eng homeabout usmekong riversalween rivermun riverthai baan researchpublication
  Poor's protest campaign to go on

BY PRAVIT ROJANAPHRUK, PENNAPA HONGTHONG and
SUBHATRA BHUMIPRABHAS

The Nation, Aug 18, 2000


FOLLOWING a four-hour public forum, leaders
of the Assembly of the Poor (AOP) insisted
yesterday that their protests would continue until
their problems are satisfactorily resolved.

AOP leaders said they believed the
government was determined to stick to its
current methods of development, and resist the
structural and legal changes required to resolve
their problems and protect the rights of the
public in the future.

"The protest must go on," said Wanida
Tantiwittayapitak, an AOP adviser.

Though no solutions were reached, many
participants said they believed the forum was a
success for allowing both sides to publicly air
their views.

More than 600 people were on hand at
Thammasat University to watch the event as
government officials and AOP representatives
traded accusations, denials and suggestions
concerning the impacts of development
projects and other natural-resource
management issues.

The historic forum started with a debate on
forestry issues. AOP representatives attacked
a 1998 Cabinet resolution which has been
used as a guideline for implementing forestry
boundaries, claiming it is a major obstacle to
solving the problems of villagers who have
been long-term residents of land declared to be
part of a conservation zone. They said the
resolution grants absolute authority to the Royal
Forestry Department to determine whether land
is located in the forest.

The said the resolution was drafted according
to the same philosophy that led to the Khor Jor
Kor land-allocation project for the poor, which
ignited violence between forest dwellers and
the government.

PM's Office Minister Savit Bhotiwihok
defended the government's position, saying all
public development projects are the result of
democratic processes.

"Development projects are approved by the
National Economic and Social Development
Board. And [the government] was elected by
the people," Savit said.

AOP representatives recounted the long history
of forest dwellers' problems, claiming they were
all the result of the government's unjust policies.
They said the government convinced villagers
to live in the forest during the Cold War years to
serve as a buffer against the spread of
communism. It was not the villagers who
encroached upon the forest themselves.

The government representatives insisted they
are willing to solve the problems in accordance
with the law. RFD director-general Plodprasop
Suraswadi said the Cabinet resolution in
question has served as a fair tool for solving the
problems. He said the forest and its resources
belong to all the country's 60 million people, so
the RFD must be fair to everyone.

Deputy Interior Minister Wattana Asavahem
read from a prepared statement, saying the
villagers have the government's sympathy.

The two sides fiercely debated the dam issues.
The AOP team claimed all of the villagers'
problems were caused by the government, and
gave accounts of how families have suffered as
a result of the projects.

Phakdee Janthajiead said his father lost about
100 rai of land due to the construction of the
Sirindhorn Dam, and was not compensated for
any of it. Phakdee said his parents became
destitute afterward, and he lost the opportunity
to gain an education.

Meanwhile, the government criticised the
villagers' demands. Minister Anurak Jureemas
said the suffering of Pet Khanchandra, who
also recounted her family's problems, was
caused by her mother, who refused to
participate in verifying the boundary of her land
during the construction of the Huay La Haa
Dam.

However, Wanida argued that Hai, Pet's
mother, refused to participate because her land
had already been submerged by storage water
and the official in charge refused to include
submerged land.

"How then could the government demarcate her
land?" Wanida said.

Savit, who is also in charge of the Electricity
Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat), said
more studies were needed before it is decided
whether the fish ladder at Pak Mool Dam
should be destroyed. He insisted construction
of the dam was not a mistake, as villagers have
claimed.

The neutral committee established by the
government to address the villagers' demands
seized the opportunity to propose more
solutions.

Chairman Banthon Orndam said the
government should acknowledge that some
laws must be amended to solve the problems.

Committee member Yont Musik proposed that
the committee be given the task of hiring those
who conduct environmental-impact studies,
rather than the projects' developers.

"This way we will have the right information and
it will lead to the right decision," he said.

Yont also called on the public to help set new
rules and standards for natural-resource
management.

Deputy Agriculture Minister Newin Chidchob
refused to accept the AOP's proposal to
redistribute land owned by the rich to the poor.
He said a progressive land tax should bring
about better land distribution.

"We can't violate the rights of those who are
good citizens by seizing their land to distribute
to the poor," he said.

Commenting on whether the forum was
successful, social activist Prof Prawes Wasi
said it is simply good that both sides decided
to sit and talk instead of confronting each other
as in the past.

"It is okay even though a solution has yet to be
reached, because the issues are structural
problems. Our society lacks the skills to solve
these structural conflicts," he said.

PollWatch president Gen Saiyood Kirdphol
agreed with Prawes, saying the forum was a
good first step toward peacefully resolving the
conflict.

Forum moderator Somchai Srisuthiyakorn said
the forum was an effective mechanism for
solving such structural conflicts.

"The result is positive. I believe that it will lead
to a proper solution in the long run," he said.

Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai said his only
request prior to the forum was that everyone
speak the truth. He again asked the protesters
to return home, saying their presence will not
affect his decision on the issues.

"If we can help resolve three of the five
demands, the people should understand that
it's all we can do," Chuan said.

