Civil Society and Governance:

The Case of Kok Hin Khao Land Rights Conflicts in Nam Phong District of

Khon Kaen-Thailand

by

Ratana Tosakul Boonmathya

Abstract

This paper is a report of an anthropological fieldwork on the civil society movements in northeastern Thailand. The case of Kok Hin Khao land rights conflicts in the district of Nam Phong of Khon Kaen province was thoroughly examined to understand the current dynamics of civil society in the Northeast. It is argued that the discrepancy between the government’s development rhetoric and what actually happened at the grassroots level has laid the ground for the emergence of contemporary civil society to protect its own interests. While the Thai state is responsible for initiating the concept of development, village discourses about the concept cannot be interpreted as reflecting unquestioned hegemony of a ruling elite. Development, thus, has become a political-cultural location that entails not only cooperation of villagers with state agencies, but also contestation of the authority of some of these agencies. The contestation over development meanings and practices is conducive to the establishment of grassroots civil society.

Introduction

Similar to many developing countries, Thailand has adopted modernization and the

growth model as its official development policy since its First National Development Plan in

1961. Modernization paradigm and the concept of the economic growth following Western

development model are dominant and form the basis of official Thai views of development.

In the Northeast of Thailand, also known as Isan in Thai, modernization began in the

reign of King Chulalongkorn of the Charkri dynasty through centralized bureaucratic-

administrative reform in 1892. Similar to many parts of the country, Isan was incorporated into

the Siamese Kingdom and subjected to the ruling power in Bangkok by the early 20th century.

Nonetheless, the process of regional incorporation was not without local resistance. According to

Tej Bunnag (1967), Murdoch (1974), and Keyes (1977), the Holy Men’s Rebellions occurred

throughout Isan to resist against the centralization of the Siamese government in Bangkok at the

turn of the 19th century.

The subsequent governments, especially during the Sarit administration further carried

out the modernizing process initiated in the reign of King Chulalongkorn. Thus, by the time the

first development plan was promulgated by the Thai government during the Sarit administration

in the 1960s, the foundations for reorienting Thai society toward modernity had already been laid

since early the 20th century. The Sarit government with military, technical, and financial

assistance from the US. government envisioned the need to bring about economic development

in Isan lest the livelihood problem continued to be a cause for rural unrest in the Isan countryside

and provided a good ground for the growing communist insurgency and perhaps even separatism

(Keyes 1967, Thak Chaloemtiarana 1979). Thus, a specific development plan for Isan from 1962-

66 was set up (The Committee on Development of the Northeast, NESDB 1961).

After four decades of economic development following modernization and the growth

model, villagers in Isan have experienced intricate rural transformations. The impact of

development at the village level is profound. Although many villagers express their admiration

for and want to emulate the modern lifestyle of the Bangkok elite, they feel a discrepancy

between official development rhetoric and activities and what they actually experience in their

lives. The discrepancy has laid the ground for the emergence of contemporary grassroots civil

society to participate in development planning and implementation locally and nationally.

This ethnographic report depicts the story of the Kok Hin Khao grassroots civil society.

Some villagers from four communities including Ban Duang, Ban Nong Han Jang, Ban Nong Ya

Rang Ka, and Ban Kham Bong who have their land in the Kok Hin Khao area in the district of

Nam Phong in Khon Kaen province have protested against the establishment of the industrial

estate since 1993. The case of Kok Hin Khao land rights conflicts reflects the contestation over

development meanings and practices in contemporary Thai society. Development tensions and

needs to protect local interests have led to the emergence of civil society at the grassroots level.

Currently, the case of the Kok Hin Khao land rights conflict is suspended due to the current

financial crisis of the country. Some villagers who live on the Kok Hin Khao area were arrested

and their cases are currently put to court for trial. How these conflicts would be resolved have yet

to be seen.

2

Data collection for this report was conducted between 1994 and 1995 when I first did my

anthropological fieldwork with the Kok Hin Khao villagers for my doctoral dissertation 1 and

revisited the area in 1999 to make a follow-up on the movement of the Kok Hin Khao grassroots

civil society. 50 village informants (23 females and 27 males) in the Kok Hin Khao are were

interviewed. My two research assistants, Ms. Thongpon Polbutr and Mr. Thanat Saengthong,

who were with me alternately at different periods of time, and I received generous assistance

from the Phong River Conservation & Recovery Project (PRCR), an environmental NGO

working in the area while conducting our fieldwork.

The Case of Kok Hin Khao Land Rights Conflicts

“Development is to have industry for the prosperity of the country. I know, but I have nowhere else to go. I do not object to industry. But industry should not make people suffer and destroy their environment. Please tell the government not to take this land from farmers. We have tilled the land for years. We have developed the land and now the government wants to take it for industrial estate project” (Mother Nuan, 78, Interview on October 11, 1994).

Historical Background

Kok Hin Khao is an undulating upland area, located along the Friendship Highway 37-40

kilometers north of Khon Kaen in the district of Nam Phong. The total land area is 2,661 rai

(1,064.4 acre)2 (Office of Industry, Khon Kaen 1995). To the southwest of Kok Hin Khao lies the

Huai Sia Ten stream, which flows down to the Nam Phong river. There are 171 families

comprised of about 850 people from four communities near Kok Hin Khao farming on this land

(Chatmalee Ratanasiriprom 1994). During my fieldwork, there were four families living on the

Kok Hin Khao while the rest commuted daily to their farms. Mostly, villagers grow cassava and

sugar cane on the upland area. In the lowlands, villagers plant watermelon, green beans,

soybeans, and some marketable vegetables.

The story of Kok Hin Khao began on April 8, 1989 when the Chatichai government

agreed to support the proposal of the Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand (IEAT) with respect

to the establishment of industrial estates in Khon Kaen and other provinces in Isan to promote

1Please see Ratana Boonmathya. 1997. Contested Concepts of Development in Rural Northeastern Thailand. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, U.S.A.2One acre is equivalent to 2.5 rai.

3

regional industrialization (Office of Industry, Khon Kaen 1995). In Khon Kaen, the IEAT had

called for applications from private enterprises to seek joint venture with the government in this

project, but none of them were able to acquire a large piece of land for the project3.

During the Chuan administration in 1993, the project was resurrected. The meeting

between the government and the business sectors was held in Khon Kaen on May 14-15, 1993.

Upon the recommendation of Khon Kaen Industrial Council, they came to the conclusion that

about 1,064.4 acre of the Kok Hin Khao area had high potential to be developed into an

industrial estate because the area is close to the Nam Phong river, Friendship Highway, and the

railway station. It is also an upland area and there is no need for landfill, which would cost a lot.

(Khon Kaen Province 1994).

The Bangkok Post on July 30, 1994 stated that according to the plan approved by the

Council of Economic Ministers in April 1994, the industrial estate would be built on 2,662 rai

(1,064.4 acre) in the Kok Hin Khao area. The estate is intended to be a center of trade and

industry in the upper Northeast. In a press interview, an older villager, 81 years old, said that he

had settled in Kok Hin Khao in 1957, 11 years prior to the declaration of a self-help settlement

scheme. He bought his land from a neighbor. He said the authority agrees to pay compensation

for agricultural harvests but refuses to pay for land compensation. This is strongly opposed by

villagers who initially wanted 30,000 baht ($1,200) per rai (0.4 acre) if they are to move.

However, after the long process of open protests, the majority of the Kok Hin Khao villagers

decided not to sell their land. Some villagers on the district of Nam Phong said they are afraid of

the environmental impact from industrial factories. Those who live close to the Kok Hin Khao

area are concerned about the environment problems such as air and water pollutions, which might

be caused by the industrial estate.

Land Ownership Rights Ambiguity

The land ownership rights over the Kok Hin Khao area are currently problematic and

controversial. While the Khon Kaen provincial administration claims that the land was public

under the supervision of the Nam Phong subdistrict, the Ubon Ratana Self-Help resettlement

scheme asserts that the land was under its supervision according to the Royal Decree of a Self-

Help resettlement scheme issued on October 14, 1985, which has a retrospective effect from

1964 onward (Khon Kaen Province 1995)4. Nonetheless, the district of Nam Phong admits that it

3Addendum to document or. kor # 0807.1/4958 dated September, 1995, issued by the IEAT.

4

has no official land title to certify the state-ownership rights and to demarcate the clear land

boundary of Kok Hin Khao area 5.

Likewise, villagers, who have farmed on the Kok Hin Khao and did not want to sacrifice

the land for the industrial estate project, affirm that their ancestors had settled in the area prior to

the declaration of the Ubon Ratana Self-Help resettlement in 1985 and even before the Nam

Phong sub-district declared the area to be public land in 19496. A leader of the Kok Hin Khao

villagers mentioned that at least two generations of villagers occupying land in Kok Hin Khao

were not informed by the local district authority that the land was public until 1993, when the

government wants this land for the industrial estate project. The district authority has recognized

the occupation of villagers on the Kok Hin Khao for years. Villagers pay land tax to the land

Department at the district office yearly. Many local government agencies, such as Agricultural

Extension Department and Land Development Department came to support them to develop their

agricultural production. Moreover, in 1954, the Nam Phong district office informed villagers who

have land on Kok Hin Khao to apply for land titles.

In addition, some Kok Hin Khao older villagers mentioned that old coconut trees one

finds there are good evidence to testify that there used to be a village settlement in this area, since

the coconut trees are usually not a native wild plant. They have to be grown by humans. The age

of these coconut trees can help estimate the time when people settled in the area.

