Chief Faces Probe Over Demolitions: National Parks

[Reasonableman]

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.

It is clear that you have an opinion. Whether it is the correct one or "clear" remains to be seen. You seem to have reached the conclusion before the due process of investigation, unsurprisingly. You no doubt have your reasons, and you outlined those early in this thread. You are an involved player, not an observer, with some personal stake in the outcome. Therefore, your opinion is influenced by, or conflicted by, self-interest. And you are not alone, for sure. We should all be pleased that these two committees, in their wisdom, will sort out the divergent opinions and historical details.

[binjalin]

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.

you sound VERY biased? do you own anything there?

[binjalin]

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.

do they have FULL chanots? FULL title? I mean to buy from the farmers? many times farmers sell without the full titles and, therefore, the resorts would be illegal.

It is standard practice in Thailand for land to be given to farmers without the full chanot and they can apply later - this is to STOP the type of thing that may be happening here in that land is purchased and built on without the chanots.

[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.

It is clear that you have an opinion. Whether it is the correct one or "clear" remains to be seen. You seem to have reached the conclusion before the due process of investigation, unsurprisingly. You no doubt have your reasons, and you outlined those early in this thread. You are an involved player, not an observer, with some personal stake in the outcome. Therefore, your opinion is influenced by, or conflicted by, self-interest. And you are not alone, for sure. We should all be pleased that these two committees, in their wisdom, will sort out the divergent opinions and historical details.

I reached this conclusion because, as I told you before, I follow this affair for almost two years. I also spent a lot of time researching about the origin of this mess. I also spent a lot of time talking with the local actors of this story, not only the resort owners but also the local farmers, who have seen their life transformed by the very rapid development of the tourism in this area. That's how I reached the conclusion that tourism is the best option to lift this area out of poverty.

Of course the unchecked and anarchic development of the resorts creates problems. But the solution is not to "wipe out tourism from the area" as the head of the forest department like to brag he is going to do, but to develop a code of conduct for the resorts to follow for an harmonious development and cohabitation with the wild life in the nearby national park.

That's what I think anyway.

[Reasonableman]

A major bone of contention seems to lie in the words you use "in the nearby national park", which supports your view. Others appear to differ, and feel the correct phraseology is "in the national park". Let's see what the committees determine, if that issue is within their remit.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Reasonableman

[khunken]

A major bone of contention seems to lie in the words you use "in the nearby national park", which supports your view. Others appear to differ, and feel the correct phraseology is "in the national park". Let's see what the committees determine, if that issue is within their remit.

With respect Reasonableman, I don't think it's within the committees' remit to determine if the destroyed resorts were within the park or not. That is for the courts to decide and it is for the committees' to determine if the parks chief took the law into his own hands (did a 'Chuwit'). As the matter is under appeal, IMHO it doesn't take a committee to decide that.

The committee method is an attempt to provide a formal mechanism to decide his fate.

[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!

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. ;-)

What KhunKen said!

Not forgetting that had 'they' just asked me and JG then the committees would indeed not have been formed and nobody would have been paid to be on those committees. Easy peasy ;-)

[Reasonableman]

Well there ya go, but that's the process we all have to live with. If only they'd known.... Such a waste... ;-)

[GentlemanJim]

Well there ya go, but that's the process we all have to live with. If only they'd known.... Such a waste... ;-)

Just as a note, to make my position clear so to speak. I applaud the Government pursuing those that have obtained valuable land illegally and if the 'land owners' in this area are found to have seized land under illegal circumstances then they deserve what they get. But that can only be after the due process of law has been followed. The 'Cheifs' actions in destroying the resorts were done without the instructions of the courts and that cannot be condoned.

[Reasonableman]

That's your opinion. It may well be substantiated... Or not. To be determined elsewhere, not on TV. Thanks.

[GentlemanJim]

That's your opinion. It may well be substantiated... Or not. To be determined elsewhere, not on TV. Thanks.

