Communities have rights

The campaign by residents of Phitsanulok for a proper investigation of the old Akara Resources gold mine is well taken. The request, filed directly to the prime minister, notes that their complaint is over two years old. No progress has been reported by the Department of Special Investigation (DSI). As compelling as this single case is, the Phitsanulok group is but a stark illustration of the military regime’s poor or absent handling of community problems.

The mine has been shut by government order since Jan 1 of last year. That matter is under legal review and international arbitration. But the residents have concerns and complaints that go back before that. Arom Khamjing and her group, the Network of Gold and Natural Resources Social Reform, are so tired of waiting for answers they have petitioned Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha directly for answers.

Ms Arom and other locals from Noen Maprang district made detailed complaints in writing to the DSI and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) in 2014 and 2015. The complaints allege illegal activities including land encroachment by the gold mine, and corruption by a local politician. As of today, they have had no response from either state body.

The constitution, written by military-approved authors and promulgated in April, mentions community rights. Section 41 says that communities have the same rights as individuals to petition any government agency and receive “the result of the consideration without delay”. Section 43, more to the point, is quite specific about matters like the Phitsanulok gold mine. Every community, it states, “shall enjoy the right

... to manage, maintain and utilise natural resources, the environment and biodiversity in a balanced and sustainable manner”.

It seems difficult to find a loophole in there that negates the residents’ clear and constitutional rights. Yet they filed complaints in 2014 and 2015 with the DSI and the NACC, and they are still waiting for so much as an acknowledgment, let alone a progress report or investigation conclusion. This is, unfortunately, a state response seen around the country.

Ms Arom and supporters from Phitsanulok are now taking the only avenue left open to them. They are making a fuss. They clearly are hoping that by travelling to Bangkok and contacting media members, someone in the government will take notice of their complaint.

This is what happened several months ago in another case where the government did not just ignore a community, but directly tried to suppress it. Late last February, highly stressed residents of Krabi province stated their grievances to the government, but officials refused to hear their plea to reconsider plans to build a coal-fired power plant on a beautiful southern beach.

That is when activist Prasitchai Noonual ignored warnings and intimidation in order to bring the Krabi people’s case to the Bangkok pavements. When dozens of concerned people began a sit-in near Government House, Gen Prayut took notice. Within a couple of days, he worked out a responsible agreement with the protesters that probably ended plans for the power plant.

It should not be necessary — and under the constitution it is not — for communities to have to travel to Bangkok and cause a commotion to gain media coverage. From Government House all the way down to the districts and villages, authorities are charged with responding to community concerns. Indeed, both legally and morally, government should be guided by community efforts and decisions rather than simply waving them off until political disruption occurs.

Authorities are charged with responding to community concerns.