Wealthy Grab Disputed Land

[Kremlin]

By RUNGRAWEE C. PINYORAT, Associated Press Writer

BAN NAM KHEM, Thailand - Still reeling from the loss of her two sons, sister and brother-in-law to the tsunami, Yuphin Chotipraphatsorn is facing another disaster: Developers want to take away all she has left — the land where her house once stood and her family lived.

She is among thousands of Thais in the six provinces hit by December's deadly waves now threatened with eviction from land the government or private enterprises claim is not theirs. Many say they could lose property or homes where their families lived for decades, if not centuries.

"If the tsunami didn't take you away, I will," the 36-year-old Yuphin recalled hearing from a stranger she thinks was sent by a land development company as he warned her and other villagers to move off the site in Ban Nam Khem, which is still a landscape of rubble, wrecked houses and beached boats.

"The tsunami swept away our houses, but the second tsunami is worse because it's going to take away our land," said Chaweang Kaew-ead, a 45-year-old construction worker in this poor fishing village where some 200 people face eviction.

The villagers and activists say the developer, Far East Trading and Construction Co., is taking advantage of the tsunami's destruction to oust them and build hotels for sun-worshipping Westerners and Asians.

In a dispute common in Thailand, businessmen counter that villagers illegally encroached on their land.

At Ban Nam Khem, in the worst-hit area of the coast north of Phuket island, company lawyer Niwat Kaewluan said Far East Trading plans to build a resort on land he contends is illegally occupied by villagers.

The company bought the land from a mining firm, Hok Chong Seng Co., a few years after it stopped work in the area, Niwat said. It's unclear when the purchase was made, but Far East Trading began forcing some villagers off the land in 2002.

Some villagers say they have lived in Ban Nam Khem for more than 30 years — before the Hok Chong Seng Company was granted a mining concession in the late 1970s.

They possess no title deeds. But under Thai law those settled for more than a year on a certain classification of land, under which most of the village falls, can claim ownership.

As in similar cases, many of the 200 facing eviction had already taken the dispute to court before the tsunami struck Dec. 26, killing more than 5,300 Thais and foreign tourists in the south.

As the court battle ensued, the company threw fences around some homes to force residents out, and threats were made. The villagers say the company brought in backhoes to pull down houses or clear away and bury wrecked ones, saying they had no right to live there.

"They put up concrete poles, strung wire and prevented villagers from entering the area right after the tsunami occurred," said Yuphin, who recalled how she was trying to find her missing family members at the time.

The company also posted a sign that read, "No Trespassing or Construction of Any Sort."

"I asked myself, `Why couldn't I get into the fenced off areas to search for the bodies of my loved ones?'" she said, tears in her eyes. Only the body of her sister was eventually recovered.

The government has offered to build new houses for tsunami victims who lost their homes, but villagers without land deeds don't qualify.

"I sometimes doubt if I am a Thai citizen since I haven't received any help from the government," said Weera Bunruang, a construction worker who said he lost six of his 10 family members.

Intimidation has been incessant. Recently, five men fired gunshots into the air to scare away Thais and foreign volunteers who came to help residents rebuild their houses, the villagers said.

But the villagers are determined to stop the company.

The government has instructed officials to inspect the disputed land and find a compromise, but Sunee Hathatham, an official in the Land Department in Phang Nga province, predicted the fight would have to be settled in court.

"The total loss from the tsunami has given us courage to stand up and fight because we have nothing to lose," said Yuphin, turning to look at what is left of her house — a concrete foundation.

"Where do they want us to go?" she added. "Our families died here and we feel deeply attached to this place."

[joe beets]

By RUNGRAWEE C. PINYORAT, Associated Press Writer

BAN NAM KHEM, Thailand -

<SNIP>

In a dispute common in Thailand, businessmen counter that villagers illegally encroached on their land.

At Ban Nam Khem, in the worst-hit area of the coast north of Phuket island, company lawyer Niwat Kaewluan said Far East Trading plans to build a resort on land he contends is illegally occupied by villagers.

The company bought the land from a mining firm, Hok Chong Seng Co., a few years after it stopped work in the area, Niwat said. It's unclear when the purchase was made, but Far East Trading began forcing some villagers off the land in 2002.

Some villagers say they have lived in Ban Nam Khem for more than 30 years — before the Hok Chong Seng Company was granted a mining concession in the late 1970s.

They possess no title deeds. But under Thai law those settled for more than a year on a certain classification of land, under which most of the village falls, can claim ownership.

<SNIP>

The government has offered to build new houses for tsunami victims who lost their homes, but villagers without land deeds don't qualify.

"I sometimes doubt if I am a Thai citizen since I haven't received any help from the government," said Weera Bunruang, a construction worker who said he lost six of his 10 family members.

(Emphasis mine)

OK, which is it?

