Communities booted out by soldiers say they feel powerless

[pookiki]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

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. 

Robblok,

 

You fail to consider any human rights issues in your over zealous defense of a military dictatorship that robs people of their rights and dignity.  There is a difference between corporate greed and poverty.  There are lots of people in Thailand that are stateless and they encroach no matter where they are because they have no legal rights of citizenship -- even though they and their families have been here for generations.  Your judgement of the junta is a personal opinion and you justify the all the junta's actions because 'some' of them were 'good' in your system of values.  Such a view deprives people of seeking judicial review of arbitrary acts.  You say the junta cares about the environment?  Is that why they are still turning to coal for the generation of electricity and ignoring the environment pleas of the people in the South?  The junta still wants to build dams, the Mae Wong in particular, that will destroy some of the last remaining habitats for the tigers you say they are trying to protect.  You support political expediency over the rule of law.  How have the courts protected those who you believe have done so much harm in the past?

 

You make serious assertions about squatters who are poor.  Where are the facts?  There has been encroachments but primarily by businesses and rich individuals who just want a fancy home on a mountain top. The junta is two faced about alleged land encroachment by those trapped in poverty and also talking about granting land to farmers and others trapped in a cycle of debt. 

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, pookiki said:

Robblok,

 

You fail to consider any human rights issues in your over zealous defense of a military dictatorship that robs people of their rights and dignity.  There is a difference between corporate greed and poverty.  There are lots of people in Thailand that are stateless and they encroach no matter where they are because they have no legal rights of citizenship -- even though they and their families have been here for generations.  Your judgement of the junta is a personal opinion and you justify the all the junta's actions because 'some' of them were 'good' in your system of values.  Such a view deprives people of seeking judicial review of arbitrary acts.  You say the junta cares about the environment?  Is that why they are still turning to coal for the generation of electricity and ignoring the environment pleas of the people in the South?  The junta still wants to build dams, the Mae Wong in particular, that will destroy some of the last remaining habitats for the tigers you say they are trying to protect.  You support political expediency over the rule of law.  How have the courts protected those who you believe have done so much harm in the past?

 

You make serious assertions about squatters who are poor.  Where are the facts?  There has been encroachments but primarily by businesses and rich individuals who just want a fancy home on a mountain top. The junta is two faced about alleged land encroachment by those trapped in poverty and also talking about granting land to farmers and others trapped in a cycle of debt. 

Pookiki, 

 

Obviously you have not read any of my links because those links are mostly about wealthy people getting booted out of the state forests. I don't care if someone is poor or rich i care for the forests to be protected. Statelessness has nothing to do with encroaching.. separate issues.  The fact remains if people destroy the natural parks here by living in them they are in the wrong. Sorry to put it that blunt but that is how i feel. If it was the PTP doing the same thing Id applaud them too. The national parks need all the protection they can get and at this point the junta outshines others. 

 

I know its so hard for you to admit to good deeds of the junta but I had not expected any different from you.

 

I am against the Mae Wong dam, but not necessarily about the coal plant as gas is also something that is running out in Thailand. The junta is not perfect and it would be hard to agree with everything they do (loads of things I disagree like the dam you mention). But this kicking people out the national parks i agree with 100%.  I don't know if you ever follow the news but previous governments made deals with these people fear of protest.. fear of losing votes at the cost of the environment. Even though they were in national parks they let them stay because of protest and lost polarity. The junta is free of these things and while mistakes can be made the majority of times this is not the case. Its often quite clear if people are within park limits or not. Then they start the sing and dance we been here.. take pitty.. we protest.. we want a deal.. you know how things work here. Often people in the wrong still win reprieves because they don't want to enforce the law and lose popularity.

 

I am not sure you understand how bad it is .. but forest world wide are in decline.. so anything to stop this process is good. But sure you can breathe without trees so you don't worry about that. 

[pookiki]

10 minutes ago, robblok said:

Pookiki, 

 

Obviously you have not read any of my links because those links are mostly about wealthy people getting booted out of the state forests. I don't care if someone is poor or rich i care for the forests to be protected. Statelessness has nothing to do with encroaching.. separate issues.  The fact remains if people destroy the natural parks here by living in them they are in the wrong. Sorry to put it that blunt but that is how i feel. If it was the PTP doing the same thing Id applaud them too. The national parks need all the protection they can get and at this point the junta outshines others. 

 

I know its so hard for you to admit to good deeds of the junta but I had not expected any different from you.

 

I am against the Mae Wong dam, but not necessarily about the coal plant as gas is also something that is running out in Thailand. The junta is not perfect and it would be hard to agree with everything they do (loads of things I disagree like the dam you mention). But this kicking people out the national parks i agree with 100%.  I don't know if you ever follow the news but previous governments made deals with these people fear of protest.. fear of losing votes at the cost of the environment. Even though they were in national parks they let them stay because of protest and lost polarity. The junta is free of these things and while mistakes can be made the majority of times this is not the case. Its often quite clear if people are within park limits or not. Then they start the sing and dance we been here.. take pitty.. we protest.. we want a deal.. you know how things work here. Often people in the wrong still win reprieves because they don't want to enforce the law and lose popularity.

 

I am not sure you understand how bad it is .. but forest world wide are in decline.. so anything to stop this process is good. But sure you can breathe without trees so you don't worry about that. 

Yes, I am familiar with your posts about the businesses and the wealthy encroaching on national forest lands.  Obviously, these people had the connections to do what they wanted.  But where is your information outside of these instances to show that poor villagers are a problem of such magnitude that you attempt to assert.  In your system of values, should the sea gypsies have been allowed to stay on their land in Phuket because they were able to establish a continuity of use with the court? [And practicing sustainable fishing as well!]  Should all Thai people be allowed to seek judicial review of the junta's actions in a court of competent jurisdiction?  If you do any serious research on deforestation, poor people are not to blame.  Indonesia and Brazil would be case studies to consider.  Illegal logging in Myanmar for the benefit of Chinese furniture makers is another. It is naked corporate greed that is killing these forests.  You  are blaming poor people who are just as much impacted by government policies who cave to corporate interests  that run roughshod over the environment. You defend coal that puts more CO2 in the atmosphere?  I'm appalled and confused.  Are you a global warming denier?

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, pookiki said:

Yes, I am familiar with your posts about the businesses and the wealthy encroaching on national forest lands.  Obviously, these people had the connections to do what they wanted.  But where is your information outside of these instances to show that poor villagers are a problem of such magnitude that you attempt to assert.  In your system of values, should the sea gypsies have been allowed to stay on their land in Phuket because they were able to establish a continuity of use with the court? [And practicing sustainable fishing as well!]  Should all Thai people be allowed to seek judicial review of the junta's actions in a court of competent jurisdiction?  If you do any serious research on deforestation, poor people are not to blame.  Indonesia and Brazil would be case studies to consider.  Illegal logging in Myanmar for the benefit of Chinese furniture makers is another. It is naked corporate greed that is killing these forests.  You  are blaming poor people who are just as much impacted by government policies who cave to corporate interests  that run roughshod over the environment. You defend coal that puts more CO2 in the atmosphere?  I'm appalled and confused.  Are you a global warming denier?

No I don't deny global warming at all... how much of it is man made is up for discussion. But I am certain we do our part (in a bad way)

 

Could you prove the sea gypsies did sustainable fishing.. because in my book there is not much of that done. As for the sea gypsies staying there.. it had nothing to do with a national park but with a developer wanting their land. More like a conflict between two groups.. and they won. Good for them they were actually helped by the government (or part of it anyway)

 

I don't blame poor people alone at all, but they certainly are not a solution to the problem. I will have yet to see them live in balance with nature in the national forests.. they don't they destroy it too. So I am for all action taken by the junta.. and as you see most action was taken against richer people.. this was just 1 time the poor people were targeted..other times it was the rich.. so seems pretty even handed. 