With all this concrete evidence, most villagers were quite confident that they have rights

to the Kok Hin Khao area. They felt it was unfair to them when the local authority agreed to pay

compensation for only agricultural harvests, but refused to pay for land compensation.

The Rise of Grassroots Civil Society: The Kok Hin Khao Group 4Villagers who have lived in the resettlement areas can apply to be resettlement members, and must obtain the usufruct land rights starting from nor khor 1 to 3. Nor khor 3 will be issued to resettlement members who have farmed 5 years consecutively. Once obtaining the nor khor 3, the resettlement members can apply for nor sor 3 kor, a type of official title deeds from the Land Department. Each family in the resettlement areas cannot own more than 50 rai (20 acre). In practice, some villagers report that the process of issuing legal land ownership documents to villagers from both the Ubon Ratana Self-Help Resettlement and Land Department is very time-consuming, confusing, and in some cases involves bribery. Some villagers have been waiting for over 20 years, but have not yet received any proper legal land rights documents.5Document Khor.kor. # 0420/768 dated March 1, 1994, issued by the head district of Nam Phong to the supervisor of the Ubon Ratana Self-Help resettlement.6According to Chatmalee Ratanasiriprom (1994), in 1927, Mr. Pui and Mrs. Wan, husband and wife, led a few families from Ban Kiap Kham Sian in Ubon to resettle in the Kok Hin Khao area and established a village which was given name following their leader, Mr. Pui, as “Ban Noi Taa Pui.” The community expanded to 17-19 families. By 1952, because of several bandits, most villagers migrated out of the village to live in the neighboring communities .

5

Organizational Structure & Leadership

While the idea of using Kok Hin Khao for the industrial estate was applauded by the

provincial and district authorities and the private business sector in Khon Kaen, villagers in four

communities totaling 171 families who have tilled their land on the Kok Hin Khao for years were

extremely unhappy with the news. From 1993 on, the majority of Kok Hin Khao villagers have

protested against the government about the Kok Hin Khao industrial estate development policy.

The story of Kok Hin Khao was made known to most villagers in the area in 1993. After

hearing news about the Kok Hin Khao industrial estate on the radio on September 10, 1993, Loi7,

a male villager, went around to contact villagers in all four communities who have land on Kok

Hin Khao. They got together to discuss the Kok Hin Khao issue. After several meetings, they

realized that organizing themselves to make their voices heard was necessary. They, then,

organized themselves as the Kok Hin Khao villagers’ group to indicate and protect their interests,

and exercise their rights and obligations. Villagers from four communities that have land on the

Kok Hin Khao selected their representatives or coordinators to work together as a committee to

act on behalf of the Kok Hin Khao villagers. Each community has approximately 3-6

representatives in the Kok Hin Khao committee depending on the size of the community and the

number of villagers who have land in Kok Hin Khao. Currently, there are three representatives

from Ban Duang (all females), six from Ban Nong Ya Rang Ka (5 females and 1 male), six from

Ban Nong Han Jan (all males), and five from Ban Kham Bong (3 females and 2 males). Usually,

the committee members meet monthly to plan for Kok Hin Khao group activities. To gain public

support, the Kok Hin Khao group allies itself with some villagers’ organizations, some NGOs in

the area, some academics, the media, and the Assembly of the Poor at the national level.

During my fieldwork between 1994 and 1995, I came to know several male and female

key coordinators of Kok Hin Khao villagers. Among them was Nari, a village woman of 27

years old in 1995. She married Loi, a male villager who had completed vocational education at a

college. Nari was very well-spoken and courageous. During a few protests that I witnessed, she

could articulate her ideas very well when negotiating with officials and without showing any fear

to them. Nari played a key role in organizing Kok Hin Khao villagers. With her college

education, characteristics, and dedication, she was very helpful to the movement of the Kok Hin

Khao people with respect to preparing petitions, meeting with local and provincial authorities

7All villagers’names appeared in this report are pseudonyms as to protect their identities and confidentialities.

6

and contacting some local environmental NGOs and some groups of the media. Unfortunately,

when I revisited Kok Hin Khao in 1999, she had left Kok Hin Khao to live somewhere else due

to her family problems. Since 1998, she has not fully engaged in the movement of the Kok Hin

Khao group.

In addition to Nari, Kok Hin Khao villagers are quite fortunate to have some other key

coordinators who are still very active and committed although they did not have college

education. These people act as prime movers for Kok Hin Khao villagers in organizing meetings,

meeting with local, provincial, and national authorities, and draft plan and strategies for Kok Hin

Khao group. So far, there has been no serious management problem because the Kok Hin Khao

committee has employed participatory approach when working or making any group decision.

Also, they are transparent pertinent to financial arrangements. In addition, communications

between coordinators and members in each community flow effectively. Many Kok Hin Khao

villagers whom I interviewed agreed that they were informed of the Kok Hin Khao issue on time

and their coordinators were committed to act on their behalf and efficient in conducting

meetings, contacting them, or listening to their problems. So far, the committee has received high

support from its members.

The Dynamics of the Kok Hin Khao Group: Village Voices

During my stay in Ban Kham Bong, one of the four communities, Nari, her husband,

Loi, and her mother-in-law, Mae Yai Nuan frequently invited me and Thongpon, my research

assistant, to stay overnight or have meals at their home. It is Nari who introduced me to other

village leaders and to most villagers who have land in Kok Hin Khao. Many times I talked with

Nari, other village representatives, and other villagers about the case of Kok Hin Khao.

Occasionally, Nari showed me the complete record of their activities and petition letters from the

beginning of their protests. She said her husband and she helped keep the record of documents

related to the Kok Hin Khao issue. Nari realized that because most villagers did not have proper

land titles, they were being treated as “trespassers” in their own land. Thus, the written record

was very important evidence to support their struggles. I was amazed to see how well their

records were kept because usually many villagers did not concern with keeping written records.

Based on these documents and a group discussion by Nari, Loi, Mae Yai Nuan, and some Kok

Hin Khao leaders conducted in the afternoon of November 12, 1995, I shall present the reaction

of the majority of Kok Hin Khao villagers to the industrial estate development as follows.

7

Ratana: How did most Kok Hin Khao villagers learn about the industrial development project

and

how did they react?

Nari: [Flipping over the record, Nari began to narrate the story of Kok Hin Khao].

On September 10, 1993, my husband heard the news about the Kok Hin Khao industrial

estate on the radio. We also got the news about Kok Hin Khao from Thai Rath and Daily

News.8 He and I then went to request information from the head of the Nam Phong

district about positive and negative effects on those who have tilled land on Kok Hin

Khao, but we did not receive clear information. We then contacted Mr. Panya Sripanya,

our Nam Phong MP at the national level, for assistance, but nothing was seriously done.

My husband began to coordinate villagers who have land on Kok Hin Khao in four

villages to discuss and exchange ideas on the coming industrial estate.

Loi: I encouraged my wife to take the coordinating role for Kok Hin Khao villagers instead of

me because I work with a government agency. Initially, we all had no clear idea what to

do, as we did not have enough information from the related government agencies. We

then decided to ask for assistance from Mr. Suwit Khunkitti, another national MP in our

constituency, who at that time was a Deputy Minister of Justice. The response from

Suwit to us was that ‘I have no authority. I cannot help you out. Go and look for others

who can help you.’ I, as well as most of Kok Hin Khao villagers, were very disappointed

with his remark.

Nari: On October 4, 1993, I and some village leaders from the four communities went to

submit a petition letter dated October 3, 1993 to the governor of Khon Kaen requesting

that he send concerned government agencies and officials to clarify to Kok Hin Khao

villagers the industrial estate project on Kok Hin Khao.

Pho Rieng: At that time, most Kok Hin Khao villagers had no idea what would happen on Kok

Hin Khao. But the provincial office did not reply to our letters nor did not explain

anything

to us. Later, the head of the Nam Phong district and his deputy, Bamrung Chantaban,

came to hold a meeting with Kok Hin Khao villagers. The head of the district motivated

people to support the industrial estate, as it was an indicator of progress. He mentioned

8These two daily newspapers are popular among local people as they like the sensational news frequently represented by these two.

8

that Western countries were developed because they were industrialized. Our country

will progress if we have industry. Thus, we all should support the industrial estate project

on Kok Hin Khao. Then the district authority asked people to sign their names for

attending the meeting. But all of us did not trust them. Mae Thip said jokingly that

anybody who wanted to sign his or her name might have nothing left except his

loincloth. No one signed his or her name for fear that it would be like the case of Ban

Huai Sua Ten where villagers were misled into signing their names, and those signatures

were later claimed by the local district authority to indicate consent from villagers to

sacrifice their land for a school building.

Nari: Following the meeting with the district officers, we heard the news on the radio that Mr.

Thinnawat Marukaphitak, a Bangkok MP and Chair of the Committee for the

Environment at the Parliament, would come to visit Khon Kaen University. Thus, on

October 22, 1993 Pho Rieng and I prepared a petition to Thinnawat asking for justice in

the case of Kok Hin Khao and for reconsideration of the environmental problems as a

consequence of the industrial estate in Nam Phong district. Thinnawat sent a copy of the

villagers’ letter to Naronglert Chumpol, a national MP from the Chat Thai party, and told

him to take care of the people in his constituency.

