Communities booted out by soldiers say they feel powerless

[webfact]

Communities booted out by soldiers say they feel powerless

By  Pravit Rojanaphruk, Senior Staff Writer

 

A joint military operation in Chonburi province in February against alleged land encroachment.

 

BANGKOK — Rural residents fighting forced eviction from across the country met recently and concluded that it’s more difficult to win any reprieve under the junta, which is bringing force to bear against them and stifling any attempts at protest with harassment and the Public Assembly Act.

 

At a meeting last week in Bangkok, rural stakeholders and experts shared stories of the hardships faced by people being forced out, who are unable to negotiate temporary compromises with local officials.

 

Full story: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/politics/2017/04/07/communities-given-boot-soldiers-say-feel-powerless/

 

-- © Copyright Khaosod English 2017-04-07

 

[robblok]

I get that they don't want to move, but if your inside a national forest then you are not a rightful owner. This is one of the things I do like about the junta they do protect the forest. If nobody does it in the end there will be no forest left. All those reprieves only mean nothing will happen and an other reprieve is needed and an other and so on. 

 

The forest need all the protection they can get its getting less and less all the time. I can see that there will always be some exceptions where the people are in the right but in general its just squatting and not wanting to move. 

[tukkytuktuk]

There comes a point when you need to ask the question:-
"Are trees more important than people?"

[Panda13]

There comes a point when you need to ask the question:-
"Are trees more important than people?"

Trees make the oxygen . So do the math, while you can still breathe.

[pookiki]

The junta can do what they want with impunity.  The caption on the picture talks about an operation for 'alleged land encroachment'.   With poor villagers, there is a presumption of guilt and under the current political environment, these people have little recourse to seek a judicial review of the junta's actions.  There is no rule of law.  There is only the junta's law.

[jak2002003]

4 hours ago, tukkytuktuk said:

There comes a point when you need to ask the question:-
"Are trees more important than people?"

Trees and oxygen are more important than people illegally living on protected land and destroying the environment and nature.

 

These people have a brain.  They know they are in the wrong.  But they settle and have families there.. because its easy and they think they can get away with it. They can move away and start a new life... the trees and animals can not do that.

 

Now these people have to face up to responsibility... and their attitude of 'temporary compromises' I think they mean bribing officials to let them stay.

 

If they were allowed to stay, have more children, build more houses.. the problem would only get worse.  Might as well have no national parks or protected places and make the planet into one big housing estate... but them we would all be DEAD as we would have destroyed what we need to live.

 

If you did not have much money.. would you illegally build a house, cut down trees, and raise a family in a place you know it's illegal to do?  Or, would you use your brain and look for alternatives?  One way is easy.. the other requires effort. 

Edited April 7, 2017 by jak2002003

[Enoon]

7 hours ago, pookiki said:

The junta can do what they want with impunity.  The caption on the picture talks about an operation for 'alleged land encroachment'.   With poor villagers, there is a presumption of guilt and under the current political environment, these people have little recourse to seek a judicial review of the junta's actions.  There is no rule of law.  There is only the junta's law.

 

"Rule of man is absence of rule of law. It is a society in which one person, regime, or a group of persons, rules arbitrarily."

Rule of man - Wikipedia

 

 

Edited April 7, 2017 by Enoon

[Bluespunk]

11 hours ago, tukkytuktuk said:

There comes a point when you need to ask the question:-
"Are trees more important than people?"

Why?

[wakeupplease]

New owner waiting in the wings a local general maybe

 

land encroachment when both the boys in green and the bib could be better employed at the moment saving lives not ending them.

[Chris Lawrence]

16 hours ago, robblok said:

I get that they don't want to move, but if your inside a national forest then you are not a rightful owner. This is one of the things I do like about the junta they do protect the forest. If nobody does it in the end there will be no forest left. All those reprieves only mean nothing will happen and an other reprieve is needed and an other and so on. 

 

The forest need all the protection they can get its getting less and less all the time. I can see that there will always be some exceptions where the people are in the right but in general its just squatting and not wanting to move. 

