Villagers Fight Against Demolitions In Thaplan National Park

[webfact]

Villagers fight against demolitions

Matthana Laddasiriphorn,

Prasit Tangprasert

The Nation

Owners of illegallybuit resorts in Thaplan national park and villagers who support them have staged road

Mayor Amnart Phokham is calling on Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to urgently intervene and order a stop to the demolition as well as enforce a Cabinet decision on easing certain conditions, which would force a halt to the touring operations.

The stand-off reached a flashpoint when the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation yesterday issued an urgent directive ordering forestry officials and contract workers to go ahead with the demolition plan, which aims at taking out the first six resorts before this year's end.

Around 1,000 people camped at an entry point near the six targeted resorts, while another 1,000 blocked a Route 304 section in Nakhon Ratchasima's Wang Nam Kheow district. Tablan national park covers 1,397,375 rai in four Nakhon Ratchasima districts and Prachin Buri's Na Di district.

Local politician Chun Sirichaikheereekosol said yesterday that the villagers were not aggressive and did not want anything more than to negotiate and for the law to be relaxed so they can continue with their businesses.

He said the department's extensive crackdown and planned demolition were damaging to local tourism especially since it was high season. He also spoke about villagers' help with forest fires, saying: "Be very careful about wild fires, without villagers' help can forest rangers put the fires out alone?"

The first wave of demolitions will kick off today and run until Friday, and that six resorts must be razed by the year's end, the directive said. These six are among the 42 resorts that the court has ordered be demolished in a long-standing legal battle.

The villagers also booed and scolded reporters covering the blockades, accusing them of being biased against resort operations and not helping them with their cause. They said that they had helped reforest and restore the Tablan forest reserves to their current fertile condition.

Somboon Singking, a protest leader, insisted that most of the villagers had been farming in the area even before the Tablan area was deemed a national park and said that they supported the resort's operations because tourism-related work could earn them extra money. He repeated the villagers' plea asking if the public would want them to return to farming and earning a meagre income for the rest of their lives.

-- The Nation 2011-12-20

[Briggsy]

Local thug-based populist politicians versus central government and the rule of the law. Expect a fudge.

I like the veiled threat about fires.

[hellodolly]

"Local politician Chun Sirichaikheereekosol said yesterday that the villagers were not aggressive and did not want anything more than to negotiate and for the law to be relaxed so they can continue with their businesses."

All they want is to be treated like Thaksin.

Break laws no concern for the environment just how munch money they can get in the bank.

I personally and glad that the resorts are to be torn down it will send a message that Thailand is no longer going to permit destruction of it's park land so private enterprise can make money.

This could also work in to water control let the land produce trees and all kinds of Flora to better hold the water.

Just my opinion

[Oberkommando]

Can we not have one thread without a Thaksin obsession session?

[Pib]

Local politician Chun Sirichaikheereekosol said yesterday that the villagers were not aggressive and did not want anything more than to negotiate and for the law to be relaxed so they can continue with their businesses.

Or said another way, change the law to where our illegal action/construction is legal.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Pib

[webfact]

Villagers return to block Road No 304 in Prachin Buri's Nadee district and Korat's Wang Nam Khiao to protest dismantling of illegal resorts /MCOT

[sparebox2]

Can we not have one thread without a Thaksin obsession session?

I don't think we are discussing Thaksin here.

[JurgenG]

Can we not have one thread without a Thaksin obsession session?

I don't think we are discussing Thaksin here.

Really ?

"Local politician Chun Sirichaikheereekosol said yesterday that the villagers were not aggressive and did not want anything more than to negotiate and for the law to be relaxed so they can continue with their businesses."

All they want is to be treated like Thaksin.

Break laws no concern for the environment just how munch money they can get in the bank.

Actually, I've just a couple of question for people posting in this thread.

Do you know the area ? Do you know the people there ? Do you know the history ?

If you driving on the 304 from Korat, after the left turn to Thai Samakhi, , still on the main road, there is a cake shop owned by an old lady who have been living there for more than 30 years. She first came with a logging company about 30 years to cut the trees on government orders. She has a lot of stories to tell.

And the cakes are excellent.