Pho Rieng: Naronglert then arranged for the Kok Hin Khao leaders from four communities and

Nari to meet with him. He told us to inform him of our plan related to the Kok Hin Khao

project prior to any action. He was humorous. He said he did not want anybody to

criticize him for failing to take care of his people.

Mae Yai Nuan: Naronglert was good though. He came to help suffering farmers here. But I don’t

know why these days we never see him around. Maybe he did not gain anything from

helping us, so he decided to fade away.

Nari: On 16-17 November, 1993, Naronglert made an appointment with Kok Hin Khao

villagers to send our representatives (2 females and 12 males) to present our case to the

Committee for the Environment together with the governor of Khon Kaen and other

concerned personnel and agencies in the Parliament in Bangkok. These village

representatives received some financial support from two MPs: 1,000 baht from Panya

Sripanya, and 3,000 baht from Naronglert Chumpol for their traveling costs. Following

the meeting, Thinnawat came to visit the area.9

9The final report from the Committee for the Environment attached to document # 3510/2537 dated June 10, 1994 to the Prime Minister, Chuan Leekpai, suggests that villagers were not against the industrial estate project, but wanted the government agencies concerned to pay their land compensation fairly. In

9

Ratana: How did villagers chose their representatives?

Pho Rieng: Kok Hin Khao villagers in each village selected their own representatives to work

together on behalf of the Kok Hin Khao group.

Nari: On June 26, 1994, the governor of Khon Kaen appointed a working committee to

consider compensation for crops and buildings of villagers in the Kok Hin Khao area.10

On July 7, 1994, the working committee, which was chaired by the head of the Nam

Phong district, held a meeting without inviting village representatives to attend. The

committee was comprised of mainly local district officers, related sub-district heads and

village headmen, and some local politicians.

Pho Rieng: I was very angry on that day. All 42 villagers went to the meeting and asked to

attend, but were denied permission by the Nam Phong district deputy. Some of us then

said if the government really wanted to take away our land, the government should pay

land compensation, which should be about 30,000-50,000 baht per rai. But the

committee refused to pay land compensation, as the land was owned by the state, and

accused us of being trespassers” on public land. I just hate this word “trespassers”.

Nari: Most village representatives then requested to meet the governor of Khon Kaen. 11 The

governor was not interested in villagers’ problems and anxiety. He said they were

“trespassers” into state-owned land, and they should actually be arrested. Because of the

mercy of the authorities, the “trespassers” have not yet been arrested. The governor told

villagers to cooperate with government policy and demand nothing, as the villagers were

law-breakers. Villagers should behave politely and pitifully in order that the working

committee would have sympathy for them and give them something.12

addition, several measures on environmental solutions in the district of Nam Phong were recommended (Committee For the Environment 1994).10Order of Khon Kaen province # 2600/2537 dated June 28, 1994, signed by Mr. Kawee Subhadira, the governor of Khon Kaen at that time (Khon Kaen Province 1994b).11I had a chance to interview Mr. Kawee Subhadhira on November 23, 1995, the then governor, regarding this issue. He argued that these Kok Hin Khao villagers broke the law. They have encroached upon state-owned land for a long time, but out of sympathy, the local and provincial authorities did not evict them. Only about 10 of the total 137 families [this number is different from the total number provided by the Kok Hin Khao group] that have farmed on Kok Hin Khao had no other farm land. The rest were well-to-do farmers. The provincial authority planned to help these ten families by giving them new plots of land for compensation. According to Mr. Kawee, the real problem in Kok Hin Khao was created by the family that originally came from Udorn [he referred to Mae Yai Nuan’s family]. They were not Khon Kaen people, yet they occupied a large piece of public land on Kok Hin Khao.12See also a flyer, reporting the result from the working committee on July 7, 1994, meeting, distributed by Members of Loving Justice and Environment Group, Khon Kaen , July 8, 1994.

10

Loi: Don’t you know how much they agreed to pay us? Finally, the working committee

agreed to pay only for crops and buildings that already occurred on Kok Hin Khao. The

compensation rate was very low such as 50 satang ($0.02) for one papaya, and 50 baht

($2) for a clump of bamboo trees. We will get no land compensation, as the land is

owned by the state.

Mae Yai Nuan: I am very old. Where would I be if I were to move out of this land? How can I

start my new life? I don’t understand; if the government is sincere to help poor people,

why do they have to take away our land?

Nari: The working committee appointed the related district officers to survey land, crops, and

property of villagers quickly. On July 10, 1994, Pho Rieng on behalf of the group wrote

a petition letter to the Prime Minister, Chuan Leekpai requesting that the government

reconsider the plan for Kok Hin Khao industrial estate project, as it effects people’s lives

and environment. But we did not get any official response from the Prime Minister’s

Office.

On July 16, 1994, the district deputy organized a villagers’ meeting at Ban Kam

Bong to survey property on Kok Hin Khao. The district deputy insulted people by saying

that some villagers dared not show up at the meeting because they were afraid of

authority. That, he claimed, was because they broke the law; they encroached upon state-

owned land. Those who were not present to sign their names would get no compensation

at all.

Pho Rieng: This guy was awful. He also said that these villagers who bought public land on Kok

Hin Khao from others without having proper legal land ownership documents were very

stupid. He also stated that most Kok Hin Khao villagers did not listen when government

officials told them nicely, or else they seemed to prefer the use of violence as in the Sarit

Thanarat dictatorship period. The district deputy also said that he was not afraid of

people’s mobs, for he had already arranged a police commando to suppress villagers’

demonstrations. In addition, he said that the Ubon Ratana Self-Help resettlement had

already transferred the rights over Kok Hin Khao land to the IEAT. Thus, villagers had

no more rights on Kok Hin Khao. Most Kok Hin Khao villagers got very angry with the

way the district deputy looked down upon us and used impolite words to us. 13 Also

within the same day, the district deputy together with the district officers from the Land

13See the flyer from the Kok Hin Khao villagers protesting the district deputy, dated July 18 (Kok Hin Khao Villagers 1994e).

11

Department, village heads, and heads of the subdistricts, came to supervise the setting up

of the stone-hedge markers to demarcate the land boundary on Kok Hin Khao as public

land without consulting Kok Hin Khao villagers.

Naa Wad: About 200 villagers protested by pulling out the stone-hedge markers and returning

them to the district office of Nam Phong.14 This time we also carried the bone relics of

our ancestors, who entered Kok Hin Khao about 100 years ago, to protest in front of the

Nam Phong district office. We demanded that the industrial estate be canceled. In

addition, the local district officers should treat people with justice and respect otherwise

they should leave the area immediately. Most Kok Hin Khao villagers demanded that the

district deputy, Bamrung Chantaban, who threatened and treated us badly, be transferred

out of the area immediately. Lastly, we demanded that the local district office issue us

proper land titles.15 We were all happy when Bamrung Chantaban was transferred within

a week to another place and replaced with a new district deputy who is of Lao origin. We

called this new one, Palat Lae (literally the dark complexion district deputy).

Loi: I remembered that by July of last year, Aacaan Koson (Dr. Koson Srisang) from Khon

Kaen University came to conduct his research about the pollution of the Nam Phong

river in our area. Kok Hin Khao villagers began to have contact with his research team.

Also, villagers came into contact with a grassroots NGO in the region named, Pong

River Conservation & Recovery Project (PRCR).

Ratana : What are your opinions about the coming of the PRCR Project and the research team?

Mae Yai Nuan: Pho Yai Lao (most Kok Hin Khao villagers referred to Dr. Koson by his nick

name, which showed their intimacy to him) was a humorous guy and had sympathy for

the poor. Last year, he frequently stayed in our village and talked with Kok Hin Khao

farmers a lot. He collected our village histories, folk stories, old sayings and proverbs.

He used all these to remind us how our forebears had shown us the way to live in

harmony with humans and nature. He also encouraged the local mo lam troupe to sing

about the story of the Kok Hin Khao industrial development project and the pollution of

the Nam Phong river. He exchanged his ideas and protest techniques with the

representatives of Kok Hin Khao villagers. He encouraged us to contact several

concerned government agencies, NGOs, and the media to support our struggles. He also

suggested we organize a public hearing at the wat (the village temple). Although he used 14According to Nari’s record, this action was conducted on July 18, 1994.15See the flyer from Kok Hin Khao villagers on July 18, 1994, and also see Phu Chad Kan daily news on July 19, 1994, and Krung Thep Thurakit daily news on July 19, 1994.

12

to study in America, he was not at all arrogant. He could simply sit down on the ground

and talk with farmers, and he ate our simple tam-som (spicy green papaya salad- the most

common food of Isan-Lao villagers). It’s a pity his research work lasted only a year, and

since the mid of 1995 we hardly see him. Saneh, Yosh, and Trae (staff from the PRCR

project) have come to help us since 1994 and they have been very helpful to us. They

also understand our plight.

Nari: [Looking at her documents, Nari continued the story].

On July 21, 1994, Pho Rieng on behalf of the group sent a letter to the Land Department

at the district office requesting they issue land titles to villagers. Pho Yai Lao and the

PRCR Project staff helped organize the public hearing to testify who has rights to the

Kok Hin Khao area at the temple hall of Ban Nong Han Chang on July 29, 1994. About

500 villagers attended, along with some university professors, lawyers, and

representatives of NGOs and local government authorities. Some older villagers from

four villages were invited to testify on the history of village settlement in the Kok Hin

Khao area.16 They also brought the pictures, ashes, and bone relics of their forebears,

who entered Kok Hin Khao about 100 years ago, to attest. These older villagers insisted

that they came to occupy the land area on Kok Hin Khao prior to the registration of this

land as a public place for the common use of citizens by the local district office in 1949.

