Bangkok Refugee Youth Consultation “Hope, Vision and Ideas for the Future”
13-‐16 February 2016 The St. Gabriel Personnel Development Centre, Bangkok Thailand
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network (APRRN) would like to thank Asylum Access Thailand (AAT), Jesuit Refugee Services Thailand (JRS) and Amnesty International Thailand (AI) for their partnership in organising the first Bangkok Refugee Youth Consultation (BRYC). APRRN would like to sincerely thank the following people for facilitating the BRYC: Saksinee Emasiri, Mohammad Henawi, Mahalia Kahsay, Clyde Mazie, and Asifa Siddiqa. APRRN would also like to thank Ms. Jatuporn (UNHCR Thailand), Ms. Yuhanee (AAT) and Julia Mayerhofer (APRRN) for providing their expertise through presentations on refugee law and advocacy. Additionally, APRRN would like to thank Parinya Boonridrerthaikul, the Country Director of AAT, Geraldine Chin, a Programme Director at JRS and Saksinee Emasiri and other AI consultants for their assistance in planning the BRYC and selecting refugee and Thai youth participants. APRRN Secretariat members are thanked for their logistical, financial and organisational work in planning the youth consultation. APRRN would like to thank the Global Refugee Youth Consultations facilitation team, namely Kathryn Becher, for sharing the GRYC toolkit and offering advice and assistance throughout our entire planning process. Finally, APRRN would like to extend its sincerest gratitude to our funder, the Canadian Embassy in Bangkok, for their generous contributions, without which this youth consultation would not have been possible.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction and Background ................................................................................................................ 3 Objectives of the BRYC .......................................................................................................................... 3 Partners and Participants ...................................................................................................................... 3 BRYC Structure ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Main Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Youth Participation in Advocacy .......................................................................................................... 15 Youth Solutions and Recommendations .............................................................................................. 17 Stakeholder Meeting: Structure and Analysis ..................................................................................... 20 Stakeholder Meeting: Main Outcomes and Next Steps ....................................................................... 22 Participant Evaluations ........................................................................................................................ 24 Final Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 28 Appendix .............................................................................................................................................. 29
2
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND In preparation for the 2016 UNHCR Annual Consultations with NGOs, several national consultations are being held with youth around the world. These youth consultations are organised by the Global Refugee Youth Consultations (GRYC) Steering Committee, comprised of NGO representatives, UNHCR and youth experts, as well as refugee youth themselves. Prior to the UNHCR-‐NGO Consultations being held in Geneva in June 2016, a Global Youth Consultation will also be held to discuss outcomes of the ten national youth consultations and the resulting recommendations. These outputs will feed into the 2016 UNHCR-‐NGO Consultations and a Global Report. As the regional lead in Asia, APRRN will assist in the planning and implementation of a youth consultation in Pakistan. In addition, APRRN has coordinated a consultation with youth in Bangkok, Thailand. Recommendations from the Bangkok Refugee Youth Consultation (BRYC) will also feed into the Global Report. The BRYC, a three and a half day consultation with refugee and Thai youth, was held from the 13th-‐ 16th February 2016. Thirty youth participated in the consultation, which was facilitated by three refugee youth and two youth from local NGOs. This report covers the processes and outcomes of this consultation.
OBJECTIVES OF THE BRYC The Bangkok Refugee Youth Consultations (BRYC) paralleled the official Global Refugee Youth Consultations (GRYC) as closely as possible, in order that the recommendations from youth might be added to the final Global Report. As such, the objectives of the BRYC are the same as the four core objectives of the GRYC, namely to: 1. Create structured spaces for young refugees to have a voice and engage in participatory dialogue with other youth and relevant stakeholders at local, national, regional and global levels; 2. Improve access for young refugees to local, national, regional and global youth alliances and networks; 3. Foster and support participation, leadership and empowerment opportunities for young refugees; and 4. Consolidate and channel the learning from the consultations into the development of guidelines and policy recommendations on youth-‐inclusive programming, to improve the humanitarian sector’s understanding of, and work with, young refugees. In line with these objectives, the BRYC used a participatory approach, in which youth participation stood at the centre of all activities providing them the opportunity to create their own recommendations and discuss solutions to their own needs and issues.
PARTNERS AND PARTICIPANTS Partners The BRYC was organised by the Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network (APRRN), in partnership with Asylum Access Thailand (AAT), Jesuit Refugee Services Thailand (JRS) and Amnesty International Thailand (AI). APRRN is a regional network of over 250 organisations and individuals across the Asia Pacific region, working to advocate and protect refugee rights. AAT, JRS and AI are all global 3
organisations with country branches in Bangkok, working in both direct service provision and advocating for refugee rights with both refugees and the local Thai population. AAT, JRS and AI are all members of APRRN. Facilitators The BRYC was facilitated by five youth, ages twenty-‐three to thirty, working together as facilitators throughout the consultation. Of the five facilitators, three are refugees and two work for local organisations, one with APRRN and the other with AI. All five facilitators had some experience working with youth in a workshop capacity, ranging from running a previous consultation with youth, participating in refugee youth programming or teaching large groups in a variety of settings. At least one facilitator could speak each of these languages—English, French, Arabic, Urdu and Thai—easing communication barriers with most of the participants. The facilitators with a refugee background brought their unique perspectives and experiences, and observing their ability to relate to the refugee youth enriched the experience for all participants. The facilitators planned the agenda and met several times in the weeks prior to the consultations, adding their own ideas to supplement the GRYC toolkit. The facilitators chose one lead facilitator for each activity, during which the co-‐facilitators provided support by working with small groups. Guest Lecturers and Interpreters Three experts conducted sessions on refugee law, Thai civil and criminal law, and advocacy strategy respectively. A Vietnamese interpreter provided interpretation for two Vietnamese youth who did not speak Thai, and Somali and Thai participants provided informal interpretation for some participants with lower levels of English comprehension. Venue and Accommodation The BRYC was held at the St. Gabriel Personnel Development Centre. Participants stayed overnight at the centre and all sessions were held in the conference rooms downstairs. The venue was spacious, with ample room for group work sessions, and the relaxed atmosphere meant participants could feel comfortable spending time together after hours. 4
Organisers were mindful of security aspects; participants were encouraged to remain on-‐site and participants under 18 years of age were required to do so. An on-‐site basketball court and swimming pool provided plenty of fun social time after dinner, allowing participants to get to know one another. One facilitator hosted optional informal evening sessions comprised of games and storytelling exercises, while other facilitators organised basketball games. One evening was spent filming footage for an Amnesty International video on refugee youth and eating pizza in the common room.
Application and Selection Process AAT and JRS shared information with their contacts to gather refugee youth applications, while AI worked with their university chapters from the north to the south, and the east to the west of Thailand, to find interested Thai youth. Interested youth completed either a paper form or an online application form. Participants were selected based on similar criteria to those used in the GRYC official selection process, namely an expression of openness and commitment to engaging with refugee issues, and a motivation to both contribute and learn from the consultation. The refugee participant selection committee, comprised of staff from AAT, JRS and APRRN, paid special attention to selecting equal numbers of young men and women, and proportionate numbers of youth under 18 years of age. The committee selected twenty refugee youth, four of whom could not attend; four additional participants were then invited from the waiting list. A facilitator from AI worked with AI student groups to select ten Thai participants. Nine of these attended the consultation, with the majority coming from Bangkok, and a few originating from Northern, Southern and Eastern Thailand. Half of the Thai participants were well versed in refugee issues, with others expressing an interest in learning more and becoming more involved. Youth Participant Profiles Thirty-‐one young people between 15 and 27 years old participated in the BRYC. Please find a summary of their demographic data below.1 1 Please note that any numerical inconsistencies are due to gaps in data collected from the youth. 5
• • • • •
21 refugee youth and 9 Thai youth 16 female and 14 male participants 14 of the refugee youth identifying as asylum seekers, and 7 identifying as refugees2 24 participants aged 18+ and 5 participants aged under 18 years old 7 refugee participants from Somalia, 6 from Pakistan, 4 from Sri Lanka, 4 from Vietnam and 1 from Cambodia 6 Thai participants from Bangkok and 1 each from Khon Kaen, Chiang Mai and Mahasarakram Of the refugee youth, 14 had been living in Thailand 2-‐5 years and 7 had been living in Thailand for 5+ years (many up to 16 years) Regarding the highest level of education completed by the refugee youth: o 8 have no formal education qualifications o 3 completed primary school o 5 completed secondary school o 3 completed undergraduate degrees Regarding the current education or employment status of the refugee youth: o 3 volunteering o 5 looking for a job o 5 employed part-‐time o 0 employed full-‐time o 8 in non-‐formal education o 1 in formal education o 1 doing unpaid work (e.g. caring for a family member or household duties) 13 refugee youth live with family, 6 live with friends and 2 live alone 1 participant identified as being married, 1 identified himself has having a disability and 3 identified themselves as taking care of a family member on a regular basis.
