FMO Country Guide: Thailand
Author: Michael Hynd
Summary
1
Overview
1.1
Historical background
1.2
Politics
1.3
Culture
1.4
Geography, society, and economy
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
Causes and consequences
Conflict-induced displacement
2.1.1 Indochinese refugees prior to the end of the Vietnam War
2.1.2 Indochinese refugees after the end of the Vietnam War
2.1.3 Other post-World War II refugees
2.1.4 Burmese refugees in Thailand
Disaster-induced displacement
Development-induced displacement
2.3.1 Dam construction and related flooding
2.3.2 Gas pipelines
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
Needs and responses
Vulnerable groups
International and governmental organizations
NGOs
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
Other resources
Thai newspapers
Other electronic resources
Non-electronic resources and bibliography
Official Name: Kingdom of Thailand
Former Name: Siam
Capital: Bangkok or Krungthep
Capital’s Full Name: Krungthep Mahanakhon Amon Rattanakosin Mahinthara Ayutthaya
Mahadilokphop Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Piman
Awatan Sathit Sakkathatthiya Witsanukam Prasit
Estimated Population: 62,354,402 (July 2002 est.)
Land Borders: Burma 1,800 km, Cambodia 803 km, Laos 1,754 km, Malaysia 506 km
Maps
UNHCR Global Report 2001: map of Thailand
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/publ/opendoc.pdf?tbl=PUBL&id=3dee2cdc0&page=publ
UNHCR Map: Myanmar–Thailand border
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/publ/opendoc.pdf?tbl=PUBL&id=4416887c0&page=publ
Asia Source
http://www.asiasource.org/profiles/ap_mp_03.cfm?countryid=14
Summary
Forced migration in Thailand largely takes the form of foreign refugees seeking sanctuary in
Thailand after fleeing conflict in its turbulent, neighbouring nations, primarily Cambodia, Laos,
and Burma, but also as far afield as Vietnam and China, along with a smaller number from
Malaysia.
Modern forced migration to Thailand began as early as the 1700s with Vietnamese fleeing
religious repression, and later, French colonialism. The post-war era saw a sharp increase in
refugee arrivals, not only in number, but also in diversity of source nations. This was a response
to the dramatic political changes experienced throughout the region, due to the often-violent
death of European colonialism in the wake of World War II.
The end of the wars in Indochina in the mid 1970s brought the next dramatic increase in refugee
arrivals and with it the attention of the world. The international response to the Indochinese
refugee crisis in the late 1970s and early 1980s was massive; however, Thailand had to bear the
vast majority of the refugee burden and was still left with a significant refugee problem when
international interest began to die down later in the 1980s. This was the first time Thailand
received international assistance for refugees, having previously dealt with the problem itself.
From 1989, UNHCR acted as a facilitator once the Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) for
Indochinese refugees was introduced. Vietnamese refugees were the focus of the CPA, and
‘pushbacks’ of Vietnamese were no longer reported following this commitment.
Burmese refugees had been coming to Thailand since shortly after World War II. The Burmese
arrival rate rose sharply during the 1980s and 1990s as a result of a crackdown on urban, prodemocracy supporters, as well as several government offensives against sundry ethnic minorities
along the Thai border who opposed the government in various wars for self-determination. The
Burmese refugee issue is currently the largest in Thailand. Over 100,000 refugees are living in
border camps, with many more living in the Thai community. According to UNHCR, refugees
along the Thai–Burma are recognized on a ‘prima facie’ basis in the absence of a Refugee Status
Determination procedure in Thailand. A blurring between refugees and migrant workers
complicates issues of refugee protection and resettlement. This is exacerbated by the very small
role currently played by UNHCR relative to that which it fulfilled during the refugee crisis in the
late 1970s. The repatriation of some 10,000 Mon refugees in 1996 was carried out without
international criteria being met, and no UNHCR monitoring arrangements on the Burmese side
of the border.
Thailand is not a signatory to the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees or to its 1967
Protocol, but it has been a member of the UNHCR Executive Committee for the past twenty
years. Since the post-war era Thailand has taken the stance that it was willing to provide
temporary humanitarian sanctuary, but it was not willing to absorb large numbers of refugees by
resettling them into the Thai community. The vast number of refugee arrivals has raised security
concerns, something that has since featured in refugee policy-making.
Development-induced displacement in Thailand is largely caused by dam construction, and to a
lesser extent, the construction of gas pipelines. Although in terms of the number of people
affected it is a much smaller issue than foreign refugee arrivals, it has received much attention in
the Thai community. Several development-related issues are hotly disputed by NGOs and the
government.
