Thailand's record on sheltering a multitude of refugees has generally been commendable throughout the years. Yet at times there are paradoxes, exemplified by the push-back of Cambodian refugees recently, the current threat to send back a Vietnamese Montagnard refugee, and the ominous clouds pressing insidiously for the forced return of Uyghur refugees.
Can Thailand continue to be appreciated as a country of asylum rather than be depreciated as a country of transnational repression, colluding with others to push back refugees?
This puzzle is also pertinent to refugees from Myanmar. At this juncture, it is worth noting that the term "refugee" is understood internationally to cover those who flee from their country of origin due to fear of persecution. In practice, this has been extended to cover people exiting their home countries due to armed conflicts. The various caseloads from Myanmar correlate well with that coverage. Five groups invite the rationalisation and streamlining of Thai policy as follows.
First, there is the very old group who have been here for half a century or more. The new policy sanctioned by a cabinet decision in October 2024 enables them to be granted permanent residence in Thailand and or Thai nationality, depending on various criteria.
This aims to overcome the issue of statelessness affecting some half a million people from various countries, residing in Thailand for a long time.
Second, there is the group of more than 80,000 who have been here for some 40 years and are now in nine camps near the border on Thai soil. Generally, they benefit from the practice of temporary asylum and no push-back. They are granted access to the basics of life such as birth registration, primary education and health care. However, the authorities still insist on education in the Myanmar language and access to other levels of education is not assured. Nor are they allowed to work outside the camps, even though it is well known that some do so via non-transparent arrangements. Until recently, the hope was that they would return to their country of origin, once the situation improves, or that they would be resettled in third countries, especially the US. However, this is most improbable now due to continuing instability in the country of origin, coupled with closed door policies from key third countries.
For this group, the preferred policy is to abide by the principle of no push-back and to allow them to stay in Thailand temporarily. The basics of life should be guaranteed with some adjustments. They should be allowed to have an education in Thai as well as access to other levels of education beyond the primary level. Importantly, they should be allowed to work openly. In future, the issue of permanent residency and nationality, at least for children born in Thailand, should be broached.
The third group is that which arrived after February 2021 when the coup took place in Myanmar. About 50,000 arrivals was the figure then, and a couple of years ago, they were housed in Temporary Safety Areas on Thai soil. Since then, most have been returned to Myanmar. Importantly, it is the Thai army which supervises them here, and it is essential to dialogue well with those uniformed authorities to ensure a balanced policy.
Others are likely to arrive at any moment due to the continuing armed conflict in Myanmar. The preferred policy should be to ensure no push-back, to allow them to stay temporarily in Thailand, and to have access to the basics of life. If the issue of returning to the country of origin is to be raised, such a return should only be considered on the basis of safety and dignity, and it should be done in consultation with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). There should be access by outside humanitarian actors to these groups to allow objective assessment of the situation. Thai villagers affected by influxes should also be assisted on the basis of non-discrimination.
The fourth group is hundreds of Rohingya who have suffered from repression. Regrettably, many of this group are in immigration detention. This is in spite of a Memorandum of Understanding adopted a few years ago to shift children from such detention to welfare shelters. The practice has been to enable the young children to stay with their mothers in such shelters, while the fathers and adolescent youths are detained in immigration detention. At times, adults and even those under 18 years of age are taken to the courts and are charged with illegal immigration.
The preferred option for this group is to follow the humane policy concerning the second group referred to above. Thus, they should not be pushed back and they should be granted temporary asylum without being locked up in immigration detention centres. They should enjoy the basics of life. A possible door to resettlement should be explored, especially with the Persian Gulf countries, since there is cultural affinity due to Islam which is the religion of the Rohingya. Interestingly, Saudi Arabia has a sizeable Rohingya community.
The possibility of their accessing the national screening process which Thailand adopted six years ago primarily for urban refugees can be broached. This would mean that they can enjoy the status of "protected persons" if they pass the screening. Consequently, those passing the test should be able to work and have access to a longer stay here.
Finally, the fifth group is the latest arrivals since 2024, especially due to forced conscription in Myanmar. This group should have access to the UNHCR to be registered and vetted by this agency as "Persons of Concern" at least to ensure temporary protection. The preferred policy here is to not detain them or use the national immigration law to prosecute them.
Incidentally, Thailand's new anti-torture law also prohibits the push-back of people to face dangers. This should prevail over the vagaries of the immigration law, while keeping open the possibility that there might be an outlet to third countries if and where safety can be ensured.
In essence, much depends on a more enlightened topmost policy leadership. Please, no transnational repression!