Cambodian workers across the border are streaming home amid a tense border crisis, with government estimates suggesting up to half a million Cambodians have left Thailand since clashes intensified last month. On the Thai side, authorities have been facilitating crossings at border points such as Ban Laem in Chanthaburi province, where thousands have passed through in recent days. As Thailand grapples with a swelling exodus and a strained labor market, a plan to bring in unskilled workers from Sri Lanka has sparked controversy. A prominent labour expert warned that importing Sri Lankan workers is not the correct remedy to the ongoing exodus and could backfire in the long term, underscoring that the country faces more complex, systemic challenges beyond a quick staffing fix.
Context: The Cambodian Exodus and the Border Crisis
The large-scale outflow of Cambodian workers began in the wake of deadly armed clashes between Cambodia and Thailand over disputed border areas last month. The violence fed fears among Cambodian families about the safety of homes, livelihoods, and the well-being of relatives who remained in Thailand, prompting them to return home in substantial numbers. The exodus has continued to unfold, driven not only by safety concerns but also by uncertainty about the future of cross-border work arrangements that have, for years, sustained large segments of the Cambodian workforce in Thai industries such as fishing, agriculture, construction, and the service sector.
Across this border dynamic, Thailand has opened gates to facilitate the return of Cambodian workers, signaling a policy emphasis on national security and social stability at the border. However, official figures are not precise, with government agencies estimating that as many as 500,000 Cambodians have left Thailand. Within Chanthaburi province, for example, about 300,000 of these returnees are believed to have passed through the Ban Laem crossing, illustrating how regional ports of exit have become focal points in managing the flow of people back to Cambodia. On a single day, the Ban Laem crossing reportedly processed around 2,500 Cambodians departing Thailand, highlighting the magnitude of movement at these gateways and the pressures placed on border infrastructure. The scale of the movement has implications for labor markets, social services, and cross-border policy coordination as Thailand seeks to balance humanitarian considerations with economic needs.
In the broader picture, the exodus has triggered a re-evaluation of how Thailand sources labor, particularly unskilled workers who traditionally fill roles in agriculture, fisheries, construction, and various service industries. The flow of workers across borders is not simply an economic transaction; it involves cultural, social, and religious dimensions as well. Thailand has historically relied on nearby neighboring countries for unskilled labor due to shared social norms, easier cultural integration, and compatible skill profiles. The sudden shift in Cambodian labor availability has thus raised questions about how Thailand will adapt its recruitment strategies, training pipelines, and employment regulations to align with evolving regional dynamics and the imperative to safeguard domestic employment and social stability.
Expert Warning: Sri Lankan Workers Plan Is Not the Right Solution
A key argument raised by Lae Dilokvidhyarat, a renowned labour expert, centers on the Thai government’s proposal to fill the Cambodian labor void by importing unskilled workers from Sri Lanka. Speaking with CU Radio of Chulalongkorn University, Lae warned that the plan to recruit Sri Lankan workers is not a minor policy adjustment and questioned whether it would address the root problem. He emphasized that simply substituting one population of unskilled workers with another does not automatically resolve the underlying issues tied to labor demand, supply, and workforce integration. The concern is that the proposed influx from Sri Lanka could fail to align with Thailand’s immediate needs and long-term labor-market strategies.
Lae stressed that Sri Lankan workers would require significant time to adjust to Thailand’s work environment because they do not share the same skill sets that Thai workers or workers from neighboring countries have developed through experience in similar sectors. He pointed out that Thai laborers and Cambodian, Laotian, and Burmese workers often possess overlapping competencies in farming, aquaculture, and related industries, creating a relative ease of integration within Thai workplaces. By contrast, Sri Lankan workers would bring different training backgrounds, cultural norms, and potentially divergent working expectations, potentially hampering quick productivity gains and smooth workplace cohesion.
Beyond technical competence, Lae underscored that importing labor is not purely an economic matter; it also touches on values, culture, and religion, which are deeply rooted in both foreign workers and host communities. The social fabric that underpins workplace interactions, family expectations, community ties, and daily life in Thai society is an essential consideration when evaluating any large-scale migration of unskilled workers. In his view, Thailand has historically drawn unskilled labor from neighboring countries precisely because those workers could more readily adapt to Thai social norms and daily life, reducing frictions that can arise from cultural differences.
Another critical dimension highlighted by Lae concerns the post-conflict period. Even if Sri Lankan workers were deemed suitable in the short term, the long-term dynamics of labor supply could be unsettled once the Cambodian conflict subsides and Cambodian workers begin to return. The Ministry of Labour would face the challenge of recalibrating the labor mix once Cambodian workers re-enter the market, potentially creating a demand-glut or misalignment with sectoral needs. Lae’s caution reflects a broader concern that policy responses should anticipate not only the immediate vacancy in Cambodian labor but also the evolving balance of supply across regional labor pools as geopolitical tensions change.
