Paving way for rock blasting is not preservation

Paving way for rock blasting is not preservation

The Fine Arts Department (FAD) has always been counted on as a key guardian of cultural and historical heritage.

Despite some faux pas, including its reluctance to save quite a few historic buildings, or questionable taste on the restoration of the Temple of Dawn, the department, in my opinion, is the last resort the public can turn to when our national heritage is under threat.

But the credibility of the 108-year-old state agency has been put into question as it accommodates rock quarry operators at Khao Yala mountain that is home to a cave fresco that is listed as an historic site under the Ancient Monuments, Antiques, Objects of Art and National Museum Act 1961.

In this case, former FAD director-general Anant Chuchote last September surprisingly reduced the protected site area by 200 rai to pave the way for rock blasting. The decision is a response to “requests” from the Department of Primary Industries and Mines that claimed the province suffered a shortage of crushed rocks to develop industry in the southern region. The controversial project has received support from security agencies such as the Southern Border Provinces Administration Centre (SBPC), Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc) as well as the Office of the Prime Minister.

The FAD has tried to allay public concerns by saying the rock blasting will spare the historic cave.

But such comments haven’t doused fears among conservationists and villagers because the revised boundary means the rock blasting will be permitted within 1 or 2 kilometres of the 3,000-year-old archaeological heritage site. Some experts said the quarry is much closer — about 500 metres from the cave.

Conservationists and villagers asked the department to nullify the order and the campaign gained momentum last week when firebrand activist Srisuwan Janya submitted a petition against the FAD to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, accusing the agency of favouring the mining industry. In addition, we see a public campaign at the popular online change.org platform to collect signatures for a petition against the department. If this is not enough, Mr Sirisuwan and conservationists are prepared to go to the Administrative Court asking for injunction.

In my opinion, the FAD’s role in the Khao Yala issue is dismal by any standards.

Rock mining activities have been known to be a major enemy to archaeological heritage sites and the threat has been recognised by even the pro-business law. For instance, the Mineral Act 2017 prohibits mining activity within an archaelogical heritage site. The Land Act 1992 also protects heritage, by banning mining activities within two kilometres of an archaeological heritage site.

The FAD should know better.

Indeed, this is not the first case of a rock quarry being established near a heritage-listed cave. About five years ago, the abbot at Phra Bodisatava Cave temple in Kaeng Koy district in Saraburi province sued the Department Primary Industries and Mines (DPIM) and asked it to cancel concessions to rock miners who operated in a national forest reserve close to a cave with an historic bas relief dated back 1,000 years. The area is registered as an archaelogical heritage site.

At that time, the FAD helped to protect this Saraburi historical site. The department sent archeologists to inspect and study the impact of mining activities to historic sites, and offered advice on how to limit the impact.

The department still has the time to realise its designated role which is to protect the national heritage. I did not mean the agency must protect every ancient item at any cost, while resisting development. But at least, it needs to follow technical knowledge and include opinion from all sides, especially local communities and conservationists.

The Khao Yala case again proves that the Ancient Monuments, Antiques, Objects of Art and National Museum Act 1961 (revised in 1992) needs to be revised again. Indeed, critics have called for an amendment of this section to give more power to locals.

One much quoted opinion comes from the academic study of Bandit Theunglarp, who is a senior judge. In his study on law enforcement problems relating to the aforementioned act, he said the department has ignored local community rights.

Instead, he suggested the formation of a national committee tasked with registration of historical and acheological sites, with FAD chief as secretary.

There should be sub-panels that will coordinate with local communities and conservationists, listening to their viewpoints on preservation of local historical sites.

Of course, this recommendation might not be music to the ears of the FAD and its chief. But the way FAD has handled the Khao Yala site makes this suggestion sound even more convincing.

Anchalee Kongrut

Editorial pages editor

Anchalee Kongrut is Bangkok Post's editorial pages editor.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT