Equality For Thai Wives

[sabaijai]

Procedure to File Complaint - National Human Rights Commission

If I get a chance.. I just may go visit them next week.

CS

Keep us posted.

[skippybangkok]

How can we lose?

1) I used to live in malaysia. A group of expat women married locally ( memory bit shoddy - could have been with their expat hubbies) formed a club to demand rights to be able to work. But i do remember the Cops picked them up and threatend them with ISA . Club went quiet very quick smart

2) Thai govt might agree - its un fair, and as such change the rights for foreign women to be same as foreign men. Problem solved.

Edited December 8, 2008 by skippybangkok

[CosmicSurfer]

How can we lose?

1) I used to live in malaysia. A group of expat women married locally ( memory bit shoddy - could have been with their expat hubbies) formed a club to demand rights to be able to work. But i do remember the Cops picked them up and threatend them with ISA . Club went quiet very quick smart

2) Thai govt might agree - its un fair, and as such change the rights for foreign women to be same as foreign men. Problem solved.

Again, you are still missing the point....

This is NOT a Foreign Man, Foreign Woman Issue...

The Thai constitution is clear.... This an Equality of Rights issue between Thai Women and Thai Men.

Is this so difficult to understand?

I doubt Thai men would accept a lessening of THEIR right to achieve equality with Thai women.

CS

[Mario2008]

The ruling of the Thai Constitutional court is relevant here, as was dealt with the same issue: sex discrimination. It makes winning the case more doubtful, no question about that.

However the case will not only be based on the Thai constitution, but also on several human rights treaties. These are not mentioned in the ruling of the Constitutional Court! I don't know if Thai law will allow scruitiny of treaties by the courts or reserve this right to parlement only.

As said before, Thailand hasn't signed the optional protocols which allow the UN-human Rights Commission to review complaints of human rights violations by Thailand. The ruling of the human rights commission is never the less relevant, as it explains how the relevant articles must be interpreted.

A Thai judge is under no obligation to to follwo this ruling. But governments have to periodically submit a report about their human rights situation and many NGO's react to these reports and the Human Rights commission questions countries about their repport. A negative ruling might well fire back on the Thai government.

Also don't forget that the goal is not to get the Thai governement condemned, but to get the rules equaly applied. Let's hope the government wil recognize its error and correct it before it comes before the National Human Rights Commision brings its report out.

[CosmicSurfer]

The ruling of the Thai Constitutional court is relevant here, as was dealt with the same issue: sex discrimination. It makes winning the case more doubtful, no question about that.

Sorry to be so pedantic and repetitive.... BUT....

Though the issues are both related to sexual discrimination...

In the eyes of the Thai Judicial system, a Foreign Male vs Foreign Female issue (as covered in the past Case) does not require the same treatment as a Thai Male vs Thai Female case, which is clearly unconstitutional, and could not be pandered to as being an issue of Thai Morality and National interest (security) as was the Foreign case.

Therefore, while on the surface they both SEEM to be about the same issue, in fact they are NOT.. and this point must be adhered to at all times.

If this is made to be a Case about Foreign Rights (male or female not withstanding) then this case will get sluffed-off.

This is a Sexual-Discrimination Case between Thais... and Only Thais.

On this point it is winnable.

CS

Edited December 9, 2008 by CosmicSurfer

[Mario2008]

The ruling of the Thai Constitutional court is relevant here, as was dealt with the same issue: sex discrimination. It makes winning the case more doubtful, no question about that.

Sorry to be so pedantic and repetitive.... BUT....

Though the issues are both related to sexual discrimination...

In the eyes of the Thai Judicial system, a Foreign Male vs Foreign Female issue (as covered in the past Case) does not require the same treatment as a Thai Male vs Thai Female case, which is clearly unconstitutional, and could not be pandered to as being an issue of Thai Morality and National interest (security) as was the Foreign case.

Therefore, while on the surface they both SEEM to be about the same issue, in fact they are NOT.. and this point must be adhered to at all times.

If this is made to be a Case about Foreign Rights (male or female not withstanding) then this case will get sluffed-off.

This is a Sexual-Discrimination Case between Thais... and Only Thais.

On this point it is winnable.

