The government rejected calls to dissolve the Certificate of Identity (CI) center, asking critics what they would use instead if it were abolished. It stressed not to confuse individual identity verification with nationality certification, which are under different authorities, and reaffirmed opposition to the condition forcing Myanmar workers to remit 25% of their earnings back home.
On 9 Nov 2026 GMT+7, Captain Phatdarasmi Thongsaluaykorn, Deputy Spokesperson of the Prime Minister's Office, addressed criticism regarding the operation of the Certificate of Identity (CI) center for Myanmar workers and calls to abolish it in favor of the non-Thai nationality ID card system, or 'pink card.' She said that while it is valid to critique the current system, proponents must clarify what system would replace it and whether that system can fully function. Managing foreign labor is not just issuing cards or collecting personal data; it also involves identity verification, status management, and document coordination with the origin country. Therefore, any proposal to abolish the CI system should come with clear replacement plans covering legal frameworks, operational procedures, data integration, and mitigating measures to ensure a smooth transition without harming workers, employers, or national management systems.
Regarding criticism that the CI cannot fully verify Myanmar nationality, it must be understood that "identity verification" and "nationality certification" are distinct processes. Thailand has the authority to collect records, verify individual identity, and assess legal rights to stay or work under Thai law. However, certifying Myanmar nationality and issuing origin-country documents are under Myanmar authorities' jurisdiction; Thailand cannot replace this alone. The CI not being a complete nationality certificate does not mean it lacks utility; it remains part of labor document and status management, enabling workers to handle paperwork in Thailand without returning to Myanmar for every step. Having a CI does not automatically grant permission to stay or work; compliance with Thai law remains necessary.
The Deputy Spokesperson added that those proposing to abolish the CI in favor of a Thai-based biometric registration system must clarify how travel documents between Thailand and Myanmar will be managed, how data will be linked and verified with the origin country, and who will certify documents when workers return or finish employment. Simply having Thailand collect personal data does not mean it can issue origin-country documents in all cases. Without a clear supporting system, abolishing the CI first then fixing problems later could burden workers, employers, and Thai agencies. Therefore, before calling to dismantle the existing mechanism, proponents should demonstrate that their alternative can truly solve the issues, rather than just renaming the system without answering key questions.
Regarding complaints about fees or exploitation of workers within the CI center, the government does not deny the need for verification. If unfair charges or non-compliance with regulations occur, each case must be investigated and addressed within the relevant authority's jurisdiction. That Myanmar agencies issue the documents does not exempt procedures in Thailand from scrutiny. However, it is important to distinguish between correcting flaws or misconduct and calling for complete abolition of the mechanism, as these are separate issues. Problems at certain stages do not automatically justify dismantling the entire system.
The Deputy Spokesperson said allegations that the government ignores Myanmar's requirement for workers to remit at least 25% of earnings back home do not reflect actual actions. Minister of Labor Julpan Amornwiwat invited the Myanmar labor envoy for discussions and plans to send an official letter via the Ministry of Foreign Affairs opposing the use of retrospective 3–6 month remittance proof as a condition for issuing CI documents. Thailand holds that remittance rights should not be a compulsory condition for working abroad. Furthermore, remittances, tax collection, and document fees are separate matters that must be examined according to relevant laws and evidence, and should not be conflated into a single unsupported allegation.
He emphasized that the government continues to manage the overall labor system. At the Foreign Workers Management Policy Committee meeting on 6 Nov 2026 GMT+7, it approved extending work permits for workers expiring between Feb–Mar 2027 to allow continuous employment until 13 Feb 2029 GMT+7. It also granted a one-year temporary stay and work permit extension to undocumented workers and expanded options to import labor from Sri Lanka to meet market demand and mitigate impacts on employers.
“The government does not deny the need for verification and is not neglecting existing problems. However, solutions must clearly distinguish what is to be replaced, how workers will be supported, and how consequences will be managed. The government cannot decide on flaws needing investigation, what falls under the origin country's authority, or what is Thailand's responsibility. Calls to abolish the system are possible but must be accompanied by assurances that the country can manage arising issues,” the Deputy Spokesperson stated.
The appropriate approach need not be to fully maintain or immediately abolish the existing system but to consider improving the CI system to be more efficient, transparent, and verifiable while developing a long-term replacement. Clear transitional measures must be established before any changes to prevent legal gaps and adverse effects on foreign labor management.
The Deputy Spokesperson concluded that while criticizing the government is a right, quality proposals must go beyond pointing out limitations of the current system. They must demonstrate better, feasible alternatives. Calls for abolition are merely the beginning of questioning, not the solution for national administration. When changes cause impacts, state agencies bear responsibility toward workers, employers, and Thai citizens. Thus, government decisions must be based on law, facts, and Thailand's interests—not merely on demands without evaluating consequences.