Websites:
CIA World Factbook 2002: Thailand
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/th.html
Library of Congress Country Studies: Thailand
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/thtoc.html
Mahidol University: Thailand at a glance
http://www.mahidol.ac.th/thailand/
1 Overview
1.1 Historical background
The earliest recorded inhabitants of the area now known as Thailand were the Mon, who formed
the Dvaravati Kingdom in the Chao Phya basin from the sixth to the eleventh centuries. From the
eighth to the twelfth century, the area was encroached upon by the powerful Hindu kingdom of
Angkor that expanded westward from what is modern-day Cambodia.
The Thai people are believed to have migrated from southern China in the eleventh and twelfth
centuries, settling among the established Mon and Khmers. As the kingdom of Angkor declined
in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the Thais were able to shake off Cambodian rule and
establish the first Thai kingdom at Sukothai. The Sukothai period lasted less than 200 years,
from 1220 to 1378. Under King Ramkamheng (1278–1318), who is considered the father of
Thailand, the kingdom fused Mon and Khmer traditions with their own, creating a unique style
of architecture, art, and politics. Sukothai’s military and economic might ruled an empire from
Laos to Malaysia.
Sukothai’s decline coincided with the rise of the Thai kingdom of Ayuthaya, with Sukothai
eventually becoming a vassal state of Ayuthaya. The Ayuthaya period, which began in the
middle of the fourteenth century, is considered to be Thailand’s golden age. Not only was the
kingdom militarily and economically powerful, but it also had significant artistic and
architectural achievements. This period came to an end when the Burmese attacked the kingdom
and brutally sacked Ayuthaya towards the end of the eighteenth century. The actions of the
Burmese that caused the end of the Golden Era are still remembered today.
A half-Chinese soldier by the name of Taksin fought back the Burmese and established a new
capital at Thonburi on the Chao Phya River. King Taksin was executed after he became insane,
and was replaced by his general Chakri, who was proclaimed King Rama I, forming the modernday Chakri Dynasty. Rama I moved the capital across the river to the site of present-day
Bangkok and named the city with a sixty-syllable Sanskrit title that is abbreviated to Krungthep.
Thailand's modernization began under the rule of King Mongkut (Rama IV). King Mongkut was
an enlightened leader who saw that Thailand would have to implement Western-style reforms to
ensure its political independence. In line with this way of thinking, he employed several
Westerners as consultants, teachers, and technicians. His reforms were continued under the rule
of his son, King Chulalongkorn (Rama V), the most revered of all past kings. He is credited with
transforming Thailand from a medieval kingdom to a modern, progressive nation and
maintaining Thailand’s sovereignty despite British and French ambitions. In fact, Thailand was
the only country in Southeast Asia never to be colonized by a European power – a source of
great pride for the Thai people.
The absolute monarchy came to an end in 1932, when a bloodless coup was lead by European
educated intellectuals with the support of the military. A constitutional monarchy was
proclaimed, with an army general as the head of the government. The Thai government declared
war on the Allies after being invaded by the Japanese in World War II. The post-war period has
been politically turbulent, characterized by many military coups and rapid changes in coalition
governments.
Websites:
CIA World Factbook 2002: Thailand
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/th.html
Library of Congress Country Studies: Thailand
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/thtoc.html
Assumption University: Thai history
http://sunsite.au.ac.th/thailand/thai_his/
Mahidol University: Thailand at a glance
http://www.mahidol.ac.th/thailand/
Alternative version of modern Thai history
http://www.sulak-sivaraksa.org/project4.php
1.2 Politics
Thailand is a constitutional monarchy. The absolute monarchy ended with a coup in 1932, but
the King remains the chief of state and retains a Privy Council. The head of government is the
Prime Minister, who appoints the Cabinet. The National Assembly consists of the Senate
(Wuthisapha) and the House of Representatives (Sapha Phuthaen Ratsadon). The houses consist
of 200 and 500 seats, respectively.
Elections are held every four years, and the members of both houses are elected by the people.
The main political parties are the Democratic Party or DP (Prachathipat Party); National
Development Party or NDP (Chat Phattana); Thai Nation Party or TNP (Chat Thai Party); and
Thai Rak Thai Party or TRT.
Traditionally, the military has played a strong role in Thai politics, culminating in many coups
since 1932. In 1973 there was a Thai student uprising now known as ‘October 14’. Since a
bloody confrontation between the military and pro-democracy demonstrators in 1991, the
military has been playing an increasingly professional role.
Websites:
CIA World Factbook 2002: Thailand
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/th.html
Library of Congress Country Studies: Thailand
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/thtoc.html
The Thai National Assembly
http://www.parliament.go.th/files/mainpage.htm
The Federation of Thai Political Parties
http://www.tftps.com/
Office of the Election Committee of Thailand
http://www.ect.go.th/
Open Directory Project: Thailand's government
http://dmoz.org/Regional/Asia/Thailand/Government/
Mahidol University: Thailand at a glance
http://www.mahidol.ac.th/thailand/
The Democratic Party (Thai language)
http://www.democrat.or.th/
The Thai Nation Party (Thai language)
http://www.chartthai.or.th/
The Thai Rak Thai Party (Thai language)
http://www.thairakthai.or.th/
1.3 Culture
Thailand is a predominately Buddhist nation, with Buddhists making up 95 per cent of the
population. The other significant religion is Islam, which is mostly found in the south, with 3.8
per cent of the population.
