Thailand Policy Lab x TFF: Reduce prejudice against migrant labour: towards policies that treat them as equals

• • • Migrant workers are pushed to the periphery of society, leaving them primarily exposed to every wave of COVID-19 outbreak. This public health crisis presents both opportunities and challenges for migrant labour in Thailand post COVID-19. 
    • At this time, Thailand is in dire need of substitutes for low-skilled Thai workers, whose numbers in the domestic labor market significantly dwindle. As the Thai diaspora take jobs that host-country nationals do not want, migrant workers in Thailand also walk the same career path in hopes of attaining better livelihood.  
    • Thailand also wishes to bring in foreign talents, but to what extent do the labor laws actually guarantee protection of their rights and welfare? What policy amendments should we make in order to ensure migrant workers’ access to social welfare and legal protection?

Labour is an integral part of production. In Thailand, migrant workers play an indispensable role in laying the foundation for public infrastructure, thus improving the quality of life for every Thai citizen. However, as their line of work was severely disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ministry of Labour announced that public health assistance to “aliens” was cancelled, and construction site camps must be sealed off for more than 30 days. One question then arises from this policy ordeal: do we, Thai citizens, truly accept people from the neighbouring countries as part of our community? Is it possible to come up with a newer system that is more progressive and humane in every facet, so that migrant lives are better protected?

“Migrant labour” is the last topic in many fruitful discussions from the “Lessons from the Crisis” series, hosted on Clubhouse by Thailand Future Foundation and TP Lab. This Clubhouse series aims to generate conversations that help distill valuable knowledge from real-life experiences. Experts on labour economics who join us in this talk are:

1. 1. 1. Asst. Prof. Dr. Piti Srisangnam, Director of the Centre for International Economics, lecturer at Faculty of Economics, Chulalongkorn University, and a scholar who also develops interest in the area of global studies
      2. Suchart Trakoonhuthip, Project Coordinator, MAP Foundation. Suchat has extensive experience in working closely with working-class organizers. 
      3. Pukchanok Pattanabud, National Project Officer, Labour Mobility and Human Development,  International Organization for Migration (IOM). Pukchanok has tackled research and advocacy in many labour-related areas, such as labour migration.

The lessons concerning improvement of livelihood of migrant workers could be found within this summary of a two-hour long panel discussion.

When the whole world extols the role of collaboration and solidarity in overcoming the current crisis, migrant workers are pushed to the periphery of the society, leaving them primarily exposed to every wave of the COVID-19 outbreak. This public health crisis presents both opportunities and challenges for migrant labour in Thailand post COVID-19.  I would like to invite everyone in this panel to discuss how the current scenario will unfold in the future. 

Asst. Prof. Dr. Piti: I suggest that we consider the current scenario in 3 different phases: 

• • • In the near future, the situation is expected to be much more complicated. In the past, the second and third waves of the outbreak were exclusively tied to irregular entry of migrant labour. Undocumented workers were then forced to return to their country of origin while the industrial sector still needed them to fulfill arduous jobs, a line of work that many Thai workers would consider unfavourable. This worker shortage is expected to have a strong impact on the economy. 
    • In the intermediate term, migrant workers will return to major cities after the government ends border control and quarantine measures. With this scenario, we can expect irregular border crossings to resurge. It is uncertain that the spread of COVID-19 virus will be fully contained at that point. 
    • Dr. Piti has not seen any scientific forecasting of post-pandemic life expectancy from Thailand. However, research in the US reveals that life expectancy of American citizens is to be decreased by 1.2 – 1.8 year. This declining tendency will have a palpable effect on future demographic structure and worker welfare policy. It is necessary that the government revisits the long-term national population plan. 

