 2024. DOI: 10.1080/13547860.2024.2309753.

70.

Reza

Subramaniam

(2019) Economic and social wellbeing of the Bangladeshi migrant workers in Malaysia. In: Islam

(ed) Social Research Methodology and New Techniques in Analysis, Interpretation, and Writing. Hershey: IGI Global Scientific Publishing, pp. 106-134.

71.

Reza

Subramaniam

Islam

(2019) Economic and social well-being of Asian labour migrants: A literature review. Social Indicators Research 141: 1245-1264. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-018-1876-5.

72.

Reza

Subramaniam

Islam

(2022) Data collection for a doctoral study among natives living abroad: Revisiting the challenges and strategies undertaken. Quality and Quantity 56: 2783-2802. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-021-01244-1.

73.

Sarker

(2016) Migration and employment: A study of Bangladeshi male migrant workers in Malaysia. In: Lian

Rahman

Alas

(eds) International Migration in Southeast Asia. Singapore: Springer Singapore, pp. 125-148.

74.

Sewpersad

Maharaj

(2023) Hustling to survive: Livelihood strategies of migrants. In: Maharaj

(ed) Migrant Traders in South Africa. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 61-84.

75.

Shapiro

Keyes

CLM

(2008) Marital status and social well-being: Are the married always better off?. Social Indicators Research 88: 329-346. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-007-9194-3.

76.

Solimano

(2010) International Migration in the Age of Crisis and Globalization: Historical and Recent Experiences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

77.

Stevens

Hussein

Manthorpe

(2012) Experiences of racism and discrimination among migrant care workers in England: Findings from a mixed-methods research project. Ethnic and Racial Studies 35(2): 259-280. DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2011.574714.

78.

Stiglitz

Sen

Fitoussi

(2009) Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Report for Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (CMEPSP). Paris: CMEPSP. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258260767_Report_of_the_Commission_on_the_Measurement_of_Economic_Performance_and_Social_Progress_CMEPSP.

79.

Sunam

(2023) Infrastructures of migrant precarity: Unpacking precarity through the lived experiences of migrant workers in Malaysia. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 49(3): 636-654. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2022.2077708.

80.

Taylor

Foster

(2015) Migrant workers and the problem of social cohesion in Canada. Journal of International Migration and Integration 16: 153-172. DOI: 10.1007/s12134-014-0323-y.

81.

Tharmaseelan

Inkson

Carr

(2010) Migration and career success: Testing a time-sequenced model. Career Development International 15(3): 218-238. DOI: 10.1108/13620431011053712.

82.

Tunon

Baruah

(2012) Public attitudes towards migrant workers in Asia. Migration and Development 1(1): 149-162. DOI: 10.1080/21632324.2012.718524.

83.

Ullah

AKMA

(2010) Rationalizing Migration Decisions: Labour Migrants in East and South-East Asia. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.

84.

Weng-Wai

Siaw-Chui

Sheau-Ting

et al. (2022) Community acceptance towards migrant settlements in a sustainable city: What contributes to the not in my backyard social phenomenon?. Journal of International Migration and Integration 24: 611-636. DOI: 10.1007/s12134-022-00969-8.

85.

Yanar

Nasir

Massoud

et al. (2022) Employers’ experiences with safe work integration of recent immigrants and refugees. Safety Science 155: 105856. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105856.

86.

Zaman

Hussain

RBM

(2019) Usage of social capital among migrant workers for their livelihoods in Malaysia. In: Islam

(ed) Social Research Methodology and New Techniques in Analysis, Interpretation, and Writing. Hershey: IGI Global Scientific Publishing, pp. 160-189.