Myanmar Refugees Enter Thai Labor Market - Maxthon

Executive Summary

In August 2025, Thailand implemented a landmark policy granting work permits to over 80,000 Myanmar refugees living in border camps—many for nearly two decades. This case study examines the drivers, implementation, and implications of this historic shift in refugee policy, using the experience of workers like Tun Min Lat as a lens to understand broader humanitarian and economic dynamics.

Background Context

The Refugee Population

Thailand hosts nine border camps sheltering Myanmar refugees who have fled successive waves of conflict:

1980s onwards: Ethnic armed conflict in Myanmar’s border regions
2006-2007: Intensified military operations against ethnic groups
2021-present: Civil war following military coup against Aung San Suu Kyi’s government

These refugees have lived in a legal grey zone—permitted to stay in camps but prohibited from formal employment, making them dependent on international humanitarian assistance.

The Labor Market Crisis

In July 2025, border clashes between Thailand and Cambodia triggered an exodus of Cambodian workers:

520,000 Cambodian workers (12% of Thailand’s workforce) had been employed in Thailand
Mass departures created acute labor shortages in agriculture, construction, and manufacturing
Southeast Asia’s second-largest economy faced potential production disruptions

The Aid Crisis

Compounding refugee vulnerability, 2025 saw significant cuts to humanitarian aid:

United States reduced refugee assistance funding
Other donor nations scaled back support
Camps faced increased food insecurity and reduced services
Pressure mounted for refugees to become self-reliant

Case Profile: Tun Min Lat

Demographics:

Age: 42
Origin: Southern Myanmar
Time in Thailand: 19 years (arrived 2006)
Family: Wife and three children
Previous status: Entirely aid-dependent in Kanchanaburi refugee camp

Flight Narrative: Tun Min Lat and his wife fled Myanmar in 2006 to escape:

Forced labor conscription by Myanmar military
Armed conflict between government forces and ethnic armed groups
Economic devastation in conflict zones

Employment Transition:

August 2025: Applied for work permit under new policy
November 2025: Working at longan farm in Chanthaburi province (500 km from camp)
First day earnings: 1,000 baht (~$31) split among 5 workers
Family arrangement: Wife works at same farm; eldest daughter employed at factory in another province; two younger children (ages 14 and 10) remain in camp under neighbor care

Personal Impact:

“Now I feel like I can see a future… Even though I am tired and our family members are apart, we still feel happy. We feel hopeful.”

This quote encapsulates the trade-offs refugees face: family separation and physical hardship balanced against economic agency and long-term prospects.

Policy Analysis

Key Features of the Work Permit Program

Eligibility:

Myanmar nationals living in Thailand’s nine official border camps
Over 80,000 refugees qualify
First-time legal employment rights after decades in camps

Implementation:

Announced late August 2025
Described by UN as “landmark step”
Coordinated between Thai labor ministry, immigration, and refugee agencies

Geographic Scope:

Workers can travel up to 500 km from camps
Employment concentrated in labor-shortage regions
Key sectors: agriculture (longan, rubber, other crops), manufacturing, construction

Strategic Drivers

Economic Pragmatism: Thailand faced immediate labor shortages following the Cambodian worker exodus. The refugee work permit program served multiple economic functions:

Fill critical gaps in agricultural production during harvest seasons
Maintain manufacturing output in export-oriented industries
Sustain construction projects amid infrastructure development

Humanitarian Pressure: With aid cuts reducing camp resources, maintaining refugees in dependency became increasingly untenable. Legal employment offered a pathway to:

Reduce Thai government and international community financial burden
Improve refugee living standards and dignity
Address growing camp tensions over resource scarcity

Regional Dynamics: Thailand’s approach signals potential shifts in Southeast Asian refugee policy:

Movement from containment to limited integration
Recognition that protracted refugee situations require durable solutions
Balancing national security concerns with economic needs

Stakeholder Perspectives

Refugees

Opportunities:

First legal income in decades
Pathway to self-reliance and independence
Ability to support families and save for future
Skills development in formal labor market

Challenges:

Family separation (children often remain in camps)
Exploitative working conditions risk (long hours, low pay, dangerous work)
Uncertain legal status beyond work permits
No clear path to permanent residency or citizenship
Vulnerability to employer abuse without strong legal protections

Thai Government

Benefits:

Addresses critical labor shortages
Demonstrates regional leadership on humanitarian issues
Reduces aid dependency costs
Regulates previously informal refugee labor

Concerns:

Potential backlash from Thai workers fearing job competition
Security monitoring of dispersed refugee population
Administrative burden of work permit system
Long-term integration questions

Employers

Advantages:

Access to motivated, available workforce
Lower labor costs compared to recruiting from neighboring countries
Reduced recruitment fees and documentation complexity

Risks:

Navigating new regulatory framework
Ensuring compliance with labor standards
Managing culturally and linguistically diverse workforce

Humanitarian Organizations

Leon de Riedmatten, Executive Director of The Border Consortium, notes:

“It is the first time that they have an opportunity to start to be self-reliant, maybe more independent in the future, and having a more decent life in Thailand.”

Organizations see this as progress but advocate for:

Comprehensive labor rights protections
Family reunification mechanisms
Educational access for refugee children
Long-term integration pathways

Implementation Challenges

Operational Issues

Geographic Dispersion:

Workers traveling 500 km from camps face logistics challenges
Transportation costs reduce net earnings
Communication with families in camps difficult
Emergency response complicated when workers are distant

Child Welfare:

Significant number of children left in camps
Neighbor care arrangements informal and vulnerable
Education continuity disrupted when families separate
Psychosocial impact of parent-child separation

Documentation:

Work permit application and renewal processes
Maintaining legal status while mobile
Language barriers in navigating bureaucracy

Systemic Risks

Labor Exploitation: Without strong oversight, refugees face:

Wage theft and underpayment
Excessive working hours
Unsafe working conditions
Limited recourse for grievances
Employer leverage over legal status

Legal Vulnerability:

Work permits don’t guarantee other legal protections
Immigration status remains precarious
No pathway to permanent residence
Deportation risk if employment ends

Social Integration:

Limited interaction with Thai communities
Language barriers persist
Cultural isolation in work sites
Discrimination and xenophobia potential

Comparative Context

Regional Precedents

Malaysia:

Has periodically issued work permits to Rohingya and other refugees
Programs often temporary and sector-specific
Mixed success with labor exploitation common

Bangladesh:

Restricted Rohingya refugees from formal employment
Created parallel economy and exploitation risks
Recently piloting limited work programs

Indonesia:

Generally prohibits refugee employment
Reliance on UNHCR and NGO support
Protracted situations with no integration pathway

Thailand’s Approach: Represents middle ground:

More progressive than containment-only policies
Falls short of full integration models (e.g., Uganda’s self-reliance strategy)
Pragmatic response to economic realities

International Standards

UNHCR Guidelines:

Right to work considered essential for refugee dignity and self-reliance
Access to labor markets reduces protection risks
Economic inclusion aids long-term solutions

ILO Conventions:

Equal treatment in working conditions
Protection from forced labor and exploitation
Access to social security and benefits

Thailand’s Compliance: The work permit program advances some standards but gaps remain in:

Equal pay and working conditions enforcement
Social protection coverage
Freedom of movement restrictions
Permanent solution pathways

Economic Impact Assessment

Micro-Level (Individual Refugees)

Income Generation:

Tun Min Lat’s group earned ~200 baht ($6) per person on first day
Estimated monthly earnings: 4,000-6,000 baht ($123-$185) for agricultural work
Comparison: Thailand minimum wage 353-370 baht/day depending on province
Refugees likely earning below minimum wage, though above zero income in camps

Economic Agency:

Control over spending decisions
Ability to save for emergencies
Investment in children’s education
Remittances to family members in Myanmar (if possible)

Skills Development:

Agricultural techniques
Factory work experience
Thai language improvement
Employment discipline and expectations

Meso-Level (Regional Economies)

Labor Market Effects:

Addresses critical shortages in agriculture and manufacturing
Enables continued production during peak harvest seasons
Supports export-oriented industries in border provinces
May depress wages in low-skilled sectors