Population size is positively central to trade and domestic production. This is a good opportunity for Thailand to improve standards of labour, sanitation, occupational health, and quality of product in case the numbers of manufacturing workers decline in the future. The way out of population shrinking can be found in the following 3 propositions: 

1. 1. 1. Increase birth rate. This solution is quite tricky in terms of implementation,  because the birth rate continues to plummet even after the authorities stop actively promoting birth control campaigns for a long time. More and more people from younger generations choose to live together without any prospect of having kids.  
      2. Adopt the “Japanese Model” by employing technology that provides assistance to the aging population and the agricultural sector. It will take an immense amount of time for this solution to bear any fruit, because Thailand has yet to develop such technology. 
      3. Adopt the “American Model” and ease the challenges of population aging by drawing in human resources from other countries, creating more added value for the market, expanding more opportunities for decent work, and calibrating labour standards.

For many people, Thailand is seen as the prime destination for work. In order to curb unemployment or labour shortage, and respond to the different needs of the industries struggling to hire new workers and job seekers, we need a better worker processing system.

In terms of migrant labour, what are the existing challenges for Thailand, and what are the strengths of this country that can incentivize  foreigners, especially high-skilled workers, to work here?

Asst. Prof. Dr. Piti: I view xenophobia as a recent social phenomenon. Throughout history, Thailand has always been receptive to international trade and diversity of religious beliefs. Think about the Chinese diaspora who came to Siam [the previous name of Thailand] for work. The second-generation and third-generation descendants of Chinese immigrants now call themselves Thai. With the responsibilities to take care of people with migrant backgrounds, Thailand must reinvent itself into a welfare state. It is time we challenge the anti-immigrant attitude, because xenophobia towards citizens from neighbouring countries will deprive us of the opportunities to maximize human resources to develop Thailand. In the developed countries, their governments erect foreign employee quotas in accordance with the market’s demand for labour, instead of implementing a migrant worker ban. This is a model that Thailand should follow suit, but I insist that the discriminatory attitude towards immigrants must change first.

Thailand also wishes to bring in foreign talents, but to what extent do the labor laws actually guarantee protection of their rights and welfare? I would like to ask Suchart about the different types of discriminations that migrant workers are facing right now, including the difficulties in the naturalization process, which has a political dimension to it.

Suchart: at this time, Thailand is in dire need of substitutes for low-skilled Thai workers, whose numbers in the domestic labor market significantly dwindle. As the Thai diaspora take jobs that host-country nationals do not want, migrant workers in Thailand also walk the same career path in hopes of attaining better livelihood and earning income that matches living expenses in their home country. If we look at the total number of documented workers in Thailand, the official record will show that only a few millions of them are here. However, we must not forget that myriads of undocumented workers have yet to be taken into account. When the COVID-19 pandemic started to spread in Thailand, the undocumented workers were unable to return to their country of origin. This situation could give rise to many problems in the future. However, we must admit that border crossing is not a real issue here. It is prejudice held against immigrants that creates so many barriers, including violation of migrant workers’ rights and lack of protection of their livelihood. What I would like to present now is the reality before, during, and after the COVID-19 outbreak.

Prior to the outbreak, migrant workers took part in every business sector, be it the manufacturing or service industries. It is safe to say that wherever we go, they will always be there. The problem is that migrant workers were unable to fully enjoy access to rights and welfare as stated by the law (e.g. minimum wage, cultural and religious holidays, and health insurance coverage). Although the government previously pursued national legislation to address this issue, enforcement of labour protection law was insufficient.

The unresolved problems became even more thornier with the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many migrant workers found themselves in a severely compromising situation due to the outbreak. Unemployment could only mean one thing: income loss. In order to receive unemployment benefits, they must be able to fulfill an extensive list of essential requirements. Documented workers were not eligible for any of this from the start. As for migrant workers who are enrolled in the Social Security Fund, they would be fully entitled to the benefits on the condition that their social contributions are paid for no less than 6 months. If they are employed for a period of only 3 – 4 months, they will not be eligible for any social security benefits. From what I saw in Chiang Mai and Tak, migrant workers only managed to survive day to day because of donations. They were left with no other option because the authorities did not provide any assistance. If migrant workers go beyond the location of the workplace registered on their “pink cards” (work permits), they could be arrested by the police. Up to now the Ministry of Labour has yet to come up with any policy or measure to ease such limitations.

