{"id":8425,"date":"2026-04-08T04:02:03","date_gmt":"2026-04-08T04:02:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hrdfoundation.org\/?p=8425"},"modified":"2026-04-08T04:05:18","modified_gmt":"2026-04-08T04:05:18","slug":"trafficking-of-migrant-workers-for-forced-labour-in-a-sugarcane-plantation-in-thailand","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hrdfoundation.org\/?p=8425","title":{"rendered":"Trafficking of Migrant Workers for Forced Labour in a Sugarcane Plantation in Thailand"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

         The case of a group of 14 migrant workers subjected to forced labour in Thailand illustrates serious deficiencies in Thailand\u2019s justice system<\/strong> in delivering justice and remedies to victims of forced labour.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A: Background of the Case<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

         Between 18 May 2021<\/strong> and 1 March 2023<\/strong>, a total of 14 migrant workers<\/strong> (4 females and 10 males) from Myanmar, including 3 underage workers<\/strong>, were trafficked to work on a sugarcane plantation in Kanchanaburi Province, Thailand, where they were placed in a forced labour situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          On 18 May 2022, the first group of five migrant workers was brought from Myanmar to Thailand by brokers. Upon arrival, they were taken directly to work on a sugarcane plantation. The broker who brought the workers received 7,000 THB per person<\/strong> for delivering them to the owner of the sugarcane plantation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The owner of the sugarcane plantation, the employer,  was a former member of the subdistrict Administrative Organization (SAO).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

         On 17 December 2022, an additional nine migrant workers were brought to work on the same plantation. Of these nine workers, four were newly brought from Myanmar, and the brokers, involving the former head of the village, received 10,000 THB per person<\/strong>. The remaining five were migrant workers who were already working in Thailand. For these five workers, the broker received 2,500 THB per person. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

         Mr. A, one of the victims from the group of five who had already been in Thailand, testified that he found a job advertisement on Facebook for work at a dairy farm<\/strong>. He and the other workers contacted the page and agreed to work at the dairy farm. However, when they arrived at the workplace, they found out that it was a sugarcane plantation<\/strong>, not a dairy farm, as promised. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

         The 14 migrant workers were required to live on the plantation. They had to wake up at 4:00 AM and work from 5:00 AM to 5:00 PM (12 hours a day)<\/strong>. Upon arrival at the plantation, the employer retained their personal documents<\/strong>, including Myanmar national ID cards, pink cards, and travel documents. The employer also took away workers\u2019 personal mobile phone<\/strong>s. During working hours, the workers were closely monitored. They were escorted to and from the fields<\/strong> and supervised while they worked in the sugarcane field. Their work involved clearing sugarcane fields, cutting sugarcane, and burning it. The work was physically demanding, but they were paid only 500 THB <\/strong>(approximately 16 USD) per week<\/strong>. Some workers had originally been promised<\/strong> 350 THB (approximately 11 USD) per day<\/strong> before being brought to the plantation. The employer claimed that wage deductions were necessary to repay fees paid to brokers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

         The 14 workers expressed that they no longer wished to work in sugarcane plantations  under these conditions. In return, the employer threatened to shoot them and to report them to the police for illegal entry into Thailand. The workers were particularly afraid because the employer\u2019s son-in-law was an immigration officer,<\/strong> which increased their fear of being arrested and deported. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

         On 18 February 2023<\/strong>, the workers requested the return of their mobile phones, but the employer refused<\/strong>. The employer shot the gun several times into the sky and pointed the gun at<\/strong> the 14 workers and the employer threatened to physically harm<\/strong> the workers.  In the following morning, the 14 workers decided not to go to the sugarcane fields. They remained in their accommodation and did not wake up for work. The employer threw rocks<\/strong> onto the roof of the building where they were sleeping. When the workers did not respond, the employer broke down the door<\/strong>, cut down the mosquito net strings using knife cutting sugarcane, and threw water on workers <\/strong>who were sleeping. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