Chanthaburi Province Example:

Major longan production region
Harvest season labor demand peaks November-January
Refugee workers fill gap left by Cambodian workers
Local economy maintains productivity

Macro-Level (National)

GDP Impact:

80,000 additional workers could contribute 0.2-0.3% to GDP growth
Agricultural output maintenance during labor crisis
Reduced irregular migration and associated costs
Manufacturing export continuity

Fiscal Considerations:

Tax revenue from employers (minimal from low-wage workers)
Reduced humanitarian aid expenditures
Administrative costs of work permit system
Potential savings on camp management long-term

Trade-offs:

Potential wage depression in low-skilled sectors
Thai worker displacement concerns (though likely minimal given shortages)
Infrastructure strain in receiving communities

Outlook and Scenarios

Short-Term Outlook (2026-2027)

Likely Developments:

Expansion Phase:

More refugees obtain work permits as word spreads
Additional sectors beyond agriculture engage refugee workers
Geographic dispersal increases as workers seek opportunities
Employers become familiar with regulatory framework

Challenges Emerge:

Reports of labor exploitation and abuse surface
Family separation strains intensify
Thai worker concerns about competition grow
Administrative bottlenecks in permit processing

Policy Adjustments:

Government refines work permit regulations
Labor inspections increase (or fail to materialize)
NGOs establish monitoring and support mechanisms
Camp populations decline as workers move out

Wild Card:

Myanmar conflict dynamics could drive new refugee influxes, complicating program
Regional economic downturn could reduce labor demand, undermining rationale

Medium-Term Outlook (2028-2030)

Scenario 1: Progressive Integration (40% probability)

Characteristics:

Thailand expands refugee rights beyond work permits
Pathways to permanent residency or citizenship emerge
Family reunification programs allow children to join working parents
Educational access improves for refugee children
Social protection coverage extends to refugees

Drivers:

Continued labor market needs
Positive economic impact evidence
International pressure and incentives
Successful social integration examples
Business lobby support

Outcomes:

50,000+ refugees integrated into Thai society
Reduced camp populations
Economic contribution increases
Regional model for refugee integration

Scenario 2: Status Quo Maintenance (45% probability)

Characteristics:

Work permit program continues at current scale
No expansion of refugee rights beyond employment
Camps persist with reduced populations
Limited integration into Thai society
Temporary program remains temporary

Drivers:

Political resistance to further integration
Thai nationalist sentiments
Myanmar conflict continues indefinitely
Economic benefits insufficient to justify expansion
Regional instability concerns

Outcomes:

30,000-40,000 refugees with work permits
Protracted situation persists in new form
Ongoing vulnerability and exploitation risks
No durable solution pathway

Scenario 3: Retrenchment and Restriction (15% probability)

Characteristics:

Work permit program scaled back or terminated
Return to camp-based containment model
Increased restrictions on refugee mobility
Push for repatriation to Myanmar

Drivers:

Economic recession reduces labor demand
Political backlash from Thai workers
Security incidents involving refugees
Change in government policy priorities
Myanmar stabilization (unlikely but possible)

Outcomes:

Refugees return to camps or irregular status
Humanitarian crisis intensifies
International criticism of Thailand
Underground economy expansion

Long-Term Outlook (2031-2035)

Key Uncertainties:

Myanmar Political Future:

Stabilization scenario: Military regime consolidates or democratic transition occurs → pressure for refugee repatriation
Continued conflict scenario: Civil war persists → protracted refugee situation continues
Fragmentation scenario: Myanmar effectively partitions → some regions safe for return, others not

Thai Political Economy:

Aging society pressure: Thailand’s demographic decline could increase openness to immigrant labor integration
Automation impact: Agricultural and manufacturing automation could reduce labor demand
Economic growth: Sustained growth maintains labor needs; stagnation reduces opportunities

Regional Dynamics:

ASEAN coordination on refugee policies
International funding for durable solutions
Climate change and displacement interactions
China’s influence on Myanmar and regional politics

Potential Pathways:

Best Case (20% probability):

Myanmar stabilizes, enabling safe, voluntary return for those who choose
Thailand offers integration pathway for long-term residents
International community funds reconstruction and reintegration
Refugees have genuine choice between return and integration