In his assessment, the Ministry of Labour must seriously weigh these issues and consider whether a Sri Lankan import strategy truly aligns with Thailand’s broader economic and social objectives. The expert voice highlights the need for a nuanced approach that goes beyond ad hoc recruitment schemes and considers the structural aspects of the Thai labor market, including skill gaps, training capacity, cultural integration, and long-term workforce planning. The warning serves as a reminder that a well-intentioned policy could inadvertently create new inefficiencies or social frictions if implemented without a coherent, holistic strategy to manage labor supply, demand, and workforce development.
Numbers, Logistics, and the Scale of Return
Tens of thousands of Cambodian workers have returned to their home country as Thailand facilitates their departure via border gates. While the precise tally remains unofficial, government agencies estimate a figure around 500,000 returnees. Within Chanthaburi province, roughly 300,000 Cambodians are believed to have traversed the borders, reflecting the region’s critical role in managing cross-border movement and facilitating orderly departures. The Ban Laem crossing, a focal point in this ongoing movement, reported approximately 2,500 Cambodian departures in a single day, illustrating the high volume of people moving through this gateway on a regular basis.
In the broader labor market context, estimates indicate there are about 1.5 million Cambodian workers in Thailand, with roughly 500,000 of them registered under formal arrangements. These workers are primarily employed in the fishing, farming, construction, and service sectors, representing a substantial portion of the informal and formal labor supply that underpins Thailand’s economy in rural and coastal areas. The sheer scale of Cambodian labor in Thailand underscores the complexity of any policy shift aimed at substituting Cambodian workers with migrants from another country. The existing distribution of workers, the legal status of those employed, and the sectoral composition of their jobs all contribute to the difficulty of implementing a swift correction to labor shortages when major cross-border disruptions occur.
The ongoing exodus has raised practical questions about how to maintain essential economic activity while ensuring the safety and well-being of migrant workers. Policymakers and business leaders must weigh the immediate need to fill roles in critical industries against longer-term considerations such as worker training, productivity, and social integration. The data points—2,500 Cambodians leaving on a single day at Ban Laem, 300,000 Cambodians passing through Chanthaburi, and 1.5 million Cambodians in Thai employment—help illustrate the scope of the challenge and the urgency with which Thailand must approach policy design. The quantity and flow of returning workers influence wage dynamics, hiring practices, and the capacity of local authorities to manage border logistics, health checks, and resettlement support for families heading home.
The Sri Lankan Plan: Details and Industry Reactions
Last month, the Thai government signaled its intention to pursue an alternative approach to filling the Cambodian labor gap by importing unskilled workers from Sri Lanka. Labour Minister Pongkawin Lungrungruangkit announced that a memorandum of understanding would be signed with the Sri Lankan government to initiate an initial intake of 10,000 Sri Lankan workers. The Department of Employment subsequently described this development as another option available to employers for managing their workforce during the transitional period created by the Cambodian exodus. This plan, framed as a pragmatic solution to a pressing labor shortage, has drawn mixed reactions from experts, business operators, and workers themselves.
Proponents of the Sri Lankan plan emphasize that diversifying the migrant workforce could provide employers with an immediate pool of labor to sustain operations across industries facing vacancy challenges. The idea is to mitigate the impact of the Cambodian exodus on production lines, service delivery, and logistical operations, especially in sectors that depend heavily on a steady stream of unskilled labor. However, critics, including Lae Dilokvidhyarat, caution that the plan could fail to address underlying inefficiencies and may require significant time for Sri Lankan workers to acclimate to Thai workplaces and the local economy. The differences in skill sets, work practices, and social norms could impede early productivity gains, potentially prolonging the period of suboptimal performance in key sectors.
Lae argues that while it may be tempting to look for a quick fix, policymakers must consider the broader consequences of introducing a new migrant cohort with distinct training backgrounds, cultural expectations, and religious practices. He notes that the successful integration of unskilled workers depends not only on the availability of jobs but also on the host society’s receptivity to cross-cultural adaptation. The potential friction at workplaces, communities, and institutions could undermine the objective of stabilizing the labor market in the short term and jeopardize social harmony if not managed with care. The Sri Lankan plan’s viability rests on detailed implementation, including training, orientation, language support, and cultural integration programs, as well as the capacity of employers and authorities to align recruitment with sector-specific needs and compliance standards.