The Golden Arches are the worst corporate organisation getting rid of forests so they can have cows feed on reclaimed land to put in their patties for the Big Mac. The dilemma is that both have an effect but run parallel with the help of Government.

 

Don't know the answer here Rob, and agree the forests need to be protected. What is annoying is the kudos the Government wants out of routing the culprits here. Overall the current crop of officials still lack transparency.

[mfd101]

12 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

Trees and oxygen are more important than people illegally living on protected land and destroying the environment and nature.

 

These people have a brain.  They know they are in the wrong.  But they settle and have families there.. because its easy and they think they can get away with it. They can move away and start a new life... the trees and animals can not do that.

 

Now these people have to face up to responsibility... and their attitude of 'temporary compromises' I think they mean bribing officials to let them stay.

 

If they were allowed to stay, have more children, build more houses.. the problem would only get worse.  Might as well have no national parks or protected places and make the planet into one big housing estate... but them we would all be DEAD as we would have destroyed what we need to live.

 

If you did not have much money.. would you illegally build a house, cut down trees, and raise a family in a place you know it's illegal to do?  Or, would you use your brain and look for alternatives?  One way is easy.. the other requires effort. 

The long-term solution is of course contraception.

[robblok]

1 hour ago, Chris Lawrence said:

The Golden Arches are the worst corporate organisation getting rid of forests so they can have cows feed on reclaimed land to put in their patties for the Big Mac. The dilemma is that both have an effect but run parallel with the help of Government.

 

Don't know the answer here Rob, and agree the forests need to be protected. What is annoying is the kudos the Government wants out of routing the culprits here. Overall the current crop of officials still lack transparency.

Oh not saying its perfect, but before nothing ever happened.. they got a reprieve all the time and in the end nothing happened. This period I seen much land reclaimed.. Tap berk and other places are an example. The problem here is that there might be a few cases where the people are right but more often then not they are in the wrong and destroying nature. Sure not everyone gets caught (but its a big improvement over before)

[ChrisY1]

I guess this one thing that a civilian government would / have never be able to do.....but most likely there's often been vested interests, so some good amongst a myriad of failings by the junta.

[yellowboat]

1 hour ago, ChrisY1 said:

I guess this one thing that a civilian government would / have never be able to do.....but most likely there's often been vested interests, so some good amongst a myriad of failings by the junta.

It could be a true triumph for the usurpers of power if these people had some sort of legal review and due process.  If they have encroached, yes, get rid of them, but do it in a court of law where they have a chance at justice.  Sending men in with guns looks sloppy and childish.  

[robblok]

32 minutes ago, yellowboat said:

It could be a true triumph for the usurpers of power if these people had some sort of legal review and due process.  If they have encroached, yes, get rid of them, but do it in a court of law where they have a chance at justice.  Sending men in with guns looks sloppy and childish.  

I do agree with you.. but on the other hand.. look at how it was handled before (and not making this political). Nothing ever happened.. court-cases that went on forever.. and reprieves when people protested.. meanwhile more and more land was taken. Now at least they demolish resorts and agriculture stuff that is in nature parks. I agree that sometimes the army could be wrong.. but there is so much encroachment that more often then not they are right.  

[elgordo38]

23 hours ago, tukkytuktuk said:

There comes a point when you need to ask the question:-
"Are trees more important than people?"

I am really starting to wobble on this one. 

[elgordo38]

6 hours ago, Chris Lawrence said:

What is annoying is the kudos the Government wants out of routing the culprits here.

A picture speaks a 1000 words or so they say. Makes the defender of the public good look good which in their publicity seeking eyes is good. 

[berybert]

6 hours ago, mfd101 said:

The long-term solution is of course contraception.

No more trees ?

[Reigntax]

On Friday, April 07, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Panda13 said:

Trees make the oxygen . So do the math, while you can still breathe.

 

Trees photosynthesise to extract carbon, oxygen is the unwanted waste product of that process. Nobody makes oxygen nor has ever been able to. Do the science

[elgordo38]

44 minutes ago, Reigntax said:

 

Trees photosynthesise to extract carbon, oxygen is the unwanted waste product of that process. Nobody makes oxygen nor has ever been able to. Do the science

We seem to have gone a bit overboard on the reproduction end of things. As the song goes "You can't have one with out the other"

[elgordo38]

8 hours ago, mfd101 said:

The long-term solution is of course contraception.

