The Thai army’s harsh treatment of Burmese boat people raises important issues about human rights in Thailand.
Thailand’s human rights record has not been impressive, not only on the part of the military but also the government policy itself. At a broader level, the Thai government has not been a party to the Geneva Convention of 1951, and it is reluctant to ratify any international agreement related to human rights issues.
Thai security agencies do not seem to be comfortable with adopting international standards as they are regarded as a way in which their actions could be circumscribed, hence putting Thailand’s security in danger. However, with increasing international pressure on human rights issues, Thailand tends to accept some human rights practices but not every aspect. So, in short, by not accepting international legal frameworks, Thailand is able to apply the practices only on a minimal basis and often slips away from that as long as its violations are not monitored or reported by the media or NGOs.
The violation of the human rights of refugees and immigrants can be seen throughout the country. For example, Thailand’s Ministry of Interior always discourages and even bans foreign workers from organising their own traditional festivals such as during songkran. It has been reported that the authorities are afraid of any political campaign or propaganda against Rangoon that may take place. So, if Burmese refugee or migrant groups are allowed to hold festivals, the Thai police monitor them closely.
Mistreatments are also found in the Thai government’s management of Burmese refugee camps along the Thai-Burmese border. Camps’ sanitation and proper basic living standards are always an issue between NGOs, international organisations and the Thai government. Everything has to be negotiated instead of applying the basic and proper measures that would be expected if Thailand accepted the international law. This also brings about corruption, as some government officials from both the army and the Ministry of Interior see such negotiations as a way to obtain financial benefits, especially at the operational level.
However, the recent Rohingya refugee incident is very surprising. Although the army may not apply a high standard of treatment in relation to Burmese refugees, they are generally not so inhumane. I think, perhaps, there are several reasons for the Navy and ISOC officers’ misconduct this time, compared to the refugee camps in the north.
First, there are a lot of refugee camps and NGO operations in the north and they have been there for many years. So, you can expect the security officers to be familiar with international pressure and monitoring. This learning process may help them exercise more caution on their own policy and implementation and mitigate some problems. However, these Rohingya migratory flows are seasonal, especially in the dry season as the sea is calmer. So, there are no permanent camps or NGO offices to help them in a regular basis.
Second, it seems from media reports that all of the boat people involved in these incidents are Muslim male. The security officers may have been too wary of them having some links to unrest in Thailand’s south. Perhaps security paranoia was heightened in the context of the recent Mumbai bombings.
Third, the security officers may have been trying to demonstrate to the boat people that they should not come through Thailand any more. In general, these Rohingya refugees go to Malaysia through Thailand. The agents that arrange their passage have told them that Thailand is a safe place to land and proceed to Malaysia. So, this time the harsh action may have been designed to send a clear message that they should not land in Thailand.
Another issue is the question of why ISOC is involved in this kind of operation. It needs to be seen in the context in which ISOC responsibilities have evolved. Although ISOC was set up as an anti-communist measure during the Cold War, it was revamped several times.
First, during mid-1980s ISOC’s mission was adjusted to be more supportive to the main operation of the army and the police instead of having their own independent roles. This reflected the decrease in Cold War tension.
Second, ISOC was revamped again under the Chuan government. As the communist threat was no longer visible, ISOC was assigned to support other non-traditional security operations, which included border security and illegal migration.
Third, in 2001 during the Thaksin government, ISOC’s role was reduced considerably especially in the management of problems in the southern provinces. Its role became merely a co-ordinating body and civilian officials were also part of the ISOC structure. For example, the deputy of ISOC used to be only the Supreme Commander in Chief but this was changed to include a permanent-secretary from the Ministry of Interior and another political affairs position.
Recently, the ISOC was empowered by the September 2006 coup and the interim National Assembly during the Surayud government, via the Internal Security Act (ISA) 2008. The implementation of ISA is not subject to any legal restriction that may be brought against ISOC officers in the Administrative Court. So, with broader responsibilities and power under the ISA of 2008 you may see how ISOC came to be involved in this incident.
10 responses so far ↓
1 doctorJ // Jan 27, 2009 at 1:28 pm
A very interesting and rational perspective on human rights in Thailand, thanks khun Paul.
Focusing on the boat people,a Dem party member(forgot his name,sorry) recently did mention the endless demand for cheap illegal labors in the south and Malaysia as a major factor luring these boat people to land on Thai shores. A massive scale of human trafficking can’t be done without the “cooperation” from some corrupt authorities,or even get involved themselves. So Thai government should pay more attention to the issue of illegal labors rather than trying in vain to push back the illegal immigrants along the thousand kilometres border.
