Chief Faces Probe Over Demolitions: National Parks

[webfact]

NATIONAL PARKS

Chief faces probe over demolitions

JANJIRA PONGRAI

THE NATION

Two committees set up to investigate Damrong's action after complaints

BANGKOK: -- The chief of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation will face investigation by two government-appointed committees for his strong action of leading some 5,000 department staff to demolish nine big resorts located at Thab Lan National Park last week.

The two committee will investigate the facts behind the action by department chief Damrong Phidet, who led the demolition of nine luxury resorts in the Thab Lan National Park located at Wang Nam Kheow in Nakhon Ratchasima and Prachin Buri's Na Di district.

The first committee was set up yesterday by the Natural Resources and Environment Ministry, according to Chote Trachoo, the ministry's permanent secretary.

This committee will be chaired by deputy permanent secretary Mingkhwan Wichayarangsit, he added.

The second panel was set up by the cabinet.

This panel will be chaired by Phanchai Watthanachai, deputy permanent secretary at the Prime Minister's Office.

This committee will comprise Kamon Thammasereekul, director-general of the Office of the Attorney-General, Satja Khemmajaru, deputy director of Legal Execution Department, Mongkol Saenghirun, director of the Prime Minister's Office Bureau of Legal Affairs and General Regulations.

Tongthong Chandransu, permanent secretary at the Prime Minister's Office, said he has instructed the panel chairperson to finish the investigation and reveal the results within 15 days.

He added that this panel was not tasked with removing Damrong.

Meanwhile, Chote insisted that he would not move Damrong from his current position to work at the permanent secretary's office.

"It was just a rumour," he said.

He accepted that the investigation into Damrong's action of demolishing nine resorts in Thab Lan National Park stemmed from complaints filed by the owners of these resorts, including Ta Lay Mhok resort which was the biggest in the area.

Meanwhile, Natural Resources and Environment Minister Preecha Rengsomboon yesterday met the owners of the nine resorts to receive their complaints against Damrong's strong action.

Damrong told Thai News Agency that the demolition only followed the court's order and insisted that he would not be removed from his current position.

"The department had given them [resort owners] time to remove all buildings and constructions by themselves out of the national park area but no one followed our instruction.

"That's was why we had to destroy these constructions by ourselves," he said.

-- The Nation 2012-08-02

[colinneil]

Why investigations , resorts were built on government land , they were told to remove them , attitude we can do what we want , i agree with the demolition

[hedonist44]

Why investigations , resorts were built on government land , they were told to remove them , attitude we can do what we want , i agree with the demolition

I'd love to see the names of the resort owners in question. Would be very interesting I think:)

[binjalin]

Why investigations , resorts were built on government land , they were told to remove them , attitude we can do what we want , i agree with the demolition

agreed someone actually DOES his job and is now going to be hanged

[Theboy]

On top of that why are 2 committees needed - well apart from lining more peoples pockets ....................

[Skywalker69]

Khun Damrong must have stepped on some "Big Feet"

I wish him good luck he should have a medalj for doing the job.

[siampolee]

Corruption rules, this current maladministration won't back up government officials,.

One wonders why that should be and who the resort owners might be?.

Surely not one rule for the supporters of the maladministration and one rule for others ?

This current maladministration trumpeted fair shares for all, seems as if some shares are a bit more precious than others in their eyes.

Two faces of power perchance ?

.

Edited August 2, 2012 by siampolee

[binjalin]

Corruption rules, this current maladministration won't back up government officials,.

One wonders why that should be and who the resort owners might be?.

Surely not one rule for the supporters of the maladministration and one rule for others ?

This current maladministration trumpeted fair shares for all, seems as if some shares are a bit more precious than others in their eyes.

Two faces of power perchance ?

.

don't start all that pleeeeze 'this maladministration' it was the same before its not a PTP thing it's a THAI thing

[chooka]

Why investigations , resorts were built on government land , they were told to remove them , attitude we can do what we want , i agree with the demolition

I'd love to see the names of the resort owners in question. Would be very interesting I think:)

Yes I believe that is the thing, probably owned by polliticians who think because the land is government so it is thiers.

[Bluespunk]

So if you follow the law you are investigated and if you hop on a plane to visit convicted criminals you are not. Hmm…

Edited August 2, 2012 by Bluespunk

[chooka]

Why investigations , resorts were built on government land , they were told to remove them , attitude we can do what we want , i agree with the demolition

agreed someone actually DOES his job and is now going to be hanged

I think he got a little over zealous, the orders were to take out the opposition and not everyone.

[Buchholz]

He accepted that the investigation into Damrong's action of demolishing nine resorts in Thab Lan National Park stemmed from complaints filed by the owners of these resorts, including Ta Lay Mhok resort which was the biggest in the area.

