Supara Janchitfah,

Why is there a tug-of-war between the Assembly of the Poor (AOP) and the government over the issue of where a public forum should be held?The answer is that the AOP's distrust seems to stem from previous bad experiences.

After years of protests and negotiations, so far the government has given them nothing but empty promises. Thus skepticism prevails. The assembly accepts the findings of a government-appointed committee, but not the cabinet resolution of July 25, 2000, which the AOP does not consider to be a lasting solution to the problems raised by the assembly.

Among other things, the cabinet resolution called for the opening of watergates at Pak Moon Dam. In fact, the gates had already been opened due to floods in Ubon Ratchathani, notes Mr Somkiat Ponpai, one of the Pak Moon Dam protest leaders.

He demanded to know why there was no plan to revive the communities and ecology along the Moon River.

"In various ways, government officials have indicated that problems there have been solved, but this is not true," he said.

EARLY PRECEDENTS

Groups of villagers affected by the construction of dams as well as other state-initiated development projects began their early struggles under the umbrella of the AOP, also known as the Forum of the Poor, in 1995. The AOP's first demonstration was held from March 26 to April 22 in 1996 to remind the Banharn government of its unfulfilled promises.

The 26-day event involved over 10,000 members from 21 provinces who presented the government with 47 cases under 4 categories.

The Cabinet came up with a resolution to endorse problem-solving actions. "The problems remained unsolved because of inflexibility-or even irregular practices-of government officials. Sometimes it was sheer bureaucracy," said Wattana Nakpradit of the Friend of the People group.

"Sometimes officials, who are the decision-makers, gauge the political atmosphere according to who is in power before making a decision," she added.

BROKEN CONNECTION

The second rally was a 99-day protest from January 25 to May 2 in 1997. "This was because all we got from the previous government was empty promises," said Mrs Sompong Viengchan, another leader of Pak Moon Dam protesters.

This time, the AOP grew in number to over 20,000 members from 48 provinces. In a sit-in protest in front of Government House, they brought to the government's attention 121 cases under seven categories.

After 99 days of demonstrations in 1997, the Chavalit government held 38 official discussions, which resulted in nine cabinet resolutions and 12 government-appointed committees being formed to follow up the problem-solving processes.

However, the Chavalit government was forced to step down from power before the agreements could be implemented. Local officials sat on pending projects and nothing happened. Then the Chuan government came along and cancelled many of the Chavalit's cabinet resolutions, including the ones on April 17 and 22, 1998 and replaced them with a new resolution dated June 30, 1998.

HOLLOW PROMISES

The Chuan II government and the Assembly of the Poor held 42 official discussions within six months in 1998, and 15 committees were appointed to monitor the problems. "Past experiences have taught us not to resume talks; they only end in hollow promises," said Suriyon Thongnoo-eid, an adviser to the AOP.

The public was hardly even aware when the Assembly of the Poor protest resumed in March 24, 1999. That was when their first protest village, dubbed Mae Moon Mun Yuen village I, was erected at the Pak Moon Dam site. More than 5,000 people gathered to demand that the government solve 16 problems at the site. At present, seven protest villages have been set up all over the northeastern region. The media has rarely covered the issue, according to Dr Ubonrat Siriyuwasak of the Communication Arts Faculty at Chulalongkorn University. Dr Ubonrat, other academics, and former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun were invited to join a public forum to mark their one-year marathon protest at Pak Moon Dam site last April. This time, the media gave some attention to the event, due to the presence of leading figures.

ONE STEP FURTHER

On May 15 this year, the protesters went a step further: they occupied the Pak Moon Dam's parking lot to demand that the eight sluice gates of the dam be opened to allow fish to spawn upstream.

After some representatives of the AOP negotiated and demonstrated in Bangkok, the government created another committee to look into the protesters' demands.

This neutral panel was set up by Interior Minster Banyat Bantadtan in June.

The government and the AOP proposed five academics to represent each party. The committee announced its findings and recommendations in early July, after a month of work. However, the Chuan government refused to act on the committee's recommendations, claiming it had no power to order the Pak Moon Dam's sluice gates to be opened.

