Us Blacklists Thailand Over Child, Forced Labour

[WinnieTheKhwai]

US blacklists Thailand over child, forced labour

By The Nation

Published on November 27, 2009

US blacklists Thailand over child, forced labour

The US has pushed forward a law allowing tough measures on manufacturers who reportedly use children or forced labour, a senior official said yesterday.

Labour Protection and Welfare Department chief Amporn Nitisiri said the US Labour Department had issued a list of countries, which says that Thailand uses child or forced labour in the productions of shrimps, textiles, sugar cane and pornographic materials. She went on to say that US legislators had also proposed the Customs Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Reauthorization Act, which bans the import of goods made by children, forced labourers or victims of human trafficking.

Meanwhile, the labour protection department is consulting with the Foreign and Commerce ministries on how to respond to these accusations and get Thailand removed from the list, she said. The department is also going to host a conference about the impact of selling goods made by child or forced labour on December 14 in Bangkok. The event, meant for Thai employers in the shrimp and textile industries, will be cosponsored by the International Labour Organisation.

Amporn confirmed that under Thai law, children under the age of 15 are prohibited from employment, and that those between 15 and 18 years of age can only be employed if official permission is sought first. She said that it might appear as if young children are being used in factories because some foreign workers bring their children to work - something that needs to be explained to US authorities.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/11/27...al_30117484.php

[Reported this article to request moving to News Clippings]

Edited November 27, 2009 by WinnieTheKhwai

[WinnieTheKhwai]

It's interesting though not unexpected that the natural knee-jerk reaction in the government is to blame foreigners.. "She said that it might appear as if young children are being used in factories because some foreign workers bring their children to work."

Sure.

[givenall]

It's interesting though not unexpected that the natural knee-jerk reaction in the government is to blame foreigners.. "She said that it might appear as if young children are being used in factories because some foreign workers bring their children to work."

Sure.

Blame it on Wallmart

[dsprtliving]

It's interesting though not unexpected that the natural knee-jerk reaction in the government is to blame foreigners.. "She said that it might appear as if young children are being used in factories because some foreign workers bring their children to work."

Sure.

That was the first thing i noticed about the article as well. I'd bet she'd be talking about the "khmers" as Thais of course would never put kids to work. I'd be interested to hear her attempt to "explain" this to the relevant authorities!

[TAWP]

What is it that makes government in the West think they can impose their own morality as to when a person should be working and earning money? I am sure they would be more proud if the kids was out stealing, starving and/or abusing drugs and dying at a young age. You know, the LA way...

One of the most significant failures regarding this 'protect the children' hysteria is that it has missed the point ('save the children'), as seen when factory-owners in India and Nepal got caught up in boycott-calls, their western customers imposing trade-rules and the companies then summarily dismissed all underage (by western standard) workers, leaving them to poverty.

Even UNICEF write of the plight caused in Bangladesh after the Child Labor Deterrence Act was introduced in the US, an estimated 50,000 children were dismissed from their garment industry jobs, leaving many to resort to jobs such as "stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution", jobs that are "more hazardous and exploitative than garment production". The study suggests that boycotts are "blunt instruments with long-term consequences, that can actually harm rather than help the children involved."

( http://www.unicef.org/sowc97/report/ )

Edited November 27, 2009 by TAWP

[scratt]

What is it that makes government in the West think they can impose their own morality as to when a person should be working and earning money? I am sure they would be more proud if the kids was out stealing, starving and/or abusing drugs and dying at a young age. You know, the LA way...

One of the most significant failures regarding this 'protect the children' hysteria is that it has missed the point ('save the children'), as seen when factory-owners in India and Nepal got caught up in boycott-calls, their western customers imposing trade-rules and the companies then summarily dismissed all underage (by western standard) workers, leaving them to poverty.