Thailand is one of the more ethnically homogeneous nations in Southeast Asia. Approximately
80 per cent of the population is Thai. The next most significant ethnic group is the Chinese
(about 11 per cent), but extensive intermarriage between Thais and Chinese means that many
Thais, particularly in Bangkok, are of mixed decent. Other major groups are Malay, Mon,
Khmer, and Shan.
The official language, Thai, is spoken in four different dialects: Northern, Northeastern, Central,
and Southern. All dialects are mutually intelligible, but with some degree of difficulty. Central
Thai is the official dialect.
Websites:
CIA World Factbook 2002: Thailand
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/th.html
Library of Congress Country Studies: Thailand
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/thtoc.html
Mahidol University: Thailand at a glance
http://www.mahidol.ac.th/thailand/
1.4 Geography, society, and economy
Thailand is one of the ‘Asian Tigers’. It experienced a period of rapid growth in the 1980s and
1990s; in fact, it had the highest growth rate in the world between 1985 and 1995, averaging
almost 9 per cent per annum. Thailand was the first to succumb to the Asian Currency Crisis in
1997. Although Thailand experienced a limited recovery after the crisis, failure to implement
reforms and to restructure industry, along with the recent global economic downturn, have
further stunted its growth.
The economy is primarily service- and industry-based, but agriculture plays an important
economic role as well, particularly in terms of employment: over half the nation's workforce is
employed in this sector, despite contributing only 11 per cent of the GDP. In fact, Thailand
experiences labour shortages in the agricultural, seafood, and domestic-help sectors, among
others. This shortfall is made up by illegal migrant workers, the vast majority of whom come
from Burma. There are also many Laotian and Khmer illegal migrant workers. The overall
unemployment rate stands at around 3.9 per cent. Major exports are: computers, transistors,
seafood, clothing, and rice.
The nation has a population of around 62 million, of which over 10 million live in the capital
city, Bangkok. Bangkok is the political and economic centre of Thailand. The country is divided
into 76 provinces.
Infant mortality is 29.5 per 1,000 live births, down from 47.7 in 1984. In 1986, the life
expectancy for women was 65 years, and 61 years for men. Current estimates place it at 73 years
for women and 66 years for men. Fertility is 1.86 children born per woman. The Thai
government has made significant advances in the provision of public health care, with 10.3 per
cent of the budget being spent on public health and related social welfare issues. Two major
threats to public health are HIV, which currently affects around 2.19 per cent of the population,
and the domestic drug problem.
Websites:
CIA World Factbook 2002: Thailand
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/th.html
Library of Congress Country Studies: Thailand
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/thtoc.html
The National Statistical Office
http://www.nso.go.th/eng/
Mahidol University: Thailand at a glance
http://www.mahidol.ac.th/thailand/
The Bank of Thailand (Thailand’s central bank)
http://www.bot.or.th/bothomepage/index/index_e.asp
Economist country guide
http://economist.com/countries/Thailand/
Thailand Development Research Institute
http://www.info.tdri.or.th/
Chulalongkorn University
http://www.chula.ac.th
Thammasat University (Thai language)
http://www.tu.ac.th
2 Causes and consequences
2.1 Conflict-induced displacement
The most prominent role played by Thailand in forced migration has been that of a receiving
nation. By virtue of its geographical proximity to various troubled nation states, Thailand has
become the first safe haven for many refugees fleeing conflict, the most famous being the
Indochina conflict. However, Thailand has a long history of receiving refugees prior to the 1970s
with little or no external assistance.
2.1.1 Indochinese refugees prior to the end of the Vietnam War
Prior to World War II there were four distinct waves of Vietnamese refugees. The first group
arrived as early as 1785 and sought ‘royal protection’ from the Thai Kingdom. The next wave
was to appear in the 1820s and 1830s. These were Vietnamese Catholics fleeing religious
persecution by the Vietnamese emperor Minh-Mang. At the end of the nineteenth century the
French annexed parts of Eastern Thailand to force the Thais to cede Laos to the French. When
the French withdrew, many of the Vietnamese who had entered Eastern Thailand with the French
remained behind.
The fourth wave began in 1912, and continued over the next thirty years as refugees fled conflict
areas between Vietnamese nationalists and French colonial forces. These refugees settled in
Nakhorn Pranom province.
Until 1937 Vietnamese refugees obtained Thai citizenship and were fully assimilated into Thai
society. This is evidenced by the fact that some of their number obtained high ranks in the civil
and military services. The descendents of these immigrants are referred to as ‘Old Vietnamese’
and are estimated to be around 20,000 in number. In 1937 Thailand signed a treaty with the
French which decreed that all Indochinese refugees entering Thailand would be considered
French subjects and registered as foreign aliens.
