The Committee of the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) reproved Thailand earlier this month for a lack of recognition of entrenched discrimination and for having little clear substantive policy on the cultural rights of ethnicities, including self-determination. The covenant is part of the International Bill of Human Rights and is therefore a key piece of human rights legislation.
Briefly, the covenant commits all ratifying parties to work towards granting economic, social and cultural rights, including labour rights and the right to health as well as the rights to education and a decent standard of living. It was ratified by Thailand in 1999 and is viewed as containing universally applicable human rights, with 164 state parties.
The Committee delivered its concluding observations on Thailand’s situation following a lengthy and transparent decision-making process. Thailand submitted its first ever State Report in 2012, then issues were raised by the Committee, following which Thailand formally replied. Information from civil society organizations such as the International Commission of Jurists was also considered together with formal reports by Thailand’s National Human Rights Commission.
The positive aspect is that Thailand has made concrete moves towards granting economic, social and cultural rights. Thailand was praised for implementing a wide range of legislation including the 2014 Labour Ministerial Regulation to Protect Labour in the Sea Fishing Industry. In addition, Thailand's national planning, such as the National Plan and Policy on the Prevention, Suppression and Combating of Domestic and Transnational Trafficking in Children and Women (2012-2016) and the National Economic and Social Development Plan (2012-2016), were commended.
However, the committee also notes where Thailand's development has stalled. Structurally, one problem is the ICESCR is not being fully implemented in the country. The committee therefore recommends that the covenant be included in Thailand's new constitution and fully recognised in legislation.
Second, it recommends that lawyers and judges be trained in economic, social and cultural rights. Third, the lack of independence of the National Human Rights Commission, especially as regards political influence and the selection of commissioners, is highlighted as a concern.
Finally, Thailand's endemic corruption is seen as a barrier to the pursuit of human rights, and the committee advocates protection for whistleblowers.
On specific rights, the committee notes Thailand's inadequate legal and political recognition of its indigenous peoples based on self-identification.
This issue is key to Thailand's long-term socio-political stability as without administrative and political devolution along ethnic lines, Thailand is a cultural hegemony dominated by Central Thai ethnicity.
The committee therefore recommends Thailand promote bilingual education as well as facilitates and allocates resources for community-based education programmes to formally recognise ethnic groups' cultures.
The committee also urges Thailand to guarantee the right of indigenous peoples "to own, use, control and develop the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired" and to ratify the International Labour Organisation Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples.
There are, at present, serious issues concerning land, petroleum exploitation and mineral resource exploitation in minority areas of the North as well as in the forest use of the Karen and other mountain peoples along the western border. The committee points out that Thailand needs regulations in order to ensure that state-owned and business enterprises, including transnational corporations, respect human rights in these indigenous areas.
Specifically, the committee criticises the "denial of the traditional rights of ethnic minorities to their ancestral lands and natural resources and the concentration of land ownership in the hands of a very small proportion of the population".
Tellingly, the committee noted approximately 50 individuals and companies own 90% of the land in Thailand. The committee also specifically mentions National Council for Peace and Order Orders No 64/2557 and 66/2557 on encroachment, which have resulted in the destruction of crops and forced evictions, as well as the negative effects of economic activities connected with the exploitation of natural resources.
The committee also expressed concern at the enforced disappearances and killings of land rights and environmental activists, now approximately 81 cases since the mid-1990s, as in the Karen tribal areas (two in the last three years) and in the South (seven since 2010). As such, the committee urges Thailand to protect human rights activists and to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice.
In practice, Thailand could adopt a system of habeas corpus writs — a system which allows others to petition for a court process for someone being detained without legal charges. Such a system would force the national park chief who last arrested the Karen human rights activist Por Cha Lee "Billy" Rakcharoen to produce him or face charges.
As has been pointed out by numerous other UN agencies, Thailand has no laws against discrimination. This means embedded societal racism, as seen in the reaction to Rohingya refugees, as well as in the 2014 political stalemate when the word "Lao" was used in derogatory comments about the Thai Lao on social media for their ethnicity, can go unchecked.
The committee comments on this problem in depth and notes an abandoned baby suspected of being from an ethnic or migrant mother will not automatically be given citizenship. And, while the committee does recognise Thailand's hosting of a large number of refugees, it points out the lack of a holistic legal framework for asylum-seekers and refugees and the absence of a formal national refugee status determination procedure that unavoidably impacts their economic, social and cultural rights.
A further area of discrimination which comes in for criticism is gender. While the Gender Equality Act of 2015 is welcomed, the committee notes it still stereotypes Thai women, for example as regards religious practice, inevitably resulting in lower levels of women's representation in public and political decision-making; sex segregation in employment; and violence against women, including domestic violence.
As the ICESCR is legally binding, it would be better for Thailand's reputation to improve its stance on discrimination if it is not to become an international pariah regarding human rights.
John Draper is project officer, Isan Culture Maintenance and Revitalisation Programme (ICMRP), at College of Local Administration (COLA), Khon Kaen University. Peerasit Kamnuansilpa Phd is founder and former dean of the College of Local Administration, Khon Kaen University.