Evicted Villagers and Park Officials Reach Compromise

[Lite Beer]

Evicted Villagers and Park Officials Reach Compromise

BY Khaosod Eng.

BANGKOK — Park officials have agreed to provide housing and land to some of the villagers they recently evicted from a Wildlife Sanctuary in Buriram province.

The agreement was reached after residents from Kao Bart village brought the case to Thailand's National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which listened to testimonies from representatives of both sides and brokered the compromise.

Over the past month, soldiers and park officials have evicted hundreds of villagers they say have been living illegally in Dong Yai Wildlife Sanctuary in Buriram province. As of yesterday, the entire community had left — out of fear, villagers said — except for a group of 30 villagers from Kao Bart.

After hours of heated debate before the NHRC, the villagers agreed to leave the area if the state provides them with new housing and plots of agricultural land. They also requested permission to harvest crops that have already been planted inside the park.

Park officials and representatives from Buriram's provincial government accepted the villagers' demands, though they did not give details about where, how, and when the new housing and land will be provided. The officials said that only villagers "in need" will receive new land and housing, without elaborating on who will qualify.

National Human Rights Comissioner Niran Pitakwatchara, who chaired the meeting, said the rights of villagers are very important to the NHRC.

"We understand that the current situation of the country and lack of land [for farmers] is very important. We want to let the NCPO know that it is the root of inequality," Mr. Niran said, referring to the military junta's National Council for Peace and Order.

The long-running dispute between park officials and the villagers came to a head in June after the NCPO called upon state agencies to put an end to "encroachment" of protected forests across the country.

On 28 June park officials and armed soldiers entered Kao Bart, Saeng Sawan, Talat Kwai, and Lam Nangrong villages and ordered the residents to dismantle their homes and leave the area by 8 July, or else face a forceful eviction by security officers.

Reporters have been barred from entering the disputed area, but villagers say they have been subject to harassment and intimidation by soldiers and park officials. Villagers have also accused security officers of framing them by planting drugs in the community and creating false evidence of illegal logging.

Last week, the New York-based Human Rights Watch condemned the "forced eviction" of the villagers.

“The Thai military is using threats and arbitrary arrests to forcibly evict villagers from forest areas in Buriram province,” said Brad Adams, the Asia director of Human Rights Watch. “Instead of resolving a land issue through legal means, the military is using its wide-reaching martial law powers to bludgeon human rights protections.”

At yesterday’s hearing, officials denied any use of force against the villagers.

“We have not used force at all," said Chalermpol Palawan, Deputy Governor of Buriram, as representatives from Kao Bart village shook their heads. "We’ve created understanding with the people by being friendly.”

The 2nd Region Army, which villagers say is responsible for the alleged abuse, was invited to yesterday's hearing but declined to send any representatives. NCPO officials told the NHRC that they were not aware of the use of force against villagers, and promised to discuss the matter with the 2nd Region Army.

Baramee Chairat, a leader of the Thai NGO the Assembly of the Poor, helped represent the evicted villagers at yesterday’s hearing. He said he was disappointed that the abuses villagers faced by park officials and soldiers were not addressed in the final settlement.

"I am not really satisfied," Mr. Baramee said, "But it's a good compromise if villagers are really given new land to work on."

Source: http://en.khaosod.co.th/detail.php?newsid=1406290640

-- Khaosod English 2014-07-26

[ChrisY1]

Is this simply a case of going after the poor and not well connected people? It's honourable that they are going to provide housing for these village people who have been living there for years...

What's happening to the wealthy and well connected that have built large houses and resorts in the parks........?

In fairness, we do hear of buildings being torn down in other parks where encroachments have occured.....which of course is excellent news.

[ginjag]

Is this simply a case of going after the poor and not well connected people? It's honourable that they are going to provide housing for these village people who have been living there for years...

What's happening to the wealthy and well connected that have built large houses and resorts in the parks........?

In fairness, we do hear of buildings being torn down in other parks where encroachments have occured.....which of course is excellent news.

agree, but also WHO gave the permission in the first place to settle there ??? local officials obviously. Local police would have been aware. There is no wonder the army has a thankless task to do here, they will be the targets not the money grabbing officials in the first instance.

Get hold of all these local administrators, easy. Who gave permission to provide electricity ?? water ??? they must have paid local authority for rent/facilities. Who pocketed the money gained illegally ?? land deeds given -impossible on park land. Village head man where is he ?? nab him also.