Well how pompous! So just what are we supposed to do on TV if not debate and pontificate? Perhaps you should send a note to the site owners asking they shut it down as you don't agree with people having differing opinions

[Babcock]

Ta Lay Mhok as was!?

http://www.baantalaymhork.com/th/

[Reasonableman]

That's your opinion. It may well be substantiated... Or not. To be determined elsewhere, not on TV. Thanks.

Well how pompous! So just what are we supposed to do on TV if not debate and pontificate? Perhaps you should send a note to the site owners asking they shut it down as you don't agree with people having differing opinions

Your opinions have been duly noted, more than once, as you wished. You are welcome to debate, pontificate and restate them further. No problem. Have a good evening.

[CPT]

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.

Regarding the land being given to landless farmers... are you sure about that part? You seem to have a good feel for the situation and knowledge of the area so do you know if the land was actually legally owned by the farmers or were they given the right to use it but ownership remained with the government (I don't recall the different thai terms so I apologize for any lack of clarity)? I ask because ownership of land here seems to be rather murky with those who use or have the right to use a plot of land acting as if they own it and transferring it without having full title.

[JurgenG]

Regarding the land being given to landless farmers... are you sure about that part? You seem to have a good feel for the situation and knowledge of the area so do you know if the land was actually legally owned by the farmers or were they given the right to use it but ownership remained with the government (I don't recall the different thai terms so I apologize for any lack of clarity)? I ask because ownership of land here seems to be rather murky with those who use or have the right to use a plot of land acting as if they own it and transferring it without having full title.

That's a very good question and here we are getting at the heart of the problem.

Unfortunately suddenly it's getting much less "sexy". Instead of the headline "Rich outsiders invade national park to build resorts", we should have "Local investors give up cassava culture to build resorts".

From an earlier issue of The Nation :

A special task force will be set up to study pertinent laws

The Agricultural Land Reform Office has teamed up with the Royal Forest Department in a bid to devise an effective means of resolving the long-running encroachment problem in Nakhon Ratchasima's Wang Nam Kheow district.

The state agencies have come up with three resolutions to overcome the land conflict in the area, RFD director-general Suwit Rattanamanee said yesterday after meeting with ALRO secretary-general Lerd Virotkowitwattana to discuss the overlapping areas between agricultural reform land and forest reserves.

He said they had agreed to set up a special task force to study the differences of interpretation as regards the law relied upon by the two agencies.

They also agreed to ask the Council of State to interpret these legal differences, so that the agencies could enforce the law in the same direction.

ALRO and the RFD will also conduct a new survey to designate the boundaries between the latter's forest reserves and the former's agricultural reform land.

Moreover, both entities will henceforth go ahead and arrest people who encroach on forest reserves and use agricultural reform land for other than permitted purposes, said Suwit.

From that we understand :

- There are different interpretation of the law between different department agencies. And obviously even within the same department there are difference of interpretation.

- The borders between the different zones are not clearly defined (what i said earlier)

- We are not talking about encroachment on national parks, like the headlines want us to believe but an use of agricultural land for an other than permitted purpose. Which is very very different. No trees have been cut, not wild life has been endangered.

It's very unfortunate that the "journalists" never make the effort to investigate the reality behind the information given to them by PR offices.

Edited August 2, 2012 by JurgenG

[Reasonableman]

The reference, from the Nation, is here:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/08/18/national/ALRO-RFD-join-up-to-resolve-issue-30163055.html

Another, to a TV thread at the same time, here:

Edited August 2, 2012 by Reasonableman

[Reasonableman]

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.

you sound VERY biased? do you own anything there?

Did I miss the answer to this question?

[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.

you sound VERY biased? do you own anything there?

Did I miss the answer to this question?

You're of such a bad faith mate You asked me the same question two days ago and I replied you right here in this forum.

I don't own anything there yet but I wish to buy a small piece of land there to build a house for my retirement. We've been visiting this area for the past few years , staying in the house of a friend who moved back home leaving us in charge of his property. We really fell in love with the area, we have very good relation with our neighbour and the bias you can feel is our solidarity with them .