Even UNICEF write of the plight caused in Bangladesh after the Child Labor Deterrence Act was introduced in the US, an estimated 50,000 children were dismissed from their garment industry jobs, leaving many to resort to jobs such as "stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution", jobs that are "more hazardous and exploitative than garment production". The study suggests that boycotts are "blunt instruments with long-term consequences, that can actually harm rather than help the children involved."

( http://www.unicef.org/sowc97/report/ )

I agree with you. It's simply not possible for one country to apply it's value system to others.

Just as it's not possible to bring political systems from your own country to others that have a different culture / dynamic.

Unfortunately this is what the British Empire tried to do, and now the "US Empire" is revisiting the sins of it's parents.

[dkstoney]

What is it that makes government in the West think they can impose their own morality as to when a person should be working and earning money? I am sure they would be more proud if the kids was out stealing, starving and/or abusing drugs and dying at a young age. You know, the LA way...

One of the most significant failures regarding this 'protect the children' hysteria is that it has missed the point ('save the children'), as seen when factory-owners in India and Nepal got caught up in boycott-calls, their western customers imposing trade-rules and the companies then summarily dismissed all underage (by western standard) workers, leaving them to poverty.

Even UNICEF write of the plight caused in Bangladesh after the Child Labor Deterrence Act was introduced in the US, an estimated 50,000 children were dismissed from their garment industry jobs, leaving many to resort to jobs such as "stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution", jobs that are "more hazardous and exploitative than garment production". The study suggests that boycotts are "blunt instruments with long-term consequences, that can actually harm rather than help the children involved."

( http://www.unicef.org/sowc97/report/ )

I agree with you. It's simply not possible for one country to apply it's value system to others.

Just as it's not possible to bring political systems from your own country to others that have a different culture / dynamic.

Unfortunately this is what the British Empire tried to do, and now the "US Empire" is revisiting the sins of it's parents.

How about just putting them in school and teaching them a few things that might keep them out of the workplace where they are easily intimidated and off the streets where they find trouble?

[ThaiRich]

What is it that makes government in the West think they can impose their own morality as to when a person should be working and earning money? I am sure they would be more proud if the kids was out stealing, starving and/or abusing drugs and dying at a young age. You know, the LA way...

One of the most significant failures regarding this 'protect the children' hysteria is that it has missed the point ('save the children'), as seen when factory-owners in India and Nepal got caught up in boycott-calls, their western customers imposing trade-rules and the companies then summarily dismissed all underage (by western standard) workers, leaving them to poverty.

Even UNICEF write of the plight caused in Bangladesh after the Child Labor Deterrence Act was introduced in the US, an estimated 50,000 children were dismissed from their garment industry jobs, leaving many to resort to jobs such as "stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution", jobs that are "more hazardous and exploitative than garment production". The study suggests that boycotts are "blunt instruments with long-term consequences, that can actually harm rather than help the children involved."

( http://www.unicef.org/sowc97/report/ )

I agree with you. It's simply not possible for one country to apply it's value system to others.

Just as it's not possible to bring political systems from your own country to others that have a different culture / dynamic.

Unfortunately this is what the British Empire tried to do, and now the "US Empire" is revisiting the sins of it's parents.

The United States is not forcing it's values on others. It is simply stating if you use child/forced labor we will not allow your products to be imported. It's up to the individual countries to decide if that want to export to the U.S. or not. The choice is up to the countries to do what they want.

Edited November 27, 2009 by ThaiRich

[M555]

What is it that makes government in the West think they can impose their own morality as to when a person should be working and earning money? I am sure they would be more proud if the kids was out stealing, starving and/or abusing drugs and dying at a young age. You know, the LA way...

One of the most significant failures regarding this 'protect the children' hysteria is that it has missed the point ('save the children'), as seen when factory-owners in India and Nepal got caught up in boycott-calls, their western customers imposing trade-rules and the companies then summarily dismissed all underage (by western standard) workers, leaving them to poverty.

