Since being initiated by technocrats and the previous government in 2015, the government's flagship Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC) has been touted as a new special economic zone that will transform Thailand into a high-tech economy.
Given its potential environmental and social impacts, the development of the EEC, however, has drawn fierce criticism over a lack of adequate and meaningful public participation.
Recently, local people complained they were not properly consulted over the drafting of a new town plan for the EEC.
The town plan covers 30 districts of three provinces: Chon Buri, Rayong and Chachoengsao. It includes planning and development of transport and logistics, information technology, housing and landscape, infrastructure for manufacturing of target industries, and water management.
Already approved by the EEC Policy Committee, the town plan will be tabled for vetting and approval by the cabinet later this month.
Last week, representatives of communities in the three provinces handed a letter to opposition MPs, asking them to investigate the plan's potential impacts on the environment and livelihoods of local people.
They are worried that the new town plan will likely lead to land-use conflicts that marginalise farmers. For example, part of the proposed new industrial zone will overlap with fertile agricultural areas and river basins which are lifelines for local farmers and residents.
Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha used his special powers under Section 44 of the interim charter to have the plan bypass the town planning law, which prohibits expansion of factories in certain EEC zones. That makes the town planning a key component to accelerate EEC development.
The town planning is the product of a one-year drafting process during which relevant state agencies organised at least 40 public consultations aimed at "getting opinions from representatives of local people".
But some local communities see the plan as a shortcut to speed up the EEC's development.
Were the plan to abide by the law, the drafting process would take much longer than a year in ensuring social and environmental impacts and land-use conflicts were minimised.
Locals also questioned the legitimacy of the public consultations, saying opponents were not notified of the events in advance and so could not participate.
Interior Minister Anupong Paojinda, however, denied that claim during a parliamentary session last week when Jirat Thongsuwan, a Future Forward Party MP for Chachoengsao province, questioned the transparency of the town plan's drafting process.
Mr Jirat also raised concerns that the plan will likely benefit big corporates because parts of the proposed industrial zone cover their land.
Since its initiation, the EEC has been pursued by the succeeding government led by the same prime minister and other key cabinet figures of the previous regime.
The original concept of the EEC is explained as an area-based development designed to attract so-called 4.0 industrial era high-tech and digital industries with a goal of extricating Thailand from its heavy dependence on traditional industries driven by outdated manufacturing technology and cheap labour.
At one point, the authorities vowed an "inclusive growth" model for the EEC that would leave no one behind.
The concept sounds sensible. In the past 30 years, Thailand has been part of global assembly lines specialising in electronics and automobile parts. But it has mainly relied on imported technology while struggling to improve its capacity for innovation -- which has left the country stuck in the middle-income trap.
However, in practice, the process of realising the EEC has prompted many questions -- especially over whether its development is still driven by the original concept and whether this special economic zone will succeed in transforming Thailand into a high-tech economy.
EEC development has been dominated by the previous military government's top-down and dictatorial approach, aimed at fast and quantifiable progress. It has downplayed the need for quality and democratic participation in development.
While opposing local voices have been largely sidelined in the decision-making process, big investors have enjoyed handsome benefits.
The state has offered attractive investment privileges and promotions to investors. They include tax exemptions and rights to long-term land leases.
More worryingly, there are allegations that a number of investors with close ties to the former military regime and bureaucrats have received benefits to which they are not entitled, since their projects do not promote high-tech and digital industries, as required by the EEC.
EEC development has not promoted a level playing field among businesses. Unlike big corporates, small and medium-sized businesses have been overlooked by the state, even though they could be key to triggering an innovative environment. Many of them are startups that are willing to take risks in developing new initiatives.
This reflects the typical top-down model of Thailand's economic development under military rulers, who favoured certain large corporate groups while excluding others. For example, the economic reform of the 1960s under Field Marshal Sarit Thanarath and the 1980s' economic transformation to heavy and chemical industries under Gen Prem Tinsulanonda were both driven by selected big corporates.
During those times, the state reduced legal barriers to investment to generate fast growth and trigger economic "miracles". But it left the issues of farmers' land loss, environmental degradation and wealth consolidation unattended.
The people's right to participate in development decisions was enshrined for the first time in the 1997 constitution. But that right has been suppressed from time to time, mainly under the two military regimes appointed following the 2006 and 2014 coups.
Local people in the EEC area see their exclusion from the town planning process as a form of state suppression.
The development of the EEC could have been made more inclusive by incorporating diverse ideas and properly addressing concerns of opponents. Inclusive development can help the EEC better reach its goal of transforming Thailand into an advanced economy.
But with the current top-down, military-style approach, the EEC will likely miss that opportunity and instead become a hotbed of problems associated with environmental impacts and land-use conflicts.
Paritta Wangkiat is a columnist, Bangkok Post.