The situation is worse than people can imagine. The forest department is terrorizing the population. They say that if anybody is caught working in the area he will be put in jail with bail of 100,000 bahts, a sum people can't definitively afford. And they are not rich city people invading the pristine forest, they are villagers born in this area, the villages exist for 40 years, since the 70's, long before the creation of the national park.

Just to give you an other example. On TV, during a PR exercise organized by the forest department, they show a house describing her owner as an evil encroacher running a business damaging for the environment who should be evicted. In a later interview that wasn't broadcast that day, you can see the owner, an old lady, really worrying. She is 60 something, she has been living here for the past 40 years, she has nowhere else to go and all she does is growing flowers in her backyard. That's the kind of evil people K Damtong is fighting against !

But this they never tell you on TV, you can never read it in the newspaper. Just read this forum, they only want to know who are the "big names". No big names, just old ladies ? So who care, just burn them !

Sorry Reasonableman, the well named, my feelings are again overcoming me.

In short I'm biased because I know the people living there, we have developed good relation over the years and therefore I'm on their side.

[binjalin]

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.

do they have FULL chanots? FULL title? I mean to buy from the farmers? many times farmers sell without the full titles and, therefore, the resorts would be illegal.

It is standard practice in Thailand for land to be given to farmers without the full chanot and they can apply later - this is to STOP the type of thing that may be happening here in that land is purchased and built on without the chanots.

Did anyone answer this??? no answer would tend to the view that they do NOT have full chanots?

[Reasonableman]

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.

you sound VERY biased? do you own anything there?

Did I miss the answer to this question?

You're of such a bad faith mate You asked me the same question two days ago and I replied you right here in this forum.

I don't own anything there yet but I wish to buy a small piece of land there to build a house for my retirement. We've been visiting this area for the past few years , staying in the house of a friend who moved back home leaving us in charge of his property. We really fell in love with the area, we have very good relation with our neighbour and the bias you can feel is our solidarity with them .

The situation is worse than people can imagine. The forest department is terrorizing the population. They say that if anybody is caught working in the area he will be put in jail with bail of 100,000 bahts, a sum people can't definitively afford. And they are not rich city people invading the pristine forest, they are villagers born in this area, the villages exist for 40 years, since the 70's, long before the creation of the national park.

Just to give you an other example. On TV, during a PR exercise organized by the forest department, they show a house describing her owner as an evil encroacher running a business damaging for the environment who should be evicted. In a later interview that wasn't broadcast that day, you can see the owner, an old lady, really worrying. She is 60 something, she has been living here for the past 40 years, she has nowhere else to go and all she does is growing flowers in her backyard. That's the kind of evil people K Damtong is fighting against !

But this they never tell you on TV, you can never read it in the newspaper. Just read this forum, they only want to know who are the "big names". No big names, just old ladies ? So who care, just burn them !

Sorry Reasonableman, the well named, my feelings are again overcoming me.

In short I'm biased because I know the people living there, we have developed good relation over the years and therefore I'm on their side.

Thanks for your admission of bias. You are therefore advocating a position in which you have a personal interest, and in support of your friends. It helps when advocates declare themselves, don't you think? Kinda clears the air and adds a contextual dimension to people's posts. Of course, we all feel terrible for any innocents affected, but to characterize all of the players as poor little old ladies is perhaps unintentionally misleading, wouldn't you agree?

[JurgenG]

Thanks for your admission of bias. You are therefore advocating a position in which you have a personal interest, and in support of your friends. It helps when advocates declare themselves, don't you think? Kinda clears the air and adds a contextual dimension to people's posts. Of course, we all feel terrible for any innocents affected, but to characterize all of the players as poor little old ladies is perhaps unintentionally misleading, wouldn't you agree?

Agree with you. But I think the way the newspapers describes the situation , probably influenced by the PR office of the forest department, is terribly misleading. I try to show the other side of the coin.

