Thailand’s military junta has gained significant credibility from the squeaky-clean image of Surayud Chulanont, its appointed prime minister. In recent days there have been concerted attempts to challenge that image in relation to Surayud’s land holdings in Nakhon Ratchasima. Today’s Nation reports:
Two political pressure groups yesterday called on Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont to step down in the wake of allegations that he was illegally occupying land in a forest reserve in Nakhon Ratchasima. In an open letter submitted to Surayud’s aide, Confederation for Democracy chairman Weng Tojirakan and Foundation for Democracy Heroes chairman Sant Hatirat said Surayud violated the Forestry Act of 1941 and Reserved Forest Act of 1964 by having a house in a forest reserve. The letter said that even though Surayud claimed that he bought the 20-rai plot and had paid tax on the land since 1994, and that the acquisition was in line with a Cabinet resolution of June 1998, his action violated the intention of the law. The letter said the intention of the Cabinet resolution was to solve a land shortage and pave the way to give the poor some land for agriculture to earn a living, and banned purchases and occupation of such land by outsiders.
The two groups also called on agencies to inspect degraded and reserve forests across the country and take action against offenders. Weng said Surayud had already conceded that the land occupation might not be right, so he would do better to take responsibility before the controversy destroyed his integrity. “If he thinks that running the country needs high ethics and morality, then he must quit because what he did was unlawful,” he said.
The details of Surayud’s particular case remain somewhat unclear. Perhaps more details will emerge as a result of the investigations being conducted by various land management agencies. But what is clear is that Thailand’s land and forestry laws, and the way they are implemented, provides numerous opportunities for affluent and influential figures to obtain areas of forest reserve land for residences, farms, resorts, business ventures and land speculation. This has been a longstanding problem with important implications for farmers in these areas. One implication is that provision of more secure tenure to the many farmers resident in forest reserve areas (remember that land classified as forest reserve - not necessarily forest! - covers some 40 percent of Thailand) is often resisted on the grounds that it will encourage the accumulation of land in the hands of external investors.
Hopefully Surayud’s case, however it is resolved, may encourage some greater scrutiny of elite acquisitions of forest reserve land that should be allocated for agricultural livelihoods not for elite retreat.
8 responses so far ↓
1 fall // Dec 30, 2006 at 11:53 pm
This case is interesting because it seem like the same situation with Thaksin’s stock deal.
Did both break the written law? -No.
Did both break the intention of written law? -Yes.
Do many people do it? -Yes.
Are they both role-model figure? -Yes.
The main different seem to be the “amount” of goods in question, not the “intention” of act.
Seem like it is OK to bend the law, eg. no street-protest and coup, if “amount” is less than 7 billion.
By the way, I KNOW someone WILL argue that Thaksin DID break written law, per Pridiyathorn’s accusation. But please bear in mind that the case is not even in court yet let alone judged. And as Thai justice system, all suspect are innocent until proven guilty(Dont want to start the whole did not-did too arguement yet again).
2 patiwat // Dec 31, 2006 at 7:03 am
The Interior Minister is defending Surayud. “Gen Surayud purchased the land from someone else so the question has to be posed to the first owner whether the land is reserved,” said Mr Aree. (See here)
Of course, that’s total bullcrap. Buying illegal land from somebody doesn’t clear you of wrongdoing. Surayud is still owning illegal land and is still breaking the law.
3 nganadeeleg // Dec 31, 2006 at 10:37 am
Critics of the junta seem to be clutching at straws with these allegations, and it would be shameful if they prove to be enough of a distraction to take the heat of Thaksin.
Whilst I do not condone any illegal or corrupt practices, these appear to be minor indiscretions which pale into insignificance compared to the wholesale corruption and extra judicial killings under Thaksin.
It is a pity that Andrew & patiwat were not so diligent in their condemnation of Thaksin’s wrong doings.
fall - apart from scale of the alleged wrong doings, the other differences are:
- there were many such allegations against Thaksin, but this is the only one against Surayud
(so far - no doubt Thaksin and his lackies, including Chavalit, will be pulling out all stops to try and find something else)
- there is a chance we can believe Surayud when he says he will step aside if found guilty, but Thaksin proved time and again that he could not be believed.
4 nganadeeleg // Dec 31, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Whilst I agree with Andrew’s sentiments that there be greater scrutiny of elite aquisitions of forest reserve land, I am puzzled why suspect land dealings only seem to hurt those politicians with ’squeeky clean’ images.
Perhaps everyone expects it from other politicians?
5 anon // Dec 31, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Do you think the government will seriously investigate the allegations?
The Interior Minister has already dismissed the allegations.
And the Parliament has no authority to conduct a vote of no confidence against the government.
Since we can’t rely on the government to police itself, I think it is time to petition the King to appoint a replacement Premier.
6 nganadeeleg // Dec 31, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Yes, anon, the allegations are very serious and need urgent investigation - the government should immediately stop all the investigations into Thaksin and investigate Surayud instead.
A holiday house and Sonthi’s marital affairs are obviously much more important than billion baht deals, tax avoidance and extra judicial killings.
7 jeru // Jan 1, 2007 at 1:17 am
These TRT corrupts, Thaksin included, are so desperate for any distraction that would divert the many asset/tax inquiries currently going on. I would think that those recent escalation of savagery at the South may have been Thaksin or TRT-inspired purposedly to create distractions.
Now the bombings ominously have moved to Bangkok — seven bombs went off simultaneously with lots of injuries and some deaths. Thaksin & Newin could be the very authors of these recent Bangkok bombings - - although I can predict Chaturon/TRT will try to point to the Southern militants as being responsible.
8 New Mandala » Surayud’s conservation zone // Jan 2, 2007 at 7:32 pm
[...] Matichon is carrying a report suggesting that Surayud’s land holdings in Nakhon Ratchasima are located in “conservation zone” forest. Previous reports have stated that the land lies in “forest reserve”, a rather general category that covers a range of different land uses. But conservation forest is a rather different matter and it is generally regarded as warranting a high level of environmental protection. Government agencies and conservationist NGOs often express alarm about farming activities in conservation zones (often with exaggerated claims about dire environmental impacts). I wonder how they will react if it is confirmed that the PM is a high-profile forest encroacher? [...]
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.