Today sees the launch of the report Restricted Rights: Migrant Workers in Thailand, Cambodia, and Malaysia. The report presents the findings from a series of in-depth interviews with migrant women employed in the garment and electronic industry supply chains in three ASEAN countries. Commissioned by the War on Want, a UK based charity organisation, the research was carried out by the Asian Migrant Centre, in collaboration with the MAP Foundation, Legal Support for Children and Women (LSCW), Workers’ Hub for Change (WH4C), and the Mekong Migration Network (MMN).

The research reveals a common tale of precarious lives lived out in the face of state oppression and exploitation by negligent companies and greedy employers. It uncovers how Thailand, Cambodia and Malaysia have reaped huge economic benefits off the back of migrant labour. Yet the same countries continue to refuse migrant workers the rights and security that are their due.

In Cambodia, almost 90% of garment factory workers are young women who have migrated from rural areas in search of work. Migrants from neighboring countries provide an essential workforce for the thriving export industries of Thailand and Malaysia. Despite their contributions migrant workers continue to endure harsh working conditions and extremely low wages.

Sokchar Mom of the LSCW, Cambodia, points out that:

"The minimum wage in Cambodia cannot be considered a living wage. It is very difficult for garment factory workers to earn enough money even to eat properly. Can you imagine, one has to work for nearly 6 hours to afford a simple 1 litre bottle of cooking oil? To put this in perspective, a worker on the minimum wage in the UK only has to work for 18 minutes to buy the same."

Also included in this study are interviews with grassroots organizations who have been working tirelessly to facilitate migrants’ access to justice and promote their rights in the workplace and wider society.

Jackie Pollock, who works with one of these organizations in Thailand, shares the view that:

"Consumers in Europe may find it hard to imagine the kind of living and working conditions that the workers producing their clothes must endure. We hope this report will help raise awareness among consumers and that they will support our advocacy for improved labour protection for workers in Asia".

Pranom Somwong from the WH4C added that:

"ASEAN is talking about economic integration by 2015 and has declared that it aims to realise a ‘region of equitable economic development’ which it says will be characterized by narrowing developing gaps and providing better access to opportunities for human development. However, it is apparent that violations of labour rights are routine practice across the three countries studied in this research. It is high time that ASEAN member states improved the rights and benefits of workers in the region".

The 28 page report concludes with a series of recommendations from War on Want addressed to stakeholders in the UK.

Reiko Harima from AMC explained:

"While the recommendations arising from this research focused on UK stakeholders, companies sourcing their products from Thailand, Cambodia and Malaysia include other European countries, the USA, and many East Asian countries such as Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Labour intensive industries especially garment manufacturing are now talking about shifting their production bases to "new frontiers" such as Burma. We urge companies to be responsible employers by ensuring that workers are able to exercise their rights, receive equitable working conditions and are treated with dignity.

The report is available from the MMN website: http://www.mekongmigration.org/WOW%20Migration%20Report.pdf; and

the War on Want website:
http://www.waronwant.org/overseas-work/sweatshops-and-plantations/hide/i....

On 16 May, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs met to hear the case of Amphon Tangnoppakul, the lèse majesté convict who died from liver cancer during detention, and invited officials from several agencies including the Corrections Department, the Court of Justice and the National Human Rights Commission, as well as Amphon’s lawyers and family members.

A representative from the Department of Information of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs told the meeting that Amphon’s death had been widely reported and criticized by the international press, in connection with Thailand’s lèse majesté law, freedom of expression and politics, which affected the country’s image.

The Ministry has explained the case to the international community.  The European Union, which has followed up on Amphon’s case since he was alive, has expressed its concerns about the enforcement of the law and stressed the right to freedom of expression.  A Deputy Spokesperson of the US Department of State has requested details of the case.  The Asian Human Rights Commission released a statement to deplore the death, and call for the rights to bail and medical care for detainees as well as a transparent autopsy of Amphon to find the cause of his death, the representative said.