I'd love to see the names of the resort owners in question. Would be very interesting I think:)

Ta Lay Mhok Resort Chairman is Somchai Penpathanakul.

.

[slapout]

Now if Damrong would present a bill, for cost to demolish said resorts and put the land back as it was, etc to the owners. He could set a new precident of thumbing your nose at the establishment.

[JurgenG]

What is not said in this article :

- There was an appeal against the court order. So Damrong should have wait the result of the appeal before going ahead with the demolition. Strictly legally, Damrong's action is wrong.

- The borders of the National Park are not clear. They should have been modified in 2000 but as it was frequent at the time, the government collapsed before the law was passed. There are current discussion to finally pass this law which will mean that the resorts won't be anymore under the National Park jusrisdiction. For concerned trees huggers, the area that is disputed has been cleared in the 70's (before the creation of the national park !!!) and there is no more forest, no more wild life, just villages and cultivated fields, and now resorts.

Obviously it was just a matter of time that this area escaped from the jurisdiction of Damrong. In his sick mind, he couldn't accept to fail so close to the goal that's why he decided to go ahead with the demolition even if the appeals mean that the destruction order was suspended.

It was just a few points for the consideration of interested readers.

[Hermeric]

Khun Damrong must have stepped on some "Big Feet"

I wish him good luck he should have a medalj for doing the job.

But then, why the Bangkok Post or the Nation are not giving the names of the owners.

[Buchholz]

Khun Damrong must have stepped on some "Big Feet"

I wish him good luck he should have a medalj for doing the job.

But then, why the Bangkok Post or the Nation are not giving the names of the owners.

Post # 12 came from the former.

Additionally, it identified the names of some of the other resorts: Ban Pha Ngam Resort, Him Phu Hill and Green View Resort.

.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Buchholz

[Reasonableman]

Also reported here: http://www.southeastasiantimes.com/

What is not said in this article :

- There was an appeal against the court order. So Damrong should have wait the result of the appeal before going ahead with the demolition. Strictly legally, Damrong's action is wrong.

- The borders of the National Park are not clear. They should have been modified in 2000 but as it was frequent at the time, the government collapsed before the law was passed. There are current discussion to finally pass this law which will mean that the resorts won't be anymore under the National Park jusrisdiction. For concerned trees huggers, the area that is disputed has been cleared in the 70's (before the creation of the national park !!!) and there is no more forest, no more wild life, just villages and cultivated fields, and now resorts.

Obviously it was just a matter of time that this area escaped from the jurisdiction of Damrong. In his sick mind, he couldn't accept to fail so close to the goal that's why he decided to go ahead with the demolition even if the appeals mean that the destruction order was suspended.

It was just a few points for the consideration of interested readers.

Well Jurgen, these are a few points as you say, but by no means all of the story. If you wish to appear objective, you really shouldn't use loaded terms like "tree huggers" and "his sick mind", because it conveys the impression you are prejudiced, as did a few attempted character smears in this thread already. Just a few words for your kind consideration.

[JurgenG]

Khun Damrong must have stepped on some "Big Feet"

I wish him good luck he should have a medalj for doing the job.

But then, why the Bangkok Post or the Nation are not giving the names of the owners.

Because most of them are nobodies. And I said most just in case someone find that one of them is related to a cousin of the brother in law of the maid of a relative of a parliament member ...

The novelty of this case is K. Damrong is facing educated middle class people with access to lawyers and who are not ready to be bullied by a civil servant with a bad temper

Edited August 2, 2012 by JurgenG

[JurgenG]

Also reported here: http://www.southeastasiantimes.com/

What is not said in this article :

- There was an appeal against the court order. So Damrong should have wait the result of the appeal before going ahead with the demolition. Strictly legally, Damrong's action is wrong.

- The borders of the National Park are not clear. They should have been modified in 2000 but as it was frequent at the time, the government collapsed before the law was passed. There are current discussion to finally pass this law which will mean that the resorts won't be anymore under the National Park jusrisdiction. For concerned trees huggers, the area that is disputed has been cleared in the 70's (before the creation of the national park !!!) and there is no more forest, no more wild life, just villages and cultivated fields, and now resorts.

Obviously it was just a matter of time that this area escaped from the jurisdiction of Damrong. In his sick mind, he couldn't accept to fail so close to the goal that's why he decided to go ahead with the demolition even if the appeals mean that the destruction order was suspended.

It was just a few points for the consideration of interested readers.

Well Jurgen, these are a few points as you say, but by no means all of the story. If you wish to appear objective, you really shouldn't use loaded terms like "tree huggers" and "his sick mind", because it conveys the impression you are prejudiced, as did a few attempted character smears in this thread already. Just a few words for your kind consideration.

Point noted.

I will try not to let myself carried away by my feeling in the future.

Thanks for the advise

[Reasonableman]

It's a learning process.

