EEC mustn’t steamroll locals’ rights
An hour after a public forum on land disputes in the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC) zone started on Thursday in tambon Yothaka in Chachoengsao’s Bang Nam Prieo district, military personnel and security officers from the Internal Security Operation Command arrived at the scene and took over the stage. They describe their intervention as an act to “listen to the people”.
The discussion, co-hosted by local people, activists and journalists, was meant to be an open platform for farmers to voice their concern over land grabbing as a result of government development projects.
As the soldiers, led by the commander of Infantry Division 11, Maj Gen Worayuth Kaewwiboonphan, and security officers interrupted, the event was immediately halted and the speakers stepped aside. They simply hijacked the event and turned it into a military meeting.
They took a friendly approach though, saying they came to hear the plight of the farmers and to help them. They assured the farmers that “all things will be settled”, and then left without offering clear solutions to the land expropriations.
Such military intervention has been common since the 2014 coup. And once again, this military’s way of “listening to the people” ended with failure to truly take heed of local voices.
There have been local concerns over possible forced evictions in certain areas of the EEC —the government’s economic development scheme aimed at transforming the three eastern provinces of Chachoengsao, Chon Buri and Rayong into a hub for industry and innovation.
In Chachoengsao, where the majority of land is used for agriculture, farmers said they have been contacted by brokers who were looking to buy farmland for factories and investment projects. Land prices have been increasing since the EEC was kickstarted in 2015.
State land is key for the EEC. It is the type of land that the government can rent out to investors at prices cheaper than the market rate. But local people have also lived on such land for generations. Now they are facing eviction because they do not own title deeds.
Ancestors of farmers in Bang Nam Prieo, for example, settled there in the early 1900s, but they did not claim property ownership under the law. Thus, their land was later claimed by some private entities before falling into the hands of the Treasury Department, which then gave the ownership rights to the Royal Thai Navy (RTN).
In 2015, the RTN began sending local farmers notices to vacate the 4,000-rai land. Navy officers have visited farmers’ houses for some talks. As the EEC dereliction during that time, local people linked the Navy’s land reclamation to the new project.
Maj Gen Worayuth said at the forum on Thursday that development of the EEC would not involve the use of the Navy’s land. But he could not answer when the land would be reclaimed by the Navy, to be used “for its own operations”, as he said he is not part of the Navy.
It’s likely that the Navy will spare some 300 rai of land for farmers to share and allocate among themselves. But local people are not happy as the total area will be too small for farming once it is split up among 600 people.
The military delivered another message to farmers at the forum: Work very hard to save money and buy your own land. It reflects a typical perception by decision makers that usually ignores the fact that landlessness faced by farmers is the result of the state’s refusal to acknowledge their right to the land they have lived on for generations.
At the end, if the land is reclaimed and farmers cannot financially survive under the relocation scheme, will they be blamed for not working hard enough? It is false logic for officials to demand people to work hard when they are being deprived of resources.
For now, farmers have been given limited information about possible state decisions and live in fear of forced eviction. A man in Yothaka said Navy officials have conducted occasional land inspections at his rice farm. He tried to ask them the purpose of their visits but never received any proper answers.
What is lacking here is the right kind of communication and sincerity from the state. “Listening to the people” should mean sharing information and being open to all possibilities. If the Navy or the military could just provide a clear official statement on their land expropriation policies, every party will be able to sit down and talk to find mutual solutions.
But they failed to do that and have remained vague on the matter. This will only provoke more fear and distrust of the military.