Sarawut Benjakul, Deputy Secretary-General of the Office of the Court of Justice, said that the court itself felt uneasy with what had happened.  The court granted him temporary release on 4 Oct 2010 on a 500,000-baht guarantee, but later denied him bail.  In cases involving Section 112 of the Criminal Code, the court has granted bail to some defendants, including Sondhi Limthongkul.  According to court records, 93% of defendants are granted bail by the court.  Although the constitution says that a temporary release is a fundamental right, this has to conform to Section 108 of the Criminal Procedural Code, which says that bail will be denied when there is a fear that the defendant will flee.  So the court will consider bail requests on a case-by-case basis, he said.

[Amphon was arrested on 3 Aug 2010, and was released on bail on 4 Oct 2010.  He was jailed again at the Bangkok Remand Prison on 18 Jan 2011 when he was indicted by the public prosecutor, and had been denied bail ever since.]

He told the house committee that normally the court would grant a temporary release to a defendant if provided with ‘sufficiently clear evidence’, but in the case of Amphon, a medical certificate was submitted and the court considered that ‘the symptoms had not appeared to a great extent’ and could be treated while in detention, and suspected that he would flee.  No matter how many bail requests Amphon made, if the court saw that the facts still remained the same, it maintained its decision, repeating the same reason for the denial.

When asked why the court did not consider that Amphon’s illness was severe, given the medical certificate stating that he had cancer, Sarawut said that, in fact, cancer had several stages and at the initial stages could be cured, and [the medical certificate] should have stated the severity of his illness.  He insisted that the court was neutral, giving consideration to the evidence and prescribed criteria. However, the discretion of each judge may be different under the scope of the law. He felt uneasy in making comments at this meeting, because he was not a judge, he said.

Phunsuk Phunsukcharoen, a lawyer for Amphon, said that she could only acquire a medical certificate for Amphon which had been issued before he was detained to submit to the court [for bail requests].  After that it was very difficult to follow up on his health. 

Pongsak Phusitsakul, a red-shirt medical doctor who took part in the autopsy of Amphon as an observer, said that Amphon was suffering from liver cancer at an advanced stage, not the final stage.  A 7-cm long cancerous tumour was found, but the cancerous cells had not yet spread to the heart. He suspected that there was a flaw in the procedure for sending Amphon to receiving medical care, and the Corrections Department should fix this problem.

Sorasit Jongcharoen, Commander of Bangkok Remand Prison, said that all new inmates at the prison had to see a doctor and were questioned about their medical history. Whenever they feel unwell, they can go to see the prison doctors every day, and there will always be nurses on duty. If the illness or the number of patients is beyond the capacity of the prison’s medical facility, sick inmates are sent to the Corrections Department Hospital or other hospitals, he said.

Bunmee Wibunjak, a doctor from the Corrections Department Hospital, admitted that his hospital could not take care of patients as well as hospitals outside, which had full staff.  As the prison hospital is not for ordinary people, its staff work during the day time, and at night nurses are on duty. In cases of emergency, nurses on duty will notify doctors and have them order treatment by phone. During weekends, only nurses are available, with no doctors, except in emergency cases, he said.

According to Bunmee, Amphon initially told the prison’s medical facility about his mouth cancer, and an examination by an otolaryngologist showed no relapse. In the middle of last year, Amphon told doctors that he felt that the symptoms had returned, but another check found no anomaly. However, he was sent to for an MRI examination of the throat at Ratchawipha Hospital, outside the prison, but no symptom of mouth cancer was found. In January this year, he came to see doctors again, saying that he had pain in the throat, and the doctor found that the lymph gland in his throat was swollen, and gave him antibiotics as initial treatment. He looked better, the swelling subsided, and he was sent back to prison.  Other than this, he lived normally like other inmates, showing no signs of exhaustion or severe illness, the doctor said.