CS

Sorry Cosmicsurfer,

Read the whole article about the ruling of the constitution court:

1. Background and summarized facts

Mr. Pongthep Thepkanjana, the Chairman of Sub-Committee on Legal, Social and

Political Fields, submitted a petition to the Ombudsman which could be summarized as

follows. Section 9 of the Nationality Act, B.E. 2508 (1965) provided for the principle

regarding the nationality alteration of a foreign woman who married a man with Thai

nationality. The principle stated that a person who wished to acquire Thai nationality could submit an application to a competent authority for altering nationality. However, the said Nationality Act did not entitle a foreign man who married a woman with Thai nationality to acquire Thai nationality by alteration. That foreign men who married women with Thai nationality were not entitled to acquire nationality by alteration as same as foreign women who married men with Thai nationality were, gave rise to questions on personal status and family establishment of women in terms that there was inequality between Thai women and Thai men who married foreign men or foreign women respectively. Such the provision of section 9 may accordingly be contrary to or inconsistent with section 30 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, B.E. 2540 (1997) which stated that “Men and women shall enjoy equal rights”. Therefore, the Ombudsman was requested to submit the case and the opinion to the Constitutional Court for decision under section 198 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, B.E. 2540 (1997).

This case does rule on the same principle, so it does make it more difficult. However, don't let it discourage you.

[jcon]

Website of the National Human Rights Commission Thailand:

http://www.nhrc.or.th/index.php?lang=EN

Section 30. All persons are equal before the law and shall enjoy equal protection under the law. Men and women shall enjoy equal rights.

Unjust discrimination against a person on the grounds of the difference in origin,

race,

language,

sex,

age,

physical

or health condition,

personal status,

economic or

social standing,

religious belief,

education or

constitutionally political view,

shall not be permitted. Measures determined by the State in order to eliminate obstacle to or to promote persons' ability to exercise their rights and liberties as other persons shall not be deemed as unjust discrimination under paragraph three.

Pick one of the above and you can class-action your way to death... incidentally, there is no such thing as a "Class Action"-style lawsuit in Thailand AFAIK.

Which "human right" is the one under quesiton here? Discrimination, maybe - human rights violation, tenuous at best - Thailand has real human rights issues to deal with, and I'm afraid the Thai Woman/Farang Husband issue is pretty far down the list, however admirable the intentions. But then again you know what they say about good intentions....

keep us posted on this.

but I must say Heng pretty much said it...

[Mario2008]

Discrimination is a violation of human rights. Some human rights violations might be more serious then others, never the less the principle at issue here is a serious one.

The chairman of the Thai national human rights commission has indicated that there are many problems regarding to the implementation of human rights and one of his main task is to change the thinking of the civil service, so they will keep human rights in mind.

I agree it is a process and changes in the civil service apparatus will not come in one day. But it will come, in slow steps. A case like this might help that process.

[astor]

Excellent initiative you can count on my support.

Thailand is becoming the most inhospitable country in the s.e. area.

It's no longer the land of smile, but it's the land of the intolerance.

[spacebass]

New Prime Minister born in England educated at Oxford, this would be one radical difference that could possibly influence Thailands consideration of it's image in the world should this simple, obvious and indeed primitive discrimination be exposed to the world community, which currently has no idea it exists, so now Thailand does not have to consider it's image in this human rights regard.

Even exposing it internationally might start the ball rolling! A few demonstrations a la Suvanabumi (wives only of course), as this is obviously the way to do political business in Thailand.

Five Years max job done.

[ubonjoe]

This initiative can work. It don't matter for now how it is done getting some kind of group or organiztion set up will be the first step. How about posting some additional topics on the local forums and the general forum?

The more wives we can get involved the better.

[barky]

I will support you as much as possible providing you set up a transparent mechanism. I'm in for a small donation. Keep us advised. It's time to "try" to stop this discrimination one way or another.

[sabaijai]

The Court seems to have confused the issue when they ruled that 'The law did not bar the right of foreign men who were married to women with Thai nationality to acquire Thai nationality.' In other words they're saying foreign males still have access to naturalisation.

But the law allows a Thai male to confer (the Thai term immigration uses is โอนสัญชาติ which means 'confer/transfer nationality') to his spouse. It does not allow a Thai female to do the same. Being deprived of the power to confer nationality via marriage is clearly a violation of a Thai woman's constitutional rights.

Whether any Thai court would ever see it that way is another issue.

[ubonjoe]

The Court seems to have confused the issue when they ruled that 'The law did not bar the right of foreign men who were married to women with Thai nationality to acquire Thai nationality.' In other words they're saying foreign males still have access to naturalisation.

