Wary NCPO steps in to ease land dispute

By PRATCH RUJIVANAROM 
THE NATION 
CHACHOENGSAO

 

 

Army intervenes in seminar on unjust expropriation in Chachoengsao.

 

THE NATIONAL COUNCIL for Peace and Order (NCPO) and the Army have stepped into a land dispute between the residents of Tambon Yothaka in Chachoengsao’s Bang Nam Priew district to prevent activists from escalating their protests against the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC) development into a mass movement.

 

 

In the middle of a public seminar yesterday on the issue of unjust land expropriations within three EEC provinces at Tambon Yothaka, the co-hosts of this event – local affected people, land rights activists and the Thai Society of Environmental Journalists – were visited by military personnel from Infantry Division 11, high-ranking officers of Chachoengsao Provincial Internal Security Operation Command (Isoc) and the NCPO.

 

The Army’s arrival was not a surprise – they had notified local people beforehand – but as the soldiers were entering, the public seminar was suddenly paused and then taken over by the commander of Infantry Division 11 and the NCPO representative in Chachoengsao, Maj-General Worayuth Kaewwiboonphan, along with the deputy director of Chachoengsao Isoc, Maj-General Panit Siriphala.

 

 

Explaining their intervention, Worayuth said they wanted to broker a peaceful resolution to the conflict over 4,000 rai of land in four villages in Tambon Yothaka between the members of old communities and the rightful land owner, the Royal Thai Navy (RTN).

 

“Regarding the previous reports that this land conflict is another land-grabbing effort by wealthy investors for industrial expansion within the EEC provinces, we would like to clarify that this information is not true. The EEC has nothing to do with the Navy’s policy on these plots of land,” he said. 

 

He pointed out that despite the Navy having secured the rights to revoke rental agreements on the disputed land, the NCPO and the Army had negotiated with the Navy that the affected tenants be allowed to continue leasing 300 rai of land.

 

Therefore, he said he was asking local people to refrain from arranging public gatherings and organising protests over the “land grab” issue. Some of the affected people in Tambon Yothaka plan to stage a protest at the EEC Office in Bangkok next Monday.

 

However, most of the local people at the seminar said that the offer was completely unacceptable and urged the Navy’s high-ranking officers to negotiate with those affected personally.

 

According to the local history of Tambon Yothaka, which was gathered and studied by land rights group Land Watch Thai, the first record of settlements in the area date back to 1937, and were facilitated for families that lived along a canal.

 

 

However, Land Watch coordinator Thai Pornpana Kuaycharoen said that the first generation of settlers were uneducated and did not understand laws related to land ownership.

 

Therefore they did not stake official claims to their land by registering title deeds. This has provided the opportunity for outsiders to claim rights to the land from its rightful owners.

 

Pornpana said even though the legal rights over the land were not held by the original land settlers and the land ownership had changed hands several times, they and their descendants still lived on the land and farmed it on condition that they paid rent for using land they rightfully owned.

 

“The land has finally fallen into the hands of the RTN, which put the plots under the care of the Treasury Department since 1948, after the Navy bought three plots of land covering 4,000 rai (of land in the area,” she said.

 

“The Navy was acting as the people’s landlord and leased land to local farmers until 2004, when the Navy expressed its intention to take the land from the people and the Treasury Department informed locals of an intention to terminate their lease contracts.”

 

 

However, she said the local farmers |continued farming on those plots and the Treasury Department had not collected any rent since.

 

“The Treasury Department came out with a legal notification, instructing the locals to vacate the plots within seven days late last year, but all the people here have no place to go, so they insist on their position that as they were born here, they will never leave and will have to die here,” Pornpana added.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30355846

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-10-05

"...Regarding the previous reports that this land conflict is another land-grabbing effort by wealthy investors for industrial expansion within the EEC provinces, we would like to clarify that this information is not true. The EEC has nothing to do with the Navy’s policy on these plots of land,” he said..." 

 

I have lived in Thailand long enough to know that when a government official publicly states that something is not "another land-grabbing effort by wealthy investors", it almost certainly means that it actually is "another land-grabbing effort by wealthy investors".