The real debate here should be what is the future of rural Thailand ? How eco tourism can help alleviate poverty in rural Thailand ? Under which condition ? Is this system of land title still relevant in Thailand in 2012 and how should it be modified to reflect the reality of the modern economy ? And the solution that will be found here can later be applied in other provinces of Thailand.

But these questions fly way above the head of our Judge Dredd from the forest department. That's why the first move should be to remove him from his position then to engage in a constructive debate with the representatives of all the parties involved in the area.

Edited August 3, 2012 by JurgenG

[jerrysteve]

It would be nice to see this guys balls in a vice and the rest of the cronies that were partners in crime.

I doubt that will ever happen coz there is obviously far too much money involved and some judge or powerful officials will

get paid off...It will then be swept under the proverbial rug and forgotten about.

Just another chapter for a country that sees itself as becoming a REGIONAL HUB!

[Reasonableman]

Thanks for your admission of bias. You are therefore advocating a position in which you have a personal interest, and in support of your friends. It helps when advocates declare themselves, don't you think? Kinda clears the air and adds a contextual dimension to people's posts. Of course, we all feel terrible for any innocents affected, but to characterize all of the players as poor little old ladies is perhaps unintentionally misleading, wouldn't you agree?

Agree with you. But I think the way the newspapers describes the situation , probably influenced by the PR office of the forest department, is terribly misleading. I try to show the other side of the coin.

The real debate here should be what is the future of rural Thailand ? How eco tourism can help alleviate poverty in rural Thailand ? Under which condition ? Is this system of land title still relevant in Thailand in 2012 and how should it be modified to reflect the reality of the modern economy ? And the solution that will be found here can later be applied in other provinces of Thailand.

But these questions flight way above the head of our Judge Dredd from the forest department. That's why the first move should be to remove him from his position then to engage in a constructive debate with the representatives of all the parties involved in the area.

I trust that the upshot of this matter and the broader debate will not result in the legitimization of encroachment on national parks and reserves. A disaster long in the making already, a slow train crash, destroying much of what once made Thailand an attractive destination for visitors and expats.

[Reasonableman]

It would be nice to see this guys balls in a vice and the rest of the cronies that were partners in crime.

I doubt that will ever happen coz there is obviously far too much money involved and some judge or powerful officials will

get paid off...It will then be swept under the proverbial rug and forgotten about.

Just another chapter for a country that sees itself as becoming a REGIONAL HUB!

Are you lost? What are you talking about that is relevant to this topic? Or was it a copy/paste from another thread?

[JurgenG]

I trust that the upshot of this matter and the broader debate will not result in the legitimization of encroachment on national parks and reserves. A disaster long in the making already, a slow train crash, destroying much of what once made Thailand an attractive destination for visitors and expats.

The best thing is for you to have a look at the disputed area. We had people coming over because they wanted to know what it was all about. They were very very surprised. They kept on asking, but when do we arrive ? We were telling them but here we are. They were asking, but where is the forest ? the national park ? all what we can see is villages that seem to have been here for a very long time and cultivated fields.

The area we are talking about is not a national park, it's an agricultural area under the jurisdiction of the national park, which is very different. Have you ever see lands in a national park that have ownership titles ?

And your last remark really disturb me "once made Thailand an attractive destination for visitors and expats". That's your idea of Thailand ? A zoo for western people ? And local people are monkeys who are here for your amusement ? I'm quickly losing all the respect I was having for you.

[Reasonableman]

I trust that the upshot of this matter and the broader debate will not result in the legitimization of encroachment on national parks and reserves. A disaster long in the making already, a slow train crash, destroying much of what once made Thailand an attractive destination for visitors and expats.

The best thing is for you to have a look at the disputed area. We had people coming over because they wanted to know what it was all about. They were very very surprised. They kept on asking, but when do we arrive ? We were telling them but here we are. They were asking, but where is the forest ? the national park ? all what we can see is villages that seem to have been here for a very long time and cultivated fields.