Loi: On the public hearing day about 50-60 villagers, supported by the kamnan and some

village officials of the Nam Phong subdistrict and some local district middlemen,

demonstrated in front of the village temple in Ban Nong Han Chang in support of the

industrial estate development project. They accused the Kok Hin Khao villagers of being

obstacles to progress and development of the district of Nam Phong.

Nari: On August 11, 1994, about 12 representatives of villagers went to the Parliament in

Bangkok to send petition letters to the Prime Minister and the Director of the Department

of Public Welfare. On August 22, 1994, a supervisor of the Department of Public

Welfare Mr. Samrit Chantrarat came to meet with Kok Hin Khao villagers.

Pho Rieng: The district officers took him to a restaurant, so he came late for the villagers’

meeting and was also drunk. There was no further communication with villagers after his

visit.

16The history of the early village resettlement in Kok Hin Khao and Ban Noi Taa Pui, told by older villagers in four adjacent communities of Kok Hin Khao, was already discussed earlier.

13

Nari: On August 27, 1994, when the Vice-Chairman of the Parliament came to Khon Kaen

University, a few village representatives went to the University to send a petition letter to

him. He responded that he would pass the case to the concerned persons and agencies.

In September 1994, with the recommendations of the NGO and the

research team, about 15 representatives of villagers went to Bangkok to meet with related

officials and to send several petitions to various government agencies, such as the Office

of the Prime Minister, Ministry of Labor and Welfare, Ministry of Industry, Ministry of

Defense, Director of the Department of Welfare, and Director of the Police Department.

The NGO also assisted in contacting some press to report on villagers’ protests and

demonstrations. Most Kok Hin Khao villagers want to make their protests known to the

public, as they need the public support and unity.

On September 14, 1994, Pho Rieng sent a letter on behalf of Kok Hin Khao

villagers rejecting the resolution of the Nam Phong sub-district to transfer Kok Hin Khao

to the IEAT for setting up the industrial estate project. On October 2, 1994 he sent a

petition letter to the Rector of Khon Kaen University asking for support in our struggle

to gain land rights over Kok Hin Khao. On October 3, 1994, the Kok Hin Khao group

sent another petition to the Prime Minister.

Pho Rieng: About 500 villagers in the Ubon Ratana Self-Help resettlement scheme

demonstrated in front of the resettlement office demanding the office speed up the

process

of issuing proper land rights documents to them.17 Most of us complained that we have

applied to be members of the Self-Help resettlement scheme since 1960s, but the

majority have not yet received nor kor 3. We were frustrated with the bureaucratic red-

tape of the office. In the end, a committee comprised of village and related government

agencies and the PRCR Project staff was set up to accelerate the process of issuing land

titles.

Ratana : Were most villagers able to obtain land documents after the setting up of the

committee?

Pho Rieng: Yes, some villagers outside the Kok Hin Khao area got the nor kor 3. But because the

land rights over the Kok Hin Khao area is still controversial, so, the concerned

government agencies would not want to issue any land documents to us.

17This incident took place on April 25, 1995, according to Nari’s record.

14

Nari: On May 23, 1995, some representatives of villagers submitted letters protesting the

industrial estate project at the IEAT and Board of Investment (BOI) in Bangkok, and

demanded the Kok Hin Khao project be canceled.18 On May 30, 1995, Pho Rieng and

other representatives sent a letter to the Royal Legislation Office requesting that they

clarify which government agency has rights to the Kok Hin Khao area.19 The response

from the Office dated August 22, 1995, concludes that the Royal Decree of Self-Help

resettlement scheme in 1968 and the resolution of the Nam Phong sub-district do not

withdraw the land status as a public land for common use of citizens supervised by the

district office. To change the public land status, the concerned government agency (the

district office) has to propose to the Land Department to cancel its current status

according to land law item 8, and must indicate which agency is responsible for the land

use and on to what purposes.20

Pho Rieng: I signed another petition (October 11, 1995) on behalf of the group to request that

the Royal Legislation Office reexamine the case, as the district office did not have the

official land title to certify its ownership rights. Most of us were not sure if the

registration paper in 1949, (as was claimed by the district office to be the proof of its

rights over Kok Hin Khao) was an original document or a recent falsified document, for

it has no attachment indicating boundary demarcation.21

Nari: On November 8-9, 1995, 40 village representatives with the support of the PRCR Project

went to Bangkok again to submit a petition letter to the Committee for Justice and

Human Rights. We also went to seek legal assistance from representatives of the Society

for Rights and Freedom of People. In addition, we went to the IEAT requesting

cancellation of the Kok Hin Khao project. The result of the meeting was that the IEAT

would set up a working committee to investigate the land issue on Kok Hin Khao again

within the next two weeks. Also, the village representatives went to see the deputy

minister of the Minister of Industry who promised to visit villagers and see the area

himself on November 17, 1995.22

18See also Matichon on May 24, 1995, and Phu Chad Kan daily news on May 25, 1995.19See the letter dated May 26, 1995, signed by a village representative to the Legislation Office (Kok Hin Khao Villagers 1995o).20See the document nor. ror. # 0601/509 dated August 22, 1995, from the Legislation Office to the Department of Public Welfare (Legislation Office 1995a).21See the letter dated October 11, 1995, signed by a village representative to the Legislation Office (Kok Hin Khao Villagers 1995q).22Also interview with Mae Buaphan (49), another female village leader of Ban Kham Bong on November 11, 1995. In addition, see the summary report of the trip to Bangkok of villagers’ representatives from

15

Ratana: How did 40 villagers stay in Bangkok? How were all these meetings with different

NGOs and government agencies organized?

Naa Wad: We stayed at the TVF office in Bangkok. We brought our rice, some dried food, and

chili powder with us, and we cooked our own meals. The PRCR staff arranged the

accommodations at TVF and contacted several NGOs and government agencies with

whom we could meet and discuss our problems. The PRCR staff also helped us prepare

some points for discussion with government officials.

These village informants told me that they were used to presenting the Kok Hin Khao story,

since 1993, several journalists, many college students and researchers, and NGO staff had come

to discuss the case with them. I invited them all to have dinner at Nari’s house. It was the

courtesy of Phii Wan, Loi’s elder sister, to help prepare dinner for all of us while we were busy

talking. After dinner, Pho Rieng and Naa Wad left for home. As usual, Nari, her husband, her

mother-in-law, Thongpon, my research assistant, and I continued our talk until late at night. My

research assistant and I stayed overnight at Nari’s house. Nari invited us to witness their meeting

with the deputy minister of Industry, Mr. Anusorn Wongwan on November 17, 1995.

Meeting with the Deputy Minister of Industry

On November 17, 1995, Kok Hin Khao villagers were very excited. Many came to

Nari’s house to ask about detailed information of the meeting. Farmers who had farming trucks

gave a lift to those who walked to the meeting area. Several cloth protest posters were prepared

by some villagers and representatives of an NGO at Nari’s house a day prior to the meeting.

They were set up along the Friendship Highway nearby Kok Hin Khao area, stating:

“Stop becoming wealthy from the suffering farmers,”

“Industry should not trouble agriculture,”

“Stop confiscating land from farmers for industry,”

“We want land and not industry,”

“Stop ousting farmers for industry,”

“Industrial capitalists stop seizing land from farmers,” and

“Welcome Minister of Industry to our land.”

November 8-9, 1995 (Kok Hin Khao Villagers 1995r).

16

At about 9:30 a.m. I walked from Nari’s house to the meeting place, which is a simple thatched-

roof shelter built on the ground with no walls or doors. Villagers called this place “saa laa ruam

cai chao Kok Hin Khao” ( literally a shelter uniting the spirits of Kok Hin Khao villagers). Some

villagers explained to me that this shelter was a symbol of unity among Kok Hin Khao villagers

from the four communities. Most villagers had assisted each other in contributing the materials

and constructing the shelter.

There were not many villagers at the time I arrived. Nari said villagers were still working

in the fields and would arrive shortly after. Nari and other village representatives, mostly older

males, were very busy. A wealthy Kok Hin Khao farmer provided a microphone and loudspeaker

set for use in the meeting. Each of the village representatives took turns speaking with the

microphone in front of the village congregation. Representatives of the PRCR Project also came

to assist in organizing villagers and also took turns speaking. They were very articulate,

outspoken, and witty. They spoke from their hearts without any notes to tell the story of Kok Hin

Khao very clearly and persuasively. Until almost noon, about 70-80 villagers were at the scene.

The Khon Kaen police also came to observe the meeting and provided security to the deputy

minister, his team, the high-ranking officials, and everybody at the meeting.

While I was sitting with other villagers waiting for the coming of the Deputy Minister of

Industry in a large plastic tent, the new district deputy whom most villagers called Palat Lae

approached me. He was replacing Mr. Bamrung Chantaban who had been transferred to some

other place at the villagers’ request some time ago. He asked if I was a journalist and I told him

simply that I was here to witness and collect data about the Kok Hin Khao industrial

development project. He told me that the district office always wanted to bring progress and

development to the area. He himself was from Isan and was born in the district of Nam Phong.