• • •
•
• •
BRYC STRUCTURE In keeping with the Global Youth Consultation structure, the BRYC programme was divided into two parts. Part one consisted of a three day consultation with youth, during which youth completed leadership and team building exercises, and developed recommendations on how stakeholders and refugee youth can work together to address the issues most important to them. The second part of the BRYC was a Stakeholder Meeting, during which the youth presented their recommendations and then discussed ideas for solutions whilst networking with local and regional stakeholders. For a detailed agenda of the entire BRYC, including a sessions and facilitators, please see Appendix A.
MAIN FINDINGS The following section describes the main activities during each day’s sessions, as well as the main findings from each session.
2
In Thailand, many refugees refer to themselves as asylum seekers until they receive official refugee status through the UNHCR refugee status determination (RSD) interview process. Wait times for RSD interview results range from several months to several years.
6
Day One Introductions and Overview The first day started with an introductory session, filled with team-‐building games and an overview of the purpose of the consultation. A consultation roadmap was used to show participants at a macro level, the significance of their participation in the consultation. The importance of confidentiality was also emphasised. This session included games, such as a world map exercise to show where everyone was from and a spider web exercise, during which dreams were shared and the connectedness of everyone’s shared experiences was visualised with yarn. During this exercise, some youth also shared why they came to the consultation. Two Thai youth said, “I never thought there were so many refugees in Thailand, but now I want to know more,” and “Refugees always sound so far away from us. I am here because I would like to learn more about their situation.” One refugee youth from Cambodia said, “I am very happy to see that I am not the only refugee here.” Expectations and Rules Following the introductory session, facilitators shared coloured paper ‘petals’ and asked participants to write down their expectations. These expectations were taped on the ‘expectation flower.’ Participants worked in pairs and a few volunteers presented their expectations to the group. One Thai youth shared, “I hope the four days can help to share ideas on how to enable everyone to get an education,” and a refugee group said that they expected the “opportunity to speak out and raise awareness.” Another refugee youth said, “I want to learn about what options are available for education… I want to learn about different experiences and knowledge.” Expectations regarding education were very popular, with one refugee participant adding, “If we don’t have education, we will have the same problems once we resettle,” and “I don’t want to waste our time waiting for our resettlement.” Continuing with the ‘expectation flower’ metaphor, consultation rules were introduced as the ‘water droplets’ that would help the ‘flower’ grow. For example, it was agreed that ground rules are necessary to create the environment in which all of the expectations can come true. The ‘flower of expectations’ was symbolically watered with blue paper drops, on which participants wrote their rules for the weekend. 7
Team Building Activities Facilitators divided participants into diverse teams and distributed art supplies for a team poster making activity. Each group was then asked to create a group name and design a poster that reflected their individual interests and strengths, the skills they would like to develop, and the people they admire. These collages were produced from magazine images, drawings and written quotes. During the small group activity participants had the opportunity to discuss their ideas and to combine their skills and creativity. Each group presented their poster to the group and answered questions from the floor. One group focused on diversity, showcasing different cultures on their poster, while another focused on collaboration and teamwork. Team mottos included: • • • •
Youth voices are more powerful than you think. Everyone can develop peace no matter what religion you practice. Peace is better than war. God uses ordinary people to do extraordinary things.
Day Two Refresher on Refugee Law and Refugee Rights, Ms. Jatuporn from UNHCR Thailand Ms. Jatuporn began this session with a participatory activity in which each participant received a cut-‐ out of one of the words contained in the definition of a ‘refugee’ in the 1951 Refugee Convention. Participants then had ten minutes to put all of the words in the correct order to spell out the definition. Ms. Jatuporn then explained the 1951 Refugee Convention, as well as the requirements for being recognised as a refugee. 8
Participants were then divided into five groups and each group received a photo of a famous person (such as Einstein and Freud) with a bit of information about their background. Using this information, groups addressed each of the five grounds by which refugee status can be granted (persecution due to race, religion, membership in a specific social group, nationality, or political belief) to decide whether or not their famous person could have received refugee status.
Ms. Jatuporn then answered questions regarding the process of refugee status determination (RSD), especially reasons which may result in long period of waiting for an interview with UNHCR. A UNHCR Protection Officer who was present explained that currently RSD Officers were over-‐stretched and unable to process the 7,000 asylum seekers who are in Bangkok refugees any faster, no matter how much they would like to help everyone as soon as possible. Ms. Jatuporn also fielded questions regarding the lack of repercussions for countries that do not uphold their obligations in accordance with being a state party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, for example Australia’s controversial policy of pushing boats back. Another participant asked about Thailand’s responsibilities, asking, “So if Thailand isn’t respecting these rights, it means they aren’t following the UN charter, which is what they’ve agreed to do, so who will penalise them? The UNHCR Protection Officer clarified that holding countries accountable is not the role of UNHCR. Refugee youth did not seem satisfied with these answers; however they were very eager to keep discussing these issues. Facilitators enthusiastically agreed that these types of discussions are exactly why everyone is here; they encouraged participants to continue these discussions throughout the consultation. Implications of Refugee Law in Thailand: Know your rights, Yuhanee from Asylum Access Thailand Ms. Yuhanee gave a short introductory lecture, explaining the difference between a ‘rule’ and a ‘law’ and between civil and criminal law in Thailand. She explained the nuances of Thailand’s immigration law, clarifying that the Immigration Act frames immigration ‘violations’ under criminal law. An extensive question and answer session followed, during which Ms. Yuhanee clarified several important issues. Firstly, refugees must follow Thai laws, despite Thai law offering them no legal protection. Secondly, she encouraged Thai youth to work at the local level to organise informal dialogues with concerned authorities to raise awareness of the issues facing refugees. Thirdly, she explained that police officers require an arrest warrant when conducting raids on homes, but that these warrants are often granted by courts if police officers can provide evidence of potential ‘illegal activity.’ Throughout the discussion, participants commented on the inconsistencies in the way that Thai law is applied in practice. This is due to many factors, including the changing nature of bail policies, discretion granted to police officers and immigration officials, and the lack of concrete legal protection mechanisms within the Thai legal session. Without legal status, refugees cannot refute unfair practices or even illegal behaviour, and so these informal practices continue. The atmosphere 9
seemed a bit heavy after this session, as many of these inconsistencies are the cause of much frustration for the refugee community in Bangkok. Prioritising Needs and Issues After lunch, participants worked together in the same groups to identify the needs and issues that are most important to them. Together, groups came up with dozens of needs; these needs were transformed into specific issues. For example, the need of ‘education’ was expanded into several issues, including the lack of opportunity to legally attend Thai school, Thai language barriers to accessing local vocational training and high school education, and a lack of information regarding alternative skills training programs. While all refugee youth live in the same urban setting (Bangkok), their varying socio-‐economic and educational backgrounds led to significant differences in how they described their needs in different categories (education, health, and employment, for example). Some refugee youth identified English classes as a pressing need, whereas others already fluent in English voiced that English skills were irrelevant without access to English language college programmes. Also challenging was looking beyond financial barriers to identify root problems. Rather than focus on not having enough money to pay for a hospital visit, facilitators encouraged participants to focus on the needs they could address, such as finding more refugee volunteers to translate for patients at NGO sponsored health care visits. During this session, the Thai youth mainly focused on the issues facing the refugees, asking questions about the issues refugee youth face. Next, each group ranked their issues from 1-‐9, one being most important, and presented their top nine issues. Facilitators helped each group clarify these top issues into concise statements for later use. Problem Tree Analysis: Analysing issues and identifying causes and effects Participants then sub-‐divided into smaller groups of three or four people and selected the most pressing issue of the top three issues they had previously identified. Step by step, participants identified the causes and effects of their chosen issue, filling out a problem tree analysis worksheet. After feedback and further discussion with facilitators, each group designed their own ‘problem tree’ poster, which they presented back to the whole group. Without prompting from facilitators, a group of Thai youth split off to work on a new issue: understanding the Thai perspective. Their poignant presentation at the end of the day was both touching and informative. Many refugee youth responded positively, saying “Before this I [had] never heard from a Thai person about why Thai people are like this,” and “I got the Thai peoples’ perception about refugees which I didn’t hear before.” A group working on health issues was formed only on the third day; therefore they did not complete a separate problem tree in this session.