Royal Forestry Department's director general
Plodprasop Surasawadi


 Voices of the poor are heard at last 

BY PENNAPA HONGTHONG, PRAVIT ROJANAPHRUK and
SUBHATRA BHUMIPRABHAS

The Nation, Aug 17, 2000

TOGETHER, the government and the Assembly
of the Poor (AOP) wrote a new chapter in the
development of participatory democracy
yesterday when they shared the stage at the
country's first-ever public forum at Thammasat
University.

After decades of unbridled development, in
which the voices of the poor have for the most
part been ignored, the forum exposed for the
first time thousands of people nationwide to the
concerns of impoverished citizens adversely
affected by dam projects and other commercial
developments.

For the first time, two sides that appeared to be
permanent adversaries appeared together in
public to defend their positions and seek a
solution to conflict.

And, for the first time, all major media outlets
were on hand to cover the debate, which was
broadcast live by two television stations.

Praise should be heaped on Thammasat
University, which decided to offer the venue as
a public service.

The debate moderator, Thammasat University
political scientist Somchai Srisuthiyakorn,
performed admirably despite his green blazer
and large digital stopwatch - both "referee"
symbols that seemed oddly out of place in a
serious political venue.

Despite the unfortunate association with
professional sports, Somchai's able steering
kept the forum running smoothly, save for some
minor disturbances by what appeared to be
pro-dam villagers.

Even sceptics who doubted the forum would
yield concrete solutions had to acknowledge
that, for the first time, villagers and activists sat
as equals with ministers and senior officials to
debate the issues in the full glare of the public
eye.

Previously, the state would use the media to
promote its view as the only solution to every
problem. But this forum enabled both sides to
air their views to the public as equals.

However, the debate was so often bogged
down with technical detail that many in
attendance were unable to comprehend it.

This problem only highlighted the fact that
participatory democracy requires citizens who
are more educated about social problems in
general.

The government, while deserving of the praise
it received for taking part in the forum, was
forced to recognise that old prejudices - such
as deputy Agriculture Minister Newin
Chidchob's description of thousands of hill-tribe
peoples as "non-Thai" - are destructive to our
social fabric.

And more than one politician treated the forum
like a debate in the House of Representatives,
trying to score points to maximise votes.

The government appeared not to have learned
from past mistakes - it even failed to
acknowledge any - and sounded as determined
as ever to seek the same old development path
that has wreaked havoc on so many people
and prompted the public forum in the first place.

Savit Bhodhitvihok, PM's Office Minister
overseeing the Electricity Generating Authority
of Thailand, continued to insist that the
construction of Pak Mool Dam was not a
mistake caused by "developmentalism".

The neutral committee set by the government
said that all the problems raised stem from a
process of development that did not consider
the importance of citizens' participation.

One committee member, Srisakara
Vallibhotama, said that the state has yet to
learn what community is, not to mention what
community rights entail.

Many thought Srisakara should be
reprimanded, however, for his derogatory
remark about Laos being a place where the
state is free to beat up people.

Another neutral committee member, Anuchat
Puangsomlee of Mahidol University, said he
hopes the next administration will ensure that its
agenda includes solutions to the problems
raised by the AOP and that it deals with the
fight over natural resources.

He also asked all political parties to consider
land reform as a priority policy that needs to be
implemented.

At present, about eight to 10 million people are
believed to be living in areas designated by the
government as forest land.

At the forum, both sides employed tactics to
twist this fact to their advantage.

The government enlisted Prapat
Ruengkhamfoo, a leading conservationist in the
Chomthong district of Chiangmai province who
opposes the AOP, to represent its side.

This was clearly an attempt to divide and
conquer by pitting one group of villagers
against another, as Prapat has no apparent
interest in solving the problems of the AOP.

At the same time, AOP representative Laothai
Nilnuan pointlessly focussed on whether or not
Minister Newin illegally occupied land in a
forested area.

While this issue may personally discredit
Newin, it has no direct link to the AOP's
problems.

Besides, AOP advisor Wanida
Tantiwittayapitak refused to answer a question
about her income, which left the public with the
impression that the AOP, too, may be less than
transparent in some cases.

While many are sceptical about whether the
public forum will lead to any concrete solutions,
it will be up to the AOP to press on with its
efforts and to inform the public about the
progress of events.

It is also hoped that the forum will serve as a
catalyst for further development and fine-tuning
of a participatory process in our democratic
system, one that addresses not only the AOP's
issues but also those related to labour, national
security, ethnic minorities and much more.



LAST MODIFIED: Thursday, 17-Aug-2000
14:17:29 EDT

 
 

สมาคมแม่น้ำเพื่อชีวิต   138/1 หมู่ 4 ต.สุเทพ อ.เมือง จ.เชียงใหม่   50200
Living River Siam Association  138 Moo 4, Suthep, Muang, Chiang Mai, 50200   Thailand
Tel. & Fax.: (66)-       E-mail : admin@livingriversiam.org

ข้อมูลในเวปนี้สามารถนำไปเผยแพร่ได้โดยอ้างอิงแหล่งที่มา