Most Likely Case (60% probability):

Protracted situation continues with work permit program as compromise
Gradual, ad-hoc integration of some refugees over decades
Camps eventually close but legal status remains ambiguous
Generational integration similar to Palestinian, Afghan models elsewhere

Worst Case (20% probability):

Policy reversal forces refugees back to camps or Myanmar
Myanmar remains unsafe, creating humanitarian catastrophe
Regional instability spreads, complicating all solutions
International community disengages, leaving refugees in limbo

Strategic Recommendations

For Thai Government

Immediate (2026):

Strengthen labor protections: Establish inspection regime and complaint mechanisms for refugee workers
Family reunification pilot: Allow children above certain age to join working parents
Education access: Ensure refugee children can attend schools near work sites
Data collection: Monitor economic impact, labor market effects, social integration

Medium-term (2027-2029):

Regularization pathway: Create criteria for long-term residents to obtain permanent status
Skill development: Vocational training programs to increase refugee productivity
Regional coordination: Work with ASEAN partners on comprehensive refugee framework
Economic zones: Designate areas for refugee integration with support services

For International Community

Support and Advocacy:

Technical assistance: Help Thailand build labor inspection and protection systems
Financial incentives: Provide funding tied to refugee rights expansion
Third-country resettlement: Continue programs for most vulnerable refugees
Myanmar engagement: Pressure for conflict resolution and safe return conditions

For Humanitarian Organizations

Protection and Support:

Monitor and document: Track labor exploitation and advocate for remedies
Legal assistance: Help refugees navigate work permit and labor law systems
Child protection: Support families separated by employment migration
Community organizing: Build refugee worker associations for collective advocacy

For Employers

Responsible Practices:

Fair wages: Pay minimum wage or above, regardless of refugee status
Safe conditions: Ensure workplace safety standards applied equally
Contract clarity: Provide written agreements in understood languages
Respect rights: Allow freedom of association and complaint without retaliation

For Refugees

Self-Advocacy:

Know rights: Understand labor laws and work permit terms
Document everything: Keep records of pay, hours, and conditions
Community networks: Organize for mutual support and information sharing
Seek assistance: Connect with NGOs and legal services when needed

Conclusion

Thailand’s decision to grant work permits to Myanmar refugees represents a significant, if incomplete, step toward addressing a protracted humanitarian situation. The case of Tun Min Lat and thousands like him illustrates both the transformative potential and inherent limitations of labor market access as a solution to refugee vulnerability.

Key Takeaways:

Economic pragmatism drove policy change: Labor shortages, not purely humanitarian concerns, prompted Thailand’s shift—suggesting sustainability depends on continued economic rationale
Trade-offs are substantial: Refugees gain economic agency but face family separation, exploitation risks, and continued legal precarity
Durable solutions remain distant: Work permits provide survival and dignity improvements but don’t resolve fundamental questions of permanent status and belonging
Regional implications: Thailand’s approach could influence Southeast Asian refugee policy, though unique circumstances may limit replicability
Outlook is uncertain: Future depends on Myanmar conflict trajectory, Thai political economy, and international engagement—all highly unpredictable

Critical Question: Will Thailand’s work permit program prove a transitional step toward integration, or will it institutionalize a new form of protracted limbo—where refugees are economically useful but socially and legally marginalized?

The answer will unfold over the coming decade, shaped by political will, economic forces, and the voices of refugees themselves who, after decades in camps, are finally able to say with hope: “Now I can see a future.”

References and Further Reading

Primary Sources:

Reuters report, November 19, 2025
Thai Ministry of Labor data on Cambodian workers
UN statements on refugee work permits

Key Organizations:

The Border Consortium (refugee support in Thailand)
UNHCR Thailand office
ILO Bangkok

Background Reading:

Myanmar civil war developments (2021-present)
Thailand labor market and migration patterns
Southeast Asian refugee policy frameworks
Protracted refugee situations globally

This case study is based on information available as of November 2025. The situation remains fluid and subject to rapid change based on political, economic, and conflict dynamics in Myanmar and Thailand.