         At around 7 AM, the employer then gathered the workers together and placed a gun on the ground <\/strong>while speaking to them. The village headman<\/strong> was present with employer in the gathering.  Workers were threatened that \u201cIf you go out, I will shoot all of you.\u201d<\/strong> The employer positioned the gun between himself and the workers during the gathering. When the workers stated that they would not continue working, the employer used a sugarcane-cutting knife and beat on the head of some workers<\/strong> who refused to do work. The workers were forced to kneel and were beaten in a line. The employer fired the gun into the air, causing fear and intimidation. Eight workers<\/strong>, including one underage worker<\/strong>, were beaten<\/strong> on the head 2-3 times using the knife for cutting sugarcane, some were slapped on the face<\/strong> and had their ears pulled<\/strong>. As a result of these threats and violence, the workers felt compelled to continue working without proper wages, overtime pay, or holiday pay. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

         The 14 victims of forced labour were able to escape from the forced labour situation following the report by Human Rights and Development Foundation, a civil society organization, to the government agencies. On 19 February 2023<\/strong>, Mr. A contacted the interpreter of HRDF using a mobile phone that he had secretly kept. He sent photographs and shared his location to request assistance and rescue. Mr. A had previously received support from HRDF while working in Thailand, and he had saved the interpreter\u2019s contact number, which enabled him and the rest of workers  to seek help.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

         On 1 March 2023<\/strong>, the 14 workers were rescued by the Special Operations Unit under the Department of Provincial Administration, Ministry of Interior. Following the rescue, the workers underwent a victim identification process conducted by a multidisciplinary team in accordance with National Referral Mechanism. On 6 March 2023,<\/strong> the multidisciplinary team officially identified <\/strong>the 14 workers as victims of human trafficking for forced labour<\/strong>. The workers were referred to a government shelter for protection of victims of human trafficking in Pathumthani province. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A total of eight suspects<\/strong> involved in this case were arrested, and the case was determined to involve organized crime. Among the eight suspects, three were influential individuals:<\/strong> the employer, who was a former member of the Subdistrict Administrative Organization (SAO)<\/strong>; his son-in-law, who was an immigration office<\/strong>r; and a former village headman<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

         The case was heard before the Kanchanaburi Provincial Court. The attorney filed 16 charges under various laws, including the Royal Ordinance on the Management of Foreign Workers B.E. 2560 (2017) and its amendment, the Labour Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) and its amendments, the Immigration Act B.E. 2522 (1979), Firearms Ammunition Explosives Fireworks B.E. 2490 (1947), relevant Criminal Code provisions, and the Anti-Human Trafficking in Persons Act B.E. 2551 (2008) and the 2562 (2019) Emergency Decree Amending the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act B.E. 2551 (2008). Among the 16 charges submitted by the attorney, Section 6 on human trafficking was included<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

B: Judicial Proceedings and Outcome<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

         In 2024, the court began scheduling hearings and witness examinations. The proceedings were conducted entirely under the inquisitorial system.<\/strong> The court led the questioning of witnesses and controlled the scope of examination. The public prosecutor and the victims\u2019 legal representatives were permitted to question witnesses only on limited and specific issues. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

         The court reportedly exercised discretion in admitting and examining evidence. Although the victims\u2019 legal team submitted documentary evidence, including audio recordings, photographs, financial records, and other supporting materials, the court selectively admitted evidence. The court rather limited questioning to matters not already contained in the investigation file. Moreover, the scope of witness testimony was also significantly narrowed. The 14 victims were reduced to four representative witnesses. On the prosecution side, only the investigating officers and members of the arresting police team were called to testify. The time allocated for the presentation of witnesses was limited to only a few days. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following the proceedings, the court dismissed<\/strong> the charge of human trafficking in the form of forced labor. Additionally, because the lawyer did not specifically include Section 6\/1, which relates to forced labour, the court did not convict<\/strong> the employer of forced labour. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

C: Court\u2019s Grounds for Dismissal of Forced Labour Claim<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court rejected the allegation of human trafficking in the sugarcane plantation based on the following grounds:<\/p>\n\n\n\n