Homes Carved Into DOI Suthep Forest Totally Legal: Official

[snoop1130]

Homes Carved Into DOI Suthep Forest Totally Legal: Official

By Teeranai Charuvastra, Staff Reporter

 

Image: Kritsada Saetiao / Facebook

 

CHIANG MAI — A swath of protected forest on the slopes of Doi Suthep felled for residences enraged many when a photo went viral online, but a land official said Friday that it was a legally approved operation.

 

Though social media vented fury at the photo, which appears to show land cleared for homes jutting into the forest, Chiang Mai Treasury Department Director Yongyuth Ruengpattarakul said the buildings belong to court officials and were built legally.

 

Full Story: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/2018/02/23/homes-carved-doi-suthep-forest-totally-legal-official/

 

-- © Copyright Khaosod English 2018-2-23

[mercman24]

*belongs to court officials* totally legal, of course it is, if that isnt an open and shut case of encroachment, then i must be blind, of course the papers were signed by, you guessed it, COURT OFFICIALS ,

[Darcula]

Quote

“They were permitted to do that,” Yongyuth said, adding that the land originally belonged to the military. “The military granted the land to the court about a decade ago. It was clearly registered.”

 

Nothing to see here folks.

[Emster23]

When the ones who make the laws gain from those laws to detriment of nation, one needs to ask "Does legality matter?"

[klauskunkel]

From the article:

Quote

“It’s true. It’s a real scar. Every time I’m on a plane landing in Chiang Mai and see it, I am always perplexed. What the hell are puu yai in our country doing?” Kongnat Neelunchai said in a comment.

The puu yai are doing what they've always been doing, because you let them. What the hell are YOU doing about it, Kongnat?

Edited February 24, 2018 by klauskunkel

[Srikcir]

Rape of the People, Rape of the Land.

They go hand in hand.

[farcanell]

No worries y’all... the picture clearly shows plenty of land left vacant for the taking... just extend those sois a little, and your good to go.

[jonstarjon]

Now there's been a change of guard of the too nan this will be the future of Thailand. I think they call it Thai 4.0.... Mmm

[Srikcir]

“The military granted the land to the court about a decade ago. It was clearly registered.”

Many questions should arise:

• How did the military come into possession versus the Kingdom of Thailand (was a part of a national forest?) and was it clearly registered?
• Did the court officials have any role in approval of the military possession and subsequent sale?
• Did court officials use any court funds for purchase?
• Did the military sell the parcels to court officials at fair market value?
• Did the military pay Thai federal taxes on any gain in the sale?
• Was the RTM accountable for how it used sales proceeds?
• If a bargain sale or transferred free, was corruption involved?
• Who, if any, oversight agency is responsible for assuring monetary transactions between government agencies are corruption free?

Regardless, this is perhaps an example of the military owning Thai property that is separate from Thai people's sovereignty. It would seem to be under RTM sovereignty. That suggests that the RTM is a state within itself separate and distinct from the Kingdom of Thailand.

 

[connda]

Now Thailand has figured out the first world approach to deal with corruption - just make it legal. 

[jackdd]

I think the first part of the article is wrong (that's the part that is quoted here on thaivisa) because later in the article they write it different.

For me it sounds like that these houses are not owned by the court officials. They are property of the Thai government. The court officials are allowed to live there because they work for the government.

So there is no dispute about court officials filling their own pocket, but just about court officials (i assume the persons who made the decision where to build the houses are the persons who live there now) choosing a location for these houses that should be protected land, because they wanted to live at a nice place.

[Srikcir]

9 minutes ago, jackdd said:

They are property of the Thai government. The court officials are allowed to live there because they work for the government.

The land title deed(s) should settle the issue of who actually now owns the properties.

From your scenario:

• What we have is a sale from the Royal Thai Military to the Thai government, realizing that the military is always as a minimum part of the government through the Minister of Defense who is as I recall always an active duty general. In that scenario I'd expect the RTM would sell the properties at full market value as it will the Thai taxpayer that pays for it through their taxes.
• However, given the potential conflict of interest between related parties, would there be the possibility that the sale was made at higher than fair market value? NACC would be the entity to investigate. But the NACC only investigates when petitioned to do so and when has the NACC concluded there was corruption in RTM dealings?

What remains under your scenario is "court officials are allowed to live there."

• Unless such housing was essential to the performance of their judicial responsibilities (which I question) wherein they pay no rent, they should be paying fair market rent for their occupancy. Especially if they live there with family.
• If they are not paying rent or paying less than FMR, they are receiving benefits they are not entitled to and would be perceived as corruption. But again it would be the NACC to investigate.

Ultimately I don't believe your scenario/interpretation is correct. If the Thai government owns the properties, then an elected government through public pressure (ie., voter loyalty) would have the authority to tear down the property improvements and restore the land to its natural state. In fact that has been PM Prayut's agenda - restore national forest parkland. I can't see the RTM or court officials ever allowing such possibility.

[jackdd]

21 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

What remains under your scenario is "court officials are allowed to live there."

• Unless such housing was essential to the performance of their judicial responsibilities (which I question) wherein they pay no rent, they should be paying fair market rent for their occupancy. Especially if they live there with family.
• If they are not paying rent or paying less than FMR, they are receiving benefits they are not entitled to and would be perceived as corruption. But again it would be the NACC to investigate.

