Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09BANGKOK818
2009-03-31 23:55:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Embassy Bangkok
Cable title:  

Updates on Cases of Labor Abuse in Thailand

Tags:  ELAB PHUM KTIP TH 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO5725
PP RUEHCHI RUEHDT RUEHHM RUEHNH
DE RUEHBK #0818/01 0902355
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 312355Z MAR 09
FM AMEMBASSY BANGKOK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6591
RUEHC/DEPT OF LABOR WASHDC PRIORITY
INFO RUEHCHI/AMCONSUL CHIANG MAI 6375
RUCNASE/ASEAN MEMBER COLLECTIVE
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BANGKOK 000818 

Department for DRL/IL MJunk, G/TIP CChan-Downer, and EAP/MLS
DRichelsoph
DOL/ILAB for Brandie Sasser

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ELAB PHUM KTIP TH
SUBJECT: Updates on Cases of Labor Abuse in Thailand

BANGKOK 00000818 001.2 OF 003


Sensitive But Unclassified. For Official Use Only.

REF A: 08 BANGKOK 2836 REF B: BANGKOK 499

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BANGKOK 000818

Department for DRL/IL MJunk, G/TIP CChan-Downer, and EAP/MLS
DRichelsoph
DOL/ILAB for Brandie Sasser

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ELAB PHUM KTIP TH
SUBJECT: Updates on Cases of Labor Abuse in Thailand

BANGKOK 00000818 001.2 OF 003


Sensitive But Unclassified. For Official Use Only.

REF A: 08 BANGKOK 2836 REF B: BANGKOK 499


1. (SBU) Summary: To follow-up on the Anoma, Prapha Navee, and
Ranya Paew human trafficking-related labor abuse cases in Thailand
(refs a and b),Embassy officials contacted a number of government
and non-government officials over the past few weeks. Criminal
prosecutions against suspects arrested in the Anoma and Ranya Paew
case are proceeding. The investigation appears to have stalled in
the Prapha Navee case, with arrest warrants issued only in the
nicknames of the fishing boat captains involved and potential
witnesses uninterested in testifying. Human rights lawyers have
different views on whether the Prapha Navee case involved human
trafficking or simply criminal negligence. End Summary.


2. (SBU) Comment: While the length of judicial processes in
Thailand remains long, RTG officials appear to be seriously seeking
criminal convictions in the Anoma and Ranya Paew cases. The
investigation into the Prapha Navee case, on the other hand, seems
to have stalled, with even RTG officials questioning the quality of
the original investigation. Although Thai authorities are seeking
criminal prosecution in this case as well, the lack of quality
arrest warrants for less-than-satisfying charges is frustrating and
does not give much promise that a successful prosecution is possible
in the foreseeable future. We will continue to probe into the
status of the Prapha Navee investigation in an effort to continue to
push it forward. We note however that, given Thai evidentiary
standards, and the difficulty of gathering needed evidence, a
homicide conviction will be difficult. End Comment.

Anoma - Shrimp Peeling Factory
--------------

3. (SBU) The Public Prosecutor in Samut Sakhon province responsible
for the Anoma case informed us on March 26 that pre-trial statements
continue in the case, and were provided to the Court on February 5-6
and 24, and on March 11-12 and 24-26. The prosecutor plans to call
for additional plaintiff and defendant statements in June and
August, respectively. He estimated that, in total, approximately 14
witnesses for the plaintiff and 10 witnesses for the defense will

give pre-trial statements to the Court. The Director of Baan
Kredtakarn Shelter (where the Anoma case victims are being cared
for) told on us March 26 that despite the Ministry of Labor (MOL)'s
September 18, 2008, order that the employers provide victims with
compensation, the employers have not yet done so. The Director, an
official with the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security
(MSDHS),noted that an attorney for the MOL interviewed victims in
mid-March as part of the MOL's efforts to press criminal charges
against the employers for disobeying the order. An official in the
MOL's Department of Labor Protection confirmed March 31 that the
Ministry will pursue criminal charges and is attempting to locate
the employer's assets in order to ask the Court to freeze them. In
addition, the shelter Director stated that her staff would meet with
Burmese government officials in early April to discuss the
repatriation of the victims. (Note: the Prosecutor in Samut Sakhon
responsible for the Anoma case reportedly will be transferred to
Nontaburi province in the coming weeks and the case transferred to
his replacement. End Note).

Ranya Paew - Shrimp Processing Factory
--------------

4. (SBU) On March 26 the Public Prosecutor responsible for the
Ranya Paew case informed us that he is currently reviewing the case
in preparation of its presentation to the Court. He stated that,
based on information obtained from pretrial victim statements, he is
considering filing another criminal charge for forced child labor
with the goal of increasing jail time of the defendants should they
be convicted. He noted that, if he files the additional charge,
police investigators will need to gather additional evidence to
present to the Court. As such, no trial date has yet been set.


Prapha Navee - Fleet of Fishing Vessels
--------------

5. (SBU) A human rights attorney working for a group of surviving
crew members in the case informed us March 25 that the group is
planning to appeal the 2007 decision by a Samut Sakhon Labor Court
that seven of the plaintiffs seeking financial compensation from the
fleet owner could not be included in a settlement because they could
not prove their status as employees. (Note: the attorney stated he
is the coordinator of a total of five human rights attorneys working
with the survivors. Also, as reported in ref b, the court ordered
on September 17, 2008, that 38 surviving crew members receive 3.8
million baht in back wages, with interest accrued; the decision
remains under appeal. End Note).


