“We are Thai people who live in Thailand.” This saying is so familiar to our ears that we often assume the people and the country are the same thing. In fact, ethnicity, race, nationality, and country are all distinct.   

When the term ‘Thai’ is used both in the context of territory and people, it conjures the mental image that only Thai people are found in Thailand.

Thus, we tend to think that people in Cambodia are Cambodian, where, in fact, the majority of the Cambodian population is Khmer, which, by itself, contains its own subgroups.

Likewise, the population of Thailand belongs to many ethnicities.

According to the Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre, there are more than 60 ethnic groups in Thailand when classified by the self-identified names, including Thai, Karen, Lao Song, Bon (Nyah Kur), Bru, Moken, etc. Linguistically, there are as many as 70 language groups divided into 5 different families.

When asking individuals living in Thailand to explore more in-depth into the ethnic breakdown, almost all of them could provide nuances and details beyond just being Thai. We all come from different families, each with its own diverse background. That diversity tends to be overlooked or made invisible.

From Siam to Thailand

Evidences show that Thailand is situated in a part of Southeast Asia that has seen regular migration of and contacts between different groups of people in the course of its thousand-year-old history. Therefore, this area is inhabited by people of a wide range of ethnicity.

Sujit Wongthes explains that the ancestry of Thai people are the ethnic groups local to the northern part of Southeast Asia, including Hmong, Mien, and Tibeto-Burman families including Karen. The southernmost group is Malay. All of these ethnicities precede the ‘Thai’ ethnic group.

The turning point which solidified the sense of Thainess, and the result of the corrosion of diversity, can be traced back to the Kingdom of Siam during the reign of King Rama V (1868-1910). Sandwiched between the colonizing power, Siam managed to successfully clearly demarcate its nation-state territory along the natural borders. It hoped that a clear boundary would safeguard its territory. However, as the move did not take into account cultural boundaries, various groups of people were forced to become subjects of the same nation-state. Meanwhile, people with a common background were separated, for instance, the Karen people in Western Thailand share the language, culture, and history with those opposite the border in Myanmar.

The centralized administration and the intensive nation building process at that time rendered the cultures of ethnic groups who lived in the forests or remote towns eccentric and ridiculous, and needed to be governed by centrally-appointed elites.

Another important turning point happened during the government of Field Marshal Plaek Phibunsongkhram (1938-1957), when he renamed the country from Siam to Thailand and implemented policies strengthening Thai cultural unity and assimilating the people within one culture. Announcements were made to require people to do things that reflected the lack of promotion of secondary and ethnic cultures, such as to use the central Thai dialect, to dress a certain way, or to preserve the Thai culture.

More recently, Apinan Thamsena, scholar at the Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre, pointed out that Thainess was notably utilized during the anti-communist campaign.

“The conflict got more intense again during the Cold War. Some ethnic groups who lived along the borders were seen as a subject of national security”. Apinan further explained that the state followed two approaches. One was that of assimilation, which was felt most strongly among the people in the northeast. The other was otherization, for example, the portrayal of some hilltribe people, like Hmong, as drug traffickers.

Diversity, Security, and Thainess

Several decades later after the end of the colonialization period and the Cold War, even though the fear of communism did not play such an influential role as before, it is undeniable that the concept of Thainess has already taken deep roots in Thai society while ethnic groups are still perceived with a tinge of biases.

According to Apinan, the development of Thainess concept since 1987 was more open towards ethnic groups, provided that they could still be managed by the state. The state also took the position of a charity worker rather than valued their human dignity.

Ten years later, progress was made by the 1997 Constitution by addressing human rights and community rights. Many relevant parties began to ‘see’ ethnicity. Even so, the increased attention on ethnic people still focused mostly on the cultural aspects rather than ensuring their genuine participation in the natural resource management.

In 2007, Thailand signed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which acknowledges basic rights of indigenous peoples, such as land, territory, natural resources, self-determination, and free consent. While its concept has effectively enhanced the public awareness, Apinan believed that ethnicity is still framed as a part of cultural tourism rather than ethnic groups gaining rights to self-management.  