 

As for coal VS gas.. do you think gas won't run out ? I am all for clean energy.. but 1 it must be available.. 2 (good for your poor people too) it must be not too expensive. 

[pookiki]

19 minutes ago, robblok said:

No I don't deny global warming at all... how much of it is man made is up for discussion. But I am certain we do our part (in a bad way)

 

Could you prove the sea gypsies did sustainable fishing.. because in my book there is not much of that done. As for the sea gypsies staying there.. it had nothing to do with a national park but with a developer wanting their land. More like a conflict between two groups.. and they won. Good for them they were actually helped by the government (or part of it anyway)

 

I don't blame poor people alone at all, but they certainly are not a solution to the problem. I will have yet to see them live in balance with nature in the national forests.. they don't they destroy it too. So I am for all action taken by the junta.. and as you see most action was taken against richer people.. this was just 1 time the poor people were targeted..other times it was the rich.. so seems pretty even handed. 

 

As for coal VS gas.. do you think gas won't run out ? I am all for clean energy.. but 1 it must be available.. 2 (good for your poor people too) it must be not too expensive. 

http://www.wrm.org.uy/oldsite/deforestation/indirect.html

 

You may want to look at this.

 

 What disappoints me about you the most is that there is a wealth of information about topics such as this on the internet that puts things into a fairly good perspective.  Yet, you don't want to do any research before pointing fingers

 

The sea gypsies were primarily concerned about catching enough food from the sea to feed their families.  They weren't 'commercial' fishers.  I guess we could debate on whether this was 'sustainable' or not.

 

In my view, the continued reliance on fossil fuels spells the death knell for this planet.  There are many enlightened governments that are making tremendous advances on the use of renewable energy sources.  Where there is a will, there is a way.  The rise in global CO2 levels is linked to industrial and human use of fossil fuels whether it is natural gas or coal.  If the junta wants to care for its people and ensure the late King's vision of a sustainable economy, it would completely support the use green and renewable energy.  It can be done.

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, pookiki said:

http://www.wrm.org.uy/oldsite/deforestation/indirect.html

 

You may want to look at this.

 

 What disappoints me about you the most is that there is a wealth of information about topics such as this on the internet that puts things into a fairly good perspective.  Yet, you don't want to do any research before pointing fingers

 

The sea gypsies were primarily concerned about catching enough food from the sea to feed their families.  They weren't 'commercial' fishers.  I guess we could debate on whether this was 'sustainable' or not.

 

In my view, the continued reliance on fossil fuels spells the death knell for this planet.  There are many enlightened governments that are making tremendous advances on the use of renewable energy sources.  Where there is a will, there is a way.  The rise in global CO2 levels is linked to industrial and human use of fossil fuels whether it is natural gas or coal.  If the junta wants to care for its people and ensure the late King's vision of a sustainable economy, it would completely support the use green and renewable energy.  It can be done.

You still don't get it.. I am not denying that big companies cause damage to Thailand natural parks.. I am saying everyone in there should be removed. I guess its hard to get.. according you to poor should be excused.  At the same time you want to stop about fossil fuels.. that would mean only the rich could drive cars or cool their houses as it would simple be to expensive.  You really do got a split personality. 

 

You never got back about the sea gypsy land.. you claimed it to be in a nature park.. nice to try to twist facts for your purpose. Now you claim the do sustainable fishing.. in my book sustainable fishing does not have much to do with being commercial or not but with size of nets (hole width for young fish ect) and methods used. You can tell me many things but i doubt the sea gypsies are any less bad as the commercial guys. Without proper policing (oh dear maybe the sea gypsies should not be policed they are poor) of both commercial and non commercial fishing nothing will change. 