Even UNICEF write of the plight caused in Bangladesh after the Child Labor Deterrence Act was introduced in the US, an estimated 50,000 children were dismissed from their garment industry jobs, leaving many to resort to jobs such as "stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution", jobs that are "more hazardous and exploitative than garment production". The study suggests that boycotts are "blunt instruments with long-term consequences, that can actually harm rather than help the children involved."

( http://www.unicef.org/sowc97/report/ )

I agree with you. It's simply not possible for one country to apply it's value system to others.

Just as it's not possible to bring political systems from your own country to others that have a different culture / dynamic.

Unfortunately this is what the British Empire tried to do, and now the "US Empire" is revisiting the sins of it's parents.

I bet that you are mad that the Japanese and Germans did not take over the world. But those Americans and British had nothing to do but to fight these poor people who just had a different value system.

[IanForbes]

Thai kids grow up where their parents work. It's just natural for them to do the things their parents do in an every day situation. It would only be the factories where there could be a problem. Even then the researchers could possibly be mistaken. Very often young Thai women look much younger than they actually are.

I can't say I approve of the flower children that haunt the bars at night and seldom go to school.

kids helping out with family owned businesses hardly qualifies as child labour.

[h90]

Is their child work in Thailand? I never thought so.

(I don't see a child helping mum running the restaurant after school as child work)

[toybits]

I go to this noodle shop and noticed that many of the helpers at the shop were Burmese. One of the shop keepers said that they had to pay a 50 thousand baht fee to get official papers to allow these Burmese workers into Thailand.

I just wonder whether these Burmese workers are working under slave-labor-like conditions and whether any of their personal documents are kept by the Thai employers to prevent the Burmese laborers from running away.

[Maizefarmer]

Excellent and long overdue - perhaps now the Western brandname owners whose clothes we Westerners wear everyday that are made in contract- factories along the Thai/Burmese border will now sit up and take notice. I have been inside some of those factories and have seen the conditions that kids live and work in - shocking!

Edited November 27, 2009 by Maizefarmer

[Asa]

The U.S. is fighting to safe their economy, trade deficit. Look at the dollar, gold price, oil price. Best, by building wall preventing easy access of imports from emerging countries. Anti dumping coudl help some, but child labour is hard-to-disputed reason of protetionism. Countries with balanced trade (profitable to U.S.) may only be put on watch-list.

[toybits]

At the Asoke-Din Daeng intersection, there is a group of children that carry some detergent and a sponge. When you stop for the red light at this intersection, the children spring into action - squirt some detergent onto your window, do a very perfunctory cleaning of your car's side window (like 1/3 of the driver's or passengers side window) and the expect to be paid.

Don't know if these are Thai kids or not. But they look like they are being exploited.

[geriatrickid]

The question asked by some

What is it that makes government in the West think they can impose their own morality as to when a person should be working and earning money? I am sure they would be more proud if the kids was out stealing, starving and/or abusing drugs and dying at a young age. You know, the LA way...

The answer is quite simple, it is called being responsive to those groups in the western countries that have asked their respective governments to intervene. You can bet that the people that sell cheap shrimp at the grocery store in Amsterdam, Toronto, Cardiff and Calgary won't be happy, but the groups that advocate on behalf of child welfare, the school kids that have been undertaking lobbying efforts for several years and those people with a sense of social responsibility will understand and support the move.I don't want to buy shrimp that's been harvested by some 5 year old forced to work 10 hours for a few satang. What you don't get is that the use of the child labour allows some suppliers to undercut those suppliers that pay a fair wage and blocks those responsible suppliers from competing. If anything, the western governments are being fair by saying that if we do not allow child labor in our country because the population is opposed to it, we cannot encourage it elsewhere.

You cannot defend the use of child labor in some of these filthy plants. A child should not be cleaning shrimp in a dark factory. And as for your comment about people dying in LA, you watch too many movies. Yes people get shot in LA, but they aren't children running around doing that. For the most part they are young adults aged 17-25. Completely different demographics and circumstances.