 

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

 

 

34 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

"...Regarding the previous reports that this land conflict is another land-grabbing effort by wealthy investors for industrial expansion within the EEC provinces, we would like to clarify that this information is not true. The EEC has nothing to do with the Navy’s policy on these plots of land,” he said..." 

 

I have lived in Thailand long enough to know that when a government official publicly states that something is not "another land-grabbing effort by wealthy investors", it almost certainly means that it actually is "another land-grabbing effort by wealthy investors".

 

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

 

 

....and nothing changes.

 

These issues between oligarchy and peasants have existed for ages. 

The revolution awaits.

Sending the military in in the lead up to the election is a well thought out strategy.

1 hour ago, Chang_paarp said:

Sending the military in in the lead up to the election is a well thought out strategy.

And, again, roughly 2 to 3 years after the election appears to be the norm in Thailand.

3 hours ago, webfact said:

“The land has finally fallen into the hands of the RTN, which put the plots under the care of the Treasury Department since 1948, after the Navy bought three plots of land covering 4,000 rai (of land in the area,” she said.

Wonder just where the money came from? The Thai navy, a govt institution, purchases 4000 rai of land which it then charges local people rents for over a period of 56 years. Then it wants to throw them off land they have been on for all that time. Tells us a lot about the relationship the military enjoy with the common man.

3 hours ago, webfact said:

“The land has finally fallen into the hands of the RTN, which put the plots under the care of the Treasury Department since 1948, after the Navy bought three plots of land covering 4,000 rai (of land in the area,” she said.

The Royal Thai Navy is tasked with protecting Thailand and it's people, not land speculation and making people homeless.

38 minutes ago, Lungstib said:

Wonder just where the money came from? The Thai navy, a govt institution, purchases 4000 rai of land which it then charges local people rents for over a period of 56 years. Then it wants to throw them off land they have been on for all that time. Tells us a lot about the relationship the military enjoy with the common man.

Maybe but if they are the true rightful owner they have every right to do so. It seems the people accepted this otherwise they would not have been paying rent.

 

If i want to change after many years what i do with land then that is not against the law. There might be need for some compensation but if i was the owner it would have been my right.

 

Only question is are they really the rightful owner, and it does look that way otherwise people would not pay rent to them.

 

Does it suck for the people who live there yes for sure so some kind of compensation might be in order but there might not be a legal need for it even.

 

Money.. 4000 rai back then was worth a lot less then now so i don't see why the army could not have bought it.

Edited October 5, 20187 yr by robblok

1 hour ago, robblok said:

If i want to change after many years what i do with land then that is not against the law.

In the subject case it may not be so clear.

"1937: Tambon Yothaca established."

 

Tambon is a local governmental unit in Thailand. Below district (amphoe) and province (changwat), they form the third administrative subdivision level. For Tambon Yothaca the amphoe is Bang Nam Priao and the province is Chachoengsao. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tambon_in_Thailand_–_Y

Following the incorporation of the area into a legal governmental entity, Thai people move into the Tambon to farm. As such they become residents of the tambon and eligible to be tambon voters.

 

While the RTN may desire to change the use of the land, it's ownership should not supersede the laws and regulations of all the associated governmental entities (three in this case). Should not the RTN comply with all laws and regulations relating to land use? In which perhaps as tambon voters the farmers have legal rights to participate in land use of their Tambon. Note that when Prayut formed the EEC, he did so under the authority of Article 44 as the relevant governmental entities resisted Prayut's unilateral development plans.

 

RTN allegedly (who was the original owner(s)-a private person, company, Crown?) controls farmer use through a lease contract. Is the RTN complying with the terms of the contract? There is no reference to contract terms that allows RTN to eject the farmers and that lends suspicion as what its legal rights are as a leasehold owner. If it's so unambiguous that the RTN has the right to demand the farmers to vacate within 7 days, why would Prayut become involved if the RTN is allegedly within its legal rights?

Maybe but if they are the true rightful owner they have every right to do so. It seems the people accepted this otherwise they would not have been paying rent.   If i want to change after many years what i do with land then that is not against the law. There might be need for some compensation but if i was the owner it would have been my right.

 

Only question is are they really the rightful owner, and it does look that way otherwise people would not pay rent to them.

 

Does it suck for the people who live there yes for sure so some kind of compensation might be in order but there might not be a legal need for it even.

