Thailand’s language policy is unreasonable and therefore discriminatory,
we must examine the individual and state interests involved.14
The relevant treaties to be considered here are the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Article 1
of the ICERD defines discrimination as:
…any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on
race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the
purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition,
enjoyment, or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and
fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or
any other field of public life.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) noted that the
term ‘discrimination’ as used in the above Convention implies any
‘distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference which is based on any
ground, such as language’.15
Additionally, Article 26 of the ICCPR states that ‘…the law shall prohibit
any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective
protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion…’The Malay minority represents a racial group and a
religious and linguistic minority under the ICCPR and the ICERD. If
Thailand’s language policy is found to be discriminatory against the Malay
minority, the state will be in violation of the ICERD and Article 26 of the
ICCPR.
A commonly held misconception in terms of non-discrimination is the
belief that a state, by imposing an official language policy for all citizens,
signifies that everyone is treated equally and hence there is no
differentiation created between individuals. Nevertheless, it is now clear
that a state, in imposing an official language policy whilst unreasonably
excluding the use of other languages, may still be in effect carrying out a
discriminatory practice.16