Saturday April 19, 2008
By SUPANG CHANTAVANICH
Bangkok Post
Apart from the unusually high number, the tragic death of 54 migrants from Burma due to suffocation in an enclosed cold storage delivery truck heading for Phuket on Thursday April 10, was not new. Such incidents have happened in Thailand repeatedly.
Migrant workers from Laos, Cambodia and Burma have had to take the risk of being smuggled and trafficked into Thailand.
A 2004 study of cross-border migration and human trafficking along the Thai-Burmese border - conducted by the Asian Research Centre for Migration, Institute of Asian Studies at Chulalongkorn University, in collaboration with World Vision Thailand - indicated that approximately 12% of all cross-border migration cases were victims of human trafficking. The study made an estimation based on the level of exploitation migrants faced once they worked in Thailand. Ranong and Mae Sai (in Chiang Rai) crossing points were hot spots for such racketeers.
The fact that the incident happened in Thailand and was done by Thai human smuggling networks brings shame to all of us. By now, the various offices responsible for the dead migrants and survivors must be deeply involved in an investigation into the incident. It should be noticed, however, that this newly-appointed cabinet has not declared any policy on labour migration. Still, we must push hard for further actions regarding those unfortunate people - actions which are based on good governance and humanitarian principles.
The magnitude of human trafficking in our country has been recognised by the officials, civil society groups and academia, but is not fully known to the public. It is like an iceberg, of which only the tip can be seen.
During the past 4-5 years, Thailand has tried to prevent and tackle the problems of massive flows of immigrant workers and the rising number of human trafficking cases. Three significant measures worth mentioning are the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the Cooperation for the Employment of Workers signed between Thailand and Cambodia in 2002, signed with Laos in 2003 and with Burma in the same year; the enactment of the new Law to Prevent and Suppress Human Trafficking early this year, and the Draft Guideline on the Prevention and Protection of Victims of Human Trafficking, who are labourers.
The MoU is a platform for governments to regulate and make a more orderly departure of their people to come to work in Thailand. It specifies that all undocumented workers have to go through a process of nationality proof, operated by the government representative from the country of origin. They would be given a temporary passport valid for two years and then be eligible to request for a work permit and work legally in Thailand.
Up until now, 32,612 Laotian and 47,982 Cambodian undocumented workers have gone through this nationality proof and become documented. Only Burmese workers are not in such a process because the Burmese government wants to conduct the nationality proof in Burma instead of Thailand.
Another element of the MoU is the implementation of a formal recruitment of migrant workers through the official channels of the ministries of labour in each country. This formal recruitment is a direct intervention into the human smuggling and trafficking for work. It is also aimed at protecting workers from exploitation by employers. More than 10,000 migrant workers from Laos and Cambodia have been recruited formally and many more are following this route.
Unfortunately, formal recruitment for workers from Burma has not materialised yet. But it is obvious that the MoU can reduce the possibilities of human trafficking among migrant workers.
The second measure is the Law on Prevention and Suppression of Human Trafficking, launched in February 2008. Articles 37 and 38 under Section 4 of the law states that due to humanitarian reasons, officials can allow victims of human trafficking to stay temporarily in Thailand - to be rehabilitated and to claim compensation according to their rights. They can also work temporarily.
Article 38 indicates that in case the victims possess some official identity documents issued by the Thai government, or if they could procure permission to stay from the Minister of Home Affairs, they are allowed to stay legally in Thailand. Without such authorisation, however, they must be deported immediately, but under conditions of safety and well-being.
The anti-human trafficking law states clearly that migrants who have been cheated to come to work in Thailand and are being exploited, are victims of trafficking. The 67 survivors who paid 5,000 baht to brokers to come to Thailand are clearly those who have been exploited by illegal recruiters. Even though they have not started working yet, they must be considered victims and placed under custody at shelter homes, not in prisons.
They must not be deported according to the Immigration law. Instead, they should become witnesses, not wrongdoers, while the investigation into the incident is under way.
A multi-disciplinary team, including a psychologist or a social worker, should join the investigation and the screening of human trafficking cases. Above all, they must be allowed to stay temporarily in Thailand.
The third measure is the Draft Guideline on the Prevention and Protection of Victims of Human Trafficking Who are Workers. This guideline was developed mutually by the Ministry of Social Welfare and Human Security and the Ministry of Labour, with support from the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Section 4 Points (8), (9), (10) and Section 6 Points 6.3.3, 6.3.4 of the guideline indicate that if the victims are documented workers, the Ministry of Labour will find a new jobs for them and the Immigration Office will authorise them to stay in Thailand until the case in the court terminates.
