New Mandala

10 responses so far ↓

• 1 Colum Graham // Aug 22, 2008 at 10:43 pm

  Couldn’t the RFD relocation of persons in the name of conservation and the DLD relocation of persons in relation to the khor jhor kor programme be easily conflated?

• 2 Leif Jonsson // Aug 23, 2008 at 5:34 am

  The case is interesting and nicely provocative. First the “Karen Consensus” and now this, you (Andrew) are really out to endear yourself to the academics at Chiangmai University!
  As one of the people cited on the specter of evictions, I do agree, the cases are few and far between. But on the other hand, my former research area in Phayao has been slated for eviction since 1992, with the pressure going up and down several times since. There, I think, the lack of actual evictions has partly to do with long term official residence by Mien highlanders (meaning “phaya” and “thao” titles to their leaders from the king of Nan as of the 1890s, a “kamnan” title in the 1940s, and a string of kamnan since, all Mien, it has had an OBT office since that became the norm). Because of this long term formal integration, most everyone in the subdistrict has been able to get citizenship — the kamnan went with people to the District Office and vouched for their Thai credentials — that is pretty rare. Also, as you cite me on, the government agencies (Forestry vs. Highways) have radically opposed agendas in the countryside.
  The 1980s were quite different from the 1990s, and you would have more cases to play with (and less to poke fun at) if you had looked at Kamphengphet Province. A good number of Mien were encouraged to settle there in order to carve away at available forest for CPT camps. They were told they could grow corn and such, but had to buy the seeds themselves. Some of the people came from refugee camps (meaning they had been in Laos before 1973, 1975, and so on), others came from elsewhere in Thailand. Once the CPT units left the jungle in ‘80 or ‘82, the Thai authorities started kicking farmers out of that forest, in a full scale eviction of settlements. I came across about 100 people in a temporary holding camp (under armed guard) in Nan town in 1990, who had been evicted, at gunpoint and onto trucks) from one of the forest settlements of KPhPhet, and have learned of many more cases since. As far as I know, the only published mention of this is in a book by Prasit Leepreecha and colleagues, Mien, the changing life of highlanders in the city (roughly) (2547).
  The specter of evictions is one way to draw up an image of communities under threat by the state. It is one way of assuming that there is a state and that it is coherent (and bad) — this is in part a mimetic construction that adds in lending coherence to its opposite, rural communities. On the ground, so to speak, what passes for the state is often less coherent.
  The conciliatory tone at the end of the article (”by working together with state agencies fo foster a more collaborative and realistic regime of images…”) is fine, and might be applied to interactions with CMU academics, too.

• 3 jonfernquest // Aug 23, 2008 at 5:04 pm

  “what passes for the state is often less coherent”

  How can you know? There seem to be two issues here: 1. actually knowing fully what is going on (transparency), 2. whether what goes on, goes on according to a system (coherent action). Matthew McDaniel’s work clearly indicated that though the situation in the hinterlands lacked transparency, it clearly did not lack coherent and purposeful action on the part of elites and other powerful actors.

  Who are some of these powerful actors. Large tracts of land registered in the middle of forestry lands, would provide a big hint, but this is a realm of investigative journalism where either you can’t tread because the info is not public, or perhaps one dares not treat.

  The fact that sustained political action is a force that reduces evictions over time, I don’t believe was adequately stressed. If people are watching critically and there are no evictions, this does not prove their worries are illegitimate. There well could be if they weren’t critically watching. Thus the utility of seemingly crazy people like Sonthi, Chamlong Sri Muang, and (sorry Matthew) Matthew McDaniel.

• 4 jonfernquest // Aug 23, 2008 at 5:47 pm

  An adequate reporting and monitoring system for hilltribe evictions from the land that they farm, does not exist, I believe. Even in this day of internet and RSS feeds where this information could quickly spread everywhere. Though it is another matter whether anyone would dare report such things.

  Relevant example: a sniper once attempted to take out a powerful headman of an Akha village on the approach Maesai. Everyone close to the headman who could have been responsible was executed. This was drug related, but gives you a good idea of the fundamental lack of justice and due process in the hinterlands.

  Recent evictions were, in fact, reported to me by someone, with great frustration that he could do nothing about them. So, depsite theoretical ruminations and healthy skepticism, I’d be willing to wager it’s still a problem.