The doctor said that the Corrections Department Hospital could carry out an immediate operation for preliminary cancer, but in the case of Amphon the illness had not yet been diagnosed, while the mouth cancer had already been properly treated and the stomach pains were being investigated. At that time, he began to have pain in the stomach, which was swollen. He was admitted to the prison hospital and given medicine, and had to wait for a medical examination on the following day as at other hospitals. However, as he came on Friday, the referral process did not proceed on the weekend.  At that time, his illness did not look serious.  His blood pressure was normal and he could eat and walk.  Doctors planned to have him checked at an outside hospital, but he would have to be sent during official hours, the doctor said.

Eyewitnesses have come forward in the case of slain Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi, his sister said today, ensuring that his case will be heard before Thai courts.

On May 19, 2010, during street violence which would claim some 91 lives, the freelance photographer was killed as he ran to escape live rounds fire.

His sister, Elisabetta Polenghi, has campaigned strongly that his case be heard before Thai courts and for more evidence to be released by the local Thai authorities.

A preliminary hearing is scheduled to be heard on July 23.

Speaking via an interpreter with regards to these new developments, Elisabetta would note:

"Police were able to get some eyewitnesses to make a statement, and with the information collected from them, the Public Prosecutor thought it was enough to information to start an official investigation… This is the first step in the process. Once the investigation ends up with a responsible party, there will be also be a Criminal Court process.

We don’t have the man who killed Fabio. We don’t have this kind of evidence, but until now we have general witnesses that can say, at that moment, the army were shooting… We haven’t identified the shooter, but we have elements to think that the shooting came from the Army side.

I need to talk to the police and lawyers to understand the situation, the point of the enquiry. From Italy it is very difficult to understand what’s really happening. I have information about what happened to Fabio… So sometimes I feel I need to come to Thailand and speak so the leader of enquiry knows exactly the ‘real point.’"

She suggested that the 2011 election of the Yingluck Government may have encouraged more witnesses to come forward.

“Maybe because the government has changed, the people are feeling more comfortable in talking to the police,” says Elisabetta. ”Maybe they feel more safe… But the public, who may not have felt they didn’t want to speak out when there wasn’t a red-shirt government. There’s a different energy now.”

Despite this, Elisabetta feels that ”the shift in government, didn’t actually translate into any difference,” not least for her personally. ”Not in the way of working, of those people who are investigating.” She notes that:

"Fabio’s camera is still missing. We’ve been looking for the man who took it… But he’s not been identified.

What appears from some footage of Fabio right after he got shot, was that… an unidentified man came and took his camera away. No one has been able to identify this man, and we’re looking for the camera to be returned, and why the camera was taken from Fabio, right after he got shot."

The lengthy wait for proceedings to begin has taken its toll on Elisabetta.

"I talk only for myself – my family is very large, and every one of us have our own need… But from my side, the first time I came here, I felt it was a kind of nightmare. It is critical I come back, again and again. I think we all need to know the truth – this is the main thing. I need to know if Fabio was shot by the Army, we all have to know it… Nothing else.

Even for journalists, I’m trying to encourage a situation that is safer for them.

I wonder, every time I come here. ‘When will it be finished?’ It is not up to me. I don’t know how long I can go on… because, it’s turned me, every time, upside down. Each time it is very big emotional shock for me."

Elisabetta describes her brother as a man who “loved his job… He was a very curious person. His best side was that he was a peaceful person… (who) loved to know different cultures – he was open-minded like that.”

"I think he was a photographer, a professional, and was well-prepared to cover these things. He was a person who got into these things, not only to get a ‘nice picture’, but to understand what was happening in these places.

He was a freelancer, and this was one of the things I liked about him. He kept open the possibilities, to be free on his job. But that’s why he was shot, because he chose to stay ‘on the other side’. Because he thought that on the other side, that’s where they were violating human rights."

A small memorial will be held on Ratchadamri, at the spot where Fabio was killed, this Saturday at 10:30am.

Lisa Gardner is a freelance journalist based in Bangkok. Follow her on Twitter @leesebkk