Refugees from Nine Camps to Receive Thai Work Permits

For ethnic Burmese (Burman) and non-Burman communities alike, this policy shift provides a possible opening — but only if advocacy ensures accountability, equity, and protection. Below are key advocacy imperatives:

1. Universal inclusion and non-discrimination

Permits must not be restricted only to majority Burmese or certain camps. Policies should explicitly safeguard inclusion of ethnic minorities (Karen, Kachin, Chin, Shan, Rohingya, etc.). The application process must be linguistically accessible and culturally sensitive.

2. Due process, transparency, and procedural fairness

The application and renewal procedures must be clearly defined, accessible, and protected by appeals. Permits should not be arbitrarily revoked, and migrants must have recourse to due process in case of disputes.

3. Labor protections and decent work standards

Permit holders should enjoy parity in labor rights: minimum wage, overtime, occupational safety, social security, and the right to organize. Mechanisms should be in place to monitor employer abuses and ensure remediation.

4. Safeguards against refoulement and forced return

No refugee should be deported to Myanmar, especially if they would face persecution, forced conscription, or violence. Thailand must reaffirm the principle of non-refoulement even though it is not a refugee convention signatory. Refworld+2Cornell Law Scholarship+2

5. Pathways to long-term protection

This policy should be a stepping stone to durable solutions: longer-term residency, legal status, or even citizenship in Thailand, or safe voluntary repatriation when possible. Advocacy must push for integrating refugees into national frameworks rather than perpetual temporariness.

6. Monitoring, accountability, and independent oversight

Civil society, including ethnic Burmese organizations, must be allowed to monitor implementation, report abuses, and advocate for reform. Transparency of permit issuance, revocation, and labor outcomes is essential.

7. Social integration and public awareness

To counter xenophobia, awareness campaigns are needed to highlight the contributions of refugees, dispel myths, and build social acceptance. Educational and cultural exchanges can foster empathy across communities.

8. Cross-border coordination and protection in Myanmar

Support must continue for communities within Myanmar, including displaced ethnic groups and those resisting junta violence. Advocacy should ensure that refugees are not coerced to return prematurely to unsafe conditions.

Comparative and Regional Perspective

Thailand’s move, though incremental, aligns with a broader shift in Southeast Asia toward recognizing refugee contributions rather than only burdens. But the region has mixed precedents.

• Malaysia and Indonesia often tolerate undocumented migrants but grant few formal rights or protections.

• Cambodia and Philippines have experimented with localized refugee integration, yet with limited rights.

• Uganda, Colombia, and Kenya in Africa have taken more progressive steps, granting work rights and settlement to refugees — models from which Thailand might learn.

Within Thailand, this policy shift may reflect growing recognition that refugees can be an asset, especially amid labor shortages (exacerbated by the departure of Cambodian workers). Laotian Times+2Reuters+2

However, it must not reproduce patterns of “selective inclusion,” where only certain groups are permitted rights, while others remain marginalized.

Conclusion

Thailand’s decision to allow Myanmar refugees in certain border camps to work legally is a welcome, though cautious, step forward. For ethnic Burmese communities — long victimized by the Myanmar junta’s violence and Thailand’s restrictive refugee regime — it offers both opportunity and risk.

If implemented well, this policy can help break the cycles of dependency and marginalization — enabling refugees to earn dignity, support families, and engage in economic life. But if left unchecked, it may simply create a second-class workforce, vulnerable to abuse and exclusion.

For advocacy groups, the task is urgent: to press for inclusive, transparent, rights-based implementation; to monitor and protect permit holders; and to demand that this policy become a foundation for true inclusion — not a temporary patch.

The voices of ethnic Burmese communities — Karen, Chin, Shan, Kachin, Rohingya, and others — must be centered in designing the policy, not treated as passive beneficiaries. Only then can this shift be more than symbolic: a real turning point toward justice, dignity, and self-determination.

References

Baek, Bum Seok. Myanmarese Refugees in Thailand: The Need for Effective Protection Mechanisms. Cornell Law School, 2008. Cornell Law Scholarship
Brees, Inge. “The Impact of Burmese Refugees on Thailand.” The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, 2012. TLTC Blogs |
Chen, W. T. Myanmar migrants living along the Thailand–Myanmar border. DirecScience, 2024. ScienceDirect
Khai, Tual Sawn. “Unsafe at Home and Vulnerable Abroad: The Struggle of Forgotten Myanmar Asylum Seekers and Migrants in Thailand Post-Coup d’État.” Social Sciences, 2025. MDPI
Pechdin, Watchara, and Mokbul Morshed Ahmad. “A Glimpse into the Minds of Thais: Unveiling the Factors Influencing Thai Local Attitudes towards Myanmar Refugees.” Migration Letters, vol. 20, no. 2, 2023. Joint Data Center
“Thailand grants some Myanmar refugees right to legal work.” Reuters, 27 Aug. 2025. Reuters
“UN hails Thai decision to let Myanmar refugees work.” Bangkok Post, 27 Aug. 2025. Bangkok Post
“Thailand grants Myanmar refugees legal work status.” Laotian Times, 30 Aug. 2025. Laotian Times
“Myanmar refugees now allowed to work in Thailand.” Bangkok Post. Bangkok Post