[seajae]

they are simply squatters, they are living inside national parks that they know are not allowed to be lived in so they have been aware they are doing it illegally for years. If any officials are involved they should be removed and made to pay back all monies gained illegally from the villagers but the villagers should not be able to demand anything. It is the same in western countries, squatters are evicted when found to be breaking the law, they have no rights to the land they were squatting on. By all means help them out but they should not be entitled to any compensation at all as they never owned the land or occupied it legally in the first place.

[dinger]

Okay just so we are fair about this, how about they pay back rent for the free use of park land they have been living on for years. Only fair as they would have had to pay rent to live some where. And not just in this case but all cases where people are using government land for their own benifit

[ianf]

Human Rights Watch is a right-wing front organisation, closely associated with Amsterdam and therefore, by implication, Thaksin. They always ssue negative statements that are generally a load of Sh?? about Thailand.

[wandasloan]

they are simply squatters, they are living inside national parks that they know are not allowed to be lived in so they have been aware they are doing it illegally for years. If any officials are involved they should be removed and made to pay back all monies gained illegally from the villagers but the villagers should not be able to demand anything. It is the same in western countries, squatters are evicted when found to be breaking the law, they have no rights to the land they were squatting on. By all means help them out but they should not be entitled to any compensation at all as they never owned the land or occupied it legally in the first place.

Except they are not squatters. They were there before there were national parks. The land was taken from them, without compensation. These are the original conservationists and environmentalists, simply told to "move on" by the high, mighty and know-alls from the city, who think lands and wildlife areas are much better managed from Bangkok, where officials can properly plan the concrete, macadam, steel and all that the peasants can't understand.

These are Thailand's version of Indians, not even entitled to reservations because they are squatters. Right. Well, that's one way to look at it. It's certain that the high, mighty and well armed get to define "squatters" just like they got to define "redskin savage" in another place, at another time. That doesn't mean it is either correct or right.

Human Rights Watch is a right-wing front organisation, closely associated with Amsterdam and therefore, by implication, Thaksin. They always ssue negative statements that are generally a load of Sh?? about Thailand.

Oh, right, thanks for the reminder. I almost forgot it's Thaksin's fault.

How handy to always have Thaksin around to explain those uppity squatters. And in your eyes, everyone knows the Thai Human Rights Commission is just an extension of the Shinawatra family I suppose? And the Assembly of the Poor? And the Asian Human Rights Commission?

http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-138-2014

That Thaksin, he is sure one powerful guy! Don't you ever wonder, all these powers you think he has, why he's not in charge any more? Because according to this kind of guff, he's more powerful than anyone in the country.

.

Edited July 26, 2014 by wandasloan

[Pinot]

Human Rights Watch is a right-wing front organisation, closely associated with Amsterdam and therefore, by implication, Thaksin. They always ssue negative statements that are generally a load of Sh?? about Thailand

Not much substantiating it's a right wing organization. No Thaksin connection.

The Generals want you off public land. You can't have it just because you decided to take it. The Generals are being consistent so far.

[bangrak]

There you have that so-called 'Human Rights' Watch, again, indeed based in New-york, and its 'Asia director', that Brad Adams character also!

It's only a few days ago they were spouting their biased venom against the NCPO, now it's against the RTA... I'd modestly advise the NCPO to do some serious research about that HRW, what they will find will allow to publicly put this bunch of pseudo-righteous people in their, dirty, underwear, showing how the organisation was started, by whom, with which goals, also who its sponsors were and are, and why it is in reality just a PR office. This is not a true NGO, although largely accepted (why...?) as such. The 'brand' is top-notch, but it doesn't cover the content. I'm sure there are (quite?) some bona-fide, mislead, contributors, but the essence of it all is to collect a maximum of money under the abused flag of human rights, so far so good, was it not that the destination of the money has largely been the pockets of the creators and top-floor 'employees', quite some self invented 'experts', through high salaries, and, the more so, via huge expenses. And let's not speak about 'political orientation', nor about 'leaning towards sponsors' expectations' like a common PR company, or where HRW gets its 'intelligence' from, especially in countries far-away from New York city. IMO, this organisation should be exposed for the crude scam it is. Although not always totally right (and sometimes alas manipulated) in the past, the only, true, credible association defending human rights, IMO remains Amnesty International. Compare both HRW and AI and my guess is a lot of you will agree with me...