10
Education Issue: Refugee youth have limited education opportunities in Thailand. Causes: 1) There is no Thai high school where refugee youth are legally allowed to attend without risk of drawing attention to themselves or their legal status; 2) Fees for private institutions are too high for refugees to be able to afford because refugees cannot work to raise money for their school fees; and 3) Refugees lack the legal papers required to register for schooling Effects: 1) Without education, refugee youth cannot access work opportunities or find financial security and 2) Refugee youth lose valuable time waiting for resettlement and are unable to further their education.
Thai Laws Issue 1: Thai state officials do not deal with refugees in accordance with the Immigration Act. Causes: • • •
•
Bribes are sources of money for police, due to low salaries; Refugee rights are not recognised in the Immigration Act; There exists widespread impunity caused by structural corruption, because no one raises these issues in court; and State officials do not really know the legal procedure of how to properly deal with refugees.
Effects: 1) Violation of refugee rights; 2) Bad record of national human rights; 3) Waste of resources that could be used for humanitarian assistance; and 4) Legal obstacles for refugees to get to third countries. 11
Issue 2: The Thai government has not signed the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Causes: 1) The Thai government is unwilling to devote financial resources to assist the refugees in the way the Convention requires; 2) The Thai government may not want more refugees to come; 3) The government doesn’t feel pressure from other countries to sign the 1951 Convention; and 4) The Thai government wants their policies to be more powerful than UN laws; they don’t want to have to take suggestions from other countries. Effects: 1) Risk of being arrested; 2) A lack of security; 3) No freedom of movement; and 4) A lack of job opportunities.
Thai Perspectives Issue: The negative approach/ perception of Thai people about refugees Causes: •
•
•
Lack of information ß receive most information in Thai ß believe in propaganda ß a failed education system which leads to ignorance Fear of possible economic and political instability ß view refugees as a burden on society à fear of loss jobs, terrorism, disease Views of history and nationalism, which are shaped by ethnocentrism, structural education systems, views of Thai-‐ness as superior, and not accepting foreign cultures
Effects: The perception of Thai people about refugees does not directly led to the many issues faced by refugees. Rather, these negative perceptions mean that the Thai citizens are generally not advocating for increased refugee legal protection, the lack of which leads to the employment, education and safety issues examined by the other groups.
12
Unemployment Issue: The lack of legal documentation to obtain a work permit Causes: 1) Lack of a valid visa and formal status, due to gaps in the law and 2) Contradictions between policy and practice because the issue is viewed as a burden on Thai society, meaning that informal labour by refugees is allowed to happen, but there are no protection mechanisms in place. Effects: Refugees are unable to work legally àJoblessness à insufficient incomeà dependency/ poor living conditions à frustration, depression, stress and psychological ailments
UNHCR Issue One: UNHCR takes a long time to interview refugees and delays their decisions. Causes: • • •
•
Lack enough staff ß shifting of budget to Middle East à lack money to pay for new staff; Lack of interpreters and volunteers, due to UNHCR not hiring more interpreters; Refugees don’t provide enough evidence ß refugees cannot go back home to get evidence or bring evidence with them; and Many refugees apply to UNHCR in Thailand ß it’s easy to come to Thailand and Thailand has freedom of religion.
Effects: • • • •
Possibility of being arrested and locked in immigration detention while awaiting refugee status; Waiting for a long period of time à rusting of skills, limit of fundamental freedoms, possibility of being deported à frustration, depression, stress, psychological ailments; Young refugees lack education opportunities; and Poor living conditions, due to having to wait for a long time without making money.
13
Issue Two: Refugees face a lack of transparency from UNHCR about the asylum/ refugee status procedure. Causes: 1) Lack of UNHCR resources due to increasing number of refugee crises globally; 2) UNHCR Confidentiality Procedures, coming from UNHCR headquarters, to which all UN branches must adhere; and 3) Lack of UNHCR staff involved in refugee communities (community relations). Effects: 1) Closed alternatives, such as voluntary return or migration to a different country; and 2) Spreading of rumours and a bad image of UNHCR.
After each group presented their ‘problem trees,’ facilitators posed questions and each group received feedback on their presentation from other participants. Participants were informed by facilitators that they would have the opportunity to present these issues to stakeholders on day four, and during day three there would be the opportunity to refine their messages and recommendations.
Day Three Introduction to Advocacy by Julia Mayerhofer, Interim Executive Director of APRRN Ms. Mayerhofer started by asking “what is advocacy?” to which participants answered that advocacy is about standing up for yourself, making changes, influencing people who are in power or make the laws; we can advocate on behalf of others but we also advocate for our own issues. She explained that effective advocacy is a combination of the voice of those who want change, and evidence, such as videos, pictures, stories and personal testimony to support the causes you are adovcating to change.
Ms Mayerhofter explained that before beginning to advocate for a specific cause, a problem and its causes must be identified. Next, stakeholders should be idenitifed in order to plan how to advocate with stakeholders at the community/ local, national, regional and global level. Ms. Mayerhofer highlighted the importance of collaboration and remembering that everyone can be an advocate; advocates just need to be passionate, understand the issue, have a plan and never give up! She also answered questions and explained that for refugee issues, the biggest stakeholders are refugees themselves, the government and UNHCR.
Stakeholder analysis Next, youth worked in groups to identify stakeholders at the local/ community, national, regional and global levels. Using circle charts, they mapped out the people, organisations and government bodies who are stakeholders in the issues they are working on. In order the think through all of the potential stakeholders, participants thought about: Who will benefit from the issue being resolved? Who will have to pay to help solve the issue? Whose support will you need to advocate for change? 14
Stakeholders range from those who can influence every issue identified by participants (i.e. UNHCR, NGOs, refugee youth and the Thai government) to more specific individuals, like hospital doctors, university advisors, embassies and Thai student newspapers writers. Youth considered all the possible stakeholders, including every person or group who interacts with refugee youth on each of the different issue identified. By identifying all potential stakeholders, participants were able to start formulating solutions to those issues, and develop recommendations that apply specifically to the different strengths, areas of influence, and power that different stakeholders have.
YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN ADVOCACY After learning about the principles of advocacy and how to advocate at multiple levels and with a variety of stakeholders, participants shared their ideas about how youth can become actively involved in advocacy. Questions were posed for discussion as follows: Should UNHCR and NGOs listen/engage with youth in designing and planning their services and activities for refugee youth? Twenty-‐six participants agreed, with five abstaining from voting. Reasons given by those in agreement included: “Because we understand best about our [own] problems” and “We can develop common solutions based upon shared difficulties.” Youth seemed eager to play a more active role in designing the activities NGOs hosted for them.
