Home

Having signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which celebrates its 10th anniversary this year, Thailand recognises the concept of indigeneity, i.e., native peoples. Yet, presently in Thailand, the state does not acknowledge being home to indigenous peoples. This oversight must be addressed.

The concept of indigeneity recognises human diversity and the issue of ""first nations"", who are typically disadvantaged by later settlers. Indigeneity is complex, as it involves issues such as self-determination and access to land and resources like mineral rights, for peoples like Aboriginal Australians. Because recognising indigeneity requires re-allocation of resources, the state, like in many Asian countries, adopts the salt-water theory that indigeneity only applies to the colonial period.

However, this position can be challenged. For instance, the sea peoples (chao leh) of Thailand, namely the Moken and Urak Lawoi, could both be candidates for indigenous peoples, as they are ancient, partially acculturated Thai citizens. The Moken, of whom there are 3,000, live a semi-nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle, while the Urak Lawoi, of whom there are some 6,000 around Phuket, are Austronesians native to the area for several millennia. The Moken are best known for some of them recognising the onset of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami from similar events still in folk memory.

In June 2010, the Abhisit Vejjajiva government passed a cabinet resolution recognising the sea peoples. This was necessary because they have traditionally fished in Tarutao National Marine Park. In addition, their language and culture, which are a valuable national heritage, are under threat because of the lack of a customised curriculum and teaching materials. Further, their traditional settlements are being invaded by developers, and the general public still stigmatises them as ""primitive"" peoples.

In addition to the sea peoples, many of Thailand's mountain peoples have staked a claim to indigeneity through the Chiang Mai-based Network of Indigenous Peoples of Thailand (NIPT). These comprise several hundred thousand Hmong-Mien and Sino-Tibetan peoples. The NIPT serves as a lobbying group for the mountain peoples and as such submits shadow reports to UN agencies, such as the committee responsible for the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

While some of the mountain peoples have been in the area of northern Thailand for centuries, others are relatively recent arrivals from the North and West. The situation is complicated by the fact that clear borders were not delineated until the nineteenth century, and for mountain-dwelling nomadic peoples, national borders cut across their natural ranges.

Moreover, above a certain elevation opium was for centuries the crop of choice, with crop substitution only being implemented during the Cold War as part of royally sponsored initiatives. Mountain peoples face a variety of problems in Thailand, including the fight for citizenship, access to education and healthcare, exploitation by officials, and stigmatism. They are also viewed as ""primitive"" peoples by much of the general public, and stereotyped as illegal loggers or drug runners in soap operas.

As with the sea peoples, the most progressive piece of legislation regarding the mountain peoples to date has been the Abhisit government's August 2010 cabinet decision on the Karen. This aimed to ""restore"" traditional Karen livelihoods, centred on shifting cultivation, formerly known derogatorily as ""slash and burn"". The cabinet decision created a special steering committee under the Culture Minister, with the secretary being the director of the prestigious Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre.

This committee gradually addressed the issues of building public understanding, managing natural resources, granting citizenship rights, transmitting culture, and developing an educational curriculum for the Karen.

However, Thailand lacks a national framework for recognising the mountain peoples more widely and especially in the form of dual-language multicultural education.

There is a stronger academic argument for over one million Austroasiatic peoples of northeast Thailand to qualify as indigenous peoples. These include the Mon, Khmer, Khmu, Kuy and So. These people, who include the creators of the Angkor civilisation, pre-date the Tai-Kadai peoples who created the Sukhothai and successor kingdoms, including Siam and then modern Thailand.

In general, they are also socio-economically depressed, vulnerable groups, like the sea and mountain peoples, with historical claims to forested areas.

In addition, an argument exists for an extension of the term indigenous in that transboundary peoples may be indigenous outside their ""national"" countries, depending on the historical extent of those countries. Therefore, the 1.4 million Khmer of Northeast Thailand may be ""indigenous"" to Thailand because the Khmer empire extended into Northeast Thailand, as may the 15 million Thai-Lao people in the region, as the Lao Kingdom of a Million Elephants also extended into this region. A similar paradigm may apply to the Thai Malays of the Deep South.

Since 2010, the legislative context for indigenous and ethnic minority peoples in Thailand has fossilised. The cultures of the sea and mountain peoples are still vulnerable and at risk, and the National Language Policy has stalled in committee under an ultra-nationalist regime. While the 2015 draft constitution actually recognised indigenous peoples, the 2017 constitution does not.

In the face of an intransigent military regime, the best hope for progress may be the New Democracy Movement umbrella organisation, presently coalescing under an initiative to create a social democrat political foundation.

Social democracy promotes recognition of cultural divergence as well as social citizenship and represents a grand compromise between capital and labour through growing the middle class via wealth transfers from the super-rich to support a welfare state and strong education system.

In a social democrat commonwealth, such as Norway, which has two official and three regional languages, multiculturalism is compatible with political rights. This is because claims based on cultural, ethnic, linguistic, or religious affiliation possess a universal nature when denial of recognition causes real harm.

A political remedy to the socio-economic depression and cultural stereotyping faced by the majority of Thailand's ethnic communities may await in future elections.