[Thai at Heart]

Got stuck in the traffic jam yesterday., Very very very long way round to get home

[tomross46]

Who are the investers in the resorts? Is it the poor villiagers or a rich Bangkok property developer?

[orang37]

imho ... not destruction is called for here: but, "Solomonic" justice:

0. assuming the construction of the resorts on public land, in violation of the law: then those resorts, and all their assets, and their profits over the years are: "fruits of a poisoned tree."

1. the owners of the resorts, who can be proven to have conspired to break the law, should be tried for crime. Fined, jail-terms, whatever. "Unusual wealth," and/or assets, proven to be related to the "fruits of the poisoned tree," should be confiscated.

2. the local/regional/whoever officials of whatever, who can be proven to have conspired to allow the construction of the resorts, should be tried for crime. Fined, jail-terms, whatever. "Unusual wealth," and/or assets, proven to be related to the "fruits of the poisoned tree," should be confiscated.

3. the illegal properties, all assets, the fines, and back profits able to be seized, should be confiscated and then ...

a. the resorts should not be destroyed ... because doing that will harm the local people ... with the exception that where a given resort can be shown to a direct cause of major environmental damage (such as interference with water supply of farmers downstream, or un-toxificable pollution, or destruction of watershed area and tree-cover necessary to prevent erosion).

b. resorts that "pass the environmental test," should be allowed to continue operating with profits being divided in some fair ways between direct benefit to the local people in the community, and the implementation of a long-range plan to restore, as much as possible, even increase, the viability of the forest land reserve.

c. those resorts allowed to operate should also become training schools for bright young Thais in hotel management career-paths.

And, yes, considering TIT, everything said above might as well be taken in the spirit of exactly what Dorothy expressed, when she said to Toto: "I have a feeling we're not in Kansas, anymore."

~o:37;

Edited December 20, 2011 by orang37

[JurgenG]

Who are the investers in the resorts? Is it the poor villiagers or a rich Bangkok property developer?

The answer is both.

At the origin it was mostly farmers who rented their land to young people from the city who used to come with their tent to spend the week end. Then they started to build basic bungalows, then the bungalow became more confortable ... but it's only during the past 3-4 years that the big developer start coming. So it's true that there is a couple of big resorts owned by what you call rich Bangkok developers but the majority are Mop and Pop resorts similars to those ran by a number of posters here. And those Mom & Pop resorts are built on farm lands, not in the national parks.

Also there is all a green economy that turn around these bungalows : farms that produce organic vegetables that are sold to the tourist, restaurants ... and all the people employed by these small businesses.

And the really greedy people are the people from the Forest Department. What they claim it's the land belongs to them and ultimately what they want is to rent the land to the local businesses who operate there. So what's going to happen ? Because the area has huge potential development, the rents will go up, the small people won't be able to afford it and we will only be left with your rich Bangkok property developers.

But they are smart, they use lazy journalists who don't make any effort to check the "facts" they print in their newspaper. And dumb tree huggers who don't understand we are creating one more natural park for the rich and famous

Edited December 20, 2011 by JurgenG

[Tanaka]

Who are the investers in the resorts? Is it the poor villiagers or a rich Bangkok property developer?

The answer is both.

At the origin it was mostly farmers who rented their land to young people from the city who used to come with their tent to spend the week end. Then they started to build basic bungalows, then the bungalow became more confortable ... but it's only during the past 3-4 years that the big developer start coming. So it's true that there is a couple of big resorts owned by what you call rich Bangkok developers but the majority are Mop and Pop resorts similars to those ran by a number of posters here. And those Mom & Pop resorts are built on farm lands, not in the national parks.

Also there is all a green economy that turn around these bungalows : farms that produce organic vegetables that are sold to the tourist, restaurants ... and all the people employed by these small businesses.

And the really greedy people are the people from the Forest Department. What they claim it's the land belongs to them and ultimately what they want is to rent the land to the local businesses who operate there. So what's going to happen ? Because the area has huge potential development, the rents will go up, the small people won't be able to afford it and we will only be left with your rich Bangkok property developers.

