Written as part of coursework for a module on Gender and International Relations in Apr 2018
Title
Briefing paper prepared for Alexis Chapman, Chairperson of The Border Consortium (TBC).
Introduction
The briefing paper will analyse the gendered issues that arise from migration from Burma into Thailand, specifically the issue of women resorting to unsafe abortion methods due to insufficient access to reproductive healthcare services, and provide policy options and recommendations to help these women who experience migration differently from men.
Background
It is estimated that there are around 2 million Burmese migrants living in Thailand (Wine, 2008, p.24). Among these, a large majority have moved to Thailand because of the political instability and repression in Burma. There are more than 100,000 Burmese ethnic minorities living in refugee camps in Thailand, whilst those that do not qualify as “refugees” become illegal migrants (Mon, 2010, p. 34). Many of them reside in Tak Province, which is the province in Thailand that shares a border with Burma. These migrants, both men and women, often face poor working conditions, and are vulnerable to exploitation. Yet, many of these migrants choose to stay on in Thailand, as there is more economic opportunity than politically unstable Burma. Their employment status is volatile, as they may be deported for being an illegal immigrant, but for women, it is even more volatile, as pregnancy increases their risk to termination of their employment and subsequent deportation to Burma, regardless of their migrant status. It must be noted that there are policies from the governments to improve the situation, such as the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was signed between the Thai and Burmese government which provides legal permits to migrants.
Issue
Burmese migrant women in Thailand turn to unsafe methods of abortion to terminate pregnancies that they deem are threatening to their employment status in Thailand. Women face more fear of deportation or termination of employment than men, because of pregnancy. Firstly, women migrant workers in Thailand cannot be pregnant at the time of a permit’s issue (Belton and Whittaker, 2007, p. 1516), and secondly, if they become pregnant whilst employed, they face pressure from employers to abort the child, as there is no maternal leave or paid leave, and women believe that pregnancy would interfere with their employment prospects (Kusakabe and Pearson, 2010, p.27). This results in them turning to abortion to remain employed. However, there is insufficient access to reproductive healthcare services, and this is a big problem, because this results in them turning to unsafe methods to terminate the pregnancy which endanger their lives. This is a gendered problem because there is little policy to understand or address these migrant women’s needs- there is a lack of studies, which suggest a lack of knowledge on the issue, which means government policies are unable to solve the problem. Hence, one can see how migration affects women differently from men.
Current Situation
There are organisations that operate in Tak Province. One such example is the Social Action for Women (SAW), and they do conduct education classes on sexual health, and support services for women. (Win, 2018). However, these services are of limited success. In a class meant to educate them about family planning, there were only 6 men and 11 women, which shows how the majority of women in the province are still not aware of family planning methods, since there is such a low turn-out.
Policy Options
1. Sexual health education classes: There is a need to conduct classes to educate the women and men on various forms of contraceptives available to them, so that they can avoid unwanted pregnancies, and women will not result to unsafe forms of abortion. One such example would be the emergency contraceptive pill (ECP). Research has shown that this is under-utilised due to a lack of awareness of the drug, and the lack of education about how to use it, and when to use it (Hobstetter et al., 2015, p. E39-40). These classes will be conducted in a gender-sensitive and culturally-sensitive way, with focus on what the woman wants, so that it empowers the women, and they are able to make the choice themselves whilst knowing their available options. Those conducting the classes also need to understand local understandings of pregnancy and sexual health (Belton and Whittaker, 2007, p. 1516-7), so that the classes will be sensitive to these knowledges. To build on the limitations of the SAW, the classes should be conducted in the places of employment, for example, the factories, where many of the women work in, and are unable to leave (Kusakabe and Pearson, 2010, p. 23). This maximises the outreach of such classes.
2. Training for lè the: Many of the Burmese women in Thailand turn to “lè the” (lay midwives) for abortion services. However effective their methods are, they are unsafe and cause harm to the women (Belton and Whittaker, 2007, p. 1518-9). Hence, these midwives should instead be trained and educated to bring the women seeking abortions to trained professionals, and ensure that the identity of the woman is protected, so that they will not face the risk of being discovered and deported, allowing them to turn to safe abortions. They should also be trained to help support the women post-abortion, to ensure that no complications arise. This is gender-sensitive as it does not seek to impose what women should or should not do.
3. Support services: These services can include legal services, in cases where a legal migrant woman gets dismissed because of her pregnancy. It can also include setting up a residence or shelter for pregnant women who are dismissed by their employers, so that they are taken care of during their pregnancy and after, so that they will not have to find work to support themselves and their baby. This is gender-sensitive, as it focuses on what the women need.
Policy Recommendation
To solve the problem of migrant women turning to unsafe abortion methods, the objective of the chosen policy should look at preventing these pregnancies in the first place. Therefore, option one is highly recommended, because it educates women on how to make use of contraceptives. This then reduces the need for women to abort their baby, since they reduce their chances of becoming pregnant at all. This is also not resource-intensive, since volunteer women from the community can be trained to teach the other women, which makes it culturally-sensitive, and suitable as a long-run solution. Additionally, TBC already has local staff and understands local culture and contexts of the women, which makes option one a good option.
1081 Words
Bibliography
Belton, S. and Whittaker, A. 2007. ‘Kathy Pan, sticks and pummelling: Techniques used to
induce abortion by Burmese women on the Thai border’. Social Science & Medicine, 65(7), pp.1512-1523.
Hobstetter, M., Sietstra, C., Walsh, M., Leigh, J. and Foster, A. 2015. “In rape cases we can
use this pill”: A multimethods assessment of emergency contraception knowledge, access, and needs on the Thailand − Burma border. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 130, pp.E37-E41.
Kusakabe, K. and Pearson, R. 2010. ‘Transborder Migration, Social Reproduction and
Economic Development: A Case Study of Burmese Women Workers in Thailand’. International Migration, 48(6), pp.13-43.
Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand and
the Government of the Union of Myanmar on Cooperation in the Employment of Workers. 2003. Chiang Mai.
Mon, M. 2010. ‘Burmese labour migration into Thailand: governance of migration and
labour rights’. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 15(1), pp.33-44.
The Border Consortium. 2018. About Us. [online] Available at:
http://www.theborderconsortium.org/about-us/ [Accessed 22 May 2018].
Win, S. 2018. Family Planning training at 42 KM, Phop Phra. [online] Social Action
For Children and Women. Available at: http://sawfoundation.org/2017/05/21/2072/ [Accessed 22 May 2018].
Wine, H.A., 2008. ‘For Greener Pastures’. The Irrawaddy, 16(10), pp. 24–27.
Comments