One other thing,every time the medias called Thailand a bad name,the immediate responses from the government was always the conspiracy theories. The medias were paid by some one to defame Thailand! Does it matter whether they were bribed or not if they conveyed the TRUTH? pathetic
2 mike // Jan 27, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Some good points here and I’d like to add a couple of comments. Firstly, Thailand isn’t that bad when it comes to agreeing to International Human Rights Standards. It just recently agreed to the Convention Against Torture, a big and important step. When it comes to the rest of ASEAN, it is much better (admittedly, not a great bunch of countries to compare with), with about 9 treaties – Singapore etc have around 3.
Also, even though it hasn’t agreed to the Refugee convention, in an unofficial way it nearly does comply to much of it.
However, these legal standards are irrelevant when we look at what happens on the ground, and here Thailand is in a disastrous spiral, particularly in the last year.
The problem may not be too much power to the government, but in a sense not enough. That ISOC can go almost rogue in its actions, and that the government is paralyzed from making decisions because of lock outs etc, means that other non elected sections have power to abuse.
3 Stephen // Jan 27, 2009 at 10:53 pm
A relevant point to raise here is the problematic classifications of people leaving Burma as either “refugees” or “economic migrants.” In this contribution, Paul Busbarat identifies the Rohingya as refugees. So does Andrew Walker in his opinion piece on “Abhisit’s human rights challenge.” However, Tharit Charungvat, speaking on behalf of Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs complained recently regarding the Rohingya that Thailand was “a sponge to receive all these economic migrants.”
The reason that “there are no permanent camps or NGO offices to help them [the Rohingya ‘boat people’] on a regular basis,” is not, as Busbarat suggests, because “these Rohingya migratory flows are seasonal.” Rather, it is because many INGOs, UN agencies, bilateral aid agencies and the Thai government consider them “economic migrants” not “refugees.”
The notion that “refugees” are only those fleeing conflict in eastern Burma and now residing within designated refugee camps and “economic migrants” are everyone else from Burma now in Thailand needs to be more aggressively challenged. Andrew Walker stated the Rohingya were refugees because they were “escaping from the Burmese regime’s persecution of ethnic minorities.” A recent Irrawaddy article likewise said “they are persecuted economically and denied basic rights of citizenship.” Being understood as refugees, not only the Thai government but also INGOs, UN agencies and bilateral aid agencies should extend their “protection” mandates to cover these individuals.
4 jud // Jan 28, 2009 at 2:01 am
QUOTE OF THE DAY-We are the victims. Somehow we serve as a sponge to receive all these economic migrants — Tharit Charungvat, spokesman for Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs
http://www.irrawaddy.org/index.php
5 jud // Jan 28, 2009 at 2:02 am
Thailand holds 78 more Burma boat people
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/thailand-holds-78-more-burma-boat-people-20090127-7r2j.html
6 jud // Jan 28, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Thailand’s welcoming hand Cartoon Harn Lay
http://democracyforburma.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/thailands-welcoming-hand-cartoon/
7 jud // Jan 30, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Burma on Friday, refused to recognize Rohingya – Muslim minorities, as citizens of the country and said they are not included in the multi-ethnic groups recorded by the state, the government mouthpiece, New Light of Myanmar Newspaper said.
http://www.mizzima.com/news/inside-burma/1626-burma-refuses-to-recognize-rohingya-as-citizens-.html
now all up on Thai Hands
8 jud // Jan 31, 2009 at 1:30 am
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
OPEN LETTER
To the governments of Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGASA010012009&lang=e&rss=recentnews
9 Ralph Kramden // Jan 31, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Good letter from AI. But their silence on lese majeste continues. I wonder if the silence is related to the hopeless splits set out in the article by Pravit at the Nation? A couple of quotes here:
“The divide comes after years of human rights monitors openly or secretly defending the PAD and mostly turning a blind eye to alleged rights violations by the group. The same can be said about others in the opposite camp. Nasty email exchanges have taken place over the past 12 months and some activists no longer want to even discuss rights matters with those in the opposite camp. It began when some well-known rights defenders clearly took sides with one camp or the other. Those on the PAD-camp urged fellow activists not to harshly criticise the PAD’s regressive politics and alleged rights violations and it snowballed into vicious arguments and finger pointing.
At one point last year, the Thai chapter of Amnesty International even issued a statement which could be read supporting the PAD – only to see their statement retracted after people in Amnesty’s main office in London intervened.”
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/01/28/politics/politics_30094336.php
10 jud // Feb 9, 2009 at 6:15 am
The crackdown started on January 23, 2009 around 5:00 in the morning when everyone was sleeping still. Then it was followed by 3 more successive crackdowns on the same day. Men and women, children, babies, nursing mothers, pregnant women, were chased by police. They ran around the garbage area and heed off to the nearest jungle adjacent to the dumpsite leaving their few and only belongings. Their houses were ransacked and destroyed by the police.
http://democracyforburma.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/urgent-help-needed-crackdown-at-the-rubbish-dump-of-mae-sot-ashin-sopaka/
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.