TO COMPLAIN OR NOT TO COMPLAIN: STILL THE QUESTION ...

To complain or not to complain: still the question
41
Other constraints included:
• Fear that if they complain, services will cease or revenge will be taken against them
by aid workers, the accused or Thai authorities. Refugees are aware that they have no
legal status in Thailand and feel there is no accountability if they are mistreated. Due
to these significant barriers, refugees feel their best strategy is to keep a low profile
and not draw attention to themselves by complaining.
• Consultation participants’ reluctance to define aid workers as anyone providing services
whether international, Thai or refugee. There was a clear sense that Karen refugees
involved with humanitarian service provision were “us” (Karen, local community and
insiders) whereas international and Thai workers or volunteers were seen as external.
• Due to limited time and logistics of travelling around Thailand in the rainy season, we
only visited two camps, Mae La and Umpien, both of which are Karen. This is to say
that beneficiary perceptions shared with us in these consultations are limited to Karen
perceptions.
• The Karen culture is not a culture comfortable raising complaints.
• People’s tendency to compare their lives now to the extremely poor state of their lives
in Burma results in their emphasis on gratitude for their improved situation.
We did not allot enough time to orient the translators. One result from this oversight was that
subsequent consultations built in more training time to ensure that translators themselves
understood sexual exploitation and abuse as a wide range of possible behaviours.
VI. CONSULTATION FINDINGS
Reporting “problems”
Before moving into prevention of and response to sexual exploitation and abuse by
humanitarian staff, the BBC team started discussions on safe ground with “where do you
go when you have problems with humanitarian staff or services you receive?” In the camps,
there seem to be two distinct complaints channels, whether for sexual exploitation and abuse
or otherwise. The first channel, preferred by most beneficiaries, is internal and requires
complaining to the Karen camp leadership. The second reaches out to external actors by
placing a concern in a complaints box or directly contacting an international humanitarian
aid agency staff member. 55 Based on perceptions shared, it appears that external channels for
complaints are not well understood and rarely used—especially for sexual exploitation and
abuse. For example, most BBC participants thought that complaints boxes are for specific
issues. The UNHCR boxes were perceived to be for resettlement and the TBBC boxes for
concerns about food quality or quantity. Few camp residents reported having used or even
knowing anyone who had used the complaints boxes. Of the beneficiaries who reported
putting a complaint in one of the boxes, no one received a response or felt that their issue
had been addressed. 56 A number of beneficiaries reported that complaints boxes (UNHCR
and TBBC) are subject to vandalism or feared that the complaints boxes would be taken so
that notes inside could be read and the complainant identified for retribution. If there were
a security issue such as a husband battering his wife, many said they would call Karen camp
security to investigate the situation and, if necessary, detain an offender. People automatically
responded that rape or murder were to be referred to the Thai authorities. Clearly, involving
Thai authorities was a last resort.
55
Some refugees with whom we consulted were dubious or skeptical about approaching Thai staff with
complaints. Several expressed that they would only contact international, rather than national staff.
56
Another obstacle blocking benefi ciaries’ view of humanitarian agency responsiveness to their concerns is
that there is not really a mechanism for reporting back to the community when an action is taken.