BANGKOK 00000818 002.2 OF 003



6. (SBU) A police investigator involved in the case explained March
27 that all witnesses he interviewed stated that the deceased from
the fishing vessels died from malnutrition and disease. According
to information provided by the attorneys assisting the surviving
crew, the fishing vessels remained at sea for several months while
negotiations over the renewal of a fishing concession was on-going
(the journey was originally scheduled to last thirty months). It
was during this time that the crew had to live on left-over food
stock without any food supplements. Gradually, crew members aboard
all six vessels began to fall ill and die over the course of the
journey back to Thailand (undertaken fifteen days after the first
two deaths). By the time the vessels arrived back in Samut Sakhon
on July 1, 2006, 39 of 128 crew members died at sea due to
inadequate food and medicine.


7. (SBU) Regarding criminal charges, the police investigator
provided an explanation why the investigation has been so difficult
and why no one has been charged with murder. He stated that while
he and other Thai police and prosecutors believe that crimes were
committed by the boat captains, the evidence is thus far
insufficient to support murder charges. He explained some of the
reasons for the lack of evidence, such as the location of the
commission of the crime, the length of time between the commission
of the crime and the vessels' return to Thailand, and the lack of
cooperating witnesses to explain the circumstances on the boat. He
further explained that the disposal of the corpses at sea is a
significant problem for the investigation, since Thai law requires
presentation of a corpse or a part of a corpse to sustain a homicide
charge.


8. (SBU) Other officials have echoed the requirement of a corpse
for a homicide charge. At a March 25 conference on human
trafficking in the fishing industry (septel),a RTG police officer
from the Department of Special Investigations (DSI) informed that
without a corpse or a piece of one, Thai police cannot charge
murder. A prosecutor familiar with the case confirmed this on March
30, explaining that without a corpse, the court would reject murder
charges for lack of evidence. A Thai lawyer who works with the
Embassy further confirmed the corpse requirement on March 31. The
human rights attorney for the surviving crew members with whom we
spoke also stated that police and prosecutors have told him that
they cannot prosecute homicide (including death resulting from
criminal negligence) without physical proof of death (i.e., a
corpse). Given the limited evidence, the police investigator
explained his frustration that the RTG can only pursue alternative
criminal charges, namely, illegal disposal of a corpse to conceal
cause of death. Because there is insufficient evidence that the
boat owners, who were not present on the vessels, knew about the
corpse disposal on the vessels, prosecutors have not charged the
boat owners and have instead charged only the boat captains.


9. (SBU) In another complication, arrest warrants were issued on
August 16, 2007, but only include the nicknames of four suspects,
boat captains, since the police are not aware of the full, legal
names of the captains. No arrests have yet been made. (Note: The
use of nicknames in lieu of legal names is commonplace in Thailand.
End Note). Police investigators have stated the boat owners claim
to not know the real names of the captains. According to the
prosecutor with whom we spoke March 30, surviving crew members also
only knew the captains by their nicknames. The human rights lawyer
with whom we spoke stated he provided the Office of the Attorney
General in Samut Sakhon the names of the boat captains. We have not
yet been able to confirm whether the Samut Sakhon prosecutors
received the names in question and, if so, acted on them. We asked
another prosecutor about evidentiary standards in this matter. He
stated that while the provision of a name by a non-governmental
official could constitute a potential lead for investigators, it may
not be sufficient grounds in and of itself to seek an arrest
warrant.


10. (SBU) The human rights attorney also told us March 26 that some
survivors who received compensation from the September 2008 Labor
Court ruling declined to cooperate on the pursuit of criminal
charges. When asked why, he explained they appeared content with
the financial settlement. He lamented that their apparent lack of
interest has made it more difficult to pursue criminal charges. He
noted the pursuit of criminal charges has also been made more
difficult by the fact that many Burmese workers involved in the case
were not legally registered. Fearing deportation, they generally
were unwilling to present themselves to the Court.


11. (SBU) We queried the human rights attorney for the surviving
crew whether, according to his knowledge, the Prapha Navee case
constitutes one of human trafficking. He responded that, to the
best of his knowledge, it probably is not, since the workers with
whom he has spoken went to work willingly on the fishing vessels and

BANGKOK 00000818 003.2 OF 003


did not report to him (or Thai authorities) instances of physical
abuse or forced labor while on board. He suggested, instead, that
this is a case of grave labor exploitation and that he would like to
see the boat captains prosecuted for criminal negligence for the
deaths of members of the crew. When asked the same question March
30, the prosecutor with whom we spoke also stated that he was not
aware of allegations of forced labor on the vessels, although he had
not yet read transcripts of the witness testimony. He also stated
that in his opinion, the original police investigation appeared to
have not been conducted well, either out of poor (if well
intentioned) handling or out of an effort to inappropriately shield
individuals from prosecution. We consulted a second human rights
lawyer familiar with the Prapha Navee case on March 31. He stated
that, according to his knowledge of victim testimony, some of the
crew joined the fishing fleet under the belief that the voyage would
last only a few months and unaware that they would travel to fish in
Indonesian waters. Due to this fact, he considers Prapha Navee a
case of human trafficking.