People who work for the government usually have free accommodation, that's just normal here in Thailand. If they are married / have children free accommodation for the whole family is provided, same as free health care. The higher their "rank" is, the bigger the house that they get.

The salary as a government worker is quite low, but the other benefits are quite nice, that's the reason that people want to work for the government

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

People who work for the government usually have free accommodation, that's just normal here in Thailand.

Is this your perception or can you reference a credible source for this comment?

 

In the article It Pays To Be A Government Worker In Thailand relating a study by TDRI funded with a budget grant from the National Research Council of Thailand, there is no mention of free housing benefits.

• civil servants inside and outside Bangkok received more accumulated income than the private employees
• civil servants do not always have lower monthly incomes than the private employees
• supplemental pay is given to government workers for additional duties, like attending mandatory meetings, additional income from teaching or researching, or receiving other premiums given to government workers, which can be sizeable amounts.
• the value of the welfare that the civil servant receives was at about half of their lifetime revenue compared to welfare given to private sector employees that was not much
• lifetime revenue of civil servants was higher than private sector employees at every educational level

http://pattayadailynews.com/it-pays-to-be-a-government-worker-in-thailand/

Aside from this study, since the Prayut coup in May 2014 civil service employees have received 5% annual pay raises compared to the average annual 0.2% increase in the daily minimum wage.

 

It definitely pays to be Thai civil service without free housing. But what I find "troubling" is any free benefit provided between government agencies (including Independent Organizations and especially the RTM) as it can easily have corrupt purposes, even if to solicit loyalty, ie., to support a military coup.

 

 

[jackdd]

4 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Is this your perception or can you reference a credible source for this comment?

I don't have anything to link to, but my GF who is a nurse in the army has a free house (she has a low rank, so it's townhouse style, small, not nice, no aircon, so we don't stay there, but she has it). In the hospital where she works are also many people who are "just" government workers, not in the army, they also stay in these houses, for free.

The uncle of my ex GF worked for the government, now retired, he stays for free in a condo in Bangkok with his family which is owned by the government.

Actually you can see this at many provincial government hospitals, usually the hospital is in the front and behind the hospital are houses for the people who work at the hospital (and i'm quite sure they stay there for free)

[worgeordie]

Apart from legal issues,it looks like a land slide

waiting to happen

regards worgeordie

[Just Weird]

On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 6:40 PM, mercman24 said:

*belongs to court officials* totally legal, of course it is, if that isnt an open and shut case of encroachment, then i must be blind, of course the papers were signed by, you guessed it, COURT OFFICIALS ,

Or, alternatively, it could be that what was actually reported is what actually happened..."They were permitted to do that,” Yongyuth said, adding that the land originally belonged to the military. “The military granted the land to the court about a decade ago. It was clearly registered.”

[Just Weird]

3 hours ago, Srikcir said:

The land title deed(s) should settle the issue of who actually now owns the properties.

From your scenario:

• What we have is a sale from the Royal Thai Military to the Thai government, realizing that the military is always as a minimum part of the government through the Minister of Defense who is as I recall always an active duty general. In that scenario I'd expect the RTM would sell the properties at full market value as it will the Thai taxpayer that pays for it through their taxes.
• However, given the potential conflict of interest between related parties, would there be the possibility that the sale was made at higher than fair market value? NACC would be the entity to investigate. But the NACC only investigates when petitioned to do so and when has the NACC concluded there was corruption in RTM dealings?

What remains under your scenario is "court officials are allowed to live there."

• Unless such housing was essential to the performance of their judicial responsibilities (which I question) wherein they pay no rent, they should be paying fair market rent for their occupancy. Especially if they live there with family.
• If they are not paying rent or paying less than FMR, they are receiving benefits they are not entitled to and would be perceived as corruption. But again it would be the NACC to investigate.

Ultimately I don't believe your scenario/interpretation is correct. If the Thai government owns the properties, then an elected government through public pressure (ie., voter loyalty) would have the authority to tear down the property improvements and restore the land to its natural state. In fact that has been PM Prayut's agenda - restore national forest parkland. I can't see the RTM or court officials ever allowing such possibility.

All that and nothing to back it up at all!

[Sir Dude]

This story is a great example of how the law works differently for different classes of people. Got blatant privilege and corruption written all over it...shocker. So wrong on so many levels and they even come out with some lame ass excuse that it's legit....give me a break.

[Srikcir]

One thing the junta has been consistent and successful with is identifying illegal encroachment in forests or protected lands characterized by legal-appearing land title deeds. Its investigations eventually discover falsified documents, forged signatures and bribery for authentic approvals. Yet, when it is now confronted with this blatant atrocity of encroachment into protected forests ... everything is legal without a scintilla of investigation.

 

Makes one wonder if there was a conflict of interest and collusion between the RTM and government officials that created the opportunity for this development. Coincidentally "about a decade ago" when this property transaction occurred, there was the  pro-military Democrat Abhisit Vejjajiva government that came to power in part following a previous junta that banned Thaksin Shinawatra's political party from elections. I'm sure that hypothetically speaking the RTM might had appreciated some monetary payback for its many "services" to the Abhisit government.