The Nation(22/7/99)

[mandalay@xxxxxxxxxx]

Illegal migrants living in fear of authorities and neighbours

CHIANG MAI -- Daeng (not his real name) was recently returned to Burma from
this northern province which had been his home for more than 10 years after
neighbours informed authorities of his nationality. The neighbours did so
after hearing a slot on local radio urging villagers to inform police of
the presence of migrant workers. 

Daeng was repatriated despite the fact that he had lived in Thailand for
more than 10 years and has a wife and children here, said Amporn Boontan of
the Thai Youth Aids Prevention Project. 

A negative campaign mounted against migrant workers from Burma -- estimated
to number approximately one million -- together with short-sighted
government policies, legal complexity and a lack of coordination between
the parties involved has filled the lives of migrant workers with fear and
agony. 

The issue of migrant workers was the topic of discussion yesterday at a
seminar organised by Mahidol University's Population and Social Research
Institute and the Chiang Mai Health Office, and was supported by the World
Bank and the Ford Foundation. 

Participants included academics, non-governmental organisations, government
officials and representatives of the migrant workers. 

The participants agreed that unless the Thai government engages the Burmese
authorities in solving problems concerning Burmese immigrant workers, the
repatriation of all illegal migrant workers which has been set for August 4
will raise more questions than it will answer. 

Some local authorities have already expressed concern over the planned
repatriation. 

Chiang Mai's deputy governor Phakdi Rattanapol criticised the government
for passing responsibility for the workers to the provincial
administration. Currently, the government allows migrant workers to perform
28 types of work, even though they have illegal status. The cabinet is now
set to consider certain jobs which migrant workers may be allowed to take
up if locals do not want them. 

Chiang Mai authorities had decided on four jobs which migrant workers could
be allowed to take up after the August 4 deadline; as gas station workers,
domestic servants, labourers and farm workers, Phakdi said. 

''But what of migrant workers who have been allowed to work in other
industries. This move will cause conflicts between the local authorities

and business operators,'' he added. 

He suggested the government initiate a long-term plan of perhaps five years
for the workers, instead of extending illegal migrants' work permits year
by year as it has done. 

''In the long term, the government should consider giving legal status to
the migrant workers,'' he said. 

''However, it must make sure that it screens only 'qualified' and 'good'
migrant workers,'' Phakdi continued. 

Mahidol University researcher Kritiya Archavamitkul urged the government to
cover as many migrant workers as possible when it registered them for
permitted work after the August 4 deadline. 

These workers must be provided with proper and adequate health care
insurance and access to health services, she added. 

Most migrant workers in Chiang Mai are of the Shan ethnic minority, while
many in Ranang are Burmese and Mon. 

Kritiya urged the government to consider giving refugee status to members
of the Shan ethnic minority and to provide them with shelter in the form of
a camp, as in the case of Karen people who had fled fighting in Burma. 

Pippa Cuxwen from the Shan Women's Action Network said that as many as
100,000 Shan people had fled violent suppression by the Burmese military
junta. 

''The Shan are facing the same situation as the Karen, but why does the
Thai government have a different policy of not giving Shan people refugee
status?'' asked Cuxwen, who is half-Shan. 

A study found that because of the political and economic pressure in the
migrants' home country, many do not voluntarily return after they leave.
Most of them acknowledged having been arrested at least once. Many were
cheated by employers, either by not receiving wages or through low pay. 

Due to their illegal status, language barriers and lack of savings, many do
not seek health care when ill. They also suffer from limited information
and lack of access to sexual and reproductive health services. 
--------------------------------------------------------
EDITORIAL: Asean's credibility rests on Burma

WHEN Asean foreign ministers meet again tomorrow in Singapore, awaiting
them will be a myriad of issues -- from the grouping's unity and
cooperation to its relations with the major powers. 

But by far the most important issue is the restoration of Asean's
credibility in the eyes of the international community. 

Asean's success since its establishment in 1967, be it political or
economic, has largely depended on its internal solidarity when dealing with
non-Asean members, especially the Western countries. The organisation was
not well known outside the region until it emerged to play a pivotal role
in the resolution of the 14-year-old Cambodian conflict. 

Cambodia's never-ending woes prompted Asean members to think and work as a
team, especially when engaging the major powers and the United Nations. The
outcome was impressive. Since then, Asean has been hailed as the most
successful regional organisation in the world, after the European Union.
When Asean speaks, it makes a difference. 

However, when Asean embraced Burma two years ago, its credibility took a
severe battering. The admission of Burma as member clearly went against the

wishes of Asean's best friends -- its dialogue partners who have been so
generous in providing assistance to the region over the past two decades.
That decision also came at the most trying period, a time when the region
is facing an unprecedented economic crisis. 

Burma's membership in Asean has so far proved to be a huge liability.
Asean's overall relationship with its dialogue partners has since
deteriorated to its lowest ebb. In the last few weeks, Asean and the EU,
its biggest aid donor, have tried to reconcile their long-standing dispute
over Burma. Both realise they have so much to lose if their relations
remained frozen as they are today. Without any remarkable improvement in
their ties, the broader cooperation under the framework of Asia-Europe
Meeting will surely be a casualty, if it is not already, and this will put
a damper on the next summit meeting in Seoul next year. 

The onus now rests on Asean. The grouping has to show that changes in Burma
are forthcoming and that it can help establish a dialogue between the
military junta and the opposition. Asean leaders often boast that they are
the ones who understand their region best and thus know how to deal with
crises as they arise. So far, though, they have been unable to prove this
wisdom. 

It is ironic that Burma's pariah status and its increased global isolation
now provide Asean with the raison d'etre to stay united. One wonders how
long can Asean maintain its solidarity on Burma and at what cost! There is,
however, a limit to Asean's support of Burma. It is notable that Asean
today no longer has the cohesiveness it had a few years ago. 

When Asean stood firm against Vietnam's occupation of Cambodia, the whole
world was behind the organisation. It was then the right thing to do. Now
Asean stands up for Burma. It has earned the grouping much consternation,
if not condemnation. Most importantly, it has tainted the reputation of
Asean. This is indeed not the right thing to do. 

Burma is a serious issue which the Asean foreign ministers must address. If
the political situation in Burma remains deadlocked, Asean's image will be
further eroded, and that's something the grouping can ill afford. Asean
wants to regain the confidence of the international community -- especially
that of investors -- in its economy. It can only do so if it restores the
credibility it once enjoyed. 

-------------------------------------------------------