Another barrier that emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic was discriminatory attitudes towards migrant workers, as seen in the regulations in certain provinces that authorized migrant worker bans while permitting entry exclusively to Thai citizens. I want to ask one question: is the COVID-19 pandemic targeting only migrant workers? If we push them away, will the spread of this disease magically come to a stop? All of these policies left migrant workers to figure out survival on their own, while their employers at factories were making deductions from their wage.

What the authorities ought to do post COVID-19 is reinforcing labour protection for both undocumented and registered migrant workers. They must receive recognition from the government as well as the COVID-19 vaccine. Most importantly, the authorities must review all the procedures that are inaccessible or fail to cover migrant workers. This is a challenge in readjusting the standards for migrant worker response policy. Thai citizens have to start seeing immigrants as fellow human beings who simply want a decent life. Just like Thai people who work abroad, migrant workers also come here in search of opportunities to make money. They, too, harbour hopes and dreams of a better life and return to home someday.

When absence of effective migrant worker policy is actually a policy, then what are the root causes of discriminatory attitudes towards migrant workers?

Pukchanok: Much information about migrant workers is not based on verifiable facts. For example, we think that migrant workers are desperate to work here when, in fact, Thailand is experiencing a severe labour shortage. We see numerous news stories about labour trafficking or a strong demand for entry from neighbouring countries. Imbued with all these false ideas, we eventually turn a blind eye to migrant workers. However, if we are to ask ourselves, “would all these traffickers dare to commit serious crime if there is no influential figure endorsing their operation from behind?” We would come to a realization that this is a grave problem on a structural level, and help is only extended to migrant workers to a limited degree. Nonetheless, whenever there is news about the opening of a new round of registration for migrant workers, the mass media always paints Thailand as the land of benevolence, to which immigrants, who are granted a place to stay, owe an enormous debt of gratitude. In reality, the employers are the ones who actually luck out with all the cheap labour available and ready to support their business.

In regards to those with decision-making power in policy-making, we can see that, for the past 20 years, they have not touched the policy framework at all. Labour shortage has already turned into a recurring problem because Thai people refuse to take up certain kinds of jobs. A variety of research has long addressed this issue but we still have yet to see any reaction or the slightest semblance of change from the authorities. Laws that regulate employers are significantly fewer than those governing workers. The authorities also enforce labour law against migrant workers much more rigorously, trapping them in a climate of fear. When news about crackdown against migrant workers keeps surging in the mainstream media, the entire society will spiral down a phobia about immigrants. Some people may feel sympathetic towards migrant workers, but they wish not to be involved or remotely associated with them. They probably think that migrant workers are already lucky by living in Thailand, and it is better to be here on every level instead of being stranded in their country of origin. 

With this mindset, Thai citizens come to position migrant workers at the lower strata of the society. They see migrant labour as less fortunate and horrifying, not to mention the fact that they were treated as the super spreader during the COVID-19 outbreak. If migrant workers still cannot enjoy full access to the COVID-19 vaccination after the termination of border closure, no doubt that the business sector will be badly affected, since many migrant workers are in the service industries, which still do not operate at full capacity.

The more we hear about the struggles of migrant workers, the more distressed we become. Asst. Prof. Dr. Piti, do you think it is possible to follow the Japanese Model in replacing human workforce with technology, thus increasing the efficiency of this country?

Asst. Prof. Dr. Piti: Technology is undoubtedly proven a major assistance to us. However, good technology must be universally accessible, affordable, and offer possibilities for domestic improvement. Since Japan could be considered as a ‘closed’ country, that means Japanese people would prefer innovation from their own country. With this mindset, Japanese innovators make sure that their technology is easily accessible to every citizen. On the other hand, Thailand has historically welcomed  technological progress from abroad. At best, the model from Japan could be a secondary choice. We should see Thailand as a land of possibilities for improving existing technology, not innovating ones. For me, the “Melting Pot” Model from the US promises a successful implementation and efficiency. I see positive signs from the younger generations. They are much more humane, less inclined towards xenophobia, unlike the Baby Boomers or Gen X counterparts. We cannot turn away from trade deals because they are essential tools for development. The circumstances will soon make us adopt universal principles.

