analysis of royal thai government policy towards displaced...
Post on 28-Feb-2021
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
top related