“The concepts of diversity and rights of ethnic groups in Thailand remain largely paradoxical. We can see that the state’s mindset is still based on national security, which takes precedence over human security and human dignity”.

“Therefore, the kind of diversity deemed acceptable mainly involves those not affecting national security, for example, the beauty of costumes, languages, and cultures. It does not cover a more profound side of it as that may disturb the administrative power in that area”, said Apinan.

In conclusion, the ethnic acceptance as mentioned above simply refers to the acknowledgement of diversity based on policies that, in themselves, lack diversity. That is, as long as the ethnic diversity does not cross the line determined by the state, that diversity is acceptable. However, once it does, as in matters related to resources, national security immediately gains importance.

Nowadays, the world acknowledges and values diversity. Human security has become a global agenda that has been converted into national policies in many countries. To co-exist with understanding, to respect different cultures, and to return basic rights to the ethnic citizens have become a solution to many outstanding human rights and humanitarian problems resulted from the conventional nation-state building, which focused on a single culture.

Thailand has gradually recognized ethnic diversity since the 1997 Constitution. Section 70 of the current 2017 Constitution provides a protection for Thai citizens of ethnic minorities allowing them to peacefully and voluntarily live in the society according to their culture, tradition, and way of life.

Since 2019, there has been a push for several draft bills relating to ethnic minorities in order to advance the recognition of rights and traditional way of life of the ethnic minorities in Thailand. The common core theme of these drafts focuses on granting personal status, promoting equality based on cultural diversity, creating protecting mechanisms for ethnic people, and empowering ethnic communities.

Despite the lengthy and complicated law and policy making process, the enactment of a legislation that protects the ethnic minorities will serve as a solid base and starting point for a recognition of ethnic minority rights for Thailand.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sources

Most Thai citizens are familiar with visiting the district office to apply for the blue Thai national ID card when they turn 15 or 7 years old.

People holding a Thai ID card usually think of it as a means to verify themselves when doing a financial transaction or to receive certain benefits. Meanwhile, those without the card often associate it with the lack or the restriction of certain rights, even though many of them were born and raised in Thailand.

According to the 2020 data of the Department of Provincial Administration, there are 539,696 individuals without nationality in Thailand. The fact that so many people who were born and raised here remain stateless is because society and law perceive ethnic groups as others. They don’t see the diversity that was buried under the nation-state building and Thai-ization process. However, after the intense period of the nation-building era has ended, the public understanding of diversity began to gain momentum, both in academia and society at large.

Where does the Thai nationality come from?

In the most basic sense, nationality comes from birth. One either has a Thai nationality because his/her parents’ nationality is Thai or birthplace is Thailand.

Thailand had relied on this approach to nationality until an announcement was released by the government in 1972. The document added a condition to the birthplace criteria so that people who were born in Thailand would only be eligible for Thai nationality when both parents are not foreigners with temporary or illegal immigration status. The announcement was also to take effect retroactively. The move was the result of the fear of communist expansion.

Consequently, many Thais whose parents were temporary or illegal migrants who had previously received their nationality by their birthplace now had their nationality revoked. Even though this announcement was later annulled by the Nationality Act (Version 2), the nationality criterion related to the birthplace and parents’ status remains valid until today.  

In addition to nationality by birth, the legal process became another channel through which individuals may obtain nationality. Thanks to a continuous struggle for status recognition.

However, in reality, not everyone gets their nationality immediately after he/she has been registered. Many steps and challenges, including the nationality verification process, await.

The challenges in the nationality verification process

The nationality verification process is complicated. Understanding groups and categories of nationality verification applicants alone is not an easy task.

Law and policy require that the nationality verification applicant submit numerous supporting documents, which may not necessarily be realistic for some to access, including ancestry documents, birth certificate, academic diploma, etc. The older generation, for instance, tends not to possess any personal records, neither have gone to school, nor have their birth registered.

Moreover, people living in remote areas, such as forests, highlands, islands, coasts, or people living based on certain cultural traditions may have given birth by themselves at home and have not registered their childbirth with the state. In some cases, the baby was born at the hospital but its birth could not be registered because parents did not have personal status. In lieu of a birth certificate or official documents, a personal witness, usually the community leader, can be used. However, it sometimes occurs in exchange for rewards.