After World War II Thailand was forced to withdraw from areas of western Cambodia that were
ceded to it by Vichy France in the 1940s. Many Vietnamese who had settled in the Thai areas of
Cambodia fled to Thailand with the Thais. This migration was in turn followed by refugees
fleeing fighting between the French forces and the Viet Minh and Lao Issara (Free Lao). It is
estimated that as many as 46,700 refugees fled to Thailand from 1946 to 1949.
During the 1950s, the Vietnamese population continued to grow due to a natural growth rate of
approximately 3 per cent per annum, plus Vietnamese refugees from Cambodia and Laos in the
final stages of the French colonial war. After 1949, Vietnamese refugees were no longer free to
settle in Thailand. Instead they were restricted to five north-eastern provinces. In the 1950s the
overt support for the Viet Minh by Vietnamese refugees in Thailand raised fears that refugees
could form a Communist ‘fifth column’ in Thailand. This and other security fears associated
with refugees have remained prominent concerns in Thai refugee policy-making up to the
present day. In the early 1960s Thailand began to repatriate Vietnamese refugees to North
Vietnam. As many as 35,000 were repatriated, but the process stopped with the Gulf of Tonkin
incident in 1964. It is estimated that approximately 80,000 Vietnamese remained in Thailand in
1975 on the eve of the post-Vietnam War refugee influx.
2.1.2 Indochinese refugees after the end of the Vietnam War
In the post-Vietnam War Diaspora, Thailand had not only to contend with ‘boat people’, but also
‘land people’ from neighbouring Cambodia (then Kampuchea) and Laos, resulting in Thailand
shouldering by far the largest refugee burden in the region.
From the fall of Saigon in April 1975 until the end of that year, approximately 75,000
Indochinese refugees entered Thailand, most of whom came from Laos. The arrival rate dropped
to approximately 35,000 per year for the following year and picked up again in 1978. The inflow
of refugees peaked in 1979, with approximately 200,000, due to the invasion of Cambodia by
Vietnam. The number of arrivals tapered in the following years, with 113,867 in 1980, 43,260 in
1981, and 11,261 in 1982. For the ten-year period following 1975, Thailand received over
652,000 refugees, most of whom arrived by land. This figure is four times more than was
received by any other Association of Southest Asian Nations (ASEAN) country, and accounted
for approximately half of the entire post-1975 Indochinese Diaspora. Thailand continued to
receive as much as half the total exodus from Indochina in the 1980s.
In addition to the official figures were another quarter of a million Cambodian displaced persons
who do not feature in the data because they were deemed to be only temporarily displaced. The
Cambodians were the largest ethnic group among the refugee population, followed by the
lowland Laotians and Hmong, who continued to arrive in steady numbers in the 1980s after there
was a rapid decline in the arrival of other ethnic groups. This was perceived by the Thai
government to be economic migration as opposed to forced migration. The smallest group was
the Vietnamese.
Approximately 80 per cent of the total number of Indochinese refugees in Thailand has since
departed either through third-country resettlement, repatriation, or relocation. The Vietnamese
have the highest resettlement rate at 90 per cent. They also experience the shortest resettlement
interval period, with the average waiting time being less than a year. Lowland Laotians have the
next highest resettlement rate at around 77 per cent; Cambodians are next at a rate of 67 per cent,
and Hmong and other hill-tribe refugees come in last with a resettlement rate of only 57 per cent.
The resettlement rates of all groups have declined dramatically since the early 1980s, leaving the
country with a significant residual refugee population. The most common reason cited for this is
‘compassion fatigue’.
The Thai authorities see repatriation as the only alternative to resettlement. They have been
particularly forceful with this policy when dealing with Cambodian refugees. In 1979 around
43,000 Cambodian refugees were forcefully repatriated as a deterrent to other potential refugees.
This process was halted shortly thereafter when it caused an international outcry.
During 1992 and 1993 there were large scale repatriations of Cambodian refugees organized by
the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC). Much of this work was
undone when fighting broke out in western Cambodia between the Royal Cambodian Armed
Forces and the armed opposition group the National Army of Democratic Kampuchea (NADK) –
commonly known as the Khmer Rouge – in March 1994. Between 25,000 and 30,000 people fled
into Thailand. On 25 March the Thai authorities began forcibly repatriating these refugees into
an area of Cambodia controlled by the NADK. Many of the refugees were women and children,
and the armed conflict was still occurring in this area. The move received strong international
criticism.
Thailand is not a signatory of the UN convention on refugees, and thus is under no international
obligation to resettle refugees within Thailand. In fact, while the Thai government is prepared to
grant refugees temporary shelter while they wait for third-country resettlement or repatriation, it
is not prepared to grant permanent residency or citizenship to any of the residual refugee
population.