Mandatory or a selfless decision??

[Reigntax]

57 minutes ago, elgordo38 said:

We seem to have gone a bit overboard on the reproduction end of things. As the song goes "You can't have one with out the other"

 

As we both know, oxygen is a product in great demand, especially in the country being the centre of the universe. A situation fully supported by the increasing number of oxygen theives. Likewise the other, as people often visit and just end up getting a woody.

[canuckamuck]

Lots of people saying this is a rare good result of the Junta rule. But what we do not know is what the people were told about the legality of their land use. It appears that there are government resolutions that allowed people to use the land and live there. With no legal process, how can we know that these people are not having their legal homes stolen from them now? 

We also do not know why the junta has made land reclamation such a major issue. The cynical assumption is that there are future plans for the land for a select few.  Beach fronts and national parks seem to be the main targets. The creation of the special economic zone in Mae Sot is certainly a potential plum for someone with newly acquired prime property.

In any case, it's shotgun justice in action, there is no legal recourse, no evidence to present. If you guys want to call it a win for Thailand, I think you have a pretty low bar for approval

 

[elgordo38]

4 hours ago, berybert said:

No more trees ?

We do need rubber trees to make contraceptives to help the young and restless in their hour of need. 

[elgordo38]

26 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Lots of people saying this is a rare good result of the Junta rule. But what we do not know is what the people were told about the legality of their land use. It appears that there are government resolutions that allowed people to use the land and live there. With no legal process, how can we know that these people are not having their legal homes stolen from them now? 

We also do not know why the junta has made land reclamation such a major issue. The cynical assumption is that there are future plans for the land for a select few.  Beach fronts and national parks seem to be the main targets. The creation of the special economic zone in Mae Sot is certainly a potential plum for someone with newly acquired prime property.

In any case, it's shotgun justice in action, there is no legal recourse, no evidence to present. If you guys want to call it a win for Thailand, I think you have a pretty low bar for approval

 

Yes your right justice is justice but I think the bar could be raised and go after criminal criminals the heavyweights of crime. Enough already with picking the low hanging fruit lets move up the ladder a bit. No these poor unfortunate humans have no documentation only the instinct to survive.

[Retiredandhappyhere]

I purchased 3 rai of land using the local system in the village and all the surrounding villages where the Amphur Office had never bothered to survey and offer Chanote titles.  The system was that the village headman checked the one-page written contract between the seller and the purchaser and confirmed that, to his knowledge and according to the yearly receipts for the very small Amphur tax paid on the property,  the seller was the rightful owner fully entitlrd to sell the property.  The implication was that once the officials from the Amphur Office could be bothered to get off their backsides and do the appropriate surveys for the whole area, then the purchaser would eventually be granted a Chanote title.  As a naive Farang, I understood from my Thai wife and my architect that all was in order, so I went ahead and built a large house costing in all a little over 8 million bahts.  Stupid farand although I was not alone as many others did exactly the same thing.

 

Shortly after the Junta came to (i.e. took) power, soldiers accompanied by some Amphur officials called at each property and made the "owners"  sign a letter within 14 days stating that, although for an unspecified period, they could continue to occupy the land and houses, they were forbidden to sell them. As prior to that, my Thai wife and I had lived together in the house for 7 years but had then divorced, we had signed a legal agreement that she and my young son would continue to live there until the house was sold with the proceeds to be split equally, with me paying maintenance until my son finishes school. With this subsequent development by the Junta therefore, my ex-wife has lost her expected cash but at least still lives in  the house with contents, whereas I have lost my 50%, whilst also having to pay for accommodation elsewhere. Naturally, I checked the Junta's letter with my lawyers before my ex-wife signed it and they said we had no option but to do so.

 

The moral of this story is that the Junta can do anything they want and not to be such a naive idiot when you first arrive in thailand, even when you think that you have asked all the right questions.