[ggold]

Now if Damrong would present a bill, for cost to demolish said resorts and put the land back as it was, etc to the owners. He could set a new precident of thumbing your nose at the establishment.

Sent from my GT-P6200 using Thaivisa Connect App

You have a point there, after demolition did they then remove all debis from the park, or as seems the thai way, leave the rubble in place there by creating an eyesaw?

[GentlemanJim]

Also reported here: http://www.southeastasiantimes.com/

What is not said in this article :

- There was an appeal against the court order. So Damrong should have wait the result of the appeal before going ahead with the demolition. Strictly legally, Damrong's action is wrong.

- The borders of the National Park are not clear. They should have been modified in 2000 but as it was frequent at the time, the government collapsed before the law was passed. There are current discussion to finally pass this law which will mean that the resorts won't be anymore under the National Park jusrisdiction. For concerned trees huggers, the area that is disputed has been cleared in the 70's (before the creation of the national park !!!) and there is no more forest, no more wild life, just villages and cultivated fields, and now resorts.

Obviously it was just a matter of time that this area escaped from the jurisdiction of Damrong. In his sick mind, he couldn't accept to fail so close to the goal that's why he decided to go ahead with the demolition even if the appeals mean that the destruction order was suspended.

It was just a few points for the consideration of interested readers.

Well Jurgen, these are a few points as you say, but by no means all of the story. If you wish to appear objective, you really shouldn't use loaded terms like "tree huggers" and "his sick mind", because it conveys the impression you are prejudiced, as did a few attempted character smears in this thread already. Just a few words for your kind consideration.

Reasonableman

But regardless of any other 'points', the fact is that the major 'point' was that the courts decision was under legal appeal, and the owners of that appeal were entitled to that appeal under law. The Government Department Chief has therefore acted illegally. Everything else in the story is an aside.

I imagine the 1000's of staff and traders in the local area who relied on the resorts for a living are more than slightly upset about being thrown on the heap and now facing traveling to a different area to earn family income, once again abandoning children to the care of Grandparents. The Chief has literally taken the law in to his own hands and that cannot be allowed to happen.

oh and by the way, lets not get too zealous and lets be fair to Jurgen, calling someone a tree hugger or stating that someone has a sick mind in your own opinion can in no way be classed as prejudice can it!

Edited August 2, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[OzMick]

What is not said in this article :

- There was an appeal against the court order. So Damrong should have wait the result of the appeal before going ahead with the demolition. Strictly legally, Damrong's action is wrong.

- The borders of the National Park are not clear. They should have been modified in 2000 but as it was frequent at the time, the government collapsed before the law was passed. There are current discussion to finally pass this law which will mean that the resorts won't be anymore under the National Park jusrisdiction. For concerned trees huggers, the area that is disputed has been cleared in the 70's (before the creation of the national park !!!) and there is no more forest, no more wild life, just villages and cultivated fields, and now resorts.

Obviously it was just a matter of time that this area escaped from the jurisdiction of Damrong. In his sick mind, he couldn't accept to fail so close to the goal that's why he decided to go ahead with the demolition even if the appeals mean that the destruction order was suspended.

It was just a few points for the consideration of interested readers.

2 points of interest.

1/ Trees regenerate and grow. Even if the land was cleared, over a few years the forest will reclaim it, even faster if given a little assistance.

2/ If those who cleared the land had title to it, how was private property declared a national park without resumption and compensation? If the resort owners don't/didn't have title, why are they building?

[Unkomoncents]

This whole national-park-encroachment fallout has to really be just a political battle between political "sen yais". It's pretty amazing how dirty these people are willing to let their hands get as they try and out-muscle their enemies (destroying fortunes and reputations without any concern for the larger damage done). Sure makes the whole Thai political scene feel like the Serengeti. Amazing and incredibly dysfunctional. You really do end up feeling for Thai people as there is no way their country is going to improve and develop at a reasonable, fair rate when this is what the government has come to.

[Reasonableman]

Also reported here: http://www.southeastasiantimes.com/

What is not said in this article :

- There was an appeal against the court order. So Damrong should have wait the result of the appeal before going ahead with the demolition. Strictly legally, Damrong's action is wrong.

- The borders of the National Park are not clear. They should have been modified in 2000 but as it was frequent at the time, the government collapsed before the law was passed. There are current discussion to finally pass this law which will mean that the resorts won't be anymore under the National Park jusrisdiction. For concerned trees huggers, the area that is disputed has been cleared in the 70's (before the creation of the national park !!!) and there is no more forest, no more wild life, just villages and cultivated fields, and now resorts.

Obviously it was just a matter of time that this area escaped from the jurisdiction of Damrong. In his sick mind, he couldn't accept to fail so close to the goal that's why he decided to go ahead with the demolition even if the appeals mean that the destruction order was suspended.