2.1.3 Other post-World War II refugees
In the post-war period, Thailand received refugees from China, Burma, and even a few from
Malaysia. The Chinese arrived in 1949 in the wake of the Communist victory in China.
Kuomingtan (KMT) forces (Chinese nationalists under Chiang Kai Shek) made up the bulk of
these refugees, estimated at around 11,000 persons, but there were also some civilians included
in this number. These Chinese forces formed communities in the remote northern frontier regions
and established themselves as warlords controlling the drug trade in the infamous ‘Golden
Triangle’. They were a major security threat to Thailand, and were involved with frequent armed
clashes with Thai security forces. Burma experienced a similar situation with KMT forces in that
country. The Chinese civilian refugees of the time quickly integrated themselves into the already
established Chinese communities in urban centres.
There have been many waves of Burmese refugees since Ne Win’s military take-over in 1959.
Many cross-border hill tribes have been involved in guerrilla wars against the central
government, and many have sought temporary shelter in Thailand during government offensives.
The Burmese number varied according the military situation at the time; however, estimates put
the number at approximately 13,000 by the late 1970s.
In the late 1950s at the close of the ‘Malaysian Emergency’, a small number of Communist
guerrillas slipped across the border into Thailand, where they blended into the local Malay
community. These migrants are often blamed for the continuing insurgency problems
experienced in Southern Thailand.
2.1.4 Burmese refugees in Thailand
The Burmese refugees in Thailand can be broadly categorized into two main groups: ‘students’
and ethnic minorities. ‘Students’ is a catch-all term for the students and urban professionals who
took part in the 1988 political uprising and were forced to flee in the ensuing government
crackdown. Historically, the ‘students’ constituted the majority of those deemed to be ‘persons
of concern to UNHCR’, as they had access to UNHCR if they travelled under their own auspices
from the Thai–Burma border to Bangkok, where the UNHCR office was located. They therefore
had a greater chance at resettlement in a third country when the ‘safe area’, otherwise known as
the Maneeloy Burmese Student Center, was in operation. This camp was 125 kilometres from
Bangkok and was thus safe from cross-border incursions. It closed down in December 2001 and
the remaining students were taken to one of the border camps, where they are now classified as
‘border cases’.
The second group is made up of members of the different ethnic minority groups (primarily
Karen, Karenni, and Shan) living near or straddling the Thai–Burmese border. This group has
fled armed conflict, forced displacement, forced labour, and other abuses. Other than the Shan,
these groups have been allowed to form camps. Historically, the ethnic minorities did not have
access to UNHCR unless they could prove, again in Bangkok, ‘secondary persecution’ at the
border. If they were unable to do this they would be classified as ‘border cases’ and advised to
return to the border. These groups have little or no protection and are subject to cross-border
attacks by Burmese forces, arrest if caught outside the camps, denial of entry at the border, and
repeated instances of refoulement by the Thai authorities.
This group has been arriving since the end of World War II, but began arriving in significant
numbers after a major Burmese government offensive in 1984. The refugees in camps on the
border have swollen from approximately 20,000 in the 1980s to currently around 120,000. The
camps are provided with basic food and medical assistance by a consortium of private,
international relief agencies. In 1998, UNHCR established three permanent field offices on the
border in order to provide international protection to the refugees, but it provides no
humanitarian assistance to the camps. There are also an estimated 100,000 Shan refugees living
in Thailand without the protection of camps. Historically, Shan people entering Thailand have
been viewed as seasonal labour for orchards and construction sites. However, in July 1996, a
group of Shan people in Thailand made an urgent appeal to UNHCR, asking for the setting up of
refugee camps. Whilst their ethnic background, Tai Yai, allows them to move within the Tai Yai
community in Thailand, they have become more visible in recent years due to increased
persecution and forced relation programmes inside Burma, resulting in greater numbers arriving
in Thailand.
Following a July 1995 ceasefire between the New Mon State Party and the ruling regime in
Burma, there was a repatriation of approximately 10,000 Mon refugees. This was carried out
without international criteria being met, and no UNHCR monitoring arrangements on the
Burmese side of the border.
There are as many as 800,000 Burmese living and working in Thailand outside the camps,
according to Thai government estimates in 1997. As Thailand has not yet ratified the 1951
Convention relating to the status of refugees or its 1967 Protocol, the Thai government sees the
Burmese as displaced persons and does not process them as refugees. Many choose to live and
work outside the camps, as camp life can offer little in the way of a future and there seems to be
little in the way of a solution in sight to the problems across the border in Burma. Some also do
not feel safe in the camps situated on the Burmese border where they can be attacked by
Burmese government forces. Many may flee persecution but choose to work rather than stay in a
camp where employment is forbidden. Due to Thailand’s stance on the status of refugees, these
people are largely seen as economic refugees despite their frequently mixed reasons for entering
Thailand, and are classed as illegal migrant workers. The Thai government attempts to manage
this population through a series of registrations, the last one being in 2001 when 447,093
Burmese applied for registration.