[seajae]

actually the moral of these stories is if you have no legal(govt) document for the land then it is illegal, someone saying it is ok isnt the same thing. Many thais simply set up house on govt land without any legal rights to do so and then keep selling it off, unfortunately this does not make it legal. In the case above the head man was at fault for approving something he had no legal  right to do and the new owner should have checked with the govt office and take the one he bought it off to court. Simply squatting on land doesnt mean you own it or can do what you want with it, then you have the corrupt officials that take a big payday to give the rich/influential people illegal rights but that is another story

[pookiki]

What amazes me about this thread is how quick some people are to accept what the junta alleges as the absolute gospel truth.  It is irrelevant to talk about what has happened in the past to absolutely strip a person's right to judicial review or rooting out corruption in granting fraudulent land titles.  If a person accepts a government official's representation that he/she has acquired a land title legally, then they should not be held to blame if the official is later found to be corrupt.  Of course, there are the cases where the government official and the person who wants to acquire the land act in collusion.  There are also recent court decisions that upheld traditional use of land be groups of people who have used the land for generations.  The sea gypsies in Phuket are a prime example.

 

There is nothing in this news article that establishes illegal encroachment by the villagers other than a government pronouncement.  The biggest threat to destroying pristine forest and rain forest environments does not come from poor villagers.  It is from large corporate interests seeking lumber and opening new land for agriculture such as rubber and palm oil.  Those with money and influence will continue to rape the land while the poor pay the price.

 

For many of the people in this thread, corporate greed and misdeeds are fine if environmental degradation occurs but there will be hell to pay if some poor people cut down some trees to support their meager existence.  The question isn't whether people are more important than trees, the question is whether corporate greed is more important than the existence of all of us on the planet.

 

 

[AGareth2]

In the village where my family lives many farmers had their farms repossessed.

They had been farming for 20 years

How do they feel to have lost their livelihood?

Powerless

what can we do they say

starve as far as the Bangkok elite care

But the elite still wants their cheap Som Tam and labour

Edited April 9, 2017 by AGareth2

[robblok]

2 hours ago, pookiki said:

What amazes me about this thread is how quick some people are to accept what the junta alleges as the absolute gospel truth.  It is irrelevant to talk about what has happened in the past to absolutely strip a person's right to judicial review or rooting out corruption in granting fraudulent land titles.  If a person accepts a government official's representation that he/she has acquired a land title legally, then they should not be held to blame if the official is later found to be corrupt.  Of course, there are the cases where the government official and the person who wants to acquire the land act in collusion.  There are also recent court decisions that upheld traditional use of land be groups of people who have used the land for generations.  The sea gypsies in Phuket are a prime example.

 

There is nothing in this news article that establishes illegal encroachment by the villagers other than a government pronouncement.  The biggest threat to destroying pristine forest and rain forest environments does not come from poor villagers.  It is from large corporate interests seeking lumber and opening new land for agriculture such as rubber and palm oil.  Those with money and influence will continue to rape the land while the poor pay the price.

 

For many of the people in this thread, corporate greed and misdeeds are fine if environmental degradation occurs but there will be hell to pay if some poor people cut down some trees to support their meager existence.  The question isn't whether people are more important than trees, the question is whether corporate greed is more important than the existence of all of us on the planet.

 

 

Poor farmers or big companies  its all the same to me.. a good example where the junta did good work is tap berk. Those are not poor farmers.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/buildings-46-illegal-land-plots-phu-tap-berk-will-face-demolition/

 

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/bonanza-khao-yai-resort-faces-demolition-for-encroachment-of-khao-yai-national-park/

 

Also tigers are returning.. seems the junta does care bout nature.. and they are having success.

 

Would be nice if they went after the officials granting land titles.. but often no land titles are granted at all like in this case and no review is needed as sor por 3 land is for farming not tourism... no gospel there..just facts.

 

Its a huge problem that people are squatting in forest reserves and building in it. Only a blind man would not agree this is not a problem. At least the junta did something that much more then can be said of previous governments. Now there might be some cases that villagers are in the right.. but more often its not.

 

Its a harsh method.. but one that at least works.. we could of course stick to legaties and wait for all nature to be destroyed. I guess your ok with that as long as it is legal. 

Edited April 9, 2017 by robblok