Language is another challenge in the nationality verification process. Various official procedures and forms often pose difficulties for the ethnic people who use their own language in their everyday life to navigate.

The nationality verification process (for general aliens according to section 9 of the Nationality Act B.E. 2508 (1965)) has a duration of 475 days and requires approval by and discretion of many government agencies. During this time, a local officer may be transferred, and the new officer may take a while to familiarize himself/herself with the process and the details of each candidate. This affects both the consistency and duration needed in the screening stage of the status recognition process.

Although citizens are allowed by law to request nationality verification, officers often fail to act more proactively in practice. This is partly due to the limited number of officers to carry out census or verification for the population in remote areas, which eventually rendered them stateless. Furthermore, biases play a role in the difficulty of access to nationality, such as being seen as foreigners or fear of job/resource stealing.

People living in Thailand: the missing rights and the statelessness.

The personal statuses of persons living in Thailand are divided into two groups: those with Thai nationality and those without.

Quite a large number of those without Thai nationality are ethnic minorities who live in the highlands and forests, such as the Mlabri, or on the coast, such as the Moken, as well as people living along the borders mostly in the west of the country, such as the displaced Thais.

As Thailand divides its population into two groups, the ethnic people who have not completed the nationality verification process are classified by section 4 of the Immigration Act B.E. 2522 (1979) as ‘aliens’. As a result, they are forced to live in restrictive conditions that limit their rights and liberties. They also have to abide by the same three laws as foreigners: the Nationality Act, the Civil Registration Act, and the Immigration Act.

Nationality Act – imposes restrictions on the access of basic services and limits political rights. Ethnic children are likely to face similar nationality-related challenges as their parents.

Civil Registration Act – determines the person’s civil registration status, which indicates what rights a person has or does not have.

Immigration Act – limits the right to travel and to work.

The above mentioned are actually the most basic rights according to the principle of equality and human dignity. Moreover, this group of people has limited access to emergency or humanitarian relief, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Nevertheless, Thailand has seen continuous battles for nationality and human rights. As a result, laws, regulations, and practices have been gradually improved to recognize the rights of people without Thai nationality, including:

1. Right to birth certification - existed for the first time in 1991 with the promulgation of the Civil Registration Act B.E. 2534 (1991). Birth registration is the starting point for securing one’s existence in the official registration system which will allow for nationality application in the future.
2. Right to education - people without civil registration documents or Thai nationality can now enroll in formal education and receive the same subsidy per head as Thai nationals according to the Cabinet Resolution dated 5 July 2005.
3. Right to public health - people who are in the process of Thai nationality application and people who are enrolled in an academic institution but do not currently have health security are entitled to health security. This is regarded as a right to basic healthcare. The right was in effect after the announcement of the Cabinet Resolution dated 23 March 2010 related to granting (returning) basic healthcare rights to persons with problematic status and rights, and the Cabinet Resolution dated 22 September 2020 related to granting (returning) basic healthcare rights to persons with problematic status and rights, as well as children and persons who enrolled in an academic institution.

Despite the progress, the reality is not without obstacles. Some hesitancy has been observed. For instance, some schools are reluctant to accept stateless children.

Therefore, the challenges in nationality-related matters are indeed linked to public understanding. For a long time, it has caused the policies and practices inadequate to comprehensively include people in the system. In spite of positive changes in the legal realm, an understanding of implementers about the laws, humanitarian principles, and human rights is another decisive factor that determines the success of the positive change.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sources

Quite a large number of ethnic people were born in nature because their ancestors have passed on this age-old tradition and customs for generations after generations. They are always surrounded by nature. As their lives are closely intertwined with nature, they have found a sustainable way to co-exist with it.