The more I look at your statement, the more I realize that it is devoid of any logic. Slavery is illegal in western countries. Because it is endemic to the cocoa plantations of Niger, does that mean we should turn a blind eye to slavery? How is indentured child labor any different than slavery? Fortunately for the western world, the people that share your view are ignored and have no power. I hope it stays that way because I do not need lower prices based on forcing some child to slave for me.

[toybits]

I do agree that this is another geo-political tool that is very easy to use and can be applied subjectively by countries like the US. Other geo-political tools are human rights and religious freedom. What I find annoying is the selective application of these conventions.

The U.S. is fighting to safe their economy, trade deficit. Look at the dollar, gold price, oil price. Best, by building wall preventing easy access of imports from emerging countries. Anti dumping coudl help some, but child labour is hard-to-disputed reason of protetionism. Countries with balanced trade (profitable to U.S.) may only be put on watch-list.

[Jingthing]

Being American I am conflicted about this one.

Yes, Americans do like to see themselves as moral leaders of the world. I am not sure exactly why but it is part of the culture.

On the other hand, we are horrible hypocrites, consuming much more than our fair share of the world's finite resources, including slave labor cocoa, among many other kinds of unethical situations at home.

However, the US remains a diminished but still great world power, and it does at least give lip service to moral issues, and certainly child slave labor and human trafficking etc. are bad things. I can't help but feel that it isn't an entirely bad thing for there to be a major power making noise about these kinds of issues.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Jingthing

[TAWP]

The more I look at your statement, the more I realize that it is devoid of any logic. Slavery is illegal in western countries. Because it is endemic to the cocoa plantations of Niger, does that mean we should turn a blind eye to slavery? How is indentured child labor any different than slavery? Fortunately for the western world, the people that share your view are ignored and have no power. I hope it stays that way because I do not need lower prices based on forcing some child to slave for me.

You show the typical confused reply as I was expecting some to post about.

Slavery has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Slavery is illegal and deplorable.

Young individuals working to make ends meet isn't slavery. Sometimes it is, and this is just being pragmatic, the only way for some to survive.

What is happening in many cases is that the factories are dumping the under-age (often putting the limit at 18 years old to be able to put up a front to the West, even when it is legal for younger individuals to work there) to fend for themselves so they go into the next trade that will take unskilled/modestly skilled labour. What do you think the next stop for these kids are?

Don't also miss that, as stated in the report from UNICEF, only 5% of the cases are in export industry i.e. most kids would never be 'saved' under these imposed restrictions. Heck, a cynic might even say that the addition of 5% workforce to the local market would drive down the wages for the other existing workers. Supply and demand.

Is it a optimal thing that kids work? Of course not. But sometimes we have to think about what the knee-jerk reactions cause in long term effects. There are other ways to help a nation long-term. Free and open trade is one of those ways. But you don't see many people demand all trade-barriers to be removed do you? Hypocrites.

Edited November 27, 2009 by TAWP

[sunnymarky]

The hypocrisy of the US has no bounds in all my 48 years on this panet, whether it be wars, human rights, environment issues, even pornography. The list is endless, it's one thing that will never change whoever is the President.

[rkidlad]

How dare America accuse Thailand (greatest country in whole world) of anything!

If I were the Thai prime minister I would crush America.

Thailand has never been colonised and is greatest country in whole world!

[ableguy]

At the Asoke-Din Daeng intersection, there is a group of children that carry some detergent and a sponge. When you stop for the red light at this intersection, the children spring into action - squirt some detergent onto your window, do a very perfunctory cleaning of your car's side window (like 1/3 of the driver's or passengers side window) and the expect to be paid.

Don't know if these are Thai kids or not. But they look like they are being exploited.

Ever driven in New York city?

[ThaiRich]

How dare America accuse Thailand (greatest country in whole world) of anything!

If I were the Thai prime minister I would crush America.

