A tangled legal scenario surrounding Chaturon Chaisang, the ex-education minister of Thailand, has dramatically magnified the hardship endured by 126 Burmese students entrapped in Thai legal intricacies. These students, devoid of documentation and Thai citizenship, were admitted into their establishment by none other than Kanlaya Thasom, frequently referred to as ‘Teacher Poo’. A long-standing figure in education, she formerly presided over the Thairath Wittaya 6 School situated in the province of Ang Thong. Her actions would not go unnoticed and subsequently ignited a legal spark against her, necessitating a fervent educational rights debate.
It was around the third hour of the afternoon when Chaturon, alongside representatives from the Assoc. International Law and Human Rights and the Mirror Foundation, reported to the Pa Mok Police Station, Ang Thong, to meet with superintendent Pol. Lt. Col. Sakchai Krai Weeradechachai and Deputy Investigator Pol. Lt. Col. Surasit Jaitiang. Their objective was to endorse Teacher Poo’s overwhelming acceptance of these 126 students, children of Burmese origin, who lacked the necessary registration documentation.
These young individuals had been accused of illicitly crossing into the Thai kingdom, where they were temporarily sheltered before preparation for deportation. Their actions were allegedly in violation of Thailand’s Alien Act of 1979. However, Chaturon voiced his concern that to repatriate these children, bereft of the provision of an education, was tantamount to a blatant rejection of their educational rights.
Chaturon championed the notion of a more flexible policy that would facilitate these children’s educational journey. In light of the imminent school term, national security forces were pressed to engage in careful decision-making. It was imperative to determine if, upon implementation of a repatriation policy, the children would still be able to partake in an education.
Chaturon further argued that it was crucial for state officials involved to be conscious of the broader context, pointing out the existence of a Cabinet resolution providing educational rights to children devoid of Thai nationality. Consequently, the school’s stance and the team’s response could not be considered unlawful, since these actions were in line with a 2005 Cabinet resolution designed to secure educational opportunities for children struggling to confirm their nationality, as reported by KhaoSod. This progress aligned with rulings from the National Security Council and formed part of a wider strategy to manage the status and rights of individuals, accounting for Chaturon’s subsequent involvement as a witness in the case.
Be First to Comment