Edited July 26, 2014 by bangrak

[ginjag]

they are simply squatters, they are living inside national parks that they know are not allowed to be lived in so they have been aware they are doing it illegally for years. If any officials are involved they should be removed and made to pay back all monies gained illegally from the villagers but the villagers should not be able to demand anything. It is the same in western countries, squatters are evicted when found to be breaking the law, they have no rights to the land they were squatting on. By all means help them out but they should not be entitled to any compensation at all as they never owned the land or occupied it legally in the first place.

Except they are not squatters. They were there before there were national parks. The land was taken from them, without compensation. These are the original conservationists and environmentalists, simply told to "move on" by the high, mighty and know-alls from the city, who think lands and wildlife areas are much better managed from Bangkok, where officials can properly plan the concrete, macadam, steel and all that the peasants can't understand.

These are Thailand's version of Indians, not even entitled to reservations because they are squatters. Right. Well, that's one way to look at it. It's certain that the high, mighty and well armed get to define "squatters" just like they got to define "redskin savage" in another place, at another time. That doesn't mean it is either correct or right.

Human Rights Watch is a right-wing front organisation, closely associated with Amsterdam and therefore, by implication, Thaksin. They always ssue negative statements that are generally a load of Sh?? about Thailand.

Oh, right, thanks for the reminder. I almost forgot it's Thaksin's fault.

How handy to always have Thaksin around to explain those uppity squatters. And in your eyes, everyone knows the Thai Human Rights Commission is just an extension of the Shinawatra family I suppose? And the Assembly of the Poor? And the Asian Human Rights Commission?

http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-138-2014

That Thaksin, he is sure one powerful guy! Don't you ever wonder, all these powers you think he has, why he's not in charge any more? Because according to this kind of guff, he's more powerful than anyone in the country.

.

W.

If they were there before the national parks were established, they would therefore have land papers, unless they were squatters then.

You state they were there before the national park, how do you know ?? have you proof of the length of stay for each person/family ??

only it looks by your post you have that info. Then they have a right to challenge the eviction.

If you have no proof they were there then delete what you said.

Just of interest you therefore must have info when the national park was established.

[iphad]

Human Rights Watch is a right-wing front organisation, closely associated with Amsterdam and therefore, by implication, Thaksin. They always ssue negative statements that are generally a load of Sh?? about Thailand.

I wasn't very aware of Human Rights Watch so decided to check your claim...found out George Soros is the primary donor...enuff said.

[h90]

Is this simply a case of going after the poor and not well connected people? It's honourable that they are going to provide housing for these village people who have been living there for years...

What's happening to the wealthy and well connected that have built large houses and resorts in the parks........?

In fairness, we do hear of buildings being torn down in other parks where encroachments have occured.....which of course is excellent news.

Well if they want to be fair they would need to refund the rich one in the same style.....

[noitom]

Relocated alternative land will be given to those who "qualify." We all know what "qualify" means in Thailand. The Thai military dictatorship is proving its resistance to go after the corrupt bankers, money launderers, high up backers of loan sharks, and other criminals such as killing police officers while dui and reckless driving, and other Thai Mr. Bigs up the food chain. The Thai military dictatorship is making petty arrests and "cleaning" up the poor vendors, mules, traffickers, scammers, but not the backers and bankers.

[metisdead]

A post containing comments that can be construed as being negative about the imposition of Martial Law or the Coup has been removed as well as a reply.

[ianf]

they are simply squatters, they are living inside national parks that they know are not allowed to be lived in so they have been aware they are doing it illegally for years. If any officials are involved they should be removed and made to pay back all monies gained illegally from the villagers but the villagers should not be able to demand anything. It is the same in western countries, squatters are evicted when found to be breaking the law, they have no rights to the land they were squatting on. By all means help them out but they should not be entitled to any compensation at all as they never owned the land or occupied it legally in the first place.

Except they are not squatters. They were there before there were national parks. The land was taken from them, without compensation. These are the original conservationists and environmentalists, simply told to "move on" by the high, mighty and know-alls from the city, who think lands and wildlife areas are much better managed from Bangkok, where officials can properly plan the concrete, macadam, steel and all that the peasants can't understand.