But the law allows a Thai male to confer (the Thai term immigration uses is โอนสัญชาติ which means 'confer/transfer nationality') to his spouse. It does not allow a Thai female to do the same. Being deprived of the power to confer nationality via marriage is clearly a violation of a Thai woman's constitutional rights.

Whether any Thai court would ever see it that way is another issue.

I agree.

Just have to try again with this one. Plus pursue all other possible avenues.

Getting a change to the immigration act that has been the same since 1979 in order to get a few more rights would be good.

[rainman]

You guys seem to be having a point. Count me in, keep me updated.

Out of curiosity, has anyone contacted Immigration yet and asked them what their stand on discrimination was?

[phetpeter]

Its quite simple to start the ball rolling by having a petition....Have the wives(10000+) all sign a petition, get the support of the womens group then get some MP's on their side and bingo the ball is rolling.

Whats it cost not a bean. it is their right to ask the government to talk about it and hopefully change the rules.

[cushendall]

Count me in, all the members interested, will have to meet up, and get it organised.

[Maestro]

Out of curiosity, has anyone contacted Immigration yet and asked them what their stand

on discrimination was?

“Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die.” (paraphrasing an Alfred Lord Tennyson quote)

Immigration officials implement the orders they are given, usually in the form of a Royal Thai Police Order signed by the Commissioner-General, Royal Thai Police Headquarters. The Police Order in turn is usually based on a Ministerial Regulation, and the Ministerial regulation is based on the Immigration Act, sometimes perhaps on a Cabinet decision.

The Immigration Bureau’s job is not to verify a Police Order’s conformity with human rights or with Thailand's constitution. Last year, for example, the Immigration Bureau found that a particular rule for annual extension of stay did not conform with the Ministerial Order on which the Police Order was based. The Bureau asked Police Headquarters to issue an amended Order, the Police Commissioner-General refused, the Immigration Bureau then refused to accept applications for that type of extensions, was called on the carpet and eventually had to back down.

--

Maestro

[ubonjoe]

Its quite simple to start the ball rolling by having a petition....Have the wives(10000+) all sign a petition, get the support of the womens group then get some MP's on their side and bingo the ball is rolling.

Whats it cost not a bean. it is their right to ask the government to talk about it and hopefully change the rules.

Yes a petition drive will do it but it would require some funding. The pettition would have to be writen properly. It would take some legal advise and help to get it moving.

I think a petition could be part a movement that could use various routes to get results.

Also a petition drive would not require signatures from only the wives. It could be signed by any Thai which would be even better because it would show support from thsoe not directly affected by the laws/acts.

[stingray]

I'm personally don't beleve to get sucess. But we can try. I'm in too. I hope we not get "blacklisted".

[bernie66]

“Paint a picture before your enemy has the opportunity to manipulate the commoner’s perception!” (Not a quote I just made it up. ) Maybe this is thinking to far ahead but what I am trying to say is people will go out of their way to link this to furang immigration which would kill it. The perception would be that we were manipulating our wives just to circumvent the law. Think for a second what front page caption would sell more news papers to a Thai man. A picture of a bunch of woman protesting for equal rights or a bunch of low class dissidence trying to start trouble. The caption would say something like “WOMAN WHO HAVE SEX WITH FURANG WANT TO BRING MORE FURANG TO OUR KINGDOM.” Or even worst would be a picture of a furang with a petition or picket sign. A caption of, “ WHATS NEXT MOBS OF FURANG?” or “GANGS OF FURANG TRYING TO INVADE THAILAND.” How about “FURANG TOURIST DEMAND RIGHTS.”Let one TV reporter get a furang on camera getting involved and that will be the only perception spread through their communities. What we need Thai people’s perception to be is that of only Thai nationals fighting for their native born rights. Any signatures gathered, picket lines formed, or legal solicitation done has to be done by Thai women with no furang present. It could never be about immigration but only about citizen’s rights.

Imagine what you would think if you were an American and you saw a bunch of Mexicans protesting for immigration reform. I would think they were illegal. I would think the more of them the fewer jobs for me. I would think what right do they have to raise hel_l about my system when they don’t pay taxes and don’t belong here anyway. Many would think I wish they would go home and take there Mexican loving whores with them. Immigration is a negative topic in any country. This would have to be very carefully planed out, women coached, and a presentation developed from the beginning. Just like your painting a picture.

[sabaijai]

Out of curiosity, has anyone contacted Immigration yet and asked them what their stand

on discrimination was?

“Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die.” (paraphrasing an Alfred Lord Tennyson quote)

Immigration officials implement the orders they are given, usually in the form of a Royal Thai Police Order signed by the Commissioner-General, Royal Thai Police Headquarters. The Police Order in turn is usually based on a Ministerial Regulation, and the Ministerial regulation is based on the Immigration Act, sometimes perhaps on a Cabinet decision.

The Immigration Bureau’s job is not to verify a Police Order’s conformity with human rights or with Thailand's constitution. Last year, for example, the Immigration Bureau found that a particular rule for annual extension of stay did not conform with the Ministerial Order on which the Police Order was based. The Bureau asked Police Headquarters to issue an amended Order, the Police Commissioner-General refused, the Immigration Bureau then refused to accept applications for that type of extensions, was called on the carpet and eventually had to back down.

--

Maestro

The question raises an interesting point nonetheless. If immigration law doesn't expressly state that only Thai males, and not Thai females, can confer nationality on their spouses, then if immigration denied a foreign male's citizenship application endorsed by his Thai spouse in the same manner Thai males do for foreign spouses, then immigration would be in violation of the law and a case could be taken to the Administrative Court.

In a sense that might be a better approach (if and only if there is no immigration act prohibiting Thai females from conferring nationality on their husbands), as then a civil crime would have been committed.

[Mario2008]

That is art. 9 of the Thai nationality act, not the immigratiuon act:

http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs3/THAILAND...onality_Act.htm

Section 9. An alien woman who marries a person of Thai nationality shall, if she desires to acquire Thai nationality, file an application with the competent official according to the form and in the manner prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations.

The granting or refusal of permission for acquisition of Thai nationality shall lie with the discretion of the Minister.

The law itself states this and according to the Thai constitutional court this is legal.

[Maestro]

I see we are moving away from the original topic of a lawsuit to contest the unequal treatment of a Thai male and a Thai female in the requirements for his/her foreign spouse to allow the Thai national the benefit and enjoyment of having his/her foreign spouse live with him/her in Thailand.

The unequal treatment of a Thai male and a Thai female in being allowed to confer Thai nationality to the foreign spouse would appear to be a different can of worms. Perhaps in the case of the court ruling cited in this topic the case was not presented correctly; we do not know.

In the case of the conferment of Thai nationality it would have been a direct test of the Nationality Act's conformity with the constitution. In the case of the extension of stay, various things need to be tested step by step:

1. Does the Police Order conform with the Ministerial Regulation on which it is based?
   
2. If yes, does the Ministerial Regulation conform with the Immigration Act on which it is based?
   
3. If yes, does the Immigration Act conform with the Constitution?
   

Perhaps step 1 above can be skipped unless one of the Police Orders cited in the preamble of 777/2551 is based on a Ministerial Regulation, in which case it would be good if somebody could, for a start, get hold of the relevant Ministerial Regulation and post it in this topic as an attachment. Before, that, however, you need to get hold of the earlier Police Orders on which 777/2551 claims to be based, ie 543/2549 dated on August 15, B.E. 2549 and 56/2551 dated on January 21, B.E.2551. Order No. 606/2549 we already have.

--

Maestro

[Maestro]

While we are at it, the organisers of this lawsuit, which, while it may be filed jointly by several plaintiffs (Thai wives of foreigners), should not be called a class action suit, should also get hold of the Royal Thai Police Act B.E. 2547, as section 11(4) of it is cited in the preamble of Police Order 777/2551.

--

Maestro

[kriswillems]

I think a lawsuit is possible and can be won.

After that they will probably change the rules and make them worse than now (f.i. 80000B income and 2 million on the bank), but equal for both sexes. This would be a typically Thai reaction.

Edited December 13, 2008 by kriswillems

[Maestro]

Correction: Police Order 777/2551 does not claim to be issued on the basis of the earlier three Police orders I mentioned. The preamble of 777/2551 merely makes reference to them in the context of saying that it is expedient to revise the rules contained in them.

777/2551 is issued directly on the basis of section 35(3) of the Immigration Act and the authority given to the Police Commissioner General to issue such orders.

Nevertheless, it will be important for the preparation of the lawsuit to know the text of the referenced earlier Police Orders.

