Thailand to Grant Citizenship After Years of Rendering People Unseen
What does it mean for a state to truly see the people within its borders? The question, seemingly simple, explodes with complexity when applied to the lives of 140,000 people in Thailand. For years, many ethnic minorities and children of stateless parents have existed in a legal limbo, residing within borders yet denied the full rights and protections afforded to citizens — effectively, unseen. Now, a new regulation aims to change that.
Deputy Interior Minister Theerarat Samrejvanich calls the changes “in line with a cabinet resolution.” Specifically, the regulation, announced in the Royal Gazette on Monday, seeks to fast-track citizenship for those born in Thailand to stateless parents whose data was collected in surveys up to 1999, and to stateless persons identified in surveys between 2005 and 2011, including members of the Moken ethnic group. It’s a start, a step towards rectifying a persistent injustice highlighted in Bangkok Post.
Mr. Unsit said that this is the first time Thailand has addressed such issues in a tangible and expedited manner.
But why did this problem persist for so long? This is where the story deepens, beyond individual policy changes, and intersects with a far broader trend: the rise of illiberal democracy and the instrumentalization of citizenship itself. Thailand, like many nations grappling with identity and belonging, has struggled with defining its own national narrative in the face of shifting demographics, internal ethnic diversity, and historical waves of migration. This struggle, however, has increasingly become weaponized, with citizenship offered or withheld based on perceived loyalty to the nation-state and its dominant ethno-cultural identity.
The legacy of colonialism in Southeast Asia left many communities stateless. Borders were often arbitrarily drawn without regard for existing ethnic or cultural boundaries. Citizenship laws followed suit, often privileging specific ethnic groups and marginalizing others. For example, the 1982 Myanmar citizenship law, rooted in a British colonial categorization of ethnic groups, effectively stripped Rohingya Muslims of their citizenship, setting the stage for decades of persecution and displacement. These practices still resonate today, echoing through the halls of power and shaping who is deemed “worthy” of belonging.
This isn’t just about Thailand. Globally, statelessness is a pervasive issue affecting millions. The UNHCR estimates that millions lack a recognized nationality, leading to denial of basic rights like healthcare, education, and employment. Political scientist Ayelet Shachar, in her work on birthright citizenship, argues that states often deploy citizenship strategically, selectively granting it to serve national interests. This selective access, she asserts, creates “birthright privileges” that are inherently exclusionary. It’s a system where belonging becomes a commodity, carefully controlled and distributed based on calculations of political and economic advantage.
Furthermore, access to citizenship often becomes intertwined with pre-existing inequalities. Ethnic minorities may lack the resources or knowledge to navigate complex bureaucratic processes required to prove eligibility. Anti-immigrant sentiment, even if subtly present, can create a climate of fear that discourages individuals from applying. It also can lead to the implementation of discriminatory laws. In the Thai context, historical discrimination against certain hill tribes, fueled by narratives of national security and cultural purity, has contributed to their prolonged statelessness. These narratives aren’t accidental; they are often deliberately constructed to maintain existing power structures.
The one-year sunset clause of the new regulation raises concerns about its long-term impact. Unless renewed by a future cabinet resolution, the opportunity for stateless individuals to obtain citizenship could be fleeting. Sustained commitment and resources will be needed to ensure that this reform truly addresses the root causes of statelessness and creates a more inclusive society. But perhaps the more profound question is this: can a state truly reconcile its desire for control with its obligation to protect the rights of all those within its borders? The real measure of success will not just be the number of citizenships granted, but whether the change can impact systematic and generational inequalities and a move towards comprehensive belonging for these long marginalized groups — a belonging rooted not in conditional loyalty, but in the inherent dignity of every human life.