If the squatters have the rights alluded to in the first bolded paragraph, does that mean they are legally entitled to deeds for their apparently legal holdings?

Is there some legal hoop they have to jump through before the government will step in to help them?

Is it their ignorance of legal procedure that is helping the developers keep the peasants in the dark and off the disputed land?

Or is it that the big shots have men with guns?

Or would it make no difference, and the gov't wuld continue casting their blind eye to their citizens vs. their big business cronies?

Am I being too cynical?

Isn't this just the sort of situation some do-gooder lawyer type might step into if it weren't for the likelihood that he would be silenced for his efforts?

Land of the free?

It's starting to look a little dearer than that.

jb

[Erwin1011]

The "Land of the Free" is rapidly changing in "The Land of Fear".

[The_Moog]

I was in negotiation for a bit of land being sold about 10 years ago by Mais Quiet Zone in Khao Lak. Turned out they didn't own it and it belonged to Ital Thai. They could have saved a lot of legal searches by admitting it from the outset.

The fact you put your fence around a piece of land and plant daffodils, doesn't make it yours.

[Heng]

OK, which is it? 

If the squatters have the rights alluded to in the first bolded paragraph, does that mean they are legally entitled to deeds for their apparently legal holdings? 

Is it their ignorance of legal procedure that is helping the developers keep the peasants in the dark and off the disputed land? 

In my experience, you cannot move squatters unless you exercise your ownership* over the land regularly.... if you don't visit your land at all for 10 uninterrupted years, then no you cannot move them. But no, they don't suddenly inherit your title/deed either. It just means you can't move them - (which is typically a shack or two and in the worse cases a bunch of shacks making up a squatter/fishing village). You're still more than welcome to build around them. If they are squatting on a blind piece of property "surrounded" by your property, you have to provide them with a something like 1.X meter wide path to access "their property." As far as I know, that is the extent of their rights. If they abandon this land for any extended period of time (non specific legally, I believe), then then any rights revert to the title/deed holder.

*Fortunately, "excercising ownership" can be as simple as hiring someone to farm your land, paying a representative X00 Baht a month to supervise the land (this can be a member of the squatter population), or showing up once in awhile and developing your land... which yes, can be as simple as putting up fences, signs, and flower gardens.

Edited May 2, 2005 by Heng

[RDN]

..."If the tsunami didn't take you away, I will," ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If this is true, what a terrible thing to say.

[The_Moog]

I agree that there are certain implicit rights of tenure, and even the building in which I live has problems with Right Of Way issues.

These wealthy people probably own this land in question, and perhaps the inhabitants have some tenure . Its not made very clear.

In any event, whether the land is owned or not, hired goons will play a part.

There's no way that these displaced people will win this thing, none as far as I can see, there will be no publicity that is acted upon and they don't have the money to get the Police or Courts on their side, and as i'm finding, it is an expensive Court matter.

Their Government won't help either. They voted for it. Not for us hairy big noses to belittle that !

[Kremlin]

"Many say they could lose property or homes where their families lived for decades, if not centuries."

I think of them more as natives (residents) to that island who have been living there for some time. Then some company buys the land right out from under them in the hopes that they'll be able to move the natives that are protected by Thai law. Then the tsunami comes and the first thing the company thinks of is to block off the land and start showing that they are exercising ownership.

I guess that Thai law doesn't have an "Act of God" clause or whatever is similar to Thai culture. I would hope that they'd make a law stating that you can not by land that is being occupied.

[Heng]

"Many say they could lose property or homes where their families lived for decades, if not centuries."

I think of them more as natives (residents) to that island who have been living there for some time.  Then some company buys the land right out from under them in the hopes that they'll be able to move the natives that are protected by Thai law.  Then the tsunami comes and the first thing the company thinks of is to block off the land and start showing that they are exercising ownership.

Just because someone owns a lot of property and may not have time to manage it all doesn't mean squatters have the right to live there.

Even squatters (natives, islanders, refugees, etc.) who have been around for hundreds of years should have been taking care of their paperwork or gotten permission to reside there from the proper authorities. 100+ years ago, Muslim refugees/migrants were sent out to what is now Minburi (actually a rather substantial swath from north of Bangkapi all the way down to Samutprakarn... roughly parallel to what is now Srinakarintara Rd) by royal decree. Pick out where you want to live and mark/stake out your land (similar to the system in the old west in the US). This area was thought of as far far away from civilization so they were essentially given all of this for next to nothing. They took care of their rights and eventually converted these royal decrees into title deeds.

If these natives wanted to live on ____ Island or ____ Beach, they should have asked permission from the king.

[The_Eye_Of_Sauron]

I presume all the land is owned by someone in Thailand,

People squat willy-nilly.

The landowners allow it cos they know they can get their land back if they want to use it.

If new Laws gave squatters strong rights over that land - then all Landowners are going to toughen up about allowing people in, and then the homeless'll have nowhere.