In the short term, the Sri Lankan proposal is positioned as an alternative to expanding quotas for workers from neighboring countries. The plan would complement or substitute other strategies designed to address immediate gaps in Cambodian labor with a more diverse pool of workers. Yet, the Sri Lankan option does not operate in isolation; it must be weighed alongside other measures, such as expanding current quotas with Myanmar and Laos, and potentially attracting workers from Vietnam, to stabilize the labor supply across critical industries. The key policy question is whether Sri Lankan workers can be integrated rapidly enough to prevent productivity losses and whether the overall policy mix will create a sustainable, long-term framework for labor migration that aligns with Thailand’s economic transformation goals.
Short-Term and Long-Term Policy Implications: Alternatives Proposed
Beyond the Sri Lankan plan, Lae identified several lines of action to address the immediate shortages and to create a more resilient labor system for the medium term. He proposed that, in the near term, the Ministry of Labour should consider increasing quotas for workers from Myanmar and Laos. These neighboring sources, with established experiences and a historical track record of workforce mobility into Thailand, could provide a more seamless transition in terms of skill compatibility, cultural integration, and administrative processing.
Lae also suggested actively pursuing workers from Vietnam as part of a broader regional recruitment strategy. Vietnam’s labor force has become a significant source of skilled and semi-skilled workers in various sectors, and harnessing Vietnamese workers could help offset the gaps created by Cambodians’ reduced presence in Thailand. The approach would require careful coordination with destination sectors, industry associations, and regional employment services to ensure alignment with demand, training opportunities, and labor protections.
In addition to diversification strategies, Lae urged the government to strategically embrace new technologies and invest in upskilling within Thailand. He argued for a move away from labor-intensive industries toward sectors that rely more on technical expertise and automation. This shift would not only reduce the country’s sensitivity to fluctuations in migrant labor supply but also prepare the Thai workforce for a future economy driven by higher value-added activities. Upgrading skills for Thai workers would enable them to compete in a more automated, technology-driven landscape and reduce the vulnerability associated with heavy reliance on low-skilled migrant labor.
Lae’s broader policy framework emphasizes a balanced, forward-looking strategy that combines careful recruitment with long-term workforce development. The goal is to maintain essential operations across priority sectors while fostering a more adaptable labor market capable of absorbing shocks from geopolitical tensions, border disruptions, and global labor market fluctuations. His recommendations reflect a comprehensive approach that integrates migration policy with education, vocational training, and industrial modernization, aiming to create a sustainable ecosystem for labor supply in Thailand.
Economic and Social Dimensions: Skills, Culture, and Sectoral Impacts
The debate over Sri Lankan workers and the broader exodus highlights core economic and social dimensions that shape how Thailand manages its labor markets. Sectoral distribution matters: Cambodian workers have historically found employment in fishing, farming, construction, and service industries, forming a substantial share of the unskilled labor pool. The presence of Cambodian labor in these sectors underscores the intertwined nature of the Thai economy with cross-border labor flows. Any policy that alters the composition of the migrant workforce inevitably affects productivity, wage dynamics, training requirements, and the overall health of these critical sectors.
From a social perspective, the integration of migrant workers is shaped by shared values, culture, and religion. The Thai host society tends to integrate workers from neighboring countries more smoothly due to closer cultural and religious alignments, which reduces potential friction in day-to-day interactions, working relationships, and community life. When workers from more distant regions, such as Sri Lanka, enter the labor market, employers and authorities must anticipate and address potential cultural and religious diversity in the workplace. This requires targeted orientation programs, language support, and cross-cultural communication strategies to reduce misunderstandings and to foster inclusive work environments.
In the short term, the focus is on stabilizing the demand side of the labor market by ensuring that essential industries remain operational and competitive. This involves aligning recruitment with sector-specific needs, improving the efficiency of hiring processes, and providing training that accelerates skill acquisition for new workers. In the longer term, the emphasis shifts toward elevating the workforce through upskilling, technological adoption, and a gradual reduction in reliance on low-skilled migrant labor. By investing in domestic workers’ capabilities and encouraging automation where feasible, Thailand can create a more resilient economy that is less exposed to the risks associated with abrupt changes in migrant labor supply.
This multi-layered approach requires careful policy design and collaboration among ministries, industry associations, and family and community networks. It also entails transparent communication with migrant workers and host communities to build trust and address concerns about job security, living conditions, wages, and access to social services. The challenge lies in implementing a cohesive plan that respects workers’ rights while meeting the country’s strategic needs, all within a framework that sustains regional stability and economic growth.