He always wanted to see his area progress. However, some farmers opposed the industrial project

because they were selfish. In fact, they were “encroachers” upon state-owned land. He then

stopped talking to me and walked to Pho Yai Kham to grab the microphone from his hand. The

district deputy repeatedly said that he always supported Kok Hin Khao villagers to do the right

thing, as he himself was also from the Nam Phong district. Suddenly, an old lady sitting in the

front row stood up and rolled up her sarong a little above her knees.23 She then yelled at the

district deputy:

23The old lady explained to me later that the special significance of this action was to show villagers’ contempt and no respect to the cao-nai (bureaucrat) who was mistreated his own subjects.

17

“What kind of a master are you? You have no sympathy for poor villagers. Why do you

all from the district office gang up to take villagers’ land? Why are you pressing us so

hard? Go away from here. You have no rights to use our microphone.”

While Kok Hin Khao villagers held their meeting at their shelter, the local district authority and

the official subdistrict and village leaders organized another reception for the deputy minister at a

Chinese merchant’s cassava pellet ground about 1.5 kilometers away from the Kok Hin Khao

meeting area.

Kok Hin Khao villagers were worried as the deputy minister and his team would drive

past the meeting spot of the local district authority first. They were afraid that he and his team

would be misinformed of their situation by the local district authority and leaders. Thus, Nari

and other village representatives decided to send village women in two farmers’ trucks to

welcome the deputy minister in front of the meeting spot of the local authority and invite him to

come and meet with villagers who were actually suffering from the industrial estate project at the

Kok Hin Khao meeting place. Nari told me afterwards that they chose to send women to pick up

Mr. Anusorn because they knew that the police would feel hesitant to use force against women.

At noon, some 12-15 village women brought Mr. Anusorn Wongwan to the Kok Hin

Khao meeting place. Mae Buaphan, one of these village women, was very impressed with Mr.

Anusorn, who said that if most villagers walked from here to the Kok Hin Khao meeting place,

he would join them. So, he walked 1.5 kilometers with them. The governor of Khon Kaen was

very upset with this situation and warned the village leaders not to do this again as it was a

disgrace to Khon Kaen province and a very inappropriate manner to let the deputy minister walk

to their meeting place.

Pho Rieng, a male village leader, explained to the deputy minister and his team the

history of Kok Hin Khao and the villagers’ situation. He emphasized that villagers were always

willing to cooperate with state-led development policies and did not object to industry. They

believed, however, that it should be set up on a place where people welcomed it, such as at Ban

Siew Kok Klaang, where there was community land of about 2, 000 rai (800 acre) which

villagers there were willing to sacrifice for an industrial estate project. If the government wanted

to promote industry, they should select such an area. The majority of villagers in Kok Hin Khao

did not want to sacrifice their land, as it was their only property.

The deputy minister convinced villagers that if the land ownership rights conflicts over

Kok Hin Khao were not yet settled, there would be no construction in the area. After discussing

with the villagers’ representatives and the local district and provincial authorities in the meeting,

18

the deputy minister was taken to see the area. Villagers’ representatives showed the deputy

minister that Kok Hin Khao was not an empty land for cattle raising, but had been occupied and

farmed by villagers for at least two generations. The deputy minister later admitted that the land

was intensively used for farming and not degraded empty land, as was publicly reported by the

local authorities. Also, he suggested setting up a new committee comprised equally of

representatives from those who agree and disagree with this project and government officials

from various agencies in Khon Kaen and the IEAT to reinvestigate the case. If the committee

could not resettle the conflicts on Kok Hin Khao issue, then it seemed likely that the IEAT would

need to look for a new area for the project. Nonetheless, he hoped the Kok Hin Khao case could

be settled. The IEAT began the Kok Hin Khao project five years ago. They do not want to start

all over from zero again. Nari and other village representatives were not sure of the neutrality of

the new committee because the representatives from the government sector usually support

industrial estate projects.

Disunity among Villagers

Prior to my field work, I had a pre-conception that local resistance to the dominant power

and ideology is usually organized on the basis of class and / or ethnic conflicts. It is still possible

to view the Kok Hin Khao protests to the government in conventional class conflict terms when

taking into account that the state and capitalists are in different political-economic classes from

villagers of Kok Hin Khao, who are predominantly farmers and can be considered as a ‘class in

itself.’ Nonetheless, having immersed myself with the people’s protests at Kok Hin Khao during

my fieldwork, I realized that villagers in four communities, were not united, but were divided

across different economic classes depending on their interests. The Kok Hin Khao case suggests

that local resistance to state-led development ideology is not necessarily organized around the

issues of class or ethnic conflicts, but can be generated out of a shared economic interests of an

alliance of factions of villagers from different economic strata. In the case of Ban Kham Bong,

one of the four communities in Kok Hin Khao, I found at least three broad groups with different

interests:

1). The Kok Hin Khao group (58% of the total families) comprised of villagers who have

farm land on Kok Hin Khao, some of their relatives, and those who do not have farm land on

Kok Hin Khao, but have sympathy for and unity with the group or do not want industrial

factories. This group received support from an environmental NGO, the Pong River

19

Conservation & Recovery Project (PRCR), and Khon Kaen University research team led Dr.

Koson Srisang. However, after the end of the research work, the research team has gradually

withdrawn from the area since 1995. The Kok Hin Khao group has organized open protests to the

government since 1993. They are of the opinion that they do not object to industry, but industry

should not make villagers suffer. The government should promote the co-existence of agriculture

and industry concurrently. During my field work, there are two factions within this group: one is

the majority of Kok Hin Khao villagers who have organized open protests to the government and

do not want to sell their land, the other comprised of about 15-20 families who want to cooperate

with the local authority hoping that they would get land compensation from the government;

2). the local power group who strongly supports the industrial estate project, comprised

of most of the village officials, the kamnan (head of the sub-district who resides in Ban Kham

Bong, and some villagers (about 21% of the total families). This group allied itself with a few

local and national politicians, some local land speculators and government agencies at the district

and provincial levels. This group asserts that the Kok Hin Khao villagers are legally trespassers

to the state-owned land. They accuse the Kok Hin Khao group as being obstacle to progress and

prosperity of Isan regional development. During my fieldwork, the Kok Hin Khao group

sanctioned this group by not participating in any community ritual or development activities

organized by the village officials from this group; and

3). the final group, comprised of those who are non-partisan and do not want to get

involved directly with the land conflicts in Kok Hin Khao (21% of the total families). Mostly,

they are village migrants who come to visit the community from time to time and, thus, do not

catch up with what has been going on in the community in detail.

Most villagers in all these three broad groups are united across economic classes

regardless of sharing similar Lao ethnic origin and traditions. Some of them who are in conflict

do share the same kinship origin. Surprisingly, most villagers in the first and the second groups

are not strangers to each other, but enemies familiarly known.

Over the past years of protests to the government on the industrial estate project,

villagers of Kok Hin Khao, especially their leaders have been very depressed and exhausted from

meetings, planning responsibilities, and demonstrations. Most villagers have suffered severe

psychological and economic stress. They do not really have time to focus on their farming and

other job occupations. The majority of them are of the opinion that the government is concerned

more with the rich than with the welfare of rural poor villagers. It is the businessmen and the

commercial sector for whom the government cares about most. Actually, most of them would not

20

want to leave their homes and travel a long way to protest in Bangkok, but the situation forced

them to do so. For many villagers in the four communities, Kok Hin Khao is their only property.

Analyzing Strategies of the Kok Hin Khao Group

The Hegemony Is Never Complete: The Quest for Moral Authority

The majority of the Kok Hin Khao villagers are not in opposition to the government even

though both parties have conflicting interests. They only wanted the government to incorporate

their economic interests into the national interests by canceling the industrial estate project at

Kok Hin Khao and issuing them the proper land titles. The PRCR manager criticized the

government for focusing more on economic aspects and neglecting the social aspects of

development, such as the welfare of poor people and the negative impact of industry on the local

environment. The progress of the country, according to Nari and other PRCR staff, should not

aim only to increase economic growth and the welfare of urban capitalists, but should also

provide welfare and good livelihood, and protect the natural environment of villagers in the

countryside.

Some older villagers from the Kok Hin Khao group argued that a good leader should

possess moral integrity. The government, as the leader of the country, should bring welfare to

people and justice to all. Mae Yai On frequently said that the government today does not behave

in accordance with their traditional Thai-Lao culture called heet and khong,24 which stress moral

virtue of the rulers. Pho Yai Kham and Pho Rieng the two leaders of Kok Hin Khao villagers,

mentioned that the government nowadays wants to rip off farmers and is in favor of those who

are rich and influential. Both agreed that the ruling lords should provide protection, bring welfare

and have compassion to people, especially those who are poor and in a disadvantaged position

when compared to others. Mae Yai On said that peace can be created in Kok Hin Khao area if

phu yai or phu pok khrong (here she referred to the rulers) and phu noi (here she referred to

villagers) behave according to the traditional heet and khong.

Mae Yai On and Pho Rieng said that the relationship between the state and villagers

should be one of mutual reciprocity, of patron and clients (cf. Scott 1972). Most rural villagers

have engaged in food production and wage labor for the local, national, and international

24Among many Isan-Lao villagers whom I interviewed, heet is understood as traditions and khong as the traditional law.