But they are smart, they use lazy journalists who don't make any effort to check the "facts" they print in their newspaper. And dumb tree huggers who don't understand we are creating one more natural park for the rich and famous

Most of what you write here is not true and a distorsion of reality. So you are claiming that the resorts set for demolition are not in the park? So the court has ruled to destroy private property on private land?

[hellodolly]

Who are the investers in the resorts? Is it the poor villiagers or a rich Bangkok property developer?

The answer is both.

At the origin it was mostly farmers who rented their land to young people from the city who used to come with their tent to spend the week end. Then they started to build basic bungalows, then the bungalow became more confortable ... but it's only during the past 3-4 years that the big developer start coming. So it's true that there is a couple of big resorts owned by what you call rich Bangkok developers but the majority are Mop and Pop resorts similars to those ran by a number of posters here. And those Mom & Pop resorts are built on farm lands, not in the national parks.

Also there is all a green economy that turn around these bungalows : farms that produce organic vegetables that are sold to the tourist, restaurants ... and all the people employed by these small businesses.

And the really greedy people are the people from the Forest Department. What they claim it's the land belongs to them and ultimately what they want is to rent the land to the local businesses who operate there. So what's going to happen ? Because the area has huge potential development, the rents will go up, the small people won't be able to afford it and we will only be left with your rich Bangkok property developers.

But they are smart, they use lazy journalists who don't make any effort to check the "facts" they print in their newspaper. And dumb tree huggers who don't understand we are creating one more natural park for the rich and famous

Most of what you write here is not true and a distorsion of reality. So you are claiming that the resorts set for demolition are not in the park? So the court has ruled to destroy private property on private land?

Good point I was wondering about that myself.

How about claiming that the land doesn't belong to the people or the government it belongs to the people from the Forest Department.

With out doing an in depth investigation it sounds like the people working for the forest department act like it does.

[h90]

Can we not have one thread without a Thaksin obsession session?

Well if Thaksin tells don't destroy it won't

[scorecard]

Can we not have one thread without a Thaksin obsession session?

Seems relevant to me, he sets the pace for expecting that laws be bent and changed for the benefit of a few.

[webfact]

Rangers raze two resorts in Tablan

THE NATION

Nakhon Ratchasima

The demolition of illegally built resorts in Tablan National Park yesterday went ahead without resistance from owners or villagers, though more people gathered to block a key road heading into the park.

The Kullavanich and Klong Krathing Country Hill resorts were razed to the ground by forest rangers. There are six other resorts facing demolition, but the owners have sought permission to do the job themselves.

Once the New Year break is over, authorities will return to see whether the six resorts have been demolished, said Damrong Phidej, director-general of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation. "Or we will demolish them ourselves," he added.

He said the department was not worried about trouble from the villagers, provided they do not break any laws or disrupt the demolition illegally. He said action would also be taken against local politicians |for permitting the use of land in |the park, as claimed by some villagers.

As for those who have been living in the park since before 1998, he said they could continue living and farming in the area. The existence of 152 resorts in the park is under question and pending court ruling.

Avoiding confrontation with forestry officials during demolition, the villagers instead turned to expanding roadblocks at Route 304, with more people also blocking the Khao Phaeng Ma-Khao Yai Road, which is another key route leading to Tablan National Park. In rally speeches, the villagers accused forestry officials of beating up three protesters.

The protesters also called on the authorities to consider their four demands: immediately halting the demolition of any resorts; redrawing boundaries of the Tablan park and clearly marking out areas where farming is allowed; ensuring that forestry laws are equally enforced nationwide; and intervention by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

Village chief Manote Buasri again asked why farmers should not be allowed to earn extra in their business deals with resort owners.

About 1,000 people are rallying at the six resorts targeted for demolition, while another 1,000 gathered to block the roads, but the number increased drastically in the evening.

-- The Nation 2011-12-21

[hellodolly]

Rangers raze two resorts in Tablan

THE NATION

Nakhon Ratchasima

The demolition of illegally built resorts in Tablan National Park yesterday went ahead without resistance from owners or villagers, though more people gathered to block a key road heading into the park.

The Kullavanich and Klong Krathing Country Hill resorts were razed to the ground by forest rangers. There are six other resorts facing demolition, but the owners have sought permission to do the job themselves.