Thailand has never been colonised and is greatest country in whole world!

I know your joking. A big laugh from me.

[Spee]

What is it that makes government in the West think they can impose their own morality as to when a person should be working and earning money? I am sure they would be more proud if the kids was out stealing, starving and/or abusing drugs and dying at a young age. You know, the LA way...

Yes, it's a combination of hypocrisy, nosy-buttinski and eroding or already non-existent work ethic in the socialist states of western Europe and neo-socialist USA.

I got up at 5am for a paper route when I was 10 years old, and was working 20 hours a week in restaurants at 14. Nowadays, western governments would rather have all children be wards of the state.

Nothing wrong with kids working, either to support themselves and/or their family, as long as it isn't slave labor or sexual labor and they are also given an opportunity for an education.

[Publicus]

The question asked by some

What is it that makes government in the West think they can impose their own morality as to when a person should be working and earning money? I am sure they would be more proud if the kids was out stealing, starving and/or abusing drugs and dying at a young age. You know, the LA way...

The answer is quite simple, it is called being responsive to those groups in the western countries that have asked their respective governments to intervene. You can bet that the people that sell cheap shrimp at the grocery store in Amsterdam, Toronto, Cardiff and Calgary won't be happy, but the groups that advocate on behalf of child welfare, the school kids that have been undertaking lobbying efforts for several years and those people with a sense of social responsibility will understand and support the move.I don't want to buy shrimp that's been harvested by some 5 year old forced to work 10 hours for a few satang. What you don't get is that the use of the child labour allows some suppliers to undercut those suppliers that pay a fair wage and blocks those responsible suppliers from competing. If anything, the western governments are being fair by saying that if we do not allow child labor in our country because the population is opposed to it, we cannot encourage it elsewhere.

You cannot defend the use of child labor in some of these filthy plants. A child should not be cleaning shrimp in a dark factory. And as for your comment about people dying in LA, you watch too many movies. Yes people get shot in LA, but they aren't children running around doing that. For the most part they are young adults aged 17-25. Completely different demographics and circumstances.

The more I look at your statement, the more I realize that it is devoid of any logic. Slavery is illegal in western countries. Because it is endemic to the cocoa plantations of Niger, does that mean we should turn a blind eye to slavery? How is indentured child labor any different than slavery? Fortunately for the western world, the people that share your view are ignored and have no power. I hope it stays that way because I do not need lower prices based on forcing some child to slave for me.

This is a good statement that rebuts (or precludes) those who advocate that Western 19th century capitalist economics be applied to 21st century developing economies and peoples.

The Customs Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Reauthorization Act referenced in the OP is proposed legislation the US has been trying to enact since Bill Clinton was prez, and now is moving through the US Senate because of the support of Pres Obama. It too would address child labor issues and much more. Presently for example, in Thailand and in other developing countries Customs Facilitation means greasing the palms of customs officers, and Trade Enforcement means non enforcement of such matters as child labor laws, working conditions, workplace safety, worker's compensation for injuries sustained in the workplace and enviromental protections.

Those from the Dark Ages who advocate that the obscene Western 19th century factory conditions be permitted or encouraged in economies such as exist in Thailand also argue against safe and civilized workplaces, conditions of work and compensation for permanently disabling injuries or the proper training to minimize such injuries and much more. They try to present the mid 19th century factory conditions of the West as being humane when applied to the developing economies of the present, and that there isn't any alternative to exploitation, or that primitive conditions in the workplace are unchangable, that environmental protections aren't feasible or affordable. These and other same or similar arguments are obsene because they would preserve the status quo, they would change nothing.

[stkyricesf]

What is it that makes government in the West think they can impose their own morality as to when a person should be working and earning money? I am sure they would be more proud if the kids was out stealing, starving and/or abusing drugs and dying at a young age. You know, the LA way...