21

markets. Also, they pay tax to the government. In return, the government should provide them

welfare and protection. The government is like their patron, or parents, whereas they are clients

or children. Pho Rieng stated that most villagers are expecting the government to play the role of

the kindhearted patron.

These traditional forms of patron-client relationships and reciprocity are well discussed

in the moral economy of the subsistence ethics of peasants by Scott (1976). He argues that patron

and client ties are a form of social insurance among Southeast Asian peasants which represents a

broad range of social and moral distance. The patron is by definition, “a man who is in a position

to help his clients.” (1976:27) Once the state (a patron) takes from peasants (its clients) more

than it should give to guarantee the basic livelihood of peasants, then it is likely that peasant

protests would occur. The moral economists conclude that peasants in pre-industrialized societies

are socially and economically less precarious than those in capitalist societies. It is peasant

village communities that ensure the primary collective welfare. The transformation of peasant

societies as a consequence of the impact of colonialism, the commercialization of agriculture, and

the formation of the central states is detrimental to their collective welfare. In other words, this

approach assumes that under pre-capitalist institutions, the economic behavior of traditional elite

and peasants leads to more moral outcomes with respect to peasant welfare than under the social

arrangements and institutions of modern capitalism. The change in welfare is due to changes in

the village institutions (e.g., the village and the patron-client relationships).

In addition, to understand the ideological contestation of the historical bloc organized

around cross-class alliances, I find Gramsci’s hegemony and resistance model useful. According

to Gramsci (1971), a class is not unitary, but internally differentiated. Classes are cross-cut by

conflicting interests, historically segmented, and fragmented in the actual historical formation.

Thus, an alliance of cross-classes or historical bloc (a collectivity of class factions who ally for

specific economic, political and ideological reasons) has to be produced and created through

specific common economic, political, and ideological practices.

An alliance of a faction of villagers from different economic classes is subject to change

depending on economic, political, and ideological reasons. As a consequence, the hegemony is

varied according to the formation of a historical bloc at a particular time, space, and event. It is

the process of coordination of the interests of a dominant group with the general interests of other

groups and of the state as a whole, that constitutes “hegemony” of a particular historical bloc.

Gramsci argues that hegemony is not complete or fixed, but constantly contested by different

factions of cross-class alliances.

22

Based on Gramscian ideas of hegemony and resistance, open protests in Kok Hin Khao

against the government could be considered resistance to the dominant power. The Kok Hin

Khao group has formed an alliance of a cross class which shares a common economic interest: to

fight for their land in Kok Hin Khao. The nature of their resistance does not aim to overthrow the

existing dominant power and ideology, but to challenge the dominant power to incorporate their

needs and aspirations into the dominant development ideology.

Deconstructing Strategies

The majority of Kok Hin Khao villagers have used open protests to challenge state-led

development policies. To summarize, the protest activities of these villagers over the past years

included organizing rallies and demonstrations in front of the government offices, holding

meetings and sending petition letters to various concerned government and non-government

agencies and personnel, organizing a public hearing, setting cloth protest posters, returning the

stone-hedge markers to the district office, demanding the immediate transfer of the district

deputy out of the area, and seeking alliances with other social groups that have been protesting to

the government on similar issues, and from the media, NGOs, and university academics. Since,

the IEAT has a tendency to slow down the Kok Hin Khao industrial estate project currently, the

Kok Hin Khao group plans to shift their focus to community development projects to empower

their members and organization economically.

After many years of engaging in open protests, some Kok Hin Khao leaders (Pho Rieng,

Phii Maa, and Naa Wad) mentioned that they have more courage to speak up and negotiate with

government officials. They are more willing to support and cooperate with other villagers who

face the same destiny, for instance, joining the local environmental protection campaign in the

area. They are alert and like to obtain information via newspaper, television, and radio much

more than before. Also, they have learnt about the insincerity of some district and provincial

officers to them. In addition, the majority of Kok Hin Khao villagers have learnt about the

insincerity and real faces of a few of their local politicians. They realize that these MPs do not

represent them and channel their problems to the power center in the Parliament in Bangkok, but

they are the ones who turn out to be enemies intimately known to most villagers of Kok Hin

Khao.

In my opinion, the prominent protest strategy of most Kok Hin Khao village leaders is to

deconstruct official development meanings. By doing this, these village leaders attempt to

23

deconstruct the myth of the official pluralism, that emphasizes democracy and justice for all

citizens. Development is thus a location for ideological struggles by all parties concerned. In the

following, I shall compare some examples of the official and local discourses of development to

see how a village leader attempts to unmask the rhetoric of official development discourses. An

exemplar is shown in the following.

Official Perspectives

During the meeting with the deputy minister of industry on November 17, 1995, at the

Kok Hin Khao meeting shelter, the governor of Khon Kaen province explains the meaning of

progress

to Kok Hin Khao villagers as follows:

“Our country needs to have progress and development. The government sets up this

project in order to bring progress to the area. We want villagers to have more income.

When there are factories in the area, commercial trading will be prosperous. But if you

do not want factories, but rather to remain planting sugar cane and cassava instead, we

cannot do anything. I just want you to think carefully and wisely. You have occupied

Kok Hin Khao for a long time illegally, but the local authority did not warn, expel, or

arrest you because they have mercy and sympathy for you. This is the nature of

kharatchakan (civil servants) from all divisions. We always have the same vision: to

have mercy on people. We want people to be happy and prosperous. We never want to

do anything to trouble people. If villagers feel that the project will create a negative

impact for you, then we need to talk again. Whatever happens, you should consult with

kharatchakan in your area, and do not let other outside people influence your thought

[here he refers to NGOs]. They are not one of you. I want to hear from real villagers, and

not representatives from other organizations.

I want you to think of the long-run. Udorn province also wants the project

because they see the benefit of industries in the local area. In the beginning of the

project, there should be some problems, but in the long-run it is really worthwhile to

you. Let’s look at the Korat case. I was a district head of the Muang district when they

began to build Suranaree University. Initially, cassava farmers, who had to be evacuated

from the land area, objected to and protested against the construction. Now they returned

to say thank you to me for bringing khwam caroen to them and their area. They have

24

more job opportunities and, of course, better income. This is just an example. I think we

should consider the matter with a long-term vision and perspective. If we have the

industrial estate project, then we can transform Kok Hin Khao into a city instead of being

a degraded land area. We should set up a new committee to reinvestigate this case with

representatives from all parties concerned. If villagers continue to protest, the IEAT will

not establish the project here. But if you think that in the next 5 to 10 years, this project

will bring tremendous khwam caroen to you, your children and the area, then you should

tell the deputy minister to set up the project right away. The government does everything

for the benefit of the people. We always listen to people’s opinions. Don’t look at

kharatchakan as your opposition party.” (Public speech at the Kok Hin Khao Shelter on

November 17, 1995)

Village Perspectives

In responding to the governor’s speech, Pho Rieng questions the official meaning of

khwam caroen as follows:

“We are very honored that the deputy minister and his team came to visit us in the area

to see the real situation with their own eyes and to listen to our problems. I would like to

suggest that before implementing any industrial estate project, the government should

consult with local people in the area first. Villagers should have sufficient information

about the impact of the industrial estate project on their lives and their local environment.

We should have access to different sources of information, not just from those who

promote the project. For example, we went to see villagers at the industrial estate in

Lamphun province.25 They have suffered from the project. They are not in good health

now. How would the government take care of its own people? How would the

government prevent the negative impact from industrial factories? We are not sure if the

industrial project will make our lives better or kill us. We are also not sure if all of us

will be accepted to work in factories. Most of us finished only the fourth grade and have

no special work skills. Many of us are old. When we work on a farm, everybody in our

families no matter whether young or old, and men or women can help work on the farm

25The action research team led by Dr. Koson Srisang and the Pong River Conservation & Recovery Project, a grass-roots environmental NGO in the Northeast, occasionally organized meetings, training seminars and study trips for Kok Hin Khao villagers to discuss and visit other villagers in many different areas that are in the process of fighting to defend their interests and local natural resources.

25

together. When industrial factories come, I don’t think that factories will generate work

employment for most of us. Only a handful of us who have high education and special

skills will be employed. The majority will be jobless and become poorer. Is this the

development policy of the government, to see the majority getting poorer? How does the

government make sure that they can control industrial factories to abide by the

environmental law? Look at a clear example, the Phoenix paper-making company in our

area throws bad water and chemical waste into the Nam Phong river and people have

suffered from the poor quality of the Phong river until these days. The Industrial Office

in Khon Kaen cannot do anything to solve this problem, which is a little over 10 years

old now.

The government talks about bringing khwam caroen and development to people.

But what does khwam caroen mean if it derives from the disaster of farmers, who form

the majority of people. Khwam caroen should also include the welfare of poor farmers,

and not only industrial capitalists. The government should have more consideration to

help the poor, not the rich who are already prosperous and wealthy.