The Thai government has not allowed UNHCR to take a leading role in the Burmese refugee
situation as they did with the Indochinese refugees of the 1970s. This has had a very negative
impact on the resettlement prospects, security, and humanitarian efforts for the Burmese
refugees. Critics of this policy have suggested that this may be due to negative experiences that
Thailand had with the refugee crisis in the 1970s; an unwillingness to upset its neighbour,
Burma, by internationalizing its ethnic conflicts; or the economic self-interest of parts of the Thai
government.
Security concerns have featured strongly in Thai policy-making in regard to refugees since the
1950s. After 1999 and 2000, the Thai government took a much stronger stance on Burmese
refugees following two incidents where Burmese nationals provided cause for these concerns. In
October 1999 a group known as the Vigorous Burmese Student Warriors (VBSW) took over the
visa section of the Burmese embassy in Bangkok, holding around twenty people hostage. After
negotiations, the Thai government flew them to the Burmese border and let them go free. They
crossed into Burma, where they sought refuge with a group known as God’s Army, led by two
boy twins. In January 2000, representatives of God’s Army took over the Rachaburi Provincial
Hospital. This time the Thai military stormed the hospital and killed all of the hostage-takers.
The Thai public was outraged by the actions of the Burmese, and the government cracked down
on Burmese ‘illegals’. The crackdown resulted in many cases of forced repatriation without any
concern for the safety of the repatriated parties.
Websites:
Human Rights Watch: Burmese Refugees in Thailand at Risk (Press Backgrounder)
http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/05/thaiback0506.htm
Amnesty International: Thailand
http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/countries/thailand?OpenView&Start=1&Count=30&Expandall
Human Rights Watch: Thailand
http://www.hrw.org/asia/thailand.php
2.2 Disaster-induced displacement
Disaster-induced displacement is most commonly caused by periodic flooding in Thailand. The
Thai response to these disasters is usually prompt, and provides adequate relief to those
displaced. Heavy flooding exacerbated by deforestation does often occur, causing extensive
property damage; however, the efficient response by both the community and government
authorities coupled with the eventual subsiding of floodwaters means that disaster-related
displacement in Thailand is usually only temporary.
2.3 Development-induced displacement
2.3.1 Dam construction and related flooding
The construction of dams has been one of the leading causes of development-induced
displacement in Thailand. The most well-known Thai dams are the Pak Mun (or Pak Mool), the
Rasi Salai, the Khao Laem, and the Sri Nakorin.
The Pak Mun dam is infamous for being one of the country's least successful dam projects. The
dam was constructed by the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) in 1994 to
provide hydroelectric power. Its actual output is far below that for which it was planned, and its
financial, social, and environmental costs are much greater than expected. In all, around 1,700
households lost part or all of their land, and a further 6,000 households lost part or all of their
livelihood when fishing grounds were destroyed. Compensation was paid, but compensation
disputes continue, with the displaced complaining that they haven’t been adequately
compensated. The Thai government and the World Bank, who funded the project, counter that
the compensation has been generous and that fraudulent claims have been made as a result of this
generosity.
The Pak Mun dam was one of the factors leading to the formation of the ‘Assembly of the Poor’
in 1995, a local Thai NGO championing the rights of poor villages suffering from large-scale
development projects.
The Rasi Salai dam, located on the Mun river, was completed in 1994. It was designed as an
irrigation project, with the objective of irrigating 5,500 hectares in Northeastern Thailand. The
dam displaced around 3,000 families, of which around 1,200 were compensated. Protests for
further compensation ensued, including demands for the reconstruction of a village in the path of
the dam's rising reservoir populated by 1,850 people. In August 1999, the inhabitants dared the
government to drown them or open the sluice gates. The standoff ended when the Science
Minister agreed to open the gates and keep them open for at least two years in July 2000. The
dam is considered unsuitable for irrigation, as it is built on a large salt deposit which makes the
water too salty for this purpose.
The Khao Laem dam was built in 1989 by EGAT on the Kwai Noi river. It displaced 1,860
families, many of whom now live illegally around the edge of the dam's reservoir, having found
the land they were resettled to unsatisfactory in terms of maintaining their customary way of life.
The Sri Nakorn dam was built in the late 1970s not far from where the Khao Laem dam is now
located. This dam displaced approximately 4,000 families.