15
Have you ever taken any steps to communicate with NGOs and the UN to talk about the issues you face? Everyone answered yes, with the majority having attempted to communicate with UNHCR. All participants had communicated with an NGO in the past. A few noted barriers to continued communication due to language when interpreters were in short supply, but acknowledged that channels for communication do exist, even if they are difficult to access. Is it easy to communicate with NGOs and UNHCR about the issues that you face? The general consensus was that it is not easy to communicate with UNHCR, and relatively easier to communicate with NGOs. Participants shared their opinions, saying “No, it’s not easy to communicate with UNHCR,” and “It is hard to get face-‐to-‐face meeting with UNHCR.” Participants recognised the difference between communicating an issue and actually getting a response to a specific question or problem saying that, “it is easy to contact them [UNHCR] but difficult to get an answer,” and “We use the hotline, send emails, but no one is ever available to respond, or they never reply.” Many participants expressed great frustration over this situation, noting, “We cannot meet them without an appointment, but they don’t give us an appointment,” and “Messages do not get passed on and there are problems with interpretation.” Refugee participants acknowledge that the UNHCR office is severely understaffed, especially given the large number of refugees and asylum seekers in Bangkok. Youth Recommendations for Participation: Recognising the challenges NGOs and UNHCR face in communicating with thousands of refugees, participants suggested that UNHCR hold regular meetings between a designated UNHCR Community Liason spokesperson and the refugee community. This spokeserson could be a conduit for information between UNHCR and the refugee community. Participants also suggested how UNHCR could communicated indirectly with refugees, via local NGOs. Many NGOs in Bangkok have good working relationships with UNHCR and could relay information this way. Participants recognised that effective communication between UNHCR and refugees is a global issue. UNHCR has to balance government relations with their mandate; NGOs must balance time/case management and professionalism. In regard to how youth can participate in advocacy right now, participants suggested that refugees who have experienced the horrific conditions inside Bangkok’s immigration detention centre share their experiences with Amensty International, who can raise awareness of these conditions. Discussions revealed that there appear to be discepancies between policy and practice, especially regarding the management of the immigration detention centres, thus enhancing information sharing could help improve conditions over time. 16
Developing solutions Ice breaker: After discussing how youth can be invovled in advocacy, participants practiced presenting solutions to stakeholders by giving short practice speeches on the hypothetical upcoming ‘end of the world.’ After giving their presentations, participants realised that communicating a solution is not just about the solution itself, but using clear language, positive body language and evidence to present an idea. Furthermore, solutions should be reasonable and clearly presented so that the audience knows what action they are being asked to take. Participants spent the remainder of this session developing multi-‐layered solutions for stakeholders at each of the different levels (local/ community, national, regional and global). Participants created posters to map out solutions for each layer of stakeholders. See section Youth Solutions and Recommendations (page 17) for details of each group’s final solutions and recommendations.
Day Four Presentation skills In preparation for the Stakeholder Meeting, participants volunteered and nominated one another to present various topics on behalf of their fellow participants during the meeting. Presentation skills and the importance of speaking confidently and clearly were also discussed. Facilitators coached participants and helped them to prepare their speeches by reinforcing the power of their words and ability to influence stakeholders. Each group practiced presenting their solutions and recommendations while facilitators offered feedback.
YOUTH SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS During the first three days of the BRYC participants worked together to create comprehensive recommendations for addressing the issues they had identified as most pressing. These recommendations, which were presented during the Stakeholder Meeting and further explored during the subsequent Roundtable Discussion with Stakeholders held on day four of the BRYC, identify the ways in which all stakeholders, including refugee and Thai youth can effectively collaborate to solve the issues facing refugee youth in Bangkok. These solutions and recommendations are as follows:3 3
These solutions and recommendation reflect only the views of the youth and do not reflect the views of the APRRN, AAT, JRS, AI or any other NGOs or funders involved in the BRYC.
17
Education See Appendix B for a statement from participants on addressing education issues. Recommendations to the Royal Thai government, especially the Thai Ministry of Education: •
•
•
Provide access to more information about asylum seekers and refugees to Thai students, giving them the opportunity to learn more about who refugees are and why they are in Thailand; Allow individuals, including refugee and asylum seeking youth, without a formal Thai ID cards or passports to use public library facilities, giving them access to educational resources; and Consider a short-‐term temporary education ‘visa’ or ‘permit’ for refugee youth that would allow them to access public education within the Thai education system.
Recommendations to private educational institutions and international schools: •
•
Allow refugee youth to apply for merit-‐based admissions and funding scholarships, as well as offering a limited number of places for asylum seeker and refugee students to attend local Thai universities; and Offer distance learning courses through which refugee youth can study from home using a certified curriculum and sit for exams at schools that can certify their process.
Recommendations to local NGOs and UNHCR: •
•
•
Hire an educational consultant or programme manager to advise refugee youth in Bangkok about educational opportunities. While costly, secondary school completion certificates (such as the IGCSE and GED) and A level exams are open to all youth, regardless of immigration status, and an education consultant could advise refugee youth about the opportunities available to them; Hire teachers who can teach vocational skills in English, since vocational training programmes in Thailand are only available in Thai. Once a few refugee youth complete their training courses, they can share what they have learned with other refugee youth; and Provide language tuition in the national languages of countries where refugees are likely be resettled; for example, French, Swedish, German, etc. Increasing language fluency can increase the chances of employment and resettlement in countries where these languages are spoken.
Finally, youth recommend that the international community pressure the government of Thailand to allow refugees short-‐term visas specifically for access to education.
Health See Appendix C for a statement from participants on health issues. Recommendations to NGOs: •
•
Offer first aid trainings and establish a team of volunteer doctors and nurses to conduct such trainings so that refugees can learn first aid and help themselves before small illnesses and injuries get worse and require a hospital visit; Coordinate volunteers from refugee communities in Bangkok to address the lack of interpreters at hospitals; and
18
•
Offer a psychological support workshop to connect counsellors with refugees and offer information about coping strategies for dealing with mental health issues.
Thai Law National laws in Thailand, specifically the Thai Immigration Act, are unlikely to be reformed to include protection for refugees without significant lobbying by the general public. As such, the following recommendations address both Thai laws and the ways in which increased education can bring about support for greater legal protection for refugees within the Thai legal system. Recommendations include: •
• •
•
NGOs should increase education projects to better engage the Thai public in refugee issues, for example by connecting refugee youth and Thai youth to increase knowledge through information and experience sharing; and To work together with Thai police departments to conduct education sessions regarding the situation and rights of refugees. The Royal Thai government must adhere to their obligations under international law and recognise that the Thai Immigration Act cannot supersede the customary international law principle of non-‐refoulement, and as such Thailand cannot forcibly return refugees. UNHCR could give asylum seekers temporary status cards indicating that they are ‘awaiting refugee status verification’.
Perspectives of the Thai general public See Appendix D for a statement from participants on addressing the perspectives of Thai general public. Recommendations to all stakeholders: •
Increase the space for interactions between refugees and Thai communities with the purpose of: o Providing a space for each to learn about the others’ culture firsthand, to create mutual understanding at a personal level (University and community visits, cultural exchange programmes and volunteer language meet-‐ups are a few examples of spaces for these interactions); o Helping Thai people acknowledge the presence of refugees in their country in spite of the lack of a legal framework for their protection; o Educating Thai people to understand the different categories of ‘migrants’ (including ‘forced migrants’ or refugees) considering that each group has unique characteristics, o Increasing knowledge and understanding amongst Thai people of the challenges that refugees face, and create pathways to transforming these perspectives; and o Raising support for upholding human rights, with the ultimate goal of integrating human rights education into mainstream educational systems.
Unemployment See Appendix E for a statement from participants on addressing unemployment amongst refugees. Recommendations to all stakeholders: •
Refugee youth become active participants in advancing their own education, awareness and skills training and team up with stakeholders to bring about change.
19
• • • • •
Recommend that NGOs facilitate spaces for refugee youth to work together and share their existing skills; and Offer vocational training (in addition to language tuition), taught by volunteers, for example Thai university students who could tutoring refugees in computer science or English. Recommend that Thai youth advocate with refugee youth and build relationships to raise awareness of the challenges refugees face in Thai families and communities. Recommend that Thai landlords learn more about refugee issues and allow refugee families to rent at the same prices as Thai families. Recommend that Thai business owners be more open to hiring refugee youth.
UNHCR The following recommendations address the complex relationship between refugees and UNHCR, and demonstrate a willingness of refugee youth to work together with UNHCR towards increased transparency and openness regarding the complex process of refugee status determination (RSD). See Appendix E for a statement from participants on addressing challenges involving UNHCR. Recommendations to UNHCR: •
•
• • •
Increase openness and transparency surrounding the RSD process through community outreach programmes to improve UNHCR’s image within the community and enhance community relations; Educate asylum seekers about RSD procedures upon their arrival in Thailand, thereby giving them the immediate option to return voluntarily to their country of origin if they believe they are unlikely to be awarded refugee status in the near future, thus saving them three-‐ four years of their lives whilst waiting for decision; Ensure audio recording of RSD interviews, and allow third parties, such as local NGOs, to review such recordings to prevent serious errors from affecting RSD outcomes; Generate alternatives to detention that local NGOs and stakeholders can advocate for; and Maintain a team of lawyers to negotiate for the release of children from detention without delay.