Kok Hin Khao is our land. Our forebears came before the local district

government registered the land as public land. We want this land for our lives and for our

children. I beg you to have mercy and sympathy for poor people. The government has

supported the rich for the whole three decades of development. Would it be possible to

care for and listen to the problems of the poor? We beg the government to cancel the

project at Kok Hin Khao and issue us the land titles on our land. We demand our rights

to live and to survive from the government. These are the basic rights that any

government should provide to its citizens. Villagers of Ban Siew Kok Klaang would like

to have the industrial estate project on their community land because they hope that the

project will increase the price of their land adjacent to the project. Please cancel the

project at Kok Hin Khao, and take the community land of Ban Siew Kok Klaang

instead.” (Public speech on November 17, 1995)

The deconstructionist techniques of most Kok Hin Khao village leaders are to question the

rhetoric of official development discourses, highlight the different meanings, take up some

residual meanings, and reinterpret them to serve their interests (cf. Williams 1977). These village

leaders begin to question the meanings of progress and development, for example, whose welfare

the government refers to when talking about the goal of development, and why it is always the

rural agricultural sector that has to sacrifice for the economic growth of the country, which is

26

equivalent to the growth of the industry and commercial sector and not the rural agricultural

sector. Interestingly, while some government officials repeatedly accused most Kok Hin Khao

villagers of “trespassing” on the state-owned land, many Kok Hin Khao villagers turn the same

term to the government by saying that their forebears came to this land before the Nam Phong

district office registered the land as public in 1949. Also, all of them have occupied Kok Hin

Khao land for over 10 years without any notice from the government. While the government

looks at the impact of development at national and regional levels, many Kok Hin Khao villagers

tend to focus more on the local level. Most of them want their voices to be heard and their needs

to be incorporated within the dominant development strategies. Most villagers look at

development and progress in relation to the improvement of their economic livelihood and their

local environment in the process of the country’s development.

Balancing Power within the Government Agencies

From a long process of protests against the industrial estate project at Kok Hin Khao,

most village leaders realize that various government agencies are not all united. The Department

of Public Welfare has taken side with villagers of Kok Hin Khao whereas the district and

provincial offices are for the industrial estate project. Even though university academics are

bureaucrats, some of them share different views from the dominant development ideology and

have sympathy for the Kok Hin Khao villagers. Balancing conflicting power and different

interests within the government agencies and personnel proves to be another prominent strategy

used by most Kok Hin Khao village leaders in their protests. They attempt to seek their allies

within and outside the bureaucratic system to support their struggles. As Pho Yai Chansri (53), a

wealthy farmer and a Kok Hin Khao village leader, notes:

“Nai (literally masters or civil servants) are different. We need to wait and see. Some

have sympathy for us, others treat us with no respect, as if we are their enemies. We send

petitions to various agencies to see how each of them responds to us. By doing this we

have learned a lot about who and which agencies are our allies. We need to find friends

to support our struggles. The more the public knows about our problems, the better

position we gain. The provincial government would not dare to take our land if many

people from different organizations support us. We went to see different government

people in various levels to explain our problems. Some came to assist villagers in the

beginning, such as Naronglert, our MP, and then disappeared. But others remain our

27

friends and assist us until now. We need to find more allies from the government

agencies and officers to support us. Our struggle depends on the situation day by day. I

don’t know when it will stop. Maybe never. We will fight until we die. We will not

sacrifice our land for industry.” (Interview on October 12, 1995)

The idea of a village leader as shown above is similar to what Landsberger (1974) explains that

the weakening power of the dominant bloc as a result of its internal different interests and

conflicts among various bureaucratic personnel and agencies is a complementary factor for the

emergence of villagers’ resistance.

Alliances with Others: the Construction of Civil Society 26

The coming of the Pong River Conservation & Recovery Project (PRCR) and an action-

oriented research team led by Dr. Koson Srisang in 1994 proved to be very helpful to the protest

movement of the majority of villagers at Kok Hin Khao. Psychologically, most villagers feel that

they have moral support from university professors and NGO staff who are more or less from the

same socio-economic status as their opponents.27Contact with the research team and the PRCR

made most of the Kok Hin Khao villagers realize that it was very important to make their

protests known and to get public attention and support.

Their allies have provided them with organizational strategies through meetings,

discussions, and study trips, such as visiting farmers who fight against saline mining in the

Northeast and villagers in the industrial estate in Lamphun province. The PRCR and the research

team also connect the movement of Kok Hin Khao villagers to other people’s organizations that

have been campaigning against the authorities on similar issues, such as the Nam Phong River

Environmental Preservation group led by Mr. Phan Chabuanoi, a village headman in the district

of Nam Phong, the Nam Nao Villagers’ Organization, and the Assembly of the Poor. Today, the

Kok Hin Khao case is part of the Forests and Land Problems proposed to the government to be

solved by the Assembly of the Poor.

26Girling (1984) discusses the term “civil society” based on the Gramscian concept as institutions and associations operating at an intermediate level between the economic structure, on the one hand, and the state apparatus, on the other. Such institutions remarkably include press, labor unions, farmers’ organizations, school and universities, courts of law, and political parties.27Nari, other village leaders, and the majority of Kok Hin Khao villagers developed trust with me very quickly based on their relationship with my research assistant and this perception. Most of the Kok Hin Khao villagers related to me as one of their allies according to my previous background of working with an NGO in the Northeast and my current position as a university professor. They expected me to have unity with them as Dr. Koson had done and to write about their struggles to gain public support.

28

In addition, the PRCR links the Kok Hin Khao group with other agencies, such as the

Lawyer Council of Thailand and some groups of the media, to empower people’s organization

and struggle. Currently, Mr. Banchong, a member of the National Council of Lawyers who was

also from the locality has volunteered to help them pertinent to legal matters.

From interviews with two PRCR staff,28 they reflect that rural villagers are generally in a

disadvantaged position because state development policies are in favor of the commercial and

industrial sector. Many local politicians do not represent people, but their own business factions.

Those who are power-holders via state-led development policies and market mechanisms exploit

most rural villagers. Some local district and provincial officials, local politicians and merchants

share different interests from most villagers and tend to cooperate with each other in exploiting

the latter. Thus, most rural villagers need allies to support their struggle to defend their interests.

The roles of outsiders are to support and empower the villagers’ movement, but not to solve the

problems or do the job for them. NGOs in general play the organizing and facilitating role to the

people’s organizations for an initial period until people can run their organizations by

themselves.

In addition, the manager of the PRCR project asserts that the people’s organization today

is much stronger than in the past, as the general political atmosphere is more democratic and

receptive to the participation of people in the political process. Also, there are currently some

progressive personnel in radio, television, and print media who have played a crucial role in

supplying analytical information that opens up people’s attitudes. Unlike in the past, many

villagers today dare to question the local and national authorities and express their opinions.

Nonetheless, the manager views the role of university students today as less politically active

than the students and activists in the 1970s. He is of the opinion that in the long-run, the

academic circle, such as the university institution, should take over the role of the NGO in

supporting the growth of civil society because NGOs in general are limited by their economic

resources and staff. The university and intellectuals should play educative, informative, and

networking roles to empower people’s organizations.29

Villagers’ organizations ally themselves with NGOs, some scholars, and some groups of

the media. Their open protests against the local and national authorities to demand their basic

economic livelihood rights in Thailand have been on the rise during the past five years. In my

opinion, this phenomenon reflects the popular will to have a say in the process of local and 28Interviews with Mr. Akanit Pongphai on November 11, 1995, and Ms.Yuphawadee Pathano on November 22, 1995.29Interview with Mr. Saneh Wichaiwong on November 22, 1995.

29

national political and economic development, which is the result of rapid economic change,

increasing social differentiation and political development. This phenomenon is a continuous

process of the construction of civil society in Thailand, which began to assert itself in 1973 when

the authoritarian military rule was ousted by popular demonstrations in Bangkok led by

university students.

According to Girling (1984), the rise of civil society creates social action that affects

both a need for the state to maintain its dominant power over its subordinates and political rivals,

and an increase in popular participation in the process of the political economic development of

the country. In the case of Thailand, Girling (1984) argues that the most desirable solution for the

Thai political economic dilemma is to advocate social democracy that would require strong

mass-based political parties effectively representing the majority of the rural and urban

population.

Many Kok Hin Khao villagers share different views related to the presence of the PRCR

Project in their area. Most Kok Hin Khao village leaders agree that the coming of the PRCR

Project is positive to their protests against the industrial estate project. In the beginning, they

were suspicious of the coming of NGOs to support their protests because they were not sure what

their hidden motives were. They were not certain if these people were communists. However,

after about a year of working together, most village leaders developed acquaintances and trust

with the PRCR staff and agreed that they were sincere to help Kok Hin Khao villagers. 30 Pho Yai

Chan, a village leader, mentioned that even though these NGO staff were supportive to Kok Hin

Khao villagers, many times the discussions between both parties were just to motivate most Kok

Hin Khao villagers to follow plans that were already drafted by the NGO staff.31 Mae Yai On said

jokingly that NGO staff earned their living without doing any work, but rather just talking with

villagers and attending several meetings all day long.32

The kamnan and many village officials were certainly suspicious of the PRCR staff.

Most of them shared a similar view with the local district authority that these NGO personnel

were the “third hand” to instigate villagers in Kok Hin Khao to protest against the local and

national authorities. Without the support from NGOs, the villagers’ protest movement against the

industrial development project may not be strengthened.

30Interviews with Pho Rieng, Pho Yai Kham, Phii Maa, Mae Buaphan, and Naa Wad on October 11, 1995. 31Interview on October 12, 1995.32Interview on November 11, 1995.

30

Village Leadership

Wolf (1966), Migdal (1974) and Landsberger (1974) have provided insights into the

nature of peasant protests. They argue that the material economic strain derived from the

exploitative relations of production between the peasantry and the state, the local landlords, and

the local merchants and usurers usually provide a necessary cause for the emergence of peasant

protests. Furthermore, Migdal (1974) and Landsberger (1974) assert that the degree to which

revolutionary and charismatic leadership appears, with an organizational framework and ideas

capable of absorbing peasants and expanding power of the peasant allies, are very important to

foster peasant protests.

