EDITORIAL: On Labour Day, the labourers ignored

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

On Labour Day, the labourers ignored

By The Nation

 

Has the government finally stopped resisting foreign pressure to take better care of migrant workers?
 

The world yesterday commemorated International Labour Day, honouring an essential segment of society whose importance most people in Thailand tend to overlook – despite widespread media coverage in recent years regarding gross violations of the rights of the 60,000-plus low-skilled labourers, mainly foreign migrants, working in this country.

 

Concerns about these abuses echoed through the overseas press, to which private firms and government agencies abroad responded with a range of actions that included threats of economic sanctions and boycotts of Thai seafood products, based on humanitarian grounds.

 

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) has just released a video to be distributed among foreign workers in Thailand, explaining crucial information in Thai, Khmer and Burmese. “Ensuring that they are aware of their rights and know how to find help to protect them is essential to preventing and ending abusive labour practices,” the organisation declared yesterday. The campaign is part of the Ship to Shore Rights Project in which the European Union, International Organisation for Migration and United States Agency for International Development are collaborating.

 

The project is designed to help the Thai government overcome issues and meet challenges. We are doubtful that the government would be the slightest bit interested if not for the embarrassing reports and subsequent threats coming from overseas. The initial reaction from Bangkok was harsh, with the Prayut Chan-o-cha government lashing out at Thai reporters for highlighting abuses and pointing out the damage an international boycott would do to the domestic fishing industry. In other words, the government placed the finances of a business sector above the humanitarian needs of people working in that sector.

 

This government has liked to present itself as caring and benevolent soldiers who rescued Thailand from a political crisis. It has, unfortunately, missed a good opportunity to be seen as soldiers who adhere to international norms rather than paying them lip service. Eventually, the huffing and puffing yielded to a pledge to seek an outcome satisfactory to the international community so that Thai exports would not be blocked.

 

Legislation was passed, but much work remains to be done. As an example, according to last month’s ILO Ship to Shore Rights survey on working conditions in the Thai fishing and seafood-processing sectors, only 26 per cent of workers who experienced labour violations had sought help. “Bringing worker questions and complaints to the attention of the authorities for action is a key goal for project partners,” the ILO said. 

 

Thai leaders tend to show respect for concepts of global and regional unity when they’re onstage at foreign forums. But when it comes to reforming this backbreaking industry, which has been characterised as modern-day slavery, they withdraw into a protective shell and demonstrate disdain for outside criticism and guidance. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations as a whole has failed in this regard, crushing the rights of individuals in its rush to build regional strength. 

 

Thais prefer to forget that cheap foreign labour enabled this country to advance rapidly in recent decades. We comfort ourselves by saying we provide them jobs, so they shouldn’t complain. Our eyes are on regional and global glory, not on integrity or compassion. 

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/opinion/30344411

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-05-02

[Samui Bodoh]

Interesting editorial, and a lesson for anyone newly-arrived in country.

 

The editorial attempts to make a moral case for the good treatment of laborers, especially foreign laborers. It is difficult to argue that Thailand has treated those workers properly or taken adequate steps to ensure that they do get treated properly. In fact, the editorial notes;

 

"...The initial reaction from Bangkok was harsh, with the Prayut Chan-o-cha government lashing out at Thai reporters for highlighting abuses and pointing out the damage an international boycott would do to the domestic fishing industry. In other words, the government placed the finances of a business sector above the humanitarian needs of people working in that sector...."

 

I think few/none of the people living in or who study Thailand would disagree with this characterization of the coup government's response. Did the government act in the end? Yes, however;

 

"...Legislation was passed, but much work remains to be done... Thai leaders tend to show respect for concepts of global and regional unity when they’re onstage at foreign forums. But when it comes to reforming this backbreaking industry, which has been characterized as modern-day slavery, they withdraw into a protective shell and demonstrate disdain for outside criticism and guidance..."

 

In other words, the minimum was done in order to save their business, and the protection of human rights was relegated to almost nothing. Was the minimum done for the right reason(s) and will more be done? No. The editorial, with quite surprising honesty, notes;

 

"...Our eyes are on regional and global glory, not on integrity or compassion..."

 

And that, unfortunately, is one of the lessons in the understanding of Thailand.

 

Happy May Day everyone!

 

[Lungstib]

It seems that everyone in business wants to pay the lowest rates and protect their highest profits. Foreign companies set up here to benefit from the lack of worker organizations. Thai business was happy to provide union free shopfloors. Even in the deepest countryside (or perhaps especially) the landowners prefer to employ migrant labour because it can pay them less. Most of the orange farms around me are staffed by Shan migrant labour from Burma or Lahu from the mountain villages. They are trucked around in open-topped pick-ups all wet season and know nothing about organising for better conditions leaving their employers free to make higher profits which gets poured into luxury cars and housing for themselves and their family. Any talk about changes is just that, talk.  

[yellowboat]

Beyond the ethical shortcomings of the current government, they have the typical big government big business love affair and does little for smaller concerns.  In my experience, the best places to work have been shops of 30 people or less where the boss gets it.  The employees generally seem happier.  Alibaba's customer base has quite a few of such companies. 

[Anak Nakal]

Thailand happy with low cost worker, but not care for them.

It dishonorable.

[AsiaHand]

Was not May 1 an original celebration of the Communist Party under the disguise of  The Workers Party celebration.?

[Benmart]

7 minutes ago, Anak Nakal said:

Thailand happy with low cost worker, but not care for them.

It dishonorable.

Honor is lacking in corrupt, greedy and selfish people. Money and power is their god, and all other ceremony is fake and false.

[tigermoth]

The abuse of workers' rights in Thailand is widespread as we all know. The organisations supposedly protecting these rights are virtually powerless under a military government and the statistics they quote are way below the real ones as most workers, if they complain, are fired.

[Chris Lawrence]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Thais prefer to forget that cheap foreign labour enabled this country to advance rapidly in recent decades. We comfort ourselves by saying we provide them jobs, so they shouldn’t complain. Our eyes are on regional and global glory, not on integrity or compassion. 

 

They should have paraded their ostentatious war machines thru the streets to remind the lucky ones working what can be used if the don't like the conditions they work under.

[chainarong]

1 hour ago, AsiaHand said:

Was not May 1 an original celebration of the Communist Party under the disguise of  The Workers Party celebration.?

Not really.

[ratcatcher]

1 hour ago, AsiaHand said:

Was not May 1 an original celebration of the Communist Party under the disguise of  The Workers Party celebration.?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workers'_Day#History

[AsiaHand]

35 minutes ago, ratcatcher said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workers'_Day#History

Thank you ratcatcher,I am still willing to learn even in my eighth decade.