These are Thailand's version of Indians, not even entitled to reservations because they are squatters. Right. Well, that's one way to look at it. It's certain that the high, mighty and well armed get to define "squatters" just like they got to define "redskin savage" in another place, at another time. That doesn't mean it is either correct or right.

Human Rights Watch is a right-wing front organisation, closely associated with Amsterdam and therefore, by implication, Thaksin. They always ssue negative statements that are generally a load of Sh?? about Thailand.

Oh, right, thanks for the reminder. I almost forgot it's Thaksin's fault.

How handy to always have Thaksin around to explain those uppity squatters. And in your eyes, everyone knows the Thai Human Rights Commission is just an extension of the Shinawatra family I suppose? And the Assembly of the Poor? And the Asian Human Rights Commission?

http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-138-2014

That Thaksin, he is sure one powerful guy! Don't you ever wonder, all these powers you think he has, why he's not in charge any more? Because according to this kind of guff, he's more powerful than anyone in the country.

.

I think before commenting on posts you should read them a little more carefully. However, for your edification: If you follow the HRW notices, you may notice a regular pattern of misleading propaganda on topics such as Ukraine, Syria and Libya (for example). And why would that be? If you look closely at their management boards and those that fund these types of propaganda organisations then you might discover corporate and political connections for whom misleading information, dressed up as Human Rights concerns, in reality advances their own political or corporate concerns. Human Rights Watch do not stand alone: Reporters without Borders and Transparency International are part of the same fraudulent right-wing group of organizations. To swallow their propaganda is to fall totally into their trap. As for Thaksin: off course you may think that people here drag him into everything. But in this case, HRW supports without question the Thaksin/Red line and gives succor to this man who many believe is a dictator in waiting and who has also been named by a genuine human rights organisation (Amnesty International) as implicated in 18 cases of gross human rights violations. Freedom House, is another organization that exploits the concept of democracy and freedom. Interestingly a connection here is that one of their Trustees, Kenneth Adleman was also a personal advisor to Thaksin. So, my friend, there are very close connections with Thaksin to these organizations. So nowhere did I say it was Thaksin's fault, that's idiotically simplistic. I was simply pointing out that HRW is a suspect organization which issues negative reports that play right into Thaksin's hand as he tries to convince the world that the 'coup' replaced a democratic (sic) government in Thailand. I hope you understand the wider picture Khun Wandasloan!

[aussieinthailand]

Human Rights Watch is a right-wing front organisation, closely associated with Amsterdam and therefore, by implication, Thaksin. They always ssue negative statements that are generally a load of Sh?? about Thailand.

"Human Rights Watch is a right-wing front organization closely associated with Amsterdam and therefore, by implication, Thaksin."

"They always issue negative statements that are generally a load of Sh?? About Thailand"

Ok so you don't like Human Rights Watch, due to it's according to you, supposed Thaksin association, So who els do you not like?

The Red Cross?,

Medicines Sans Frontieres? (doctors without Borders?)

World vision?

World wild Life Fund?

War Vets association?

Soup Kitchens?

UNCEF?

?????????????

Just what are you smoking?

I know there's some one here issuing statements that are generally a load of Sh*t....

[pchansmorn]

Wouldn't it be Nice if everyone had the same rights, and were treated equally. Not just the Rich. Also would be Nice if they really did follow though and give them some land in Thailand to live on, not just say that they will. Everyone should have a Right to live, as long as they don't bother others, or damage the environment.

[ianf]

Human Rights Watch is a right-wing front organisation, closely associated with Amsterdam and therefore, by implication, Thaksin. They always ssue negative statements that are generally a load of Sh?? about Thailand.

"Human Rights Watch is a right-wing front organization closely associated with Amsterdam and therefore, by implication, Thaksin."

"They always issue negative statements that are generally a load of Sh?? About Thailand"

Ok so you don't like Human Rights Watch, due to it's according to you, supposed Thaksin association, So who els do you not like?

The Red Cross?,

Medicines Sans Frontieres? (doctors without Borders?)

World vision?

World wild Life Fund?

War Vets association?

Soup Kitchens?

UNCEF?

?????????????

Just what are you smoking?

I know there's some one here issuing statements that are generally a load of Sh*t....