In the case of Kok Hin Khao, there is no single village leader, but the leading group is

composed of representatives from four villages where Nari and other village representatives (and

some NGO workers) played a prominent representative role for the majority of Kok Hin Khao

villagers. During my fieldwork between 1994 and 1995, Nari who was a villager and

simultaneously an NGO staff, played the most crucial coordinating and facilitating role for the

movement of the Kok Hin Khao villagers behind the scene, whereas Pho Rieng assumed the role

of Chair of the group when signing a petition letter or contacting agencies on their behalf. Pho

Rieng is well respected by villagers and he is currently well known to the public, for he has given

a lot of press interviews.

Even though Nari is a young women, she receives a high respect from most Kok Hin

Khao villagers because of her “cultural capital” properties and her own ability and dedication. As

mentioned earlier, Nari has a high education when compared with other villagers. She was a

former college student. She is a daughter of a former junior-ranking civil servant and her husband

is also a junior-ranking civil servant. Thus, she has some social prestige in the villagers’ eyes. In

addition, Nari is an articulate, outspoken, and courageous woman. She is very confident when

questioning and negotiating with government officials. Nari is the key person (with the support

of the PRCR project staff) to prepare petition letters, contact local politicians, some groups of the

media, and some environmental NGOs, and take some village representatives to meet with the

representatives of the government in various offices.

Over the first past two years of villagers’ protests, Nari played a key role in organizing

and coordinating villagers for rallies and demonstrations. She also contacted various government

agencies to send petition letters on behalf of the group. Most Kok Hin Khao villagers felt that

Nari had been very helpful to the movement, for they needed somebody who had education and

31

could negotiate with the local authority on their behalf intelligently. Nari seemed to be an ideal

person for them.

Most Kok Hin Khao leaders are charismatic in the sense that they are well-spoken and

articulate. They inspire people not only by their public speech, but their dedication to work for

the group. They sacrifice their time and efforts endlessly to meet with the government authorities

and discuss the problems with those agencies concerned without showing fear. All these leaders

are motivated to protest against the government because they also have land in Kok Hin Khao.

Kok Hin Khao villagers are fortunate to have a handful of charismatic leaders who play a leading

and complementary role to each other. The majority of Kok Hin Khao villagers help contribute

some financial support for their leaders to do business on their behalf.

Village Women: Key of the Protests

In addition to Nari, I observed that village women were in the front line of several rallies

and demonstrations. For example, during November 8-9, 1995, forty villagers from four villages

sent petitions to various government and non-government agencies in Bangkok. They also rallied

in front of the Parliament. There were only 4 male villagers and the rest were females. Similarly,

on November 17, 1995, it was village women who were sent to bring the Deputy Minister of

Industry to the Kok Hin Khao meeting shelter. A female village leader Mae Buaphan (47)

analyzes the role of women in protests as follows:

“During rallies or demonstrations, it is better to have women in the front line because

police will not want to beat women directly. Women are seen as weak and men as strong,

especially the police men. Thus, the police would not want to lose the image of

masculinity protecting femininity. We use our weakness to be the strength of our

struggle. If we let village men to be in the front line, men like to show off their power

and lose their temper and fight with each other easily, which might destroy the whole

strategic plan. Also, women have different styles of talking and persuasion. We can be

very sweet, embellish, docile, and cool but sometimes can be very militant, serious and

strong. Women approach boss (civil servants) better than men. We know how to look

very pitiful before men. We can make men die with our femininity. Women have more

tolerance than men do. In the critical period, women are more militant than men are. I

remember during our rally one time, Mae Thip, a village woman rushed out to block the

32

car of a high-ranking official to enter Kok Hin Khao area without being afraid of getting

killed. I salute her courageous spirit.

During the rally in front of the Parliament, I was the one who spoke on the

microphone. Women are weak because we have no opportunity to express our strength

and we are made to think that we are weak. I gained my confidence from selling things.

Before I opened my store, I was very shy and quiet. Having experience in petty-trading

and going to Khon Kaen very often to buy products for the store, I came to know many

people and learned how to deal with different people. In the Kok Hin Khao group, both

men and women encourage each other to express their opinions and to speak up with

their different views. I think women use their weak images to be the strength in the Kok

Hin Khao struggle.” (Interview on November 11, 1995)

Adding to this, I think the Isan-Lao women are very much attached to their family’s land because

traditionally land is inherited through the female line. Thus, are very active in the fight for their

land.

Since Nari had left the Kok Hin Khao group, Phii Maa, another village woman leader,

replaced her role. Currently, Phii Maa plays an important leadership role of the group.

The Current Situation

Currently, it can be said that the Kok Hin Khao grassroots civil society has retained

partial success in the sense that they can delay the process of establishing the industrial estate in

their area through various strategies mentioned earlier. Disunity among them proved to be a

major obstacle to weaken their bargaining power.

The story of Kok Hin Khao land rights conflicts has not yet come to an end. Currently,

four villagers who live on the Kok Hin Khao area were arrested and their cases are put to court

for trial. The Kok Hin Khao villagers contributed some fund to help them and went to attend the

court hearing to give them morale support. After a long period of struggles, the Kok Hin Khao

villagers are under economic and psychological stress. Currently, they no longer have any central

fund of the group left, for they did not receive large budget from their community fellows. Thus,

at the moment, not all of them can go to the court to give morale support to their friends, but

only some representatives are present. Those who go to attend the court hearing will have to pay

their own expenses, such as transportation fees and meals.

33

Following the current financial crisis of the country, the Kok Hin Khao industrial estate

project has been suspended for a while. The IEAT officials told representatives of the Kok Hin

Khao villagers who came to discuss with them in Bangkok that if the problem of land ownership

rights at Kok Hin Khao has not yet been resolved, the IEAT would not want to establish the

industrial estate in Kok Hin Khao.

Nonetheless, at the district level, the Nam Phong Tambon Authority Organization (TAO)

would not want to cancel the Kok Hin Khao industrial estate project. They organized village

scouts and some local villagers to stage demonstrations against the Kok Hin Khao group and has

demanded the government to speed up the process of establishing the industrial estate at Kok Hin

Khao. Also, in September 1999, upon the request of the Nam Phong TAO, the Land Department

at Nam Phong district sent some officials to demarcate the land at Kok Hin Khao. The Kok Hin

Khao villagers then joined together again to protest against their coming. Thus, the officials

could not do anything and went away.

Knowing that the TAO plays a key role in initiating the Kok Hin Khao industrial estate

project, the Kok Hin Khao group attempted to have more control in the TAO. In the recent TAO

election at Nam Phong sub-district, the Kok Hin Khao group sent their candidates to contest and

they could win 8 seats out of 16 in the TAO. The Kok Hin Khao committee hopes that they

would have more current information on the movement of their opposition when they have

representatives in the TAO.

Since the Kok Hin Khao estate development project has been suspended for a while and

they do not have to deal with organizing protests, some Kok Hin Khao committee members

propose to shift their focus to economic development and leadership & organizational

management training. There is a tendency that the group is willing to learn and adjust the

organization to be more effective in dealing with the Kok Hin Khao issue and community

development projects.

34

Epilogue

Thailand has a long experience with centralized bureaucratic administration. In the 1960s

and the 1970s (with the exception of the period 1973-76), the Thai state monopolized both

institutions and discourses associated with development and modernity33. Since the 1980s, civil

society outside the government structure began to grow through the emergence of NGOs and

grassroots community organizations in both rural and urban areas to assert their rights and make

their voices heard.

Thus far I have demonstrated that the conflicting interests over land ownership rights in

the Kok Hin Khao area between the majority of the Kok Hin Khao villagers and the government

shows how development messages and meanings of the Thai state are being contested by

villagers. This circumstance has laid the ground for the emergence of the Kok Hin Khao

grassroots civil society.

The majority of Kok Hin Khao villagers are not in opposition to the government even

though both parties have conflicting interests. They only want the government to incorporate

their economic interests into the national interests by canceling the project at Kok Hin Khao and

issuing them the proper land titles.

From participant observation during their open protests, I found that leaders of the Kok

Hin Khao group have applied the deconstructing strategy to unmask the official rhetoric on

development discourses, which I believe, is the most prominent strategy. In addition, they have

attempted to seek alliances outside their community boundary, such as officials from different

government departments, some NGOs, other villagers’ organizations, some academics, and the

media to support their struggles.

As the impact of development and modernity is so intricate and goes far beyond the

village boundary, many villagers today find themselves in competition with the commercial

sector and some government agencies for local natural resources. Conflicts over the use and

control of local natural resources, such as land, water, and forests between local communities,

various government agencies, and urban industries are rising. Local natural resources, which

once were supervised by local communities as local common property, were gradually transferred

to be under the tight control of the Thai state and urban capitalists in the names of development,

progress, and law. Tensions as a result of conflicting development interests have contributed to

33 Although the hegemonic reach of the Thai state is always extensive, it never completes, especially pertinent to the media and the business.

35

the rise of grassroots civil society. Village cultural constructions of development and the rise of

civil society have emerged to provide a critique of state development strategies and to propose

development alternatives that would enable many villagers to gain a better share of the fruit of

development.

------------------------------------

36