Publications

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

THAILAND

Human Rights Developments

Thailand continued to recover from political upheaval in 1993, but its chronic human rights problems remained: treatment of non-Thai nationals and trafficking in women in particular. A full accounting of events of May 1992, when the army opened fire on mass demonstrations in Bangkok, had yet to be made, and some senior officers involved in the May events were promoted in the annual military reshuffle in September. Violations of labor rights continued, as exemplified by a fire that swept through the Kader toy factory in mid-May, killing more than 200 women workers who had been locked in. As of August, 217 prisoners were under death sentence in Bang Kwang prison, mostly for murder and drug trafficking, but no prisoners had been executed since 1989.

On the positive side, the civilian government of Chuan Leekpai resisted military pressure and allowed a group of Nobel Peace Prize laureates to visit Thailand to campaign for the release of imprisoned Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. At the regional Asian preparatory meeting leading up to the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, held in Bangkok from March 29 to April 2, Thailand also reaffirmed its intention to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other important human rights instruments; by mid-November, however, it had not done so.

The treatment of Burmese and Cambodian refugees was a major cause for concern. Members of Burma's ethnic minority groups continued to flee into camps along the Thai-Burma border. The camps were set up at the discretion of local authorities with little control from Bangkok; by the end of the year, they housed 72,000 refugees, who found themselves increasingly vulnerable to refoulement. On April 7, two camps were burned to the ground by the Thai army's 9th Division, and 545 residents were forced back into Burma. In August, Camp No.2 in Mae Hong Son Province, housing members of the Karenni ethnic group, was ordered vacated and its occupants forced back to Burma. On September 17, after extensive negotiations and a written agreement between Thai officials and leaders of the Mon ethnic minority that Mon refugee camps would be permitted to remain on Thai soil, the Mon were pressured to begin relocating refugees back to Burma. The Thai military escorted some 140 Mon refugees from the Loh Loe camp back to Burma to begin clearing land around Halockhane village, only an hour's walk from a Burmese military base camp. The entire Loh Loe refugee population of nearly 7,000 was expected to be moved back to Burma by early 1994.

The Thai government was quick to label the majority of Burmese coming across the border as "illegal immigrants," despite the fact that many were reportedly fleeing forced relocations, forced labor and forced conscription. The influx of refugees peaked in June, when nongovernmental organizations estimated that over 1,000 Burmese were crossing the border each day.

The Thai government treated Burmese students and intellectuals differently from the ethnic refugees. On January 14, the Thai Standing House Committee on Justice and Human Rights called on the government to grant Burmese students political refugee status. The call followed the announcement of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in late 1992 that it would cut off assistance to 516 Burmese "students" recognized by the Thai Ministry of Interior (MOI) unless they agreed to go to a camp in Ban Maneeloy commonly called the "safe area" [see 1992 report]. Questions about how the Thai government determined who was a student and which students were valid refugees were not resolved; it was clear, however, that the camp was designed to keep the politically active refugee population out of Bangkok. By February, only a handful of Burmese students had gone voluntarily to the camp, but as third-country resettlement was made conditional on passing through the camp, the number of students going there slowly increased. The number of camp inhabitants also rose after some Burmese detained in the immigration detentioncenter in Bangkok were given the option of going to the camp or being deported.

In April, the UNHCR cut off assistance to another 222 Burmese "intellectuals" selected by the Interior Ministry for the Maneeloy camp. If they refused to go, they faced destitution and possible arrest and deportation as illegal immigrants. Despite these risks, only a little over one hundred Burmese were living in the camp by the end of the year. Many Burmese were afraid to go because the camp was seen as little more than a prison, albeit a relatively open one, and there were only imperfect safeguards against abuse by Thai military guards and infiltration by the military intelligence of the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), the ruling junta in Burma.

Thailand's treatment of Burmese reflected its relatively close relationship to SLORC. On September 15, Thailand's foreign minister announced his government's intention to invite Burma to apply for observer status to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

The orderly repatriation of nearly 300,000 refugees back to Cambodia was marred by the incident which marked its conclusion. On May 7, hundreds of Thai military arrived in the Site 2 refugee camp in buses with UNHCR markings. The military then forced 400 to 500 Khmer refugees, who had been unwilling to return, onto eight of the buses and returned them to Cambodia. At the same time, as repatriation concluded and fighting inside Cambodia escalated in the run-up to the elections, the Thai Interior Ministry on May 4, 1993 ordered all provinces bordering Cambodia to take tough action against Cambodians who illegally entered Thailand.

