UPR Sexual Rights Database

UN Compilation:
Para 11) The HR Committee noted with concern that section 17 of the Gender Equality Act (2015) allowed for exceptions to gender discrimination on grounds of religion and national security.
Para 23) CEDAW also expressed concern about the persistence of multiple barriers impeding women and girls from obtaining access to justice and effective remedies for violations of their rights, in particular for rural women, indigenous women, women belonging to ethnic and religious minority groups and women with disabilities.
Para 33) CEDAW expressed concern about the high concentration of women in the informal employment sector, including as domestic workers, who continued to be excluded from labour and social security protections, such as minimum wage protection, overtime compensation and maternity leave. It was also concerned about the persistence of discrimination on the basis of gender in the workplace, including with regard to recruitment, promotion and retirement age, which, in many factories, was reportedly set at 55 years of age for women compared with 60 years of age for men. It was further concerned about the absence of legislation prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace, notwithstanding reports that it was widespread in the country.
Para 44) [CEDAW] reiterated its previous concern regarding the persistence of strong stereotypical attitudes about the roles and responsibilities of women and men in the family and in society, which undermined women’s social status and constituted a root cause of the disadvantaged position of women in many areas, including in the labour market and in political and public life.
Para 45) [CEDAW] remained concerned that there were still stricter conditions for Thai women to confer their nationality on foreign spouses, and that among ethnic minority and indigenous communities, men were reportedly given priority to register for nationality, leaving a disproportionate number of ethnic minority and indigenous women without nationality and with restricted freedom of movement and limited access to education, employment, health care and social protection.
Para 49) CEDAW expressed serious concern that women human rights defenders, in particular those advocating for land rights, protection of the environment and the rights of indigenous women, rural women, lesbian women, bisexual women, transgender women and Muslim women in the southern border provinces, had increasingly become targets of lawsuits, harassment, violence and intimidation by authorities and business enterprises.
Para 50) [CEDAW] also expressed concern that rural women: continued to lack access to basic social services, such as education and health care, including sexual and reproductive health care, as well as access to justice; were not represented in decision-making bodies and structures at the national and local levels and were excluded from policymaking processes on issues that affected them; and faced restrictions to their right to land and natural resources, owing to land acquisition for development projects, use by the mining and other extractive industries and the zoning of national parks.
Para 60) CRPD was concerned about the lack of legislation, policies or programmes designed to protect women and girls with disabilities from multiple and intersectional discrimination and violence, and about the limited opportunities for women with disabilities to be systematically involved in decisions that concerned them directly.
Para 73) … CEDAW remained concerned that Muslim women in the southern border provinces continued to face obstacles to the enjoyment of their rights on an equal footing with men, including with regard to access to education, employment, health care and social security, and that their situation was exacerbated by the ongoing conflict in the region.

Stakeholder Summary:
Para 38) … JS25 highlighted that common challenges encountered by women workers, including migrant women, included discrimination on wages, occupational safety and health hazards, precarious work and gender-based harassment and violence.
Para 49) JS13 expressed concern by discrimination against women in employment and workplace, as well as rampant violence and abuse. It also noted that the 2015 Gender Equality Act was ineffective in protecting and ensuring gender equality and the persistence of stereotypes as a contributor to discrimination.
Para 56) … Malayu women and children faced additional barriers in advancing their rights due to their intersectional identities.
Para 58) JS15 highlighted that discriminatory law and policies undermining land, community and environmental rights of indigenous peoples in Thailand had a significant negative impact on women’s lives, including poverty, food insecurity, loss gender inequality of livelihoods and traditional ways of life, and resulted in powerlessness with the landless, stateless indigenous women ... being extremely vulnerable.
Para 60) JS13 and JS5 noted the severe challenges that indigenous women had in accessing their rights, as well as the multiple forms of discrimination on the grounds of indigeneity and gender within their communities and mainstream Thai society. It highlighted that they faced racial discrimination, exclusion from participation in public life, lack of access to healthcare and education and were vulnerable to human trafficking and domestic violence.
Para 62) JS13 noted that women migrant workers faced more discriminatory work environment and worsened working conditions.
Para 69) JPF also expressed concern about informal justice systems “hukum pakat” based on religious and cultural principles in three Southern Border Provinces, which discriminated against women and girls. Malayu Muslim women’s political participation and decisionmaking were restricted by religion, culture and tradition and local values.

National Report:
Para 114) On the issue of the reduction of statelessness for children, Thailand has recently enacted the Civil Registration Act (No.3) B.E. 2562 (2019), which authorises registrars to accept the birth registration of children whose origins cannot be identified or who cannot show official proof of Thai nationality. Moreover, if there is proof that the child has resided in Thailand continuously for at least ten years, they now have the right to request Thai citizenship.

UN Compilation:
Para 51) CEDAW remained concerned that despite the measures adopted by Thailand, a significant number of children had not had their births registered or lacked birth registration documents and were thus vulnerable to becoming stateless.