Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Thailand (Ratification: 1969)

Impact of the obligation to work of convicted prisoners on the application of Article 1 of the Convention. In its previous comments the Committee referred to section 48 of the Corrections Act B.E. 2560 (2017), according to which prisoners have a duty to follow the orders of prison officials, who have the power to order prisoners to carry out work in the prison, including public work or other work for the benefit of the government service.

The Government indicates in its report that section 48 is based on the prisoner’s willingness and request that the work carried out by prisoners is rewarded and is an important process in behaviour development, and that it does not arise from threats of coercion or an intention to enforce compulsory labour as a means of punishment against prisoners. The Government adds that the Department of Corrections developed a framework for evaluating its performance in prison and correctional facility operations for 2023, which includes the appointment of a committee to determine, inter alia, the wage rate for the works done by prisoners, and for ensuring voluntary consent to work. Furthermore, the Government reiterates that the penalties specified for the criminal offences examined by the Committee under the Convention are not related to penalties of forced labour.

The Committee wishes to clarify that, in the context of the Convention, compulsory labour can take place either in the form of a sanction of imprisonment, involving an obligation to work (compulsory prison labour) or as a specific sanction of community, public or correctional work to which the person has not given his or her consent (general observation of 2023). From the wording of section 48 of the Corrections Act B.E. 2560 (2017), the Committee observes that compulsory labour can be imposed by an order of the prison officials on inmates convicted to a sentence of imprisonment. The legislation does not refer to the consent of the convicted person to work nor to the possibility to request work. Therefore, the Committee considers that penalties of imprisonment may involve compulsory prison labour.

Article 1(a). Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. 1. Crime of lèse-majesté. For a number of years, the Committee has requested the Government to review section 112 of the Criminal Code which provides that whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of 3 to 15 years. It has noted that this provision has been used in practice to detain, prosecute and convict people with long-term prison sentences. The Committee notes that the Government reaffirms that the objective of section 112 of the Criminal Code is to protect the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent and the Regent from abusive remarks, defamations or threats, similar to laws protecting individuals in general. In the Government’s view, this is done to maintain security and peace within the country, without any intention to suppress or restrict freedom of expression.

The Committee further notes that, in their press release dated 25 March 2024, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers expressed alarm over the use of Thailand’s lèse-majesté laws to convict and sentence a member of Thai Lawyers for Human Rights to four years in prison.

The Committee recalls that the Convention protects persons who express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system by establishing that in the context of these activities they cannot be punished by sanctions involving an obligation to work. The range of activities protected includes the right to freedom of expression exercised orally or through the press and other communications media. While recognizing that certain limitations may be imposed on this right to safeguard the public order or to protect society, such limitations must be strictly within the framework of the law. Even if certain activities aim to bring about fundamental changes in state institutions, such activities are protected by the Convention, as long as they do not resort to or call for violent means to these ends.

Therefore, the Committee strongly urges the Government to take the necessary measures to review section 112 of the Criminal Code to ensure that this provision cannot be used to impose prison sentences (which involve compulsory labour) on persons who, without using or advocating violence, express certain political views, or views opposed to the established political system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this respect.

2. Offences under the Act on Political Parties. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that sections 105 and 110 of the Organic Act on Political Parties B.E. 2560 (2017) provide for sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) for a person who uses the name, initials or logo of a political party that is identical or cognate with the name, initials or logo of a political party which has been dissolved following a Constitutional Court order. The same sanction applies for the person who was holding a position as an executive committee member of such dissolved political party and was deprived of the right to apply as an election candidate and seeks to register a new political party or to participate in the foundation of a new political party for ten years as from the date of the dissolution of the political party.

The Committee notes that, on 12 August 2024, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association expressed deep disappointment about the dissolution of the Move Forward Party (MFP) by the Constitutional Court. The United Nations experts referred to the use of the lèse-majesté law as a political tool to dissolve the party that won the largest number of seats and remove its parliamentarians from politics. It further notes that, on 8 August 2024, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights also expressed concern at the Constitutional Court’s ruling to dissolve the MFP and ban its senior figures from political life for ten years.

Based on this information and the principles recalled above, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that sections 105 and 110 of the Organic Act on Political Parties B.E. 2560 (2017) are not used to impose prison sanctions involving compulsory prison labour on persons for expressing political views contrary to the established system, including as members of a political party. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to provide examples of any judicial decision taken on the basis of such provisions.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes.Criminal Code. For a number of years, the Committee has requested the Government to review section 117 of the Criminal Code, according to which whoever instigates or causes a strike, lockout or concerted cessation of trade or business with any person for the purpose of bringing about any change in the laws of the country, coercing the Government or intimidating the people, shall be punished with imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that both employers and workers are allowed to take part in general strike action based on the conditions that it should not cause an obstruction to economic activities through business disruptions, or even the scarcity of goods and services that can have adverse consequences on the general population. It adds that strikes or lock-outs for political purposes are not permissible and that provisions like section 117 of the Penal Code are aimed at maintaining national stability and peace.

The Committee wishes to recall the principle that participation in strikes, including in essential services, shall not be subject to penal sanctions involving compulsory prison labour when the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population is not endangered and there is no recourse to violence. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where, during a strike, violence against persons or property, or other serious infringements of penal law have been committed or when the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population is endangered. Therefore, the Committee once again urges the Government to take measures, without delay, to review section 117 of the Penal Code to ensure that no sanction of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed as a punishment for peaceful participation in strikes when the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population is not endangered.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.