Operational Realities: Border Management, Recruitment, and the Road Ahead
Operationally, Thailand faces the dual task of managing an ongoing border exodus while maintaining economic continuity in key sectors. The Ban Laem crossing in Pong Nam Ron district stands as a critical node in processing Cambodian departures, reflecting the practical logistics involved in handling mass migration. Border authorities must ensure orderly flows, verify documentation, and provide assistance to families returning home, all while preventing bottlenecks that could impede commercial and humanitarian activities. The numbers, while indicative, do not capture the full range of local impacts on households, communities, and local economies that depend on cross-border mobility for income and livelihood.
Within Thailand’s domestic labor market, the actual scale of Cambodian workers employed by Thai employers remains substantial. The figure of about 1.5 million Cambodians in Thai employment, with roughly 500,000 legally registered, points to a sizable labor pool that intersects with several critical industries. The distribution across fishing, farming, construction, and services means that any disruption in Cambodian labor supply could ripple through supply chains, production schedules, and service delivery. This reality underscores the need for a measured, data-informed approach to policy changes, ensuring that transitions in labor sourcing do not result in unintended operational disruptions or negative consequences for workers’ welfare.
Against this backdrop, the Sri Lankan plan is a potential, but still debated, instrument in the policy toolkit. The initial 10,000-worker intake would be a starting point, not a comprehensive replacement, and would require close collaboration between Thai authorities and the Sri Lankan government. Implementing such a program would involve vetting, orientation, language training, and ongoing support to ensure successful adaptation in workplace culture and everyday life. The success of this approach hinges on effective management of expectations among employers, workers, and communities, as well as overcoming logistical constraints associated with a new stream of migrant labor.
In parallel, expanding quotas for Myanmar and Laos—along with targeted recruitment from Vietnam—could provide a more immediate, regionally coherent response to the prevailing shortages. These steps would need to be supported by enhanced coordination with immigration authorities, employers, and vocational training providers to align recruitment with actual demand and to ensure that workers can be rapidly integrated into appropriate roles. Simultaneously, adopting new technologies and upskilling Thai workers would help reduce the country’s vulnerability to fluctuations in migrant labor supply over time, anchoring a more sustainable approach to workforce management that can adapt as regional dynamics evolve.
Policy Coherence and the Path Forward
The overarching policy question is how Thailand can reconcile immediate labor needs with long-term objectives of economic modernization, social cohesion, and regional stability. A multifaceted strategy that incorporates diversification of migrant sources, targeted upskilling, and technological adoption offers a path toward resilience. The Sri Lankan plan, while potentially useful as part of a diversified approach, cannot be viewed in isolation as a cure-all for the Cambodian exodus. Instead, it should be considered within a broader framework that balances quick relief with capacity-building and social integration.
Crucially, policy design must account for the fact that the Cambodian exodus is not a temporary disruption but a reflection of broader regional and geopolitical forces. Any long-term solution will need to address not only the immediate shortage of unskilled labor but also the structural factors shaping regional migration, including labor rights protections, wage norms, living conditions, and access to education and training. A coherent, evidence-based plan would integrate data-driven labor market analysis with proactive policy measures, including social services support for migrant workers and their families, to reduce potential social tensions and to promote harmonious integration within Thai society.
As Thailand contemplates its next steps, communication and transparency with stakeholders—employers, workers, communities, and cross-border partners—will be essential. Public messaging that clearly articulates the rationale for policy choices, the anticipated timelines, and the safeguards in place to protect workers’ rights can foster trust and cooperation. The goal is to create a balanced, adaptable framework that can withstand future shocks while continuing to support economic growth and social stability across border regions.
Conclusion
In summary, the current cross-border labor situation in Thailand is shaped by a complex mix of immediate worker shortages, evolving regional dynamics, and the social and cultural dimensions of migration. The Cambodian exodus, driven by border tensions and concerns for safety, has prompted Thailand to explore multiple avenues to stabilize the labor market, including a proposed Sri Lankan worker plan and the expansion of quotas for neighboring countries. A prominent labour expert warns that substituting one unskilled labor pool with another may not fully address underlying challenges, underscoring the need for a holistic approach that emphasizes skill development, cultural integration, and long-term workforce modernization.
Ultimately, a resilient solution will likely combine targeted recruitment from Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam with investments in upskilling Thai workers and adopting technologies that reduce reliance on low-skilled labor. This approach would help Thailand weather short-term disruptions while laying the groundwork for sustainable economic growth in a changing regional environment. It remains essential for policymakers to carefully assess the potential implications of any plan, to monitor progress with data-driven metrics, and to maintain a open dialogue with employers, workers, and communities as Thailand navigates this transitional period.
