Millions of forest dwellers will soon be subjected to more severe state repression than Thai Muslims in the deep South under the suffocating emergency law.
Under the new National Park Bill, forest officials can summon people for questioning, enter any households without court orders, and have the authority to destroy any dwellings deemed illegal without having to go through court procedures.
Destroying people's houses at will? Even the emergency law now in force in the restive Deep South does not empower the military to do that.
In short, the new law will make each national park a militarised state within a state. Even if the country moves on to democratic rule (fingers crossed), national park authorities still can exercise their dictatorial power with forest dwellers because it has now become law.
Despite protests from grassroots land rights movements, the controversial law was rushed through the junta-appointed National Legislative Assembly (NLA) early this month for one simple reason: the election is around the corner and such a dictatorial law is blatantly open to abuse of power. It would never see the light of day under elected governments.
The forest dwellers' concerns are valid. The present draconian forest laws are already causing them immense suffering because they consider everyone as illegal forest encroachers who must be evicted or sent to jail, robbing them of their human rights and land security.
The new law is much worse.
For starters, it still similarly considers forest communities illegal, even though they have long existed before the demarcation of protected areas. The meek indigenous forest dwellers are particularly vulnerable. Living in remote forests, their traditional rotational farming system for subsistence living is considered a crime because it involves tree cutting and burning, even though the area is very small, the fires are controlled, and rotational farming fosters biodiversity and forest regeneration.
Their eco-friendly farming system should be valued and tapped. But forest authorities treat these people like dirt, bent on evicting them along with some 10 million people living in national forests.
Injustice and violent evictions have triggered protests nationwide. To defuse the conflicts, previous civilian governments agreed to adopt the grassroots land rights movements' policy proposals on chanot chum chon, or communal land ownership rights, and participatory forest management in line with their constitutional rights.
The forest authorities are furious. When they silently resist the civilian governments' orders, their usual tactics are to use military might during coup-installed regimes to get what they want.
During the past five years, they have been using the junta's "Reclaiming the Forests" policy to evict forest communities, particularly those in the grassroots movement who challenge their central control.
They also sponsored the new national park law to cancel out the chanot chum chon policy and install their imperious power. Last week, they succeeded.
Forest authorities say the new national park law is historic because it allows legal mechanisms to resolve land rights conflicts for the first time. That is sheer propaganda.
Anyone who follows the legal battles between park authorities and the forest dwellers can see through their real motives.
There are two competing executive orders concerning land rights conflict resolutions -- the 30 June 1998 and the Aug 3, 2010 cabinet resolutions. Under the former, only those living there before the area legally became a national forest reserve have the opportunity to prove their right to the land.
This dates back to the National Forest Law in 1964, which was written by the Forest Department to make all of the land in the country lacking official land titles become its property under its sole management.
A very just law-making process, isn't it?
Under the rules set by forest authorities, the villagers must prove their existence via satellite photos showing their farmland and degraded forests. If the photos show the forest is in good condition, which actually attests to the villagers' eco-friendly living, they must be evicted. When eviction is not possible, they must live under strict rules and regulations, and under the constant threat of eviction, without having any say in the matter.
The Aug 3, 2010 executive order, meanwhile, recognises the rights of longstanding forest communities. The forest authorities cannot arrest nor evict them until the land disputes are resolved by a committee including non-partisan experts. Should the ruling say the communities existed before the national park demarcation, those people living there must receive legal land ownership documents.
Forest authorities fiercely resist this executive order because it challenges their despotic power in their national park kingdoms.
Last year, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled the Kaeng Krachan National Park guilty for setting fire to the huts and rice barns of the Karen forest dwellers there, saying it was an overreach of power. The court also recognised the Karen as indigenous forest dwellers and suggested the use of the Aug 3, 2010 executive order on participatory land conflict resolution to reclaim the Karen's land rights.
It is not surprising the new national park bill has been designed to ensure such a legal defeat will never happen again.
In an effort to kill the executive order which supports people's participation, the bill has elevated the draconian June 3 executive order to a fully fledged law. The aim is to retain forest authorities' sole decision-making power in land rights conflicts with forest communities. It will also kill the forest dwellers' right to communal land ownership in national parks.
And if destroying or torching the forest dwellers' houses is illegal under the current forest law, the trick is to write a new law to make it legal.
Violating the constitution, the new bill does not recognise indigenous peoples or traditional communities. That's not all. National park officials have the authority to order any forest dwellers to move out or destroy their properties. If not, they can enter the households without court orders, and destroy the dwellings deemed illegal without having to go through court procedures.
Since every villager in the forest is illegal under the draconian law, it means forest authorities can destroy any house at will.
For forest authorities, people's participation represents an infringement of their arbitrary power, which must not be allowed to take root. The national park management committee is, therefore, a top-down body without community participation, again a violation of the constitution.
Viewing the villagers as the enemies not partners of the forest, the new bill has increased the punishment for collecting things from the forest -- a traditional way of life for forest dwellers -- to a maximum five-year jail sentence and a fine of up to 500,000 baht, or both.
Due to the public outcry, the bill has been amended to give the villagers a temporary reprieve, but under strict rules. The national park officials will determine what type of items they collect from the forest, how much, and what time of the year -- without the villagers' say. If they do not comply, and if they don't have official permission, they are subject to arrest.
The punishment for clearing land for farming is even harsher. The jail sentence is four to 20 years with of between 400,000 and 2 million baht, or both.
Clearing a small plot of greenery and leaving it for regeneration is part of the indigenous forest dwellers' traditional rotational farming system.
Imagine the barefooted, betel-chewing subsistence highlanders being fined 400,000 to 2 million baht, and being imprisoned for not being able to pay the fine.
If farmers let loose their cattle into the forest, they will be fined 10,000 baht for each animal, an obvious effort to make the villagers' way of life extremely difficult.
With all those strict rules to strangle them, the new bill allows investors to continue mining and engaging in other concessions at national parks. What generosity!
Unsurprisingly, the forest agencies are also staying silent on the government's huge dam project and other development projects in protected forests.
Another fresh feature in the new bill -- money.
Before, tourists' entrance fees at national parks had to be sent back to the national coffers. Not anymore. The national park authorities wrote this new bill to allow themselves to keep 90% of the money to use as they see fit without community oversight.
Without transparency, what will happen?
The policy of the Department of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation is to increase the national parks as quickly as possible to expand its territorial power. The new bill makes that easier. If the forest dwellers do not have land ownership documents -- and most do not -- they cannot protest the demarcation.
Any agreements or projects to allow certain forest communities to stay depend on the national park chiefs. This is open to prejudice and abuse of power. The agreement also expires within 20 years, robbing locals of land security and any motivation to invest in forest conservation.
What lies ahead?
With harsh punishment and the authorities' free rein of power, massive suffering on the ground is bound to explode into destructive fury across the country.
Unless this bill is revoked, the picture won't be pretty. The country will not be at peace and forest protection will not be sustainable unless the government realises that peace and forests can't grow on state violence.
Sanitsuda Ekachai is former editorial pages editor, Bangkok Post.