A common example is the rotational farming practice of the Karen ethnic group. Rotational farming involves planting a variety of crops on a large plot of land. One productive period lasts about 1-2 years, which is then followed by 7-10 years of resting period before the cycle begins anew. In short, the Karens would move to a new plot to farm and move back like this again and again. The reason is to prevent landslides due to the precipitous terrain and to protect the forest which is their home. Not only to utilize forest, the Karen children are also taught to love the environment. For example, the Karens would put the baby’s placenta in a bamboo tube and hang it on a big sturdy tree. According to the local belief, it is forbidden to fell that tree as it will also affect the child’s life.

An example of the way of life at sea is that of the Urak Lawoi (Orang Laut) people. They practice ancient fishing methods with simple handmade tools. They spend their lives on boats floating amidst the ocean. When the monsoon season arrives or the sea is rough, the Urak Lawoi would seek shelter on the coast building huts on the beach and growing coconut trees. The Urak Lawoi do not own land.

When living area becomes conservation area

Thailand has enacted its first national park law in 1961. The Act essentially prohibits anyone from living or making a living in a protected area.

As this legislation followed human settlement, it was inevitable that the protected area was announced on the residential area and livelihood of some groups of people. Their existence until then suddenly became illegal.

Although the Cabinet Resolution 1998 later allowed the affected people to prove and keep their living area, the practice was not in line with the reality. For instance, the Karen people, who rely on rotational farming, do not possess clear evidence of living in a certain area. This has made it worse especially because the verification process relied on the aerial images taken in one single year, 2002. 

Or in case of Chao Lay people, who, even though have been living around the coast for a long time, have never acquired rights documents because they are illiterate. The promotion of coastal tourism has caused even more concrete impacts on this group of people. The sea and the beaches have become attractive targets for investors. Those who obtained access to the land have driven the Chao Lay people away. Even though some Chao Lay communities still maintain their traditional fishing lifestyle, they tend to do so with worries and fear of possible arrest. 

Pinkaew Laungaramsri, the lecturer at the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Faculty of Sociology, Chiang Mai University, believes that tying conservation initiatives with national park designation raises concerns that it creates classes. Only natural resources in certain places and in certain forms are subject to recognition and protection. Moreover, the determination of the national park area follows two criteria: the area must be large enough and has large animals.

When size matters, the national park area tends to be expansive, pushing other things away, including the local people. As a result, the people’s diverse ways of life and small forests are overlooked.

Currently, Thailand has 133 national parks and 22 candidates. What’s more, there was even a plan to expand the forest conservation area by an additional 7.15 million rai. As conservative areas are made people-free, it is highly possible that the impacts will fall on the livelihood and homes of people who live in the forest or rural area upon which the national park will touch.

Nature that needs to be managed.

The conservative forest management has not only been criticized by many scholars for forcing people, but also for being an ineffective way to manage natural resources.

Prof. Dr. Anan Kanchanapan, lecturer at the Faculty of Sociology at Chiang Mai University, explains that natural resources need to be managed to be sustainable. That said, a simplistic approach or a state-run management is inadequate because the cost of natural resource management is colossal. Prof. Dr. Anan has been an advocate for a holistic natural resource management approach that involves every stakeholder including people who live in the forest, outside of the forest, and government.

Such a holistic conservation concept has been used to solve forest fire problems in California, USA, and Australia. It requires a body of knowledge as well as human resources to apply it.

At home, the ethnic group on Doi Chang, Pa Pae District, Lamphun Province, takes part in building firebreaks of 50-60 km. to contain forest fires. 

In any case, the forest management approach all over the world is pointing in the same direction, which takes into account the rights of the peoples. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)  has developed a declaration which indicates that, for conversation of forest that has indigenous communities in it, the state does not only have to acknowledge their rights, traditions, and wisdom, but also manage it in the way that aims to respond to the needs of the locals. This approach relies on the decentralization principle and has been taken up by many countries, including the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, or a neighboring country like Indonesia.

If and when the conservation effort in Thailand stops distinguishing between the national and local, is able to see the locals’ potential to jointly manage the national resources in the area, embraces the cultural differences, and trusts their capacity to manage resources according to their diverse wisdom, we are likely to save budget significantly and human can constitute a sustainable part of the nation and nature.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sources

The Dialogues with the Ethnic Youths on the Occasion of the International Youth Day 2021

One-third of the world's population are children and youth. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which many countries in the world are committed to achieving by 2030 or only ten years from now, might not be attained if we do not include the youth, who will become the majority of the future population.

Even though we can achieve all 17 SDGs, does it mean that sustainable development is realized? The answer can be yes or no because the core of sustainable development is not just a matter of what, but how is also crucial for achieving sustainable development. More importantly, we should question the development process whether it is inclusive and leads to beneficial results for all. Does our development leave anyone behind? Leave No One Behind is, therefore, the heart of sustainable development.

Who is left behind? We may think of people who live in remote areas, with limited access to infrastructure or stateless people who do not have access to basic welfare. We may also picture disabled people with limited access to transportation, education opportunities, and proper education equipment or methods, or poor people in the cities who lack economic opportunity, or even LGBTQ persons who are deprived of opportunities to take certain roles in society. And the list goes on. Why are they forgotten in the development?

They are deprived of these opportunities because of their identities, such as ethnicity, gender, age, body, place of residence, etc. These are the things that hinder access to equal opportunities. Everybody has these identities. However, have we ever considered these factors in terms of how they affect our everyday life?

The Online Youth Dialogue on Leave No One Behind activity consists of four dialogues that invited young people to become acquainted with vulnerable groups often left behind based on their identities. There are four dialogues: the dialogue with the ethnic youth, the dialogue with the youth from coastal communities, the dialogue with the LGBTQ youth, and the dialogue with the youth with disabilities. This activity is based on the belief that a space for discussion or a place where we get to know each other, make friends, and ask questions to understand each other's lifestyles, identities, and needs, is the beginning of an inclusive society.

A relaxing discussion group for young people is a space to reflect on how our identities can impact our everyday life, shine the light on one's vulnerabilities and those of others,  and embrace diversity in a society where everybody respects one another.

On the occasion of the International Youth Day 2021, below is a part of the Dialogues with Ethnic Youths which narrates the untold stories of the ethnic youth.

1. As ethnicity is related to access to citizenship, it hampers one's access to opportunities.   

Ethnicity does not exist on its own; it is also related to another factor: citizenship. Many tribal young people are questioned about their citizenship. As there are many different ethnic groups, including those who live in remote areas, many do not acquire their citizenship by birth. Instead, they have to apply for Thai citizenship, a process that takes many years. As a result, many tribal young people have the status of stateless persons, which hampers many opportunities, such as basic welfare and traveling. Being young, they are supposed to learn about themselves and discover the world but they are allowed to travel only within their province. Their education and career opportunities are also limited. Without Thai citizenship, the stateless youth cannot choose certain careers, and they may not be able to choose an occupation in their fields of study. These are the obstacles that the stateless youth encounter. Despite being born in Thailand, they do not have an identity, right, and a chance to design a life they truly want.

Being stateless also causes other minor problems to the ethnic youth who have to adapt to society. For example, some stateless young people do not have a surname, and they have to repeatedly answer the same questions about why they do not have a surname. They are also teased by their peers, making them feel different from everybody else and unworthy because they do not have Thai citizenship. These problems lead to the stateless youth feeling alienated from society.

This is the story that Suchart, a Shan youth, shared with his peers in the discussion group. Even though he has not been granted Thai citizenship and has been in the application process for over ten years, with many of his friends and family members facing the same problem, Suchart has come up with a creative solution. He created Titang Facebook page to be a space for educating and helping stateless persons so that they have access to the rights, welfare, and citizenship application process. He hopes that someday the society will acknowledge and understand the experience of stateless people and make a change in the system so that everybody in Thailand has equal access to rights and welfare.

2. The tribal youth and their hybrid lifestyle

If we talk about tribes, we may picture people living in communities with unique ways of life and tribal cultures. But do you know that in reality, many young people no longer live in their communities and start to question their identity as a tribe? This is the story of Nam, an Akha young woman. She told us that she remembered living with her grandmother and the diversity of local plants used to create various dishes. As she grew up, many young people in the tribe needed to leave their village to receive formal education. When they graduated and returned to the village, they discovered that much of their way of life and local resources had been lost. Growing up in cities brings about various experiences, and they have to reflect on their identity and self as the tribal youth. Nam's childhood memory is closely linked to local resources. So she decided to do Seed Journey activity, which started tourism activities and invited chefs to learn about local seeds in the community. Through this activity, people in the community see the value of biodiversity and create new dishes from resources in the community to add value to local resources.

When we talk about the tribal youth today, the word may no longer connote young people who have grown up in communities that are totally separated from cities, but now it means young people who integrate local wisdom with modern knowledge, perspective, and technology from their experience in cities. Sometimes this leads to self-reflection and the adaptation and evolution of tribal wisdom so that it coherently exists in the modern world.

3. Karen people whose way of life does not always equal rotational farming and weaving

If we talk about Karen ethnic group, we may think about a way of life intertwined with the forest, such as rotational farming, an all-year abundance of food, or the unique hand-weaving that uses resources in the community. In the discussion group, Siri, a Lao-Isaan young woman who grew up in a Karen family, said that the reality is not always like the stereotype. The Karen community in Mae Sam Laep, Mae Hong Son Province, which is her family's community, has been ravaged by border wars that have caused them to migrate so many times. They, therefore, cannot settle down and do rotational farming like the picture we might have had in mind. Moreover, the terraces in the area are not suitable for rotational agriculture. As they are forced to escape from wars all the time, the local way of life and wisdom faded away and are replaced by problems, such as problems regarding standards of living, domestic violence, education, etc. Covid-19 pandemic even exacerbates the existing problems. Siri and her friends, therefore, initiated the Rainbow Textile project to create jobs for women. The rainbow-colored design also raises awareness about gender diversity among people in the community; an issue that is still new to the community.

However, weaving has not been easy for Mae Sam Laep women because women in the community had lost their weaving skills due to migration and occupation changes. They needed to take a long time to revive the skills. Siri and her friends had to travel to other provinces to learn to weave and came back to teach women in the community (the women cannot be brought out of the province to learn to weave because they are stateless, making inter-provincial travel difficult). However, women in the community could earn income for the first time from these rainbow-colored textile products. The women are empowered to be equal to men, who are usually the breadwinners. Also, when people wish to buy the rainbow-colored textiles to support gender diversity, people in the community are made aware of gender diversity in society.

Ethnicity - the identity we all have

These are a few of the untold stories of the tribal youth, which were shared in the ethnic youth dialogues so that other young people could learn about different ways of life in various aspects. Also, everybody exchanged their perspectives about their respective ethnic identities; how the ethnic identities impact their everyday life in multiple dimensions, such as food, traveling, education, interests, belief, love, etc. We can see how ethnicity creates diversity: things that we like, such as food, the feeling of attachment to different ways of life, or different access to opportunities, such as traveling and education. We have also discovered that sometimes our difference in ethnicity is not an obstacle that separates us; we still share the same favorite food, other interests, and our mutual dream for society.

Ethnicity might be a factor that contributes to some people being left behind. Still, if we realize that ethnicity is merely an identity that we all have and if we recognize the impacts of our ethnicity, we may see the gap of inequality within the development. If we understand that ethnic diversity is normal in a society, we may look for innovations for development that can access everybody.

Who are the indigenous people?  Is it true that indigenous peoples do not exist in Thailand?

The United Nations has designated 9 August as Indigenous Peoples’ Day. Yet the government has not recognised the existence of Indigenous Peoples in Thailand.

Statements such as "There are no indigenous peoples in Thailand", are the source of our discussion on the theme: Who are the indigenous people?  Is it true that indigenous peoples do not exist in Thailand? Associate Professor Dr Narumon Arunotai from the Social Research Institute, Chulalongkorn University, and Mr Chupinit Kesmanee, Scholar in Ethnic minorities and Indigenous Peoples, have come together to provide some answers.