 

Money.. 4000 rai back then was worth a lot less then now so i don't see why the army could not have bought it.

 

 

 No you are wrong here - the Navy - which should never be allowed to own land anyway - was 1 year too late.

 

Like the article says the settlers were “uneducated” and did not know they could claim the land.

 

If they settled there in 1937 they could have claimed ownership in 1947 As Thai law stipulates that you can claim ownership and request title deeds after occupying the land for 10 years.

 

Of course the poor people did not know that because education - especially back then - was only for the selected few who all got very rich in this country.

 

And isn’t it funny who is making a lot of money with land deals in that area now - which was selected for the EEC by who??? -

Oh yes the military government - who dreamed up this EEC and they where the only ones who knew were it is going to be and put it there on purpose

 

It’s like when a new major road is cut in the city where I live and the people in the know snap up all the land in the area along the road and suddenly the price of a w2 rises from 2.000 to 30.000 baht - nice profit for those in the know!

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

8 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

In the subject case it may not be so clear.

"1937: Tambon Yothaca established."

 

Tambon is a local governmental unit in Thailand. Below district (amphoe) and province (changwat), they form the third administrative subdivision level. For Tambon Yothaca the amphoe is Bang Nam Priao and the province is Chachoengsao. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tambon_in_Thailand_–_Y

Following the incorporation of the area into a legal governmental entity, Thai people move into the Tambon to farm. As such they become residents of the tambon and eligible to be tambon voters.

 

While the RTN may desire to change the use of the land, it's ownership should not supersede the laws and regulations of all the associated governmental entities (three in this case). Should not the RTN comply with all laws and regulations relating to land use? In which perhaps as tambon voters the farmers have legal rights to participate in land use of their Tambon. Note that when Prayut formed the EEC, he did so under the authority of Article 44 as the relevant governmental entities resisted Prayut's unilateral development plans.

 

RTN allegedly (who was the original owner(s)-a private person, company, Crown?) controls farmer use through a lease contract. Is the RTN complying with the terms of the contract? There is no reference to contract terms that allows RTN to eject the farmers and that lends suspicion as what its legal rights are as a leasehold owner. If it's so unambiguous that the RTN has the right to demand the farmers to vacate within 7 days, why would Prayut become involved if the RTN is allegedly within its legal rights?

 

You could reason both ways, and like i said it has to be determined who is the legal owner. I have no idea but paying of rent shows that people accept the RTN or crown bureau as the owner and they are the renter.

 

Maybe its not clear in all cases some might be original owners who don't pay rent. I can't judge this case easily.  However if people paid rent to the RTN then they are not the owners.. i think that is clear. Because no owner would pay rent. 

6 minutes ago, boonrawdcnx said:

 

No you are wrong here - the Navy - which should never be allowed to own land anyway - was 1 year too late.

Like the article says the settlers were “uneducated” and did not know they could claim the land.

If they settle there in 1937 they could have claimed ownership in 1947 As Thai law stipulates that you can claim ownership and request title deeds after occupying the land for 10 years.

Of course the poor people did not know that because education - especially back then - was only for the selected few who all got very rich in this country.

And isn’t it funny who is making a lot of money with land deals in that area now - which was selected for the EEC by who??? -
Oh yes the military government - who dreamed up this EEC and they where the only ones who knew were it is going to be.

It’s like when a new road is cut in the city where I live and the people in the know snap up all the land in the area along the road and suddenly the price of a w2 rises from 2.000 to 30.000 baht nice profit for those in the know!




Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

It really does not matter much because they did not register it. So they are legally not in their right. 

 

Besides it would only apply to those who were there originally and their decedents not people who came later. 

 

I am not saying this is a "nice" thing to do I am looking at it from a legal point of view. By paying rent you accept your not the owner.

 

The government is making money for the government.. not for private military personal.. so I don't see this as a money grab by the rich.

Edited October 5, 20187 yr by robblok

Just read a much better written article in the BKK post.

 

The farmers are not claiming ownership rights but complaining that according to the law the army can't cancel their lease without waiting for 6 years. So seems the farmers are right.

 

The second thing is that a factory is build without environmental study as required by law.

 

Seems they got real valid points.

 

Previously i though it was about ownership.. seems it is not.