The area we are talking about is not a national park, it's an agricultural area under the jurisdiction of the national park, which is very different. Have you ever see lands in a national park that have ownership titles ?

And your last remark really disturb me "once made Thailand an attractive destination for visitors and expats". That's your idea of Thailand ? A zoo for western people ? And local people are monkeys who are here for your amusement ? I'm quickly losing all the respect I was having for you.

These are your emotive words, not mine, so I suggest you withdraw the misleading inference along with the prior throwaway line re "bad faith". Your level of respect for me is ultimately inconsequential, as is mine for you. The issues will be decided by neither of us. Environmental degradation affects everyone, residents, entrepreneurs and developers, tourists, expats, everyone. All are stakeholders in the preservation of national parks and reserves, many of which have already been degraded and encroached upon. You are focused ostensibly on poor little old women and their ability to make ends meet, and your own retirement project. Fair enough, that's pretty clear, as far as your self-revelation goes. Meanwhile, you are (deliberately?) playing down the other stakeholders. If this wins sympathy for your cause, so be it. Attacking me will not affect the eventual outcome. I have no personal stake in this, other than a desire to protect national parks and reserves from further destruction. And yes, i do agree with you that the competing interests need to be considered and mediated. I just hope that national parks and reserves will be preserved for current and future generations, and that their piecemeal destruction is prevented.

[JurgenG]

There is no point to go further with our discussion.

I invite the readers of this forum to come and judge by themselves. It's close to Bangkok, around 3 to 4 hours by car. The area is very nice, people describe it as the Switzerland of Thailand. The weather is wonderful, cool, around 20-22 at night, you really don't need an air cond at night. During the winter months you may actually need an extra blanket and a jumper for breakfast. A wonderful place if you want to get away from the heat of the city.

And you will judge the situation by yourself. You will find the resort where you stay is in a very nice surrounding, close to the national park but actually in the middle of an agricultural area. No need to believe anybody, just come and judge by yourself. And in the process you will discover a very nice, very different side of Thailand

Edited August 3, 2012 by JurgenG

[Reasonableman]

That sounds really lovely, JG. What resort would you recommend?

[OzMick]

There is no point to go further with our discussion.

I invite the readers of this forum to come and judge by themselves. It's close to Bangkok, around 3 to 4 hours by car. The area is very nice, people describe it as the Switzerland of Thailand. The weather is wonderful, cool, around 20-22 at night, you really don't need an air cond at night. During the winter months you may actually need an extra blanket and a jumper for breakfast. A wonderful place if you want to get away from the heat of the city.

And you will judge the situation by yourself. You will find the resort where you stay is in a very nice surrounding, close to the national park but actually in the middle of an agricultural area. No need to believe anybody, just come and judge by yourself. And in the process you will discover a very nice, very different side of Thailand

You continue to cloud the issue with irrelevancies. If the land is being used for purposes for which there are restrictions on the title, then it is illegal use, and that is why the court issued demolition orders. And it doesn't matter how long illegal use has occurred, it is still illegal use until the land is re-zoned. good luck with that, because it is not going to happen.

BTW You don't NEED air-conditioning to live in Thailand if you adapt yourself to the climate

[AleG]

There is no point to go further with our discussion.

I invite the readers of this forum to come and judge by themselves. It's close to Bangkok, around 3 to 4 hours by car. The area is very nice, people describe it as the Switzerland of Thailand. The weather is wonderful, cool, around 20-22 at night, you really don't need an air cond at night. During the winter months you may actually need an extra blanket and a jumper for breakfast. A wonderful place if you want to get away from the heat of the city.

And you will judge the situation by yourself. You will find the resort where you stay is in a very nice surrounding, close to the national park but actually in the middle of an agricultural area. No need to believe anybody, just come and judge by yourself. And in the process you will discover a very nice, very different side of Thailand

Last time I was around there what I saw was hills being shaved clean to make room for boutique resorts as far as the eye could see.

I didn't know that was protected land then, it makes it even more appalling.