Recommendations to NGOs, governments and other stakeholders to support UNHCR by: • • •
•
Taking note of the severe lack of funding for UNHCR Thailand and generating more funding for UNHCR Thailand through advocacy in Geneva; Helping UNHCR uphold their mandate by involving the media in monitoring their processes; and Working together with UNHCR, Thai child rights groups and Buddhist organisations to hold peaceful talks with immigration officials to negotiate leniency and alternatives to detention for children; and Facilitating care homes or shelters to house children whose parents are in detention.
STAKEHOLDER MEETING: STRUCTURE AND ANALYSIS The Stakeholder Meeting was held on 16th February, day four of the consultations, and offered youth participants the chance to present their messages, solutions and recommendations to local, national and international stakeholders. Twenty-‐five stakeholders from seventeen organisations attended the meeting. 20
Government Stakeholders: Ministry of Justice: Rights and Liberty Department (Thailand), Ministry of Social Welfare: Department of Social Development and Human Security: Office of Children and Youth (Thailand) and the Canadian Embassy NGO Stakeholders: Save the Children, People’s Empowerment Foundation (PEF), Global Alliance against Traffic in Women (GAATW), Boat People SOS, JRS’ Bangkok Child Protection programme, Asylum Access Thailand (AAT), Child Rights Coalition Thailand, Life Raft International, Amnesty International Thailand, Council for Humanitarian Networking of Sheikul Islam, and World Vision International Other Stakeholders: Thammasat University, UNHCR Thailand, and the Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network Stakeholder Meeting Structure The Stakeholder Meeting started at 14:00 with participant led introductions and a skit, after which the youth presented their recommendations to the audience. The skit showed a young refugee explaining her situation to a Thai friend, only to be interrupted by a Thai police officer, demanding to see her papers and eventually attempting to arrest her. The pleas of the Thai friend eventually convinced the officer to let her refugee friend go. The reality of this interaction is something many refugee youth have faced or fear whenever they go outside. Using PowerPoint slides and visual aids, each group spent five to seven minutes presenting their recommendations for addressing the issues they had identified as being most pertinent, explaining both the causes and effects, and their proposed solutions. The recommendations highlighted the ways in which refugee youth, Thai youth and stakeholders could work together. See Appendix A-‐ E for more detail. These presentations were followed by small roundtable discussions between invited stakeholders and youth participants. When the Stakeholder Meeting began, stakeholders were spread out amongst the tables, to ensure that each table had an even mix of youth and stakeholders. During the roundtable discussions, stakeholders asked questions and spoke in detail with participants about their recommendations. Stakeholders circulated between the different thematic groups, moving from table to table to speak with different groups. A co-‐lead facilitator remained at each table during the discussion to assist in keeping the discussion on topic. The purpose of these discussions and following coffee break was to provide opportunities for in-‐depth discussion in a casual setting. The Stakeholder Meeting ended with an open-‐microphone session, during which anyone could share additional comments or thoughts regarding the presentations and subsequent discussions. Stakeholder Meeting Analysis •
The majority of stakeholders who committed to attend came, and with good representation from UNHCR Thailand. Two representatives of the Royal Thai government attended. Refugee youth especially were thrilled with the number of government officials in attendance, as this was a rare opportunity for them to discuss issues directly with government officials.
•
The presentations made by participants were clear and concise, which contributed to the active and fruitful roundtable discussions that followed.
•
Stakeholders were highly engaged in the roundtable discussions, although not all youth participants felt confident enough to engage directly. Language barriers (for example proficiency in English or Thai) meant that some youth participated in discussions more actively than others. 21
•
While the majority of discussion focused the specific topics that were presented, a few moments of frustration were felt as personal stories were shared and stakeholders were unable to provide any guarantees or satisfactory remarks. While facilitators instructed the youth participants to remain on topic, this rare opportunity to meet with a government or UNHCR official directly led to a few tense and emotional moments when stakeholders did not enthusiastically respond to personal issues shared by youth participants.
•
Feedback from facilitators was generally positive, and emphasised the high level of engagement and confidence many youth had when communicating their ideas to various stakeholders.
•
Overall, participants rated the Stakeholder Meeting as one of the highlights of the consultation:
•
o
“[My favourite part of the consultation is] getting to present ideas and recommendations to UNHCR and other stakeholders.”
o
“I truly believe I have been listened [to] and guided in getting information and my ideas presented.”
o
“After our presentations, there were three organisers servicers [stakeholders] came and talked with us, [and] said that our ideas are good and interesting [and] that they will arrange something related to our project soon.”
o
“I felt empowered when it [was] the time to speak for those whose voices are barely heard. It gave strength even with nervousness.”
o
“I felt great once people accepted my suggestions or idea in the group or at consultation.”
o
In regard to stakeholders: “Some of them have flaws, but they assured us about feedback; somehow I am hoping for a positive policy from our stakeholders.”
Participant evaluations also revealed some hesitancy regarding high expectations for stakeholders implementing their recommendations, including: “After the consultation I don’t know what the outcome will be.”
STAKEHOLDER MEETING: MAIN OUTCOMES AND NEXT STEPS Stakeholder Meeting Outcomes •
In response to complaints from many participants regarding long wait times and a lack of transparency during RSD procedures, UNHCR responded first by saying that they alone cannot do everything by themselves, and that everyone working together can make a difference. The UNHCR representative who attended the Stakeholder Meeting emphasised that UNHCR are doing everything they can with the resources available, but that staff shortages and privacy concerns are the largest barriers to addressing the issues raised by participants.
•
During the roundtable discussion on unemployment, UNHCR explained that they cannot actively encourage any form of employment which contravenes Thailand Employment laws. Further, advocating for the right to work for refugees is not part of UNHCR’s mandate. A stakeholder from GAATW suggested that refugees and community organisations could share safe informal employment opportunities with one another, while formal employment opportunities are still out of reach for refugees. 22
•
In regard to recommendations presented during the group presentations, a stakeholder from the People’s Empowerment Foundation encouraged the youth participants to refine their recommendations, and produce concise statements to be shared with the Thai Government Ministries.
•
APRRN’s Interim Executive Director reiterated APRRN’s commitment to moving forward with advocacy on the recommendations presented and cooperating with NGOs to implement the solutions suggested by participants. Other NGO stakeholders enthusiastically agreed and expressed their commitment to supporting refugee youth in their future efforts.
Youth Outcomes At the end of day four, facilitators led a debriefing and evaluation session, gathering feedback from all participants regarding the outcomes of stakeholder meeting and possible next steps. •
Participants expressed a high interest in continuing the engagement between all stakeholders, both through building relationships with Thai youth and one another, as well as advocacy on their recommended solutions. APRRN committed to assisting youth participants to refine their recommendations and formulate statements for inclusion in a report of the BRYC, which an APRRN representative will present at the UNHCR-‐NGO Consultations in Geneva in June 2016.
•
In regard to building relationships, a picnic was suggested as a way of involving youth who were unable to attend this consultation and other interested Thai youth. Through such an informal activity, more youth could get to know one another.
•
Building on the success of the ‘Intercultural Bazaars’4 that have been held in Bangkok in 2014 and 2015, participants expressed their enthusiasm to organise a similar event this year, with support from APRRN.
•
Participants committed to staying in touch via a Facebook group. This group was formed on the last day of the BRYC and already has been used to spread information about university events and speaking engagements that the participants have attended together.
Stakeholder Outcomes NGO Stakeholders met two weeks after the consultation on 3rd March 2016 to follow-‐up on the recommendations made during the consultation, and issues raised at the stakeholder meeting. NGO stakeholders made the following commitments: •
Before additional projects or programmes can be created, the skills and needs of the Bangkok urban refugee community need to be mapped. One of the refugee co-‐facilitators will meet with AAT to devise a plan for this mapping project, as well as gather existing data from other NGOs. This mapping will identify education, health and employment interests and needs (Spring 2016);
•
AAT is currently working on a democratic collective action project, whereby small groups of community members focus on different areas (health, education, etc). AAT will look into adding a youth group to this project, as a way of giving youth the opportunity to create their own projects and identify community needs (Spring 2016);
4
The past two Intercultural Bazaars were held in Bangkok and offered refugees and asylum seekers from different communities the opportunity to sell food and traditional goods, as well as share music and cultural performances with one another and bazaar guests.