The Thai government on October 26 reportedly removed over 300 Hmong refugees from the Phanat Nikhom Center and held them in detention until they could be repatriated in November. It was clear that they were forcibly removed from the camps; it was not clear if any had been adequately screened to determine whether they had valid claims to refugee status. The move appeared to be linked to a July agreement between UNHCR and the governments of Thailand and Laos that all refugee camps in Thailand housing Hmong people would be closed by the end of 1994.

Thai officials made little effort to stop the trafficking of foreign girls and women, particularly Burmese and Chinese, into Thai brothels where the women faced debt-bondage, physical abuse and conditions akin to slavery. Involvement of local police was extensive. The raid of three brothels in Ranong, in southern Thailand, on July 14 highlighted the pattern of abuse. In the raid, 148 Burmese women were "rescued" by Thai police from brothels surrounded by electrified barbed-wire. All were sent the same night to the immigration detention center in Ranong and charged with illegally residing in Thailand. Two weeks later, witnesses saw fifty-eight of those rescued deported to Kawthaung, Burma where they were subsequently arrested on charges of illegally leaving Burma and prostitution. The whereabouts of the other ninety remained unknown. Several nongovernmental organizations tried to negotiate on behalf of the women to provide alternative shelter and an orderly repatriation, butwithout success. None of the brothel owners was arrested, but eleven pimps and guards (mostly Burmese) at the brothel were taken to the police station. The charges against them were not known.

Two leading dissidents, Pra Prachak and Sulak Sivaraksa, went on trial during the year. Pra Prachak, a monk arrested in connection with his efforts to protest logging operations, was sentenced in January to eighteen months in prison and six months suspended sentence for charges which included trespassing on national forest land.

Freedom of expression was the key issue in the trial of Sulak, a Buddhist leader and social critic, who was charged with lese majesté for insulting the King during a 1991 speech at Thammasat University. The trial was ongoing as of November, but Sulak continued to travel freely and speak publicly. Freedom of expression also came into question when a dictionary was banned in July for defining Bangkok as a city of prostitutes.

The Right To Monitor

Thai organizations were allowed to operate without obstruction in Thailand. Many regional human rights organizations had their headquarters in Bangkok, as it was one of the few capitals in Asia where they could operate without harassment. (Hong Kong, the other center, was becoming increasingly less attractive as 1997 approached.) Nevertheless, many Thai organizations felt subtle pressure not to criticize the government too harshly or raise particularly sensitive issues publicly.

U.S. Policy

The administration concentrated on strengthening relations with the new Thai government, seeking continued cooperation on regional security matters and copyright laws. When the new Thai army commander-in-chief, Wimol Wongwanich, visited Washington in September, the U.S. pressed for greater assistance in implementing U.N. sanctions against Khmer Rouge cross-border trade, but Thai actions on the Burma border were not discussed.

While no Foreign Military Financing (FMF) was requested in fiscal year 1994, the administration resumed International Military and Educational Training (IMET) following the September 1992 elections and budgeted $1.8 million for IMET. Commercial military sales continued to be brisk, projected at $140 million for fiscal year 1994.

U.S. officials did not raise concerns with Thai officials about the trafficking of Burmese women, but the Senate report accompanying the 1994 Foreign Appropriations Bill, urged the Thai government to prosecute those responsible for trafficking, forced labor, and physical and sexual abuse of these women.

On refugee issues, the administration tended to support, with little or no qualification, Thai government policy, backing the Ministry of Interior on the so-called "safe area" for Burmese students and providing funds for programs in the camp.

As part of its annual Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) review, the office of the U.S. Trade Representative extended its review of Thailand through 1993, monitoring child labor concernsand government efforts to reform the State Enterprise Labor Relations Act. This law restricts freedom of association and the right to organize for employees of state enterprises. The review period was extended for six months in June 1993 following the Thai government's stated commitment to take steps to end these abuses.

The Work of Asia Watch

Much of Asia Watch's work during the year focused on human rights violations associated with the trafficking of Burmese women into Thailand. A report scheduled for publication in December analyzed the abuses inherent in trafficking, the level of state involvement and how the Thai government's efforts to crack down on brothel operations sometimes further victimized the women involved.

Asia Watch continued to be concerned about the protection of Burmese refugees in the "safe area" and communicated its concerns both to Thai government and UNHCR officials. In August, together with the Jesuit Refugee Service, Asia Watch sent a mission to the Thailand to interview Burmese coming into Thailand about human rights violations taking place across the border in Burma. Asia Watch also monitored the abuses of Burmese in Thailand by Thai authorities.

Asia Watch maintained close ties to Thai organizations and in March sent an observer to the Asian NGO Forum that preceded the official Asia regional preparatory meeting for the World Human Rights Conference.

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page