Similarity and Difference between Ethnic Minority and Indigenous Peoples

Mr Chupinit defined the terms ethnic people or ethnicity from the perspective of social sciences as a group of people who view themselves or are viewed by others as having a specific culture. For ethnicity, it refers to a common culture and a way of life pertinent to language, religion, material culture such as clothing, costumes, food and a wide range of cultural products (including music and art). Moreover, the world is home to thousands of ethnic groups, from the Han Chinese (the largest ethnic group in the world) to the smallest indigenous peoples. Although some groups may have only a few dozen people, most of the ethnic minority groups share these common traits: history, language, religion, culture and identity. Effectively, that means everyone has her/his own ethnic affiliation in this world.

For the term “Indigenous Peoples”, following the international standard, there are some terminologies which are used to define this, for instance, natives, aborigines, tribal people or first nation. These vocabularies denote a community, a group of people and a nation-state with the historical continuation from the society during the colonial period. In addition, such a community distinguishes itself from other groups in society by demonstrating its self-identification, including by being a group of people that does not dominate such society and by being committed to the conservation, development and transfer of the boundaries of their ancestors and ethnic identities to future generations. Furthermore, a group of people who identify themselves as indigenous are also accepted by other peoples.

Since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit (also known as the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development - UNCED), the term "indigenous people" has replaced the word "ethnic people". According to United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) data, there are approximately 300 million indigenous peoples or 62 ethnic groups around the world, which have their rights protected by various international laws and declarations, including UNDRIP.

Mr. Chupinit had participated in the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), in which eight member states and the representatives of Indigenous Peoples from eight countries provided suggestions on indigenous rights issues in the forum. He was also appointed as the Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Rights and to participate in the United Nations Forum on Indigenous Peoples. 

The rights of indigenous peoples are protected under international laws, especially their rights pertinent to lands, territories and natural resources. In Thailand, by contrast, there are no bills which currently protect the rights of indigenous peoples related to these matters, and importantly, which will permit the opportunity for indigenous communities to be funded by various sources, especially on climate change matters. 

Studies show that a number of countries accept that indigenous peoples have a deep knowledge of sustainable forest conservation and the management of natural areas. The Paris Agreement highlights the important role of indigenous wisdom in managing biological resources, in particular as a way to contain global warming and climate change, but the Thai state does not take the essence of the indigenous communities into account.

Associate Professor Dr. Narumon Arunotai explained that the draft Tribal Council Act defines the term “indigenous people” as a group of people who (1) share linguistic, cultural, customary and traditional identity, (2) have a culture that has been developed for a long time from living in a particular area, (3) have most of their livelihood depending upon natural resources in that specific area, such as forests, mountains, seas, etc., and (4) are a small population among the main populations in the country, but are not dominant minority groups which control politics, economics and society. Further, a group of indigenous people must maintain cultural peace, therefore, an army group or a faction of active fighters should not be included in indigenous peoples. Another crucial point is that they risk losing their languages and cultures and/or are affected by development or conservation policies in the areas.

To summarise, the distinction between the terms “ethnicity” and “indigenous peoples” is identified in their power relations. That is indigenous peoples are disadvantaged since they do not dominate a society economically, socially, politically and culturally. Moreover, they have no influence or they lack power in society. Their further disadvantaged characteristics include being underprivileged, abused or discriminated against. The problem further touches on their self-identification to determine whether they are indigenous peoples who are endorsed by other indigenous groups.

Who are we?

The discussion panelists debated over the terms "tribe" or "tribal people", which is a colonial term used by the Europeans to label other groups who were considered to be living in a primitive society. Fast forward to today, even the peoples whom we call "hill tribes" are no longer backward. In view of the panelists, the word “Indigenous Peoples” should probably be called as "tribal" + "indigenous people", because the terms have common traits in the Thai context. And, although this definition has been shared officially since 2007, it has not yet been recognised by the Thai state.

Mr. Chupinit stressed the importance of self-identification: it is not the duty of the state to dictate who is or who is not an indigenous tribe. Rather, it should be the peoples who declare themselves as indigenous, and are accepted by other groups. They should then be considered as indigenous tribes. Although the Thai state does not recognise their self-identification, their rights are recognised and protected by the international community. Nevertheless, the term “ethnicity”, which is not defined in international laws, may limit access to a wide range of rights and opportunities for indigenous peoples.

The Viewpoint of Thai-State vis-à-vis "Indigenous Peoples"

“In Thailand, we don't have any indigenous peoples. We only have the peoples living on the Thai soil. Unlike many countries that have Indigenous Peoples, we only have different ethnic groups, who have already been living in Thailand. Likewise, I'm considered myself as part of an ethnicity”, stated Mr Warawut Silpacha, the Minister of Natural Resources and Environment. Such remarks reinforce the current view of the government, which has not yet recognised the identity of indigenous peoples in Thailand.

Furthermore, indigenous-rights-related legislation in Thailand should be based on the principal law, which is the Constitution, which chiefly mentions the word "ethnicity". Therefore, any law drafting should adhere to this term to be enforceable and should also include the term "Indigenous Peoples" in reality - a vocabulary which is better understood by the Thai administration. This is because the government only views ethnicity or indigenous people as a mere cultural difference, rather than perceiving them from the vantage point of their soul or their root. The latter perspective is necessary in mobilising an awareness-raising campaign aiming to promote a formal recognition by the state of the importance of the difference between ethnicity and indigenous people. This should be operated in parallel with a similar campaign that builds the public acceptance of indigenous peoples as well.

To illustrate, the case of the Karen indigenous peoples of Bang Kloi, who have resided in the areas prior to the implementation of the National Park Law, process their own language, culture, tradition, music and art, and who also connect with the Kaeng Krachan forest, wherein crop rotation has been practised. While the international community has designated indigenous communities as a national cultural heritage, the Thai government, however, does not see them the same way. Moreover, the fact that the non-existence of laws protecting the rights of ancestral areas and indigenous groups near the border in particular, further increases government surveillance of the ethnic minorities. In the eyes of the Thai government, indigenous peoples are perceived as a threat to national security and their presence affects the country's international relations.

Public deliberation: What is really going on today? 

On one hand, the Thai state claims that there are no indigenous peoples, and instead uses the term ethnicity. It removes the term "indigenous" from the World Heritage Plan and employs the word "ethnic” instead. On the other hand, civil society organisations perceive indigenous peoples as a more complex reality, resulting in a different interpretation from the government. How do we reconcile the multiple truths and make the two opposing sectors see the same picture? To explain, the synthesis of multiple truths into one can enhance the understanding between groups of differing ethnic heritage, rather than a mere use of race and skin colour as a requirement.

The recognition of the existence of indigenous peoples will demonstrate to the international community that Thailand is a multicultural society, and that it is also civilised for its commitment to an agreement or an obligation in which the Thai state has actually had. Thus, finding a solution to different perspectives is the best approach, including via a joint dialogue between the public and civil society sectors to define the meaning together. Such participatory act can create mutual recognition of what defines the rights and the protections of indigenous peoples. Do different ways, definitions, and approaches of thinking provide opportunities, alternatives and values for the peoples who lead other ways of life in the society?

The state may perceive indigenous peoples as a matter of security. However, what indigenous peoples actually desire is not the ownership of lands or title deeds. Rather, they merely need land for farming and places for their traditional ways of life. To expel the Moken people to live far from the sea, to keep the Mani communities out of the forest or to evict the Karen indigenous families of Bang Kloi from the heart of the land is like relocating a large tree and planting it somewhere else, where its roots are not paid attention to and are underappreciated. Wherever the tree is replanted, it will not remain the same as it will be lifeless and spiritless.

Therefore, the answer to the question - "Are there any indigenous peoples in Thailand?" - is that there should not be any answer to it or it should not be stigmatised by any particular entity. Rather, the term indigenous people should be defined in a participatory manner and should be truly accepted in unison.

Written by Assistant Professor Dr Narumon Arunotai, Social Research Institute, Chulalongkorn University and Mr. Chupinit Kesmanee, Scholar in Ethnic Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 

Translated by Teerada Na Jatturas  Moderated  by Mr. Phnom Thano

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations, including UNDP, or the UN Member States. This report is an independent publication with financial support from the European Union.