Then, how could we create a system that supports migrant workers with decent welfare and enforcement of labour laws that dismantle the remaining barriers for them? If Mr. Suchart could kindly elaborate on possible alternatives for us.

Suchart: I can see 3 barriers that stand in the way right now, and if all of them are entirely removed, the livelihood of migrant workers will surely improve. Firstly, migrant workers’ policy must be clearly discussed and developed into  a national long-term plan. Previously, labour law pertaining to migrant workers lacked clarity, nor did it keep up with the current circumstances. Low-skilled workers deserve jobs that allow them to make use of their real talents. However, with all the limitations that come with the documentation, many migrant workers do not have access to such work opportunities.

Secondly, skill development courses must be extended to migrant workers. By being deprived of entitlement to such employee benefits, they are unable to receive skill-based pay increases. Their work hours are heavily affected by the demanding bureaucratic and documentation procedure. On top of that, their employers deduct the registration fees from their wages, making the workers responsible for this financial burden. Some employers simply refuse to enroll their workers in the Social Security Fund so as to avoid imputed social contributions, while some arrange for migrant workers to take up jobs that the social security system does not cover. 

Lastly, Thailand needs to establish crisis response funds, whether for a pandemic outbreak or natural disasters. The source of budget could come from migrant workers’ contributions to the Social Security Fund and extra funding from the administration. There are reports of migrant workers affected by floods every year, but no one pays attention to their struggles. In the end, they have to help each other on their own. It is time the government takes proper measures in response to such a predicament.  

What would the system that addresses the challenges for migrant labour look like? This question is perhaps a food for thought for those with policy-making power.

Pukchanok: We cannot leave the role of employers out of this conversation. At the global level, employers are held accountable for recruitment fees and related costs to prevent forced labour (e.g. debt bondange and trafficking). As for the private sector, they will assume the role of the ‘game changer’. When employers claim responsibilities for recruitment fees, they start to know what kind of worker they should look for. This tendency matches the demand for high-skilled migrant workers, since employers only want the best of human resources. Recruitment costs will soon be considered as another form of investment. By subsidizing workers, employers will be more motivated to think about employee retention and skill development. However, please note that better grievance mechanisms for employees are still required. Some employers might still see their workers as business fodder or attempt to keep them in contractual bondage. Both parties must be equally bound to labour law. 

But in terms of importance and urgency, rights to mobility precedes talks of costs. Now we have to start discussing the relocation of labour in relation to human rights principles. Without workers’ freedom, this ideal will never come true. Workers must have rights to choose their own jobs and employers, someone who shows respect and provides them endless opportunities to work and to hone their skills. If workers can enjoy freedom of movement, they will have more negotiating power and possibilities to turn hopes into a reality. As long as we are free, human beings will always strive for better opportunities.

With the dangerous idea that workers must be bound by employers or an imbalanced power structure, migrant workers will never be able to enjoy rights or labour protection they deserve, no matter what is written in the law.

Policy recommendations 

• • • Adopt the “American Model” and ease the challenges of population aging by drawing in human resources from other countries, creating more added value for the market, expanding more opportunities for decent work, and calibrating labour standards.
    • The authorities must review all the procedures that are inaccessible or fail to cover migrant workers . This is a challenge in readjusting the standards for migrant worker response policy. Thai citizens have to start seeing immigrants as fellow human beings who simply want a decent life, like Thai people who work abroad.
    • Migrant workers’ policy must be clearly discussed and developed into  a national long-term plan. Previously, labour law pertaining to migrant workers lacked clarity, nor did it keep up with the current circumstances. 
    • Skill development courses must be extended to migrant workers. By being deprived of entitlement to such employee benefits, they are unable to receive skill-based pay increases.