Aussie: you obviously have a very naive view of the world. If you researched HRW then you would find out for yourself that it is a fraudulent organization and that Amsterdam, et al have very close connections with it. It is not beyound reasonable doubt, is it not, that corporate financiers, would be dictators and so on have their own slant on manpulation that would include setting up such fraudulent organizations that can fool people such as yourself. If you read my post I refer to a genuine human rights org (as does another poster) in Amnesty International (by whom I was employed in the 70s). To also debase yourself by suggesting that I am opposed to the Red Cross, UNCEF (sic) and so on is really exposing yourself to ridicule. Freedom House, HRW and the others I mentioned are dangerous orgs because of their duplicity. End of story.

[wandasloan]

I think before commenting on posts you should read them a little more carefully. However, for your edification: If you follow the HRW notices, you may notice a regular pattern of misleading propaganda on topics such as Ukraine, Syria and Libya (for example). And why would that be?

Well there you go. *I* think before you comment on a group, you should find out about it. You obviously know nothing at all about HRW. It is not right wing, it is not connected to Thaksin or Amsterdam. There are literally thousands of groups and dozens of governments that abhor the coup and human rights suspension and victimisation of forest dwellers. HRW is a left-wing tree-hugging sob-sister group in the Amnesty International mould (only not old and doddering and fixated on the 1970s), funded by George Soros. It is as right-wing and pro-red shirt as the US government and the British Conservative Party and Amnesty International - who all say about the same things about Thailand as HRW says.

According to your own criteria, your own posts simply prove you are a dupe of the Suthep Thaugsuban idiocy. Are you?

You know, some people have opinions without being in the middle of a conspiracy or being paid to hold them. HRW is one of those groups. I am one of those people. How about you? If you apply what you said to your own posts, a fair person would have to judge you as a political dupe of the yellow persuasion, without an original thought. I repeat: That's what your own posts claim about you. Hold up a mirror.

The thing is, your silly and ill-informed and non-factual comments about HRW only make it clear you have an agenda and you will not let any facts get in the way of it. One more time:

Compare and contrast the statements of HRW and your beloved Saint Amnesty on Thailand. Explain the difference between them. Bet you can't. Amnesty and the US Congress and the Australian Socialist Party are all on the same page as HRW. Is Thaksin controlling them, too, hmmm?

If you look closely at their management boards and those that fund these types of propaganda organisations then you might discover corporate and political connections for whom misleading information, dressed up as Human Rights concerns, in reality advances their own political or corporate concerns. Human Rights Watch do not stand alone: Reporters without Borders and Transparency International are part of the same fraudulent right-wing group of organizations. To swallow their propaganda is to fall totally into their trap. As for Thaksin: off course you may think that people here drag him into everything. But in this case, HRW supports without question the Thaksin/Red line and gives succor to this man who many believe is a dictator in waiting and who has also been named by a genuine human rights organisation (Amnesty International) as implicated in 18 cases of gross human rights violations. Freedom House, is another organization that exploits the concept of democracy and freedom. Interestingly a connection here is that one of their Trustees, Kenneth Adleman was also a personal advisor to Thaksin. So, my friend, there are very close connections with Thaksin to these organizations. So nowhere did I say it was Thaksin's fault, that's idiotically simplistic. I was simply pointing out that HRW is a suspect organization which issues negative reports that play right into Thaksin's hand as he tries to convince the world that the 'coup' replaced a democratic (sic) government in Thailand. I hope you understand the wider picture Khun Wandasloan!

It's probably because of the ample supply of tin foil I laid in recently, but I can't see the conspiracy you are selling so cheaply.

And no, "people" here don't drag Thaksin into everything. You do. You must fear that powerful, controlling third hand more than the almighty. He's a really powerful person this Thaksin guy, eh? And he never sleeps, he has so many irons in so many fires.

.

[metisdead]

Some nonsense baiting posts have been removed.

[HiSoLowSoNoSo]

Call them simply squatters or whatever but I don't think it's very human to force families with young kids out of their homes in 7 days without providing them with a new place to live.

[ginjag]

Some nonsense baiting posts have been removed.

Good. I posted on the topic earlier, but instead of getting to the nitty gritty probing to the initial permit to stay on the said land the thread has been taken over with Thaksin involved and other issues that have got boring. most of the topic is barely on topic.

[snarky66]

Squatters are a huge problem in all the National Parks. These particular squatters have turned their illegal activities into a huge payday for themselves.

The parks belong to all the people of Thailand, not just a few rascals.

[belg]

so where can i go stay & live illegally for a few years and then claiming free housing and what not ..

yes, in jail, awaiting deportation