The 67 job seekers who survived the ordeal of suffocation should be considered as victims of human trafficking. Due to the fact that they have no official documents issued by the Thai state and that they have not started working yet, they are not entitled to work, according to point (10) of the guideline. But they should be permitted to stay in Thailand while the trial is ongoing.
It is possible that some of the survivors may not want to stay longer in Thailand if they cannot work and earn some income. The Thai government, on the other hand, may not want to shoulder the burden of cost in feeding them, either. This has already happened: in the case of Burmese workers at a knitting factory in Mae Sot, who had a labour dispute with their employer; and another group of Burmese workers who were locked in hellish conditions in a shrimp peeling factory in Samut Sakhon.
When faced with the prospect of a trial that would last many months, they preferred to go home or to find new jobs. In the end, the court failed to get any witnesses to track down the "Big Brother" of the trafficking rings.
What the Thai government can, and should, do for the survivors of the current incident include:
1. Bring in the Department of Special Investigation police to process the case and apply the new human trafficking laws against the culprits, especially those who masterminded the trafficking process.
2. Assist the victims to stay in Thailand and protect them from possible threats to their lives from the culprits. Some kind of sub-contract work in the shelter home should be offered to the victims, most of whom have come from Rakhine state (formerly Arakan) in Burma.
It would be too difficult for them to go all the way back home and then to return again to testify in the Thai court. No deportation should be considered.
3. Open a new round of consultative meetings with the government of Burma to implement the MoU.
The process of nationality proof and formal recruitment from Burma must be accelerated. As for those minorities who are not recognised by the Burmese government, Thailand should register them as stateless persons.
Detailed information about the tragedy should be reported to Burma and it should be disseminated to other job seekers to warn them about the possible risk of human trafficking in job recruitment.
Thailand must not wait for external pressure before taking action. We owe it to the victims.
Supang Chantavanich is a professor in the Department of Sociology, Chulalongkorn University. She also runs the Asian Research Centre for Migration at Chula.
http://www.arcm.ias.chula.ac.th
Migrant workers from Laos, Cambodia and Burma have had to take the risk of being smuggled and trafficked into Thailand.
A 2004 study of cross-border migration and human trafficking along the Thai-Burmese border - conducted by the Asian Research Centre for Migration, Institute of Asian Studies at Chulalongkorn University, in collaboration with World Vision Thailand - indicated that approximately 12% of all cross-border migration cases were victims of human trafficking. The study made an estimation based on the level of exploitation migrants faced once they worked in Thailand. Ranong and Mae Sai (in Chiang Rai) crossing points were hot spots for such racketeers.
The fact that the incident happened in Thailand and was done by Thai human smuggling networks brings shame to all of us. By now, the various offices responsible for the dead migrants and survivors must be deeply involved in an investigation into the incident. It should be noticed, however, that this newly-appointed cabinet has not declared any policy on labour migration. Still, we must push hard for further actions regarding those unfortunate people - actions which are based on good governance and humanitarian principles.
The magnitude of human trafficking in our country has been recognised by the officials, civil society groups and academia, but is not fully known to the public. It is like an iceberg, of which only the tip can be seen.
During the past 4-5 years, Thailand has tried to prevent and tackle the problems of massive flows of immigrant workers and the rising number of human trafficking cases. Three significant measures worth mentioning are the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the Cooperation for the Employment of Workers signed between Thailand and Cambodia in 2002, signed with Laos in 2003 and with Burma in the same year; the enactment of the new Law to Prevent and Suppress Human Trafficking early this year, and the Draft Guideline on the Prevention and Protection of Victims of Human Trafficking, who are labourers.
The MoU is a platform for governments to regulate and make a more orderly departure of their people to come to work in Thailand. It specifies that all undocumented workers have to go through a process of nationality proof, operated by the government representative from the country of origin. They would be given a temporary passport valid for two years and then be eligible to request for a work permit and work legally in Thailand.
Up until now, 32,612 Laotian and 47,982 Cambodian undocumented workers have gone through this nationality proof and become documented. Only Burmese workers are not in such a process because the Burmese government wants to conduct the nationality proof in Burma instead of Thailand.