Websites:
Images Asia: details of the Salween dam plan
http://www.searin.org/Th/SWD/SWDnE1.htm
South East Asia Rivers Network: Salween Watch
http://strider.home.igc.org/Environmental/SalweenWatchNo3.htm
2.3.2 Gas pipelines
The construction of pipelines for natural gas has been another source of displacement. A 260kilometre pipeline carrying natural gas from Burma was constructed by the Petroleum Authority
of Thailand (PTT) in the late 1990s. This project affected 1,350 families on the Thai side of the
border. Another gas pipeline is planned to pipe gas from a gas field in the Thai–Malaysian Joint
Development Area (JDA) to Songkhla in southern Thailand. This project is expected to run
through as many as forty-four villages. Land-based construction of the pipeline was postponed in
2001, and it remains a highly sensitive issue.
3 Needs and responses
3.1 Vulnerable groups
Many women and girls from the countries surrounding Thailand (Burma, Cambodia, and Laos)
are trafficked into or through Thailand each year. Many of these victims end up working in the
commercial sex industry. Most are recruited by agents who promise employment opportunities in
Thailand, but they instead find themselves sold to brothels where they are physically and/or
financially (through the use of debt) trapped. Women and children in the refugee population are
particularly vulnerable. As there is little formal rights protection for the Burmese refugees in
particular, many of whom also work illegally in Thailand, women and children belonging to the
refugee population are also exposed to the risk of sexual harassment and labour exploitation.
Websites:
UNHCR Map: Myanmar–Thailand border, refugee population by gender
http://www.unhcr.org/cgibin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=MEDIA&id=3da150087&page=publ
UNHCR Map: Myanmar–Thailand border, age distribution of refugee population
http://www.unhcr.org/cgibin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=MEDIA&id=3da14e6c4&page=publ
Child Rights ASIANET
http://www.chula.ac.th/international/child.html
3.2 International and governmental organizations
International Rescue Committee
http://www.theirc.org/
Jesuit Refugee Service
http://www.jesref.org
3.3 NGOs
Asian Cultural Forum on Development (ACFOD)
http://ksc11.th.com/acfodbkk/
Asian Research Center for Migration (ARCM)
http://www.chula.ac.th/INSTITUTE/ARCM/main.htm
Catholic Commission on Migration – Women's Desk
http://www.skyinet.net/~smc/dirthail.htm#ccm
EMPOWER
http://www.empowerwomen.org/
Foundation for Women (FFW)
http://www.foundationforwomen.org
Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women (GAATW)
http://www.inet.co.th/org/gaatw/
National Catholic Commission on Migration
http://www.skyinet.net/~smc/dirthail.htm#nccm
Sathirakoses-Nagapradeepa Foundation
http://www.sulak-sivaraksa.org/
4 Other resources
4.1 Thai newspapers
Newspapers in Thailand
http://www.thaiwebsites.com/newspapers.asp?mode=newspapers
Bangkok Post
http://www.bangkokpost.com/
The Nation
www.nationmultimedia.com
Business Day
http://www.bday.net/
Daily News (Thai language)
http://www.dailynews.co.th/
Thairath Daily (Thai language)
http://www.thairath.co.th/
4.2 Other electronic resources
U.S. Committee for Refugees: Thailand
http://www.refugees.org/world/countryindex/thailand.htm
Jesuit Refugee Service: reports
http://www.jesref.org/inf/reports/index.htm
UNHCR Map: Myanmar–Thailand border
http://www.unhcr.org/cgibin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=MEDIA&id=3ae6bb540&page=publ
UNHCR Map: Myanmar–Thailand border, age distribution of refugee population
http://www.unhcr.org/cgibin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=MEDIA&id=3da14e6c4&page=publ
UNHCR Map: Myanmar–Thailand border, refugee population by gender
http://www.unhcr.org/cgibin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=MEDIA&id=3da150087&page=publ
U.C. Berkeley Library: Southeast Asia resources – electronic resources
http://lib.berkeley.edu/SSEAL/SoutheastAsia/seaelec2.html
Amnesty International Library
http://web.amnesty.org/web/content.nsf/pages/gbrlibraryhome
U.S. State Department: 1999 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - Thailand
http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/1999_hrp_report/thailand.html
Amnesty International report 2001: Thailand
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webasacountries/THAILAND?OpenDocument
Monash University Library: resources for refugee law
http://corc.oclc.org/WebZ/XPathfinderQuery?sessionid=0:term=937:xid=LM1
UNHCR Global Report 2001: map of Thailand
http://www.unhcr.org/cgibin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=MEDIA&id=3d5123051f&page=publ
4.3 Non-electronic resources and bibliography
Anderson, B., Imagined Communities, London: Verso, 1991.
Appleton, Kathleen, et al., Burmese Student Exiles: the Paradox of Trauma and Coping,
Bangkok: Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University, 1995.
Asian Research Center for Migration, Refugees along Thai–Burmese border: status and
resolutions, Bangkok: The Asian Research Center for Migration and Asian Forum for Human
Rights and Development (Forum-Asia), 1998.
Cerquone, J., Refugees from Laos – In Harm’s Way, Washington: US Committee for Refugees
paper, 1986.
