El Aprendizaje-Servicio y su implicación en la formación ciudadana

Statelessness in Thailand also arises from the failure of the civil registration survey due to registering errors. The Phibunsongkhram government (1938–1944) thought about issuing a national identity card in 1942 followed by the National Identity Card Act B.E. 2486 (1943). However, implementation was delayed for 10 years due to lack of resources.

The first Thai identity card was issued in 1953 for the residents of Bangkok and Thon Buri ‘to furnish a legal proof of identity, to facilitate law enforcement officials’ efforts to combat crime, to indicate eligibility for social services and to be a means of verifying voting rights at elections’ (Ramasoota 2000, p.87). The nationwide ID card was issued by the Sarit government in 1962–1965 as a result of the large influx of refugees from Laos and Cambodia who migrated into Thai territory (Ramasoota 2000). The card was meant to prevent and control illegal border crossings, although it was difficult to differentiate the Thais from the non-Thai who already lived in the country.

In 1956, the Civil Registration Act B.E. 2499 (1956) was passed to underpin the conduct of a nationwide civil registration survey. Civil registration aims ‘to serve as legal evidence of [an] individual’ and ‘to promote national security’ (Ramasoota 2000, p.99). However, this survey failed to include everyone in the country due to the restructure of the census office of the Ministry of Interior’s Local Administration Department into the Registration Administration Bureau. Insufficient technology for record keeping, difficult access to the local villages in remote areas, and lack of government interest contributed to this outcome (Waas et al. 2015). At the same time, with limited access to government information, many Indigenous people along the border had difficulty accessing the survey. As a result, they remained unregistered and undocumented. Without an identity document, they are invisible to the Thai authorities. Hence, local officials categorised them as stateless people (NGO representative, in-depth interview, Mae Sot, Tak province, 7 September 2014).

Case Study 2: Boon’s Case

Boon’s parents were born before the Nationality Act 1913 was put into effect. They should be recognised as Thai nationals according to customary law, and Boon should have Thai citizenship derived from his parents according to the jus sanguinis principle. Unfortunately, Boon’s mother was away when the survey was conducted in 1956. She was then excluded from the survey and deprived of Thai citizenship. Boon was born in 1941 in Chiang Mai province, and has been facing the problem of being a stateless person since birth up to 1999. Boon has tried very hard to provide

1. His parents’ birth certificates to prove that they were born in Thailand before 1913.

2. His connection with his parents such as local witnesses in his communities or his DNA result that connects him with his parents.

Source: NGO representative, in-depth interview, Chiang Mai province, 20 November 2014

Boon’s case is exceptional. Eventually, after struggling for a long time to prove his Thai citizenship, through the civil register survey and nationality law combined, Boon’s statelessness ended in 1999, when his first Thai identity card was issued. Since his 58th birthday, he has been able to enjoy his Thai citizenship (stateless person, in-depth interview, Chiang Mai province, 2014).

This good fortune has not applied in every case. Many people missed the survey. The Thai authorities forced them to hold an identification document entitled ‘Displaced Person with Burmese Nationality’ during 1977–1979 to end the survey process quickly.

The identity card and household registration perform important roles in demonstrating the state’s power over its subjects. As Laungaramsri (2014) argues, these documents reflect on ‘the establishment of citizenship by binding body, identity and citizenship together’ (p. 147). The practice of issuing identity cards and household registration allows the state to have fixed, direct contact and enforcement ‘between its ruling bureaucracy

and its citizenry’ (Laungaramsri 2014, p.147). Without the official document, the government does not recognise the individual’s existence.

Case Study 3: Sun Sun’s Case

Sun Sun’s father is one of the ethnic minority people who has been going back and forth between Thailand and Myanmar. When the household survey was conducted in his province, he was away in Myanmar. Without knowing that the survey was being conducted, he could not make his way to participate in the survey on time, even though his settlement was in Tak province. Only a month later, after returning to Thailand, his name was absent from the household registration document. Sun Sun’s father was forced to accept the ‘Displaced Person with Burmese Nationality’ card. By holding this card, Sun Sun’s father is categorised as an alien who entered Thailand illegally, but is permitted to reside in Thailand temporarily. This card deprived him and his children of acquiring Thai citizenship. As his child, Sun Sun is not recognised as a Thai citizen, although she was born in Thailand.