23
•
APRRN will conduct research about the potential to take the General Education Diploma(GED) exam online, for refugee youth to earn the equivalent of a U.S. high school diploma (March 2016);
•
AI will look into online course opportunities from Webster University for refugee youth living in Bangkok (March 2016);
•
JRS will share information with refugee youth regarding mental health training sessions that will start in April 2016;
•
AAT is currently facilitating employment opportunities and will share this information with the refugee community (Spring 2016);
•
APRRN will support two of the refugee youth co-‐facilitators as they begin to plan an intercultural bazaar for refugees to sell homemade goods and food (Spring 2016);
•
AI will collect articles from refugee youth detailing their experiences for publication in their newsletter series on Thai campuses (Spring 2016);
•
AI and AAT will continue their university campus outreach events to teach Thai students about human rights issues (Spring-‐Summer 2016);
•
A refugee facilitator will organise trips to the immigration detention centre for Thai youth to learn more about the experiences of refugee youth and families (Spring 2016); and
•
BPSOS, JRS and three of the refugee youth facilitators will organise a picnic for all consultation participants and other interested refugee youth in Bangkok. This will be an opportunity for everyone to continue to network, as well as learn about the steps NGOs have taken following the consultation and opportunities to become more involved in future plans (April 2016).
•
APRRN will investigate the possibility of organising a short course for youth on refugee rights in partnership with Mahidol University, in order for youth to continue engaging with these issues (April-‐May 2016)
PARTICIPANT EVALUATIONS Daily Evaluations Participants spent around thirty minutes at the end of each day evaluating the day’s sessions through participatory exercises. These exercises helped facilitators assess which aspects of the consultations the participants were enjoying the most, and as necessary, adjust the activities appropriately for the next day. Daily evaluations gave the participants a more active role, allowing them to offer almost immediate feedback and feel more confident that their concerns were being addressed. At the end of day one, participants shared feedback on four different colours of paper, each type of feedback corresponding to a specific colour: • • • •
Light green = something new to me Cream = a mountain or challenge you were facing today Yellow= something that surprised you Purple = the best thing that happened today 24
By far the most common challenges were the language barrier when communicating with youth from different countries and overcoming insecurities when sharing difficult stories or ideas with others. Many Thai youth were surprised by refugees who could speak Thai and many refugees were surprised meeting so many refugees from different backgrounds. At the end of day two, participants were invited to stand along an imaginary line in response to how they felt about a question. Furthest left on the line signified a ‘0’ (totally disagree) and furthest right signified a ‘10’ (totally agree). Participants had ten seconds after a statement was read aloud to stand along the line based on how much they agreed with the statement. For the statement “The session on refugee law was helpful,” the majority of participants stood closer to the left side of the room, explaining: “There was not enough info about civil law and the Asylum Act,” and “There should have been more focus on one particular aspect not an overall thing,” but clarifying that “Even though we didn’t learn that much, I loved seeing Thai people who were willing to advocate for us.” For the statement “I learned about the Thai perspective,” participants responded very positively noting, “I wasn’t expecting to see all of these ideas and all of this knowledge from you people, sorry for me judging you all. I was amazed and surprised with each idea and each activity we do,” and “I’m so happy that of all the activities we have done here and I’m so amazed that Thai people are speaking out about here too,” and “I got the Thai peoples’ perception about refugees which I didn’t hear before.” At the end of day three, participants shared ‘high points’ and ‘low points’ in a circle. High points included gratitude at everyone being open and participating actively in preparing the group presentations. Low points included being very tired after a full day of intense activities. Written Evaluations Each participant completed a final written evaluation at the end of day four. This anonymous feedback has helped both facilitators and organisers better understand which aspects of the consultation the participant benefitted most from, and which parts should be adjusted for future activities. The evaluation forms completed in Thai were translated after the event. A few samples of participant responses are given in italics below: Question one: Through my participation in this consultation, Ques]on 1 I had the opportunity to identify and discuss issues that are important to me and my community, and to develop and suggestion solutions. Completely Quite challenging somehow to bring up ‘sensitive issues’ but it 19% agree was so crucial and a relief to express the actual problems. Mostly 81% agree I had the chance to tell my needs and also the needs of my community to UNHCR and other NGOs. 25
Question two: Through my participation in this consultation, I have developed and improved my leadership and advocacy Ques]on 2 skills. 11% Completel I completely agree because of the confidence it has given [me]. y agree Mostly I felt empowered when it was the time to speak for those whose 32% agree 57% voices are barely heard. It gave strength even with nervousness. Parpally Before I don’t have that much confident [sic] or dare to speak or agree advocate. I became more open and comfortable. Question three: Through my participation in this consultation, I am more aware of organisations that I can engage with at a local Ques]on 3 and national level. 11% Complete I learnt about many new organisations and now I am aware of ly agree them. Mostly 33% 56% agree Before this consultation, I only know AAT, JRS, and UNHCR, but now I am so lucky to meet a lot of NGOs that are willing to Parpally advocate for us, like APRRN, Amnesty International and embassies agree who are willing to support us, like the Canadian Embassy. Every member was trying to defend his organisation. Only some of them have really accepted the flaws and assured us about feedback. I heard of some organisation before but it gave an opportunity to know what “resources” they have available for the youths to connect with. Question four: Through my participation in this consultation, I have more opportunities to develop relationships with Ques]on 4 youth groups and organisations locally, nationally and internationally. 7% Completely I just love all the participants. They are very kind and agree passionate and the youth organisers, the facilitators who 15% Mostly made the bond between refugees and Thai youth more agree confident and energised. 78% Parpally agree This consultation created a friendly environment for us, especially meeting with Thai youth who we had different view of [them], and it makes it easy for us to connect with other NGOs and individuals who were willing to support us. Because they have open heart to listen to us, especially to Thai youth, and I hope I will work with them in next events. 26
I still do not understand what some organisations do. Maybe we could have a manual? Question five: Through my participation in this consultation, Ques]on 5 I understand more about the experiences of other refugee youth and national youth. 11% Completely After participating in this consultation, I got to know more agree about others and about how they suffered. Mostly 89% Before I participate, I don’t know any refugee youth. Now I agree know about them and I discussed many things with them. Question six: Do you feel you have been listened to at this consultation? Yes, I believe I have been listening to and guided in getting information and my ideas presented. The asylum seekers always listen to Thai attitudes, but sometimes they do not follow our suggestions. Yes, of course they were listening keenly to everything and their attitude was positive, but they were returning the burdens back on to our shoulders and didn’t promise about anything. Yes, after our presentation there were three organisers who came and talked with us and said that our ideas are good and interesting. They’ll come up or arrange something related to our project soon. All of the refugees listen and try to understand the things that we explain to them about the point of view of the Thai people Question seven: What learning are you talking away from this consultation? Leadership skills, public speaking skills, lots of friends, others experiences and an understanding of why Thais are the way they are. We can understand each other no matter our background. Prepare for expeditions before going for it and arm yourself with necessary arguments. I am taking awesome memories and experiences from here. Thai youth are very nice actually, but problem is they don’t know about refugees’ problems. In-‐depth knowledge, understanding of refugee law, friends without barriers and motivation Question eight: Did this consultation meet your expectations? It did. I really enjoyed being here and engaging my intellect with issues that are stressful to refugees. Yes, I came here with many questions and I got answers to all of those questions. Yes, because I learned more about UN’s process and got so many answers that I have in my mind. 27
It exceeded my expectations because at first I did not know anything about refugees. Question nine: What specific ideas do you have for action based on your involvement in this consultation? In this consultation we proposed solutions. I hope that next we will work on sharing practical steps. For my project, I wanted to build up a small workshop based on this consultation. To serve as a focal point to connect Thai and refugee communities. I want to speak out on the issue of education for refugees by writing articles and interviewing them. We need to focus on how to bring local youth and refugee youth together. Amnesty International should host a sports day for everyone to have fun together. To think about how to announce to other people that refugees exist and need human rights.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS This consultation, the first of its kind held for refugee youth in Bangkok, gave refugee youth the ability to speak candidly with one another, Thai youth, and local and national stakeholders on the issues and challenges they face in Bangkok. Several themes emerged from the four days of open and often difficult but productive dialogue. Legal Protection Identified as a source of the majority of issues faced by refugee youth, the lack of legal protection in Thailand means that all youth are at constant fear of arrest or detention. All refugee youth stressed the importance of ending arbitrary detention, many having spent time in cramped and over-‐ crowded detention facilities themselves. The fear of arrest limits their ability to pursue employment or education opportunities, making the need for improved legal protection all the more urgent. Transparency Refugee youth voiced clear frustrations with the lack of transparency from many stakeholders; namely, the months or years spent in limbo, with little information forthcoming about what the outcomes might be. Rumours and anxiety spread quickly within refugee communities; youth just want to know why or how something has happened. The refugee youth understood that a lack of transparency is common throughout many levels of government, but they still hope that civil society organisations and UNHCR will be honest and open, rather than give false hope or stoke unrealistic expectations. Collaboration Refugee youth recognised the barriers to interacting with the Thai community; without the support of the Thai general public, the Thai government has little incentive to give refugees more legal protection. Many refugee youth voiced their support for the Thai youth, whose primary area of focus was educating Thai youth and Thai communities to change their perspectives of refugees and asylum seekers.