And so the Assembly of the Poor decided to come to Bangkok to demand that the government take action on the recommendations of the academic panel which the government itself had appointed.

On July 16, the night of the Buddhist Lent, the protesters tried to break into Government House. Riot police beat up the villagers and charged 225 of them with trespassing.

"Why did they trespass? What a stupid thing to do," was the general reaction. A group of villagers gave a joint answer: "If you had been through 80 official discussions in seven years of protest and nothing happens, how would you feel? "It was not easy for any government to agree to talk to villagers," said Sompong, who has participated in numerous rounds of negotiations with the government as a representative of Pak Moon Dam villagers.

"The government has been pushing us to the end of the road. Our backs are against the wall. There is nowhere to go but to fight," she said.

GETTING NOTICED

It is at Government House that the highest legal body in the country works to produce policies for the nation. Sompong has been there many times to discuss various issues with ministers, officials involved in the project and AOP advisers. By now, the villagers know that before even getting to the stage of negotiations, a protest involving large numbers of people must be launched. This is the only chance they have of being heard.

"The gates of Government House may be opened to most members of the public, but not to members of the Assembly of the Poor," said Sompong.

In any official discussion, the panel should comprise of government representatives, officials, villagers and AOP advisers who are supposed to sit and discuss equally.

But things didn't quite turn out that way, noted Sompong.

"Some officials look at us scornfully. They ask questions which sometimes we cannot answer immediately. "Sometimes it is hard for me to write down official information and defend our case in the proper language," said Sompong.

Prior to each agreement, Sompong had to discuss developments with all the villagers and seek their opinions. Then she had to renegotiate with the officials. "Some ministers and officials have to consult with their organisations too. Why didn't they honour what we agreed upon earlier? "We have put a lot of effort, energy and money into this. Why waste it?" asked Sompong.

"It's too easy for the cabinet to cancel previous resolutions and agreements, why don't they think about the process before each agreement can be reached?"In public administration, conflicts precipitate many kinds of resolution processes.

In Thailand, the most popular conflict resolution is to set up a committee. However, not all such committees are successful.

After a number of years, protesting villagers began to suffer from the proliferation of various committees that do not solve problems. Most committees are set up to prolong the problem and legitimise the powers-that-be, according to Naruemon Tabchumpol, a political scientist from Chulalongkorn University. "If the people at the policy level really did their job, villagers would get some benefits through these committees," she said.

"But if there is no clear signal from the policy level. These committees remain paper tigers," she added.

"Look at the committee chaired by Professor Nikom (Chantharavitoon). Even he had to quit because there was no collaboration from stakeholders such as the Royal Irrigation Department. After a year or so, the government still hadn't allocated a budget to facilitate the committee's study," said Naruemon.

"If a committee comprising stakeholders does not work, how about an independent one? Would it be more effective, can it truly be impartial?"Naruemon pointed to the latest panel appointed by Interior Minister Banyat as a case in point. "This commitee comprises all academics. Although the committee is an independent body, it has no power. Finally the decision is still up to the government," she said.

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

The present conflict between the Chuan government and the Assembly of the Poor comes from the growth-oriented economic development thrust which exploits natural resources to serve industrial growth to the detriment of other interests, according to Naruemon.

"These conflicts stem from different views of natural resources management, not conflicts between individuals," she said.

"It is a structural problem where natural resources are geared towards serving economic growth at the macro level rather than the micro level," she added.

When a committee makes some recommendations, problem-solving processes mostly get caught in the whirlpool of centralised administrative systems, "especially the Chuan government, which has shown a double standard in applying the law with the rich and the poor," explains Suriyon.

Thus the AOP is calling for long-term public participation, including allowing locals to sit in on Environmental Impact Assessment studies to find long-term solutions within a specific timeframe.

Respected academic Dr Prawase Wasi also suggested it is time that Prime Minister Chuan and the Assembly of the Poor should talk with each other. But at least both sides are now aware how useless empty promises are.