Once the New Year break is over, authorities will return to see whether the six resorts have been demolished, said Damrong Phidej, director-general of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation. "Or we will demolish them ourselves," he added.

He said the department was not worried about trouble from the villagers, provided they do not break any laws or disrupt the demolition illegally. He said action would also be taken against local politicians |for permitting the use of land in |the park, as claimed by some villagers.

As for those who have been living in the park since before 1998, he said they could continue living and farming in the area. The existence of 152 resorts in the park is under question and pending court ruling.

Avoiding confrontation with forestry officials during demolition, the villagers instead turned to expanding roadblocks at Route 304, with more people also blocking the Khao Phaeng Ma-Khao Yai Road, which is another key route leading to Tablan National Park. In rally speeches, the villagers accused forestry officials of beating up three protesters.

The protesters also called on the authorities to consider their four demands: immediately halting the demolition of any resorts; redrawing boundaries of the Tablan park and clearly marking out areas where farming is allowed; ensuring that forestry laws are equally enforced nationwide; and intervention by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

Village chief Manote Buasri again asked why farmers should not be allowed to earn extra in their business deals with resort owners.

About 1,000 people are rallying at the six resorts targeted for demolition, while another 1,000 gathered to block the roads, but the number increased drastically in the evening.

-- The Nation 2011-12-21

Kept thinking of the similarities to the red shirt terrorists in Bangkok.

redraw the boundaries to make the illegal resorts legal.

Kind of like giving amnesty to armed people invading hospitals firing grenades at honest citizens and trying to burn Bangkok down.

[otherstuff1957]

Either the Nation's reporters didn't bother to check their facts or they decided to leave out a significant fact!

The reason that there was not resistance to the demolition is that it took place at 2am! The protesters were asleep at home when the Forestry officials moved in with their bulldozers.

Edited December 21, 2011 by otherstuff1957

[JurgenG]

Who are the investers in the resorts? Is it the poor villiagers or a rich Bangkok property developer?

The answer is both.

At the origin it was mostly farmers who rented their land to young people from the city who used to come with their tent to spend the week end. Then they started to build basic bungalows, then the bungalow became more confortable ... but it's only during the past 3-4 years that the big developer start coming. So it's true that there is a couple of big resorts owned by what you call rich Bangkok developers but the majority are Mop and Pop resorts similars to those ran by a number of posters here. And those Mom & Pop resorts are built on farm lands, not in the national parks.

Also there is all a green economy that turn around these bungalows : farms that produce organic vegetables that are sold to the tourist, restaurants ... and all the people employed by these small businesses.

And the really greedy people are the people from the Forest Department. What they claim it's the land belongs to them and ultimately what they want is to rent the land to the local businesses who operate there. So what's going to happen ? Because the area has huge potential development, the rents will go up, the small people won't be able to afford it and we will only be left with your rich Bangkok property developers.

But they are smart, they use lazy journalists who don't make any effort to check the "facts" they print in their newspaper. And dumb tree huggers who don't understand we are creating one more natural park for the rich and famous

Most of what you write here is not true and a distorsion of reality. So you are claiming that the resorts set for demolition are not in the park? So the court has ruled to destroy private property on private land?

Most ? Which part do you agree with and which part you don't ?

The issues at hand are really complex and have already been discussed in a couple of earlier threads here in the "Thailand News" forum. Please be precise.

[JetsetBkk]

<snip>

Kind of like giving amnesty to armed people invading hospitals firing grenades at honest citizens and trying to burn Bangkok down.

Kind of not like it at all.

[RogueExpat]

And the really greedy people are the people from the Forest Department. What they claim it's the land belongs to them and ultimately what they want is to rent the land to the local businesses who operate there. So what's going to happen ? Because the area has huge potential development, the rents will go up, the small people won't be able to afford it and we will only be left with your rich Bangkok property developers.

You are quite correct. Even mid level officials in the forestry department are all driving new Chevy Captivas.

It is a running joke, even within their own ministry, that those responsible for protecting the forests from encroachment and illegal logging are the ones responsible for it all.