Another element of the MoU is the implementation of a formal recruitment of migrant workers through the official channels of the ministries of labour in each country. This formal recruitment is a direct intervention into the human smuggling and trafficking for work. It is also aimed at protecting workers from exploitation by employers. More than 10,000 migrant workers from Laos and Cambodia have been recruited formally and many more are following this route.
Unfortunately, formal recruitment for workers from Burma has not materialised yet. But it is obvious that the MoU can reduce the possibilities of human trafficking among migrant workers.
The second measure is the Law on Prevention and Suppression of Human Trafficking, launched in February 2008. Articles 37 and 38 under Section 4 of the law states that due to humanitarian reasons, officials can allow victims of human trafficking to stay temporarily in Thailand - to be rehabilitated and to claim compensation according to their rights. They can also work temporarily.
Article 38 indicates that in case the victims possess some official identity documents issued by the Thai government, or if they could procure permission to stay from the Minister of Home Affairs, they are allowed to stay legally in Thailand. Without such authorisation, however, they must be deported immediately, but under conditions of safety and well-being.
The anti-human trafficking law states clearly that migrants who have been cheated to come to work in Thailand and are being exploited, are victims of trafficking. The 67 survivors who paid 5,000 baht to brokers to come to Thailand are clearly those who have been exploited by illegal recruiters. Even though they have not started working yet, they must be considered victims and placed under custody at shelter homes, not in prisons.
They must not be deported according to the Immigration law. Instead, they should become witnesses, not wrongdoers, while the investigation into the incident is under way.
A multi-disciplinary team, including a psychologist or a social worker, should join the investigation and the screening of human trafficking cases. Above all, they must be allowed to stay temporarily in Thailand.
The third measure is the Draft Guideline on the Prevention and Protection of Victims of Human Trafficking Who are Workers. This guideline was developed mutually by the Ministry of Social Welfare and Human Security and the Ministry of Labour, with support from the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Section 4 Points (8), (9), (10) and Section 6 Points 6.3.3, 6.3.4 of the guideline indicate that if the victims are documented workers, the Ministry of Labour will find a new jobs for them and the Immigration Office will authorise them to stay in Thailand until the case in the court terminates.
The 67 job seekers who survived the ordeal of suffocation should be considered as victims of human trafficking. Due to the fact that they have no official documents issued by the Thai state and that they have not started working yet, they are not entitled to work, according to point (10) of the guideline. But they should be permitted to stay in Thailand while the trial is ongoing.
It is possible that some of the survivors may not want to stay longer in Thailand if they cannot work and earn some income. The Thai government, on the other hand, may not want to shoulder the burden of cost in feeding them, either. This has already happened: in the case of Burmese workers at a knitting factory in Mae Sot, who had a labour dispute with their employer; and another group of Burmese workers who were locked in hellish conditions in a shrimp peeling factory in Samut Sakhon.
When faced with the prospect of a trial that would last many months, they preferred to go home or to find new jobs. In the end, the court failed to get any witnesses to track down the "Big Brother" of the trafficking rings.
What the Thai government can, and should, do for the survivors of the current incident include:
1. Bring in the Department of Special Investigation police to process the case and apply the new human trafficking laws against the culprits, especially those who masterminded the trafficking process.
2. Assist the victims to stay in Thailand and protect them from possible threats to their lives from the culprits. Some kind of sub-contract work in the shelter home should be offered to the victims, most of whom have come from Rakhine state (formerly Arakan) in Burma.
It would be too difficult for them to go all the way back home and then to return again to testify in the Thai court. No deportation should be considered.
3. Open a new round of consultative meetings with the government of Burma to implement the MoU.
The process of nationality proof and formal recruitment from Burma must be accelerated. As for those minorities who are not recognised by the Burmese government, Thailand should register them as stateless persons.
Detailed information about the tragedy should be reported to Burma and it should be disseminated to other job seekers to warn them about the possible risk of human trafficking in job recruitment.
Thailand must not wait for external pressure before taking action. We owe it to the victims.
Supang Chantavanich is a professor in the Department of Sociology, Chulalongkorn University. She also runs the Asian Research Centre for Migration at Chula.
http://www.arcm.ias.chula.ac.th
1 comment:
anything that leads to help and has a pity on human beings is greately appreciated ,that is merit.การช่วยเหลือกันเเละกันเป็นการทำบุญย์ทำกุศลเเละทำความดี
Post a Comment