Keep Thailand's refugee policy
The Nation
EDITORIAL:Published on Dec 21, 2001
The Kingdom's reputation for humane treatment of refugees is threatened by the closure of Maneeloy holding centre
Once again we hear protesting voices from the western border. This time from some 500 Burmese dissidents and their families who were disturbed by the Thai government's plan to close down their residence at the Maneeloy Special Holding Centre in Ratchaburi province. Some have been on a hunger strike for more than a week. They fear the closure, which will lead to their resettlement to another refugee camp nearer to the border, will put their lives at risk.
We find their concerns make sense. Unlike the other 150,000 refugees - ordinary villagers fleeing fighting inside Burma - these dissidents are former student activists who fought against the military rulers over a decade ago. Most of them are still wanted, dead or alive, by the ruling government. To transfer them to the new camp, which is located only 3 kilometres from the Thai-Burmese border, simply means putting them closer to the clutches of the Burmese army.
When these dissidents started making noisy protests against the relocation plan, the Thai government readily jumped on them, calling them "foreigners" and "trouble makers". The governor of Ratchaburi province implied in an interview that they have already received more than they deserve on Thai soil. He said Thai villagers living near the Maneeloy centre wanted them out of their neighbourhood because they feel unsafe having these "foreign trouble makers" around. Such a negative attitude can be explained. These Burmese dissidents are political activists. They still pursue their fight for democracy in Burma even on soil far away from home. This makes the Thai government uneasy because it might strain relations with a state which is rich in natural resources.
Thai communities around the Maneeloy centre also have their reasons for not welcoming the dissidents. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) is partly to blame. The agency seldom communicates with local Thais who find it hard to understand why these foreigners need to stay on the Thai soil and receive "better" treatment. Many Thais still believe these dissidents rely on financial support from the Thai government. But UNHCR pays all their bills. Moreover, the dissidents do not receive as many privileges as people may believe. All they are entitled to is their basic needs including three meals a day and a monthly stipend of Bt800 from UNHCR.
The Thai government has unnecessarily made the UNHCR waste a couple of million baht in building new facilities at the border. The new facilities are not needed given the fact that the Maneeloy centre will soon be closed anyway when most of the dissidents go off to third countries. At Maneeloy, 189 dissidents have been accepted by third countries but are hesitant to leave as their wives and children are not included.
Another 191 have been identified as "persons of concern" (POC) by the UNHCR and therefore eligible for asylum in third countries. Only 82 have an unclear future as the UNHCR rejected their POC status. This puts them in the category of illegal immigrants under Thai law. They could face repatriation if nothing is done for them.
There is a more humane way to solve the problem than closing Maneeloy. The government's good record in providing humanitarian aid to more than 150,000 refugees fleeing fighting in Burma gives it enough legitimacy to urge third countries, most of them developed nations, to share the burden by accelerating acceptance.
The government can also criticise the UNHCR for not granting POC status to wives and children. Last but not least, it should tell the Burmese government to end the chaos which has led to the refugee crisis.
By delaying the closure of Maneeloy, the government can gain credibility and help UNHCR save a hefty sum from building new facilities at the border. The money could well be spent on improving the standards of another 11 Burmese refugee camps.