--

Maestro

[Maestro]

Now that I have looked at Section 35, paragraph 3 of the Immigration Act it is evident that Police Order 777/2551 must be based on a Ministerial Order. From the Immigration Act (highlighting in bold is mine):

Section 34 : aliens entering into the kingdom for a temporary stay may enter for the below listed activities;

1. Diplomatic or Consular Missions.

2. Performance of official duties.

3. Touring

4. Sporting

5. Business

6. Investing under the concurrence of the Ministries and Departments concerned.

7. Investing or other activities relating to investing subject to the provisions of the law on

investment promotion.

8. Transit journey.

9. Being the person in charge of the crew of a conveyance coming to port, station , or area in

the Kingdom.

10. Study or observation.

11. Mass media.

12. Missionary work under the concurrence of the Ministries and departments concerned.

13. Scientific research or training or teach in a Research Institute in the Kingdom.

14. The practice of skilled handicraft or as a specialist

15. Other activities as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations.

Section 35 : The Director General or the competent official deputized by the Director General shall have the authority to permit the alien , who entered to stay temporarily in the Kingdom under Section 34 , to remain in the Kingdom under any prescribed conditions. The periods of time which one is authorized to stay in the Kingdom are as Follows :

1. Not exceeding 30 days for a case under Section 34 (4) , (8) and ( 9 )

2. Not exceeding 90 days for a case under Section 34 (3)

3. Not exceeding one year for a case under Section 34 (5) , (10), (11) , (12), (13) , (14) and (15)

…

The permission to stay for a foreigner to visit his Thai wife and subsequent extensions of stay for the reason of living with his wife in Thailand clearly fall under paragraph 15 of Section 34 of the Immigration Act, which means that the “Director General”, the term used in the Immigration Act for what is called the “Commissioner General” in the translation of the Police Orders, cannot issue the rule for this type of extension directly based on the Immigration Act. If there is no relevant Ministerial Order, the validity of clause 2.18 of Police Order 777/2551 can be contested on this basis alone. This means checking back on previous Police Order for this type of extension of stay until you find one that is validly based on a Ministerial regulation and then contest that Police Order.

Caution: if and when a favourable court ruling confirming that the currently valid rules do not treat Thai men and woman equally regarding the ability of having their foreign spouses live with them the result may well be that the extension rule that now reads “In case of marriage with a Thai lady, the husband who is an alien must have…” could be changed to “In case of marriage with a Thai national, the spouse who is an alien must have…”, thus making it gender-neutral and meaning that nothing is gained for the foreign husband but the rules are stricter for the foreign wife.

Therefore, think carefully before you invest in this venture of a law suit. You may win in court but gain nothing.

--

Maestro

[CosmicSurfer]

Caution: if and when a favourable court ruling confirming that the currently valid rules do not treat Thai men and woman equally regarding the ability of having their foreign spouses live with them the result may well be that the extension rule that now reads “In case of marriage with a Thai lady, the husband who is an alien must have…” could be changed to “In case of marriage with a Thai national, the spouse who is an alien must have…”, thus making it gender-neutral and meaning that nothing is gained for the foreign husband but the rules are stricter for the foreign wife.

Therefore, think carefully before you invest in this venture of a law suit. You may win in court but gain nothing.

--

Maestro

Ahhh... But then Thai culture plays-out in our favor.... As I bet that 9,999 out of 10,000 Thai male + Farang Female marriages are with a Hi-So Thai male.. Not a Low-So one..... which isn't meant to say that there aren't some Farang women out there that fall in love with an Issan Rice Farmer, and go back to the Land, so to speak... If so, all the more power to them!

However, a Hi-So Thai male that is about to lose his Right to have his wife live with him... Or force him to have his wife Get a job and earn a living... That just won't ever happen...

No Government would be able to get away with taking away the rights of a Thai Hi-So male.

Furthermore, remember that this 40K income must come from Outside Thailand... If it is earned in Thailand, then a Work Permit is required... and an "O" Visa that is linked to a Work Permit and Thai earned income opens up a whole other Can of worms... Imagine she loses her Job... Her Work Permit gert cancelled... Her Visa which is tied to her Thai earned income and Work permit also gets cancelled.... and then she has to leave Thailand that SAME day, to apply for another Visa...

This will NEVER Happen.

CS

[Maestro]

…Furthermore, remember that this 40K income must come from Outside Thailand…

I know you wrote the whole post in jest but lest there be any misunderstanding about the above, there is nothing about that in the extension rules although some misguided immigration officers apparently have been asking for evidence that where an application was based on money in the bank (not on income) that money had to come from abroad.

--

Maestro