28
Outreach amongst the Thai community is the perfect collaborative activity, as Thai youth have access to local communities, and refugee youth have powerful and moving personal experiences to share with them. Of all the next steps discussed by the youth, this collaborative outreach effort is something they started within a week of the BRYC ending. All refugee youth have experiences to share, making outreach events the ideal opportunity for refugee youth to build relationships with one another as well as with Thai youth as they learn to advocate for themselves. Information Sharing The majority of refugee youth in Bangkok have connections with or receive services from an NGO, meaning that most refugee youth know about the services NGOs offer, as well as services offered by NGO partners. The information gap lies between external opportunities and interested refugee youth. NGOs have not yet mapped the levels of education, health and employment needs of entire refugee communities. As such, NGOs have yet to gather information about which external opportunities (for example, education programs offered by online universities) refugee youth may be able to access. The need for information sharing about education and employment resources came up throughout the four days, highlighting the potential for a community liaison officer to work on mapping and sharing such information amongst NGOs. Friendship Given the diversity of the Bangkok refugee population and the language and spatial barriers, refugee youth face many obstacles in getting to know youth from different refugee communities and also people from Thai communities. Many youth shared how happy they were to meet people from different backgrounds and realise how much they had in common. Participants emphasised how much they had learned from one another and how they looked forward to making more friends in the future. Communication Refugee youth acknowledged the staff shortages and budget shortfalls that almost every NGO in Bangkok and UNHCR in Thailand currently face. Nevertheless, they voiced their frustrations regarding the communication challenges they faced when addressing their needs and issues with stakeholders. Participants had the idea of forming a youth delegation or selecting a youth liaison to meet with UNHCR and share the concerns of the youth community. Participants recognised that too many people submitting too many requests makes getting answers take longer. Instead, a spokesperson could bring issues to NGOs on behalf of all refugee youth. This type of solution exemplified the ability of refugee youth to balance their own needs with the reality of the limitations NGOs have.
APPENDIX Appendix A: Agenda of the Bangkok Refugee Youth Consultation Appendix B: Education for Refugee and Asylum Seeker Youth Appendix C: The Thai Perspective on Refugees and Asylum Seekers Appendix D: Healthcare for Refugee and Asylum Seeker Youth Appendix E: Employment for Refugee and Asylum Seeker Youth
29
APPENDIX A: AGENDA Saturday, February 13, 2016 : Day 1 Focus: Team-‐building Time slot
Session description
Resource person
10:30
Bus leaves from Xavier Hall at the JRS office
12.00-‐13.00
Lunch
13.00-‐13.30
Registration
13.30-‐15.30
Introduction games, overview, expectations and rules All facilitators
15.30-‐ 16.00
Coffee break
16:00-‐17:00
Team-‐building ● Who am I? ● Team poster making
Clyde Mohammad
17.00-‐17.30
Reflection of the day Debrief and leaving policies Video project introduction
Ying Clyde Mahalia
17.30-‐18.00
Break
18.00-‐19.30
Dinner
19.30-‐21.30
Informal hangout time
Mohammad Evan
Sunday February 14th, 2016 Day 2 Focus: Identifying Issues 08.00-‐09.00
Breakfast
09.00-‐09.15
Introduction, recap and energizer
Clyde
09.15-‐10.30
Refresher on Refugee Law and Refugee Rights
K. Lee from UNHCR
10.30-‐11.00
Coffee Break
11.00-‐12.00
Implications of Refugee law in Thailand: Know your rights
12.30-‐13.30
Lunch
13.30-‐14.30
Identifying and prioritising needs and issues
Clyde
14.30-‐15.30
Youth participation: discussion on the role of youth in addressing chosen issues
Clyde
Yuhanee from Asylum Access
30
15.30-‐16.00
Coffee Break
16.00-‐17.30
Analysing issues and identifying causes and impacts ● Problem tree analysis
Mahalia
17.30-‐18.00
Reflection of the Day
Ying
18.00-‐19.00
Dinner
19.00-‐ 21.30
Informal hangout time
Monday 15th February 2016 Day 3 Focus: Developing Solutions 08.00-‐09.00
Breakfast
09.00-‐09.30
Recap and energizer
09.30-‐10.30
Introduction to advocacy Julia & Mahalia ● What is advocacy? ● What is the role of youth in advocacy? ● How do we communicate our messages and recommendations?
10:30-‐11.00
Coffee Break
11.00-‐12.30
Stakeholder Analysis
12.30-‐13.30
Lunch
13.00-‐14.30
Developing solutions, action plans, and recommendations Creating solutions for advocacy at different levels (alone, with Thai youth, in the community, with NGOs/ UNHCR, with Thai state)
14.30-‐15.00
Coffee Break
15.00-‐17.00
Finalising action plans, core messages and recommendations
Ying
17.00-‐17.30
Reflection of the Day
Ying
18.00-‐19.30
Dinner
19.00-‐ 21.30
Informal hangout time
Asifa, Mohammad
Mahalia
Clyde Ying
Tuesday 16th February 2016 Day 4 Focus: Action plans and next steps 07.30-‐08.30
Breakfast
8.30-‐9.00
Recap and energiser
Ying and Asifa
31
9.00-‐10.30
Stakeholder Planning Part One: Presentation tips Finalising the Stakeholder meeting with participants
10.30-‐11.00
Coffee Break
11.00-‐12.30
Stakeholder Planning Part Two: (continued, see above)
12.30-‐13.30
Lunch
14.00-‐16.00
Stakeholder Meeting
16.00-‐16.30
Coffee Break (Networking with stakeholders)
16.30-‐18.00
Closing Session ● Debrief and Recap ● Evaluation forms ● What’s next?
