Presentation at the conference “On the Move: : Critical MigrationTheme in ASEAN” December 17, 2012, at Prachadhipok Rampai Barni Bldg, Chulalongkorn University

Premjai Vungsiriphisal, Graham Bennet, Chanarat Poomkacha, Waranya Jitpong, Kamonwan Reungsamran

Analysis of Royal Thai Government policy

towards Displaced Persons from Myanmar

No single policy body, responsibilities are spread across several governmental institutions

๏ The National Security Council- sub-committee, comprised of various government sectors, to oversee the policies

๏ Ministry of Foreign Affairs- coordinate with Myanmar Gov. and facilitate International Orgs.

๏ Ministry of Defence, Department of Border Affairs - coordinate with border police, guard the border

๏ Ministry of Interior- main policy implementation, oversee camp administration

Responsible Authorities

Royal Thai GovernmentCabinet National Security Council UN, Inter.Org.

Ministry of Interior Sub committee MOF (MOI, MOF, MOD, MOE, Ph,etc.)

Depart. of Gov.Adm. Off. of Permanent Sec. OCDP Ad hoc Committee (NSC, MOF, MOD, OPB, Imm., MOE, etc.)

Provincial Off. Foreign Aff. Department District off. Operation Centre for DP

Camp commander Humanitarian NGOsTerritory Voluntary Guard

The policy formulation and implementation

Ad hoc policy= appear in National Security Strategy, Cabinet resolutions,

Ministry’s regulations, no formal asylum policy

Displacement is prioritized as a security issue,

= Conventional security paradigm Non-member of 1951 UN Convention (related to refugee status),

= No refugee status provided, the term Displaced Person(DP) is applied

Policy principles :

= camp confinement, reduce Thailand burden, address the root cause

Characteristics of policy towards DPs

Situation has been treated with temporary approach Tackle the issue in bilateral consultation Accept international role in certain areas

Flexibility is allowed at practical level

Characteristics of policy towards DPs

Prior to 1984, DPs from Myanmar crossed border into Thailand to small settlements and informally integrated with local communities

No strict regulations , considered the situation were temporary and seasonal

assistance were permitted

Attacks from DKBA and more DPs arrived, small settlements were combined to

9 existed formal shelters in 1990s, regulation was not strictly applied

only when the situation became public agenda : political protest, seize of embassy, hospital (involved with some DPs)

Some aspects of 1951 UN convention has been applied

-basic services : food, clothes, shelter, healthcare, education provided by NGOs

- protection “no forced repatriation”

Development of RTG Policy

Registration

- Set up Pre-screening Board at provincial level, PAB

(Dis-function from time to time , according to situation and provinces)

Cooperate with UN for formal registration

Family registration to individual registration, personal ID

Birth registration to birth certificate

Legal protection

Applied Thai juridical system, allowed setting Legal Center

Development of RTG Policy

Shifted of some policy from 1990s to 2000s

Education (basic education)

Primary education was expand to secondary education and post secondary, Vocational trainings have been permitted

Permit Thai language teaching (Non Formal Department, MOE)

Long term solution

Resettlement, individual basis to groups consideration

Local settlement remains unchanged

Voluntaray Repatriation, consultation with MM Gov. has started

Development of RTG Policy

Shelters administration Limited territory volunteer to guard the shelters

Allowed DP for self administration for daily matter and security

PAB screen and register eligible DPs

(Not functioned from time to time , varied according to provinces)

Confinement Allow DPs out of the camp, only for healthcare basis, camp administration

Allow some training exercises in surrounding areas

Implement of RTG Policy

Allow employment inside the shelters and sub-contract work

Proposal of setting up small factory was considered, no follow up concrete plan and implementation

Permission to small trade with local, sports exercise with local community

No formal permission for employment outside shelters

No strictly enforcement to repatriate non-eligible populations

Implement of RTG Policy

๏ Confinement: against human nature, difficult to practice,

lead to DPs breaking the regulations corruption ๏ Decrease human capacity

๏ Increase dependency

๏ Contradict to decreasing of fundings

Impact of the policy

Situation became protracted, temporary policy is not appropriated

“Closed” policy are risk to criticism and mis-interpretation

Poor recognition of Thailand’s contribution (staffs budget, land, resources)

Loss of potential DPs to resettlement

Long term confinement lead to risk of increasing domestic violence, sexual

harassment, and local conflict

Impact of the policy

• Accept, need some changes

- Small number of DPs participate in vocational trainings

- Positive and negative attitude to resettlement program

Little chance to local integration, positive attitude to local community

44% prefer to resettle in third countries

40 % states preference to local settlement (some of this group await for safe repatriation

12.7% prefer to repatriate

DPs attitude to policy

Influence factors to RTG policies

Internal factors

๏ Conventional security paradigmDP is considered as a country threat

๏ Conflict to local interest

๏ Not prioritized in National agenda

๏ Negative public attitude

๏ Not considered as emergency matter

External factors๏ Relationship with Myanmar

(National benefit: energy, boder trade, neighbouring country, etc.)

๏ Relationship with UN, Inter agencies๏ Pressure from international platform๏ Commitment to international laws &

convention (Human rights, CRC)

To RTG

Promote human security principle to balance with conventional security paradigm, allow more self-reliance activities for DPs and some form of integration to reduce conflict with local

Regulating timely screening process and status determination

apply broader term of “fleeing from persecution”

Enforce the measures to deport non-eligible cases

Set up long term plan, include in “irregular displacement strategy”

Set up strategy to support solution to the root cause of the problems

Recommendation

To RTG (cont.)

Initiate dialogue platform with UN to work for collaboration include all possible solutions

Collaboration with Asian countries suffered from the same problems (China, Malaysia, etc.) to dialogue with Myanmar to solve the root cause

Reconsider the collaboration with Myanmar on projects that lead to relocation or affect ethnic areas

Collaboration with other investment countries to support reconciliation

with ethnic groups and improvement of MM people’s well-being

Recommendation

To Donors and UN Agencies Collaborate and dialogue with RTG with equal consideration to all possible

solutions

Initiate supporting strategy, technical assistance to encourage shifting of policy instead of funding policy

Collaborate with more countries to increase opportunity for resettlement

Provide more support to improve condition of affected surrounding areas

Initiate long term dialogue with Myanmar Gov. to improve condition in ethnic areas

Collaborate and support organizations for sustainable development in ethnic areas

Start planning for possible voluntary repatriation

Recommendation

To humanitarian NGOs

Collaborate with RTG and camp committee not to provide assistance

to non-eligible populations

Promote reducing expense approach, using sufficiency economic program, increasing employment opportunity and vocational trainings

Initiate more program to secure food producing, using appropriate technologies

Recommendation

To DPs

Engage in more vocational trainings to prepare for all possible solutions

Avoid breaking the regulations and laws to reduce the risk

Avoid taking local community resources to reduce negative attitude

Construct good relationship with local community to reduce tension

and conflict

Recommendation