 

In my view.. this planet is doomed, overpopulation is a major problem. The poor countries will never adhere to the renewable energy rules as its too expensive. Maybe if we are lucky nuclear fusion will be perfected and that would save us. My country is doing a lot of wind energy and solar panels.. but its just not enough.. its just not viable.. what to do when there is no sun and we need power (many aircons at night).. wind is also not reliable.. so for now.. its going to work. 

 

[USPatriot]

On 4/7/2017 at 1:10 AM, tukkytuktuk said:

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

It is not just the trees.  Imagine if people just built houses anywhere.

 

Free land I'm in

[pookiki]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

You still don't get it.. I am not denying that big companies cause damage to Thailand natural parks.. I am saying everyone in there should be removed. I guess its hard to get.. according you to poor should be excused.  At the same time you want to stop about fossil fuels.. that would mean only the rich could drive cars or cool their houses as it would simple be to expensive.  You really do got a split personality. 

 

You never got back about the sea gypsy land.. you claimed it to be in a nature park.. nice to try to twist facts for your purpose. Now you claim the do sustainable fishing.. in my book sustainable fishing does not have much to do with being commercial or not but with size of nets (hole width for young fish ect) and methods used. You can tell me many things but i doubt the sea gypsies are any less bad as the commercial guys. Without proper policing (oh dear maybe the sea gypsies should not be policed they are poor) of both commercial and non commercial fishing nothing will change. 

 

In my view.. this planet is doomed, overpopulation is a major problem. The poor countries will never adhere to the renewable energy rules as its too expensive. Maybe if we are lucky nuclear fusion will be perfected and that would save us. My country is doing a lot of wind energy and solar panels.. but its just not enough.. its just not viable.. what to do when there is no sun and we need power (many aircons at night).. wind is also not reliable.. so for now.. its going to work. 

 

I never claimed that the sea gypsies were living on national park land.  What I stated was that they were granted title to their land because they could show continuity of occupation of the land over a long period of time.   They had no title or proof of purchase.  At least they had the luxury of a court reviewing their claims.

 

And I'm not saying that the poor should be excused but they clearly lack the resources to mount a legal challenge to any arbitrary decision by the junta.  You presume them to be guilty.  I don't.

 

If energy was a matter of social policy based on the survival of the planet, we would have had renewable energy a long time ago. The large oil companies attempt to stifle all new technologies that threaten their profits.  Hydrogen fuel cells are the answer along with solar energy, wave energy, wind, geothermal etc.  Where there is a will, there is a way.

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, pookiki said:

I never claimed that the sea gypsies were living on national park land.  What I stated was that they were granted title to their land because they could show continuity of occupation of the land over a long period of time.   They had no title or proof of purchase.  At least they had the luxury of a court reviewing their claims.

 

And I'm not saying that the poor should be excused but they clearly lack the resources to mount a legal challenge to any arbitrary decision by the junta.  You presume them to be guilty.  I don't.

 

If energy was a matter of social policy based on the survival of the planet, we would have had renewable energy a long time ago. The large oil companies attempt to stifle all new technologies that threaten their profits.  Hydrogen fuel cells are the answer along with solar energy, wave energy, wind, geothermal etc.  Where there is a will, there is a way.

You clearly lack understanding about energy, hydrogen fuel cells are not a power source only a storage unit.. solar and wind are far from enough. and switching from fossil to renewable is not possible at this time. Nuclear fusion.. that would safe us and there are test facilities in Japan and France studying it (if it will work who knows), then your hydrogen fuel cells come in. 

 

The sea gypsies were not in state land.. and I don't feel that squatters right should apply to national parks.. then bad deeds get rewarded and the national parks get even less. 

 

I presume that everyone (richt poor even you or me) who builds and lives inside a national park is guilty. These parks are set up to conserve what little Forrest there is.  Its for the greater good.. I dont understand how someone who feels like you do about nature does not understand this. 

 

Lets put it this way.. agree to disagree.