Clyde All facilitators
all facilitators
Led by youth participants
Julia Mahalia Ying
32
APPENDIX B
Education for Refugee and Asylum Seeker Youth Recommendations for Stakeholders
Background Refugee youth in Bangkok face many challenges, including the ability to access both secondary and higher education. Refugee cannot access education in an environment in which they fear arrest and lack proper documentation. As a result of legal, financial and social barriers refugee youth are seeking both access to traditional education avenues, as well as creative alternatives and vocational training to advance their skills while awaiting resettlement. Main Issues: Causes and Solutions Main Issue: Refugees cannot access secondary and higher education opportunities in Bangkok. Causes: Refugees lack access to valid student visas and the legal documentation required by most schools and universities to enroll. There is no legal framework for refugees in Thailand, which leads to a lack of an educational framework for refugee youth. National and international schools charge fees out of reach for most refugee youth and language barriers prevent most youth from enrolling in Thai schools. Additionally, families fear that a child’s presence in school could raise the family profile and alert authorities of their presence. Families also lack information about the rights of their children to attend Thai primary government schools for free. Solutions and recommendations 1. We recommend that international schools consider granting refugee youth scholarship and educational grants, in addition to allowing competition based admissions during which refugee youth could test into a specific number of open seats. 2. We recommend that UNHCR and NGOs work together to hire educational consultants to conduct research about the educational options available to refugees. These options may include information on how to take IGSCE, GED and A-‐level exams (while expensive, this is an option for a few refugee youth), as well as provide information about international school scholarships. 3. We recommend that NGOs provide language courses in the national languages of countries to which refugee youth will potentially be resettled, as well as expand their vocational and skills training programmes. This will increase their employment opportunities as well. 4. We recommend that the Thai government consider providing short-‐term temporary education visas to refugee youth living in Thailand that would allow them access to education and live without fear of arbitrary arrest while they pursue their education. 5. We recommend that the Thai Ministry of Education allow international schools to offer distance learning courses and scholarships for refugee students to complete specified curriculum from home and then complete exams at the school to certify their progress. 6. We recommend that the international community pressure the Thai government to implement these recommendations and increase refugee youth access to education. Written by: Karunamenan Ganeshalingam Collaborators: Mony Tachs, Abdul Aziz, Kitty Alphons, Falis Mahamud Hasan, Thusyanthan Kedeeswaran, Le Van Thai, and Onuma Chumpanya Note: this text has been edited to match the formatting and style of this report 33
APPENDIX C
Healthcare for Refugee and Asylum Seeker Youth Recommendations for Stakeholders
Background Access to medical care is important for all human beings. Everyone would like to be healthy; without good medical care, illness can quickly result in lost employment or livelihood opportunities. Main issues and causes Issue 1: Refugees and asylum seekers cannot access medical care in government or private hospitals. Causes: Refugees lack proper legal documents and financial support to pay for treatment. They often cannot communicate with hospital staff and a high demand for services mean slow referral times and inadequate numbers of interpreters. Finally, refugees have few people advocating on their behalf, given the high level of need. Issue 2: The medical care needs of refugees are not being met by NGO initiatives. Causes: The Bangkok Refugee Centre medical clinic closed in 2014, and NGOs such as JRS have limited budgets to pay for medical care in hospitals. The once-‐monthly free clinic at Tzu Chi has limited capacities, lacking high level machinery to diagnose more serious issues. They also lack eye specialists and only provide dental care for children. In general, NGOs lack the budget to support many people with anything less than life threatening illnesses, leaving many without care. Issue 3: Refugees detained in IDC face serious health problems. Cause: The unhygienic and crammed facilities inside Bangkok’s Immigration detention centres lead to the spread of diseases (including a current scabies outbreak) and uncomfortable conditions (detainees must sleep in shifts because space is so limited). Refugees detained inside IDC are fed the same nutrition-‐less food daily, and have no access to fresh air or exercise, except for one hour per week. Mental health services are not provided, with volunteer psychologists barred from accessing patients. Solutions and recommendations 1. We recommend that the Bangkok Refugee Centre (BRC) re-‐start their medical care service provision programme, even if they can only provide minimal services, this will still help refugees. 2. We recommend that NGOs providing hospital referrals also organise an interpreter for the hospital visit and provide financial support to pay for the bill. We suggest that NGOs find more volunteers who can provide interpretation for these services. 3. We recommend that the IDC officials allow volunteer psychiatrists to visit IDC and speak with refugees dealing with post-‐traumatic stress disorder and anxiety. 4. We recommend that the IDC officials consider separating refugees into more rooms so that they can at least all sit down at the same time. 5. We recommend that IDC officials allow NGOs to send doctors and nurses to conduct monthly check-‐ups inside IDC and provide free medical care to sick refugees. 34
6. We highly recommend that IDC officials pay attention to the health concerns of refugees, rather than waiting until the very last minute to take refugees to the hospital. Officials should consider releasing refugees with serious health problems out on bail so that they can access the care they need. 7. We recommend that NGOs find volunteers with health background who can provide free medical service to refugees. NGOs could contact Thai medical students, Thai nurses and refugees with medical backgrounds and set up a meeting to organise the volunteers and set up free clinics. 8. We recommend that the Thai Government allow refugees to access medical care at the same cost as Thai nationals, until they have resettlement secured in a third country. 9. We recommend that the UNHCR High Commissioner and all local NGOs support the above solutions and recommendations. Written by: Jeevitha Ganeshalingam Collaborators: Boontrika Meechoocheep, Thusyanki Ketheeswaran, Yujing Vang, Biap Krong Note: this text has been edited to match the formatting and style of this report
35
APPENDIX D
The Thai Perspective on Refugee and Asylum Seekers Recommendations for Stakeholders
Background After analysing the issues commonly faced by refugees in Thailand, we have found that the fundamental mindset of the general Thai population contributes to many of these issues in the first place. The general mindset of many Thai people appears to have its root in the history of nationalisation, which only reveals one side of the history, in favor to that of the Thais. A sense of ethnocentrism is thus constructed and to certain extent, valued. Subsequently, Thai immigration policies are drawn from an underlying interest to protect national security. The myths of socio-‐economic instability also play a part in shaping peoples’ mindsets, convincing Thai people that increased immigration will result in job losses for Thais. Moreover, the structure of the Thai education system encourages these myths by overlooking a global perspective. Thus the Thais do not seek out information about international refugee or war situations, considering those situations irrelevant to them. Effects of the Thai perspective towards refugees This type of fundamental thinking does not encourage the government or people to support the ratification of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The persons of concern (refugees) are therefore considered illegal immigrants under the provisions of Thailand’s Immigration Act. Additionally, the lack of legalised refugee protection mechanisms and legal procedures mean that Immigration officials and police are unable to respond to the unique circumstances of refugees. Some of the impacts of the lack of legal protection include: 1) Limited access to education, despite the Education for All Policy, which claims to grant the right to education for children of all nationalities, yet is not implemented due to discrimination by practitioners; 2) Difficulty receiving health care, due to the inability to communicate and fear of being arrested in public sphere; and 3) No employment opportunities, due to the lack of legal documentation to obtain work permit. Recommendations 1. Increase the space for interaction between refugee and Thai communities, 1. That the two communities have a space for them to learn from one another’s cultures and experience firsthand to create mutual understanding at a personal level; 2. That the Thais acknowledge the existence of refugees in their country, regardless of the lack of legal recognition in the Thai legal code; 3. That the Thais be able to distinguish different categories of immigrant, recognising that each group has unique characteristics and reasons for coming to Thailand; and 4. That human rights education be integrated in Thai mainstream education. Written by: Pachara Sungden Collaborators: Petcharat Saksirivetkul and Samree Chatae Note: this text has been edited to match the formatting and style of this report
36
APPENDIX E
Employment for Refugee and Asylum Seeker Youth Recommendations for Stakeholders
Background Unemployment in the refugee community refers to the total number of able bodied men and women seeking currently jobless and seeking paid work. Main issue, causes and effects Issue: Refugee youth and their families are unable to access employment opportunities, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation and unable to meet their financial needs. Causes: • Thailand is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and has no domestic legislation governing refugees or asylum seekers. Once refugees and asylum seekers’ visas expire, they are considered illegal immigrants under Thai law, regardless of their status with UNHCR. • There are no visa options available to refugees to stay and work legally in Thailand. As a result, refugees have no right to work legally. The constant threat of arbitrary arrest and detention makes maintaining even informal employment difficult. Effects: • Without a steady income, refugees quickly use up their savings and may run out of resources within a few years. This can lead to a lack of resources to pay rent or buy proper food. • Employment offers the opportunity for young refugees to use their skills and gain importance work experience. Without these opportunities, refugee youth are unable to further their education while waiting for resettlement. • Unemployed refugees facing financial stress may become anxious or depressed, which can lead to a lower quality of life and make life more difficult for children. Solutions and Recommendations How we can help ourselves: 1. Refugees/asylum seekers can help themselves by finding freelancing and other work on the internet. 2. Refugees/asylum seekers can pool their resources together to start a small scale business. 3. Refugees/asylum seekers can train one another with the skills they have, including first aid, computer science and language skills. How others can help refugees: 1. We recommend that NGOs continue to advocate on behalf of refugees looking for employment opportunities and work to connect refugees with local employers through job fairs. 2. We recommend that NGOs help facilitate access to skills trainings, such as language and computer courses, as well as facilitate partnerships between refugees to build home based work opportunities. 3. We recommend that NGOs provide financial assistance to refugees looking to start their own small business, providing money to purchase raw materials to make goods or food to sell.
37
4. We recommend that the Thai Ministry of Labor include refugees in domestic employment law, allowing refugees the opportunity to work legally while awaiting resettlement in Thailand. 5. We recommend that the Thai government sign the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and also pass domestic laws to protect the rights of refugees in Thailand. 6. We recommend that the Thai community be open to social integration and allow the presence of refugees in their work spaces. 7. We recommend that Thai youth advocate on behalf of refugee youth by raising awareness of refugee issues in Thailand. 8. We also recommend that Thai youth and refugee youth study Thai together to help refugee youth socially integrate into Thai society. Written by: Safia Azar Collaborators: Haroon-‐ur-‐Rasheed, Abdi Nasir, Adeline Patricka Note: this text has been edited to match the formatting and style of this report
38