It was just a few points for the consideration of interested readers.

Well Jurgen, these are a few points as you say, but by no means all of the story. If you wish to appear objective, you really shouldn't use loaded terms like "tree huggers" and "his sick mind", because it conveys the impression you are prejudiced, as did a few attempted character smears in this thread already. Just a few words for your kind consideration.

Reasonableman

But regardless of any other 'points', the fact is that the major 'point' was that the courts decision was under legal appeal, and the owners of that appeal were entitled to that appeal under law. The Government Department Chief has therefore acted illegally. Everything else in the story is an aside.

I imagine the 1000's of staff and traders in the local area who relied on the resorts for a living are more than slightly upset about being thrown on the heap and now facing traveling to a different area to earn family income, once again abandoning children to the care of Grandparents. The Chief has literally taken the law in to his own hands and that cannot be allowed to happen.

oh and by the way, lets not get too zealous and lets be fair to Jurgen, calling someone a tree hugger or stating that someone has a sick mind in your own opinion can in no way be classed as prejudice can it!

Esteemed GJ, thanks for the further details, which show the complexity of the issue, rather than simplify it. Very unfortunate for all concerned. It bemuses me that, if the issue is as simple and crystal clear as you assert, that two (2) committees are investigating. Why didn't they save the time, and just ask GJ and JG for the answer? Easy peasy. ;-)

Edited August 2, 2012 by Reasonableman

[Skywalker69]

He accepted that the investigation into Damrong's action of demolishing nine resorts in Thab Lan National Park stemmed from complaints filed by the owners of these resorts, including Ta Lay Mhok resort which was the biggest in the area.

I'd love to see the names of the resort owners in question. Would be very interesting I think:)

Ta Lay Mhok Resort Chairman is Somchai Penpathanakul.

.

Ohhh.

[JurgenG]

A quick history of the area. The forest was cleared in the 70's by government order, the reason being it was a hideout for communist insurgents, too close to Bangkok for comfort. Two logging companies was contracted for the job. The owner of a small shopping complex on the main road came with one of the logging company, liked the area and decided to stay. She has a lot of interesting stories to tell if anybody is willing to interview her.

The land cleared was given to landless farmers. That was before the creation of the Thab Lan National park in 1981. It's from there that the confusion comes from. There is a national park and nobody contest that people who encroached on the national park should be evicted. And there is a zone that has been partly administered by the National Park but doesn't belong to the national park. And that's where the resorts are located. In 2000 there were a tentative to clarify this situation by officially excluding this area from the national park. Unfortunately the government collapse before they had time to vote the law.

So the resorts owners are rights when they say they are the rightful owners of their land. They bought them for the original owners, the farmers, and actually some resorts owners are the farmers who can trace their ownership of the land since the 70's. And that their land doesn't encroach on the national park.

[Reasonableman]

Yes JG that is one version of the history, and personally, I can't and have no wish to dispute it. It's just that there are other versions, so that it needs sorting out. Let's hope these committees are able to distill the truth and act with wisdom for all concerned, and to ensure the security of our dwindling parks and reserves.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Reasonableman

[OzMick]

A quick history of the area. The forest was cleared in the 70's by government order, the reason being it was a hideout for communist insurgents, too close to Bangkok for comfort. Two logging companies was contracted for the job. The owner of a small shopping complex on the main road came with one of the logging company, liked the area and decided to stay. She has a lot of interesting stories to tell if anybody is willing to interview her.

The land cleared was given to landless farmers. That was before the creation of the Thab Lan National park in 1981. It's from there that the confusion comes from. There is a national park and nobody contest that people who encroached on the national park should be evicted. And there is a zone that has been partly administered by the National Park but doesn't belong to the national park. And that's where the resorts are located. In 2000 there were a tentative to clarify this situation by officially excluding this area from the national park. Unfortunately the government collapse before they had time to vote the law.

So the resorts owners are rights when they say they are the rightful owners of their land. They bought them for the original owners, the farmers, and actually some resorts owners are the farmers who can trace their ownership of the land since the 70's. And that their land doesn't encroach on the national park.

Right. Were there any restrictions on the use of the land, little things like agricultural use only, buffer zone, etc. I'm sure this was raised in earlier threads.

As the court has issued demolition orders, there must have been legal grounds for that decision, which i suspect are based exactly on those restrictions.

[JurgenG]

True, there are other issues that have been discussed in other threads. But I believe that the situation is complex enough that we should handle them one by one. If you want to talk about points that have discussed in other threads, I suggest that you "resurrect" these threads and that we start from there.

This thread is about the conduct of the national park head. He has clearly overstep his authority, acted unlawfully and antagonized the other parties at a point that he now needs to be removed so negotiation can resume.

Edited August 2, 2012 by JurgenG