One of the most significant failures regarding this 'protect the children' hysteria is that it has missed the point ('save the children'), as seen when factory-owners in India and Nepal got caught up in boycott-calls, their western customers imposing trade-rules and the companies then summarily dismissed all underage (by western standard) workers, leaving them to poverty.

Even UNICEF write of the plight caused in Bangladesh after the Child Labor Deterrence Act was introduced in the US, an estimated 50,000 children were dismissed from their garment industry jobs, leaving many to resort to jobs such as "stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution", jobs that are "more hazardous and exploitative than garment production". The study suggests that boycotts are "blunt instruments with long-term consequences, that can actually harm rather than help the children involved."

( http://www.unicef.org/sowc97/report/ )

TAWP,

I totally agree totally with you. I wish westerners would stop trying to enforce their so called values on everyone in the world. Many countries have survived for centuries before the USA was even born. Let them take care of their own problems before being so self rightous.

[xminator]

What is it that makes government in the West think they can impose their own morality as to when a person should be working and earning money? I am sure they would be more proud if the kids was out stealing, starving and/or abusing drugs and dying at a young age. You know, the LA way...

One of the most significant failures regarding this 'protect the children' hysteria is that it has missed the point ('save the children'), as seen when factory-owners in India and Nepal got caught up in boycott-calls, their western customers imposing trade-rules and the companies then summarily dismissed all underage (by western standard) workers, leaving them to poverty.

Even UNICEF write of the plight caused in Bangladesh after the Child Labor Deterrence Act was introduced in the US, an estimated 50,000 children were dismissed from their garment industry jobs, leaving many to resort to jobs such as "stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution", jobs that are "more hazardous and exploitative than garment production". The study suggests that boycotts are "blunt instruments with long-term consequences, that can actually harm rather than help the children involved."

( http://www.unicef.org/sowc97/report/ )

Are you really trying to defend child labour?

[geovalin]

I do not approve Western countries in this matter but when I read the Thai official telling "it might appear as if young children are being used in factories because some foreign workers bring their children to work - something that needs to be explained to US authorities.", meaning "Burmese children are not human being so we do not care and enforce the law for Thai citizens". I'm sorry but I puke.

[wintermute]

I do not approve Western countries in this matter but when I read the Thai official telling "it might appear as if young children are being used in factories because some foreign workers bring their children to work - something that needs to be explained to US authorities.", meaning "Burmese children are not human being so we do not care and enforce the law for Thai citizens". I'm sorry but I puke.

I've never seen any kind of honest discourse coming from Thai politicians or bureaucrats. There is no introspection and you better believe they will stick their noses up in the air and deflect any criticism. It's what they are conditioned to do.

With that being said I think this is one instance where they are perfectly justified in giving a stupid explanation to a stupid accusation. Railing against human rights, etc.. are just a method to control trade and enact protectionist policies against various nations. The U.S. has never and probably will never care about real humanitarian causes.

[catmac]

What is it that makes government in the West think they can impose their own morality as to when a person should be working and earning money? I am sure they would be more proud if the kids was out stealing, starving and/or abusing drugs and dying at a young age. You know, the LA way...

Yes, it's a combination of hypocrisy, nosy-buttinski and eroding or already non-existent work ethic in the socialist states of western Europe and neo-socialist USA.

I got up at 5am for a paper route when I was 10 years old, and was working 20 hours a week in restaurants at 14. Nowadays, western governments would rather have all children be wards of the state.

Nothing wrong with kids working, either to support themselves and/or their family, as long as it isn't slave labor or sexual labor and they are also given an opportunity for an education.

Well said, TAWP and Spee. What the do-gooders fail to realise is that in the West the transition from child labour/ghastly factory conditions/etc. to the present, was a long and gradual process, that went hand in hand with improvements in education and living standards, and the emancipation of the labouring classes. Given time, this same progress will take place in Thailand and in other countries that, at present, fail to meet our high standards.

Like others here, I see this more as an act of protectionism on the part of the US Government, rather than any real concern or care for the so-called "exploited".