Source: Stateless youth, FGD, Chiang Mai province, 10 November 2014

The Thai government has divided a group of stateless persons or ‘a person with no roots’ into four categories. According to limited data provided publicly in 2011 by the Registration Administration, Ministry of Interior, these people are assumed to have entered the country illegally, because they have no proof of identification. These people are categorised into different groups due to different places and times when registration has occurred. However, the four groups can be categorised by the identity number that appears in identity documents provided by the Thai government (Achavanitkul 2011).

Table 4.2: Number of people who are registered as ‘stateless people and people with no roots’ in Thailand in 2010

Registration Categories Number

1. Total ethnic minority and descendants 303,610

2. Absent from household registration 210,182

3. Transnational migrant labourers from Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos

2,487,015

4. Refugees from Myanmar in Thailand who live in temporary shelters provided by the Government

102,664

Total 3,103,471

Source: Achavanitkul (2011)

Figure 4.5: Percentage of people registered as ‘stateless people and people with no roots’ in Thailand in 2010

Source: Achavanitkul (2011)

The recent official number of registered stateless people in Thailand is 438,821 (Jedsadachaiyut and Al-jasem 2016; Rakkanam 2017). However UNHCR believed that the total number of stateless people in Thailand ranges between two to three and a half million, because many people, including Karen, Mon, Hmong and Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar, are not registered with the Thai government (Waas et al. 2015; Rakkanam

10% 7%

80% 3%

Ethnic minority and Descendants

Disappear from household registration

Transnational migrant labourers

2017). According to the Faculty of Law, Thammasat University (Thairath Online 2015; Saisoonthorn 2003), stateless people in Thailand are of two kinds. The first group is about 200,000–300,000 children who do not have citizenship. Most are from neighbouring countries, including Myanmar. The second group is stateless people who are not registered in the civil registration system of any country. Without the official data, UNHCR (2013) estimated that there are more than 54,000 unregistered asylum-seekers in nine camps along the Thailand–Myanmar border. Most of them are ethnic minorities such as Karen and Mon in Thailand.

Their statelessness has been transferred to their descendants. The problem of law enforcement and the narrow legal category applied in the past have negative consequences for the recent generation of stateless children and young adults who were born and reside in the country.

Case Study 4: Mon Mon’s Case

Mon Mon’s father was one of those who missed the civil register survey. Mon Mon was born in 1994 in Thailand’s public hospital in Chiang Mai. Due to his father not being in the household registration document, Mon Mon’s birth registration indicated his status as ‘the person who was absent from the household registration’. Because of this, he was excluded from acquiring Thai citizenship. His right was limited to being a stateless person residing in Thailand.

Source: Parent of stateless youth, in-depth interview, Chiang Mai province, 18 November 2014

This situation also applies to at least 210,182 people who were absent from the household registration (Achavanitkul 2011).

Case Study 5: Saw Pu’s Case

Parents of Saw Pu are ethnic Karen living along the Thailand– Myanmar border. Before Saw Pu was born, her parents regularly visited their family in Karen state in Myanmar. Saw Pu’s mother

was examined by the Thai authorities. Since she could not provide any evidence of her birth to the state, she received the identity number from the Thai authorities beginning with the number ‘6’. Without knowing it, Saw Pu’s mother was already legally categorised as ethnic minority, or stateless person, by the Thai state. Since it did not make any change to her life, she paid no attention to it.

However, when Saw Pu was born in a public hospital in Mae Sot, her mother’s identity number made Saw Pu hold an identity number beginning with number ‘7’ as she is recognised as a child of an ethnic minority, but not a Thai citizen, although she was born in Thailand, educated in Thai schools, and speaks and writes Thai perfectly. Her rights and freedoms are restricted by the state authority.

Source: Stateless youth, FGD, Mae Sot, Tak province, 20 September 2014