Chandrasuriya, Anucha, and Na Songkhla, Thanisra, Thailand and the Kampuchean problem: a
global perspective, Bangkok: Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University, 1998.
Chatavanich, Supang, and Reynolds, E. Bruce (eds.), Indochinese refugees: asylum and
resettlement, Bangkok: Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University, 1988.
––, and Benyasut, Marisa, Thailand and Indochinese refugees, Bangkok: Institute of Asian
Studies, Chulalongkorn University, 1989.
Chirakraisiri, Polasak, Thai policy-making towards Thai-Khmer refugees 1975–1980, Bangkok:
Chulalongkorn University, 1980.
Chongwatana, Noppawanan, Indochinese refugees in the first asylum country Thailand: survey
result 1982, Bangkok: Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University, 1988.
Christie, K., and Chan, kwok Bun, Refugees from Southeast Asia: A Review Essay, Oxford:
Fourth International Research and Advisory Panel Conference on Refugee and Forced Migration
Studies, January 1994.
–– and ––, ‘Past, Present and Future: the Indochinese Refugee Experience Twenty Years Later’,
Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 8, no. 1, 1995.
Farrington, J., and Lewis, D. J., Non-Governmental Organisations and the State in Asia, London:
Routledge, 1993.
Hafner, J. A., ‘Lowland Lao and Hmong Refugees in Thailand: The Plight of those Left Behind’,
Disasters, vol. 9, no. 2, 1987.
Hamilton,Virginia (ed.), Cambodians in Thailand: people on the edge, U.S. Committee for
Refugees, 1995.
Human Rights Watch/Asia, Burma/Thailand: No Safety in Burma, No Sanctuary in Thailand,
vol. 9, no. 6, July 1997.
Indochinese Refugee Information Center (IRIC), A look at the Indochinese refugees in Thailand,
Bangkok: Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University, 1989.
––, Thailand: a first asylum country for Indochinese refugees, Bangkok: Institute of Asian
Studies, Chulalongkorn University, 1988.
––, The Kampuchean problem in Thai perspective, Bangkok: Institute of Asian Studies,
Chulalongkorn University, 1985.
Jesuit Refugee Service-AP, Compassion and Collusion: The Mon Repatriation and the Illusion
of Choice, Thailand: February 1996.
––, Burma Update, Thailand: nos. 41 and 42, April and July 1997.
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Forced Back and Forgotten: The Human Rights of
Laotian Asylum Seekers in Thailand, New York: 1989.
––, Refugee denied: problems in the protection of Vietnamese and Cambodians in Thailand and
the admission of Indochinese refugees into the United States, New York: 1989.
Levy, Barry S., and Susott, Daniel C. (eds), Years of horror, days of hope: responding to the
Cambodian refugee crisis, New York: 1986.
McNamara, D., ‘The Origins and Effects of "Humane Deterrence" Policies in Southeast Asia’, in
G. Loescher and L. Monahan (eds.), Refugees and International Relations, Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1990.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Thailand, A history of Kampuchea's problems from 1979 to 1985,
Bangkok: 1985.
Muntarbhorn, V., The Status of Refugees in Asia, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.
Operations Center for Displaced Persons, Ministry of the Interior, An Instrument of foreign
policy: Indochinese displaced persons, Bangkok: 1981.
––, Indo-Chinese refugees in Thailand 1975–present, Bangkok: 1988.
Ponchaud, Francois, Indochinese refugees in Thailand, International Catholic Migration
Commission, 1977.
Pongsaphit, Amara, Chirakraisiri, Polasak, and Vangyanava, Thanet, A comparative study of
refugees in Laotian, Kampuchean, Vietnamese camps in Thailand, Bangkok: Chulalongkorn
University, 1982.
Prachuabmoh, Phannee, The assistance of Indochinese refugees in Thailand, Bangkok: Institute
of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University, 1988.
Reynell, Josephine, Political Pawns: Refugees on the Thai-Kampuchean Border, Oxford:
Refugee Studies Programme, 1989.
Robinson, W. Courtland, Terms of Refuge: The Indochinese exodus and the International
Response, New York: 1998.
Rogge, John R., Refugees: A Third World Dilemma, New Jersey: 1987.
Ruang-ngam, Pipat, The causes and means of flight of Vietnamese boat people, Bangkok:
Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University, 1988.
Smith, Martin, Burma: Insurgency and the Politics of Ethnicity, London: 1991.
Stanley, L., Back to a Future? Voluntary Repatriation of Indochinese Refugees and Displaced
Persons from Thailand, Bangkok: The Craftsman Press, 1990.
Winichakul, T., Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-body of a Nation, Chiang Mai: Silkworm
Books, 1994.
?, ?, ‘To Forcibly Repatriate or Not: Thailand’s Dilemma’, Burma Issues, April 1997.