• 5 Leif Jonsson // Aug 24, 2008 at 9:55 am

  The article is squarely in an empiricist tradition of exposing some erroneous ideas (the truth will set us all free, eh?). The specter of evictions is a stark image that calls attention to livelihood insecurity in these hinterland areas. This insecurity (marginality, whatever to call it) is anchored to a string of images that you do not mention. One is thammachat, that couples forests and Buddhism. Another is Thai, which assumes that ethnic minority peoples are recent (and unlawful) immigrants on Thai soil. These concepts intersect in many ways and are above criticism, it seems.
  It is fine to pick at the representations of (environmental) problems in northern Thailand, but ideally there should also be some new ways of describing people and places — beyond the Karen consensus that Andrew made famous, the Bangkok Post had something of an Akha consensus (colorful and interesting people who are in danger of losing their culture and we should all feel sad for as long as it takes to read the feature article in the weekend section), and there is also the Hmong consensus of the authorities (that they are illegals from Laos, and the only way is to truck them over to the Lao border).
  Thai movies have a notorious record for how they depict ethnic minority highlanders. While they don’t aim for ethnographic value about chao-khao, they offer an interesting and sometimes troubling ethnographic glimpse of (subconscious?) Thai imagery. I am assuming that the CMU academics are in part trying to fight that regime of images (illegals, dying traditionalists, babbling idiots, forest destroyers, all rolled into one) with the specter of evictions and other notions. I’d give them the benefit of the doubt. I look forward to more interesting ethnographic work about the region, on farmers as much as on the “collaborative and realistic regime of images” that will emerge from extended interactions with state agencies in Thailand.

• 6 Colum Graham // Aug 24, 2008 at 4:21 pm

  I’d confused the khor jor kor programme’s purpose — I thought the possibility of eviction by that policy was due to impoverishment resulting from the lack of connection to the state rather than afforestation.

  I’m more interested and more confused after reading it awake. I don’t see how a realistic regime of images is going to occur when images are always subjective and dependent on the perception of the viewer. I think any regime of images is going to continue to foster a schism because the image is only ever going to have been painted (adjudicated) by someone on one particular side of the fence in Thailand, and not by someone on either side. At least with your argument, there is time for the fostering of mutual respect to take place. Although, how long should it be that one lives without options?

• 7 jonfernquest // Aug 24, 2008 at 9:04 pm

  “The review of the literature in this article suggests, however, that very few evictions have in fact taken place since the early 1980s…”

  Rely on a “review of the literature” ?

  I am sitting in an internet cafe about 30-40 kilometres away from some of the best article referees for statements like this:

  The people who live in villages in the hills bounded by Fang-Maesai-Chiang Rai.

  As a historian would say, the necessary primary sources probably don’t exist to write this history. As a computer programmer would say: garbage in garbage out.

  Has anyone adequately documented evictions? I doubt it. First, the facts, then post-modernist discourse analysis.

• 8 Andrew Walker and Nicholas Farrelly // Aug 25, 2008 at 10:16 am

  Leif, thanks for your thoughtful comments on our article. We appreciate your agreement on the basic point that when it comes to eviction “the cases are few and far between.” We also welcome your more critical points. At this stage we have a few quick responses:

  1. We are not suggesting that the “spectre of eviction” is just a product of academic and NGO discourse. We emphasise that state systems of land classification, state policy and statements by government officials have all contributed to it.

  2. Nor do we wish to deny that upland people in northern Thailand are often socially, economically, politically and culturally disadvantaged. But we are questioning the usefulness of the “spectre of eviction” in addressing this disadvantage.

  3. Your points about discourses of ethnicity and nature are well made. In Forest Guardians, Forest Destroyers, Forsyth and Walker explore the political implications of these discourses at some length (as have other scholars). In this paper we had a more specific purpose.

  Jon seems convinced that there must be many cases of eviction, whatever the evidence. Once he has read the article he will see that we do document a series of cases of eviction, including the high profile cases from Chiang Rai province that he seems to be referring to. If any New Mandala readers are aware of other cases of eviction that have occurred in northern Thailand over the past 20 years, please post the details here. We would be vary happy to prepare a special post highlighting these cases.

• 9 Leif Jonsson // Aug 25, 2008 at 11:32 am

  This kind of material does not trigger the same excitement from your readers as do PAD, HMK, CPB, Thaksin, etc (if the number of comments per post is anything to go by). Too bad. My view of the spectre of evictions is that it draws up a particular image of the state (punitive, aggressive, anti-community) that sure is in need of some revision. What we need, along with critique, is some interesting ethnography that pushes the understanding of the region toward some greater complexity and thus makes some of our cliches untenable. I tried to argue this in my book: “To define communities are opposed to or as fundamentally distinct from the state would require a dismissal of the connections that constitute contemporary villages and the imagery that animates their self-presentation at festivals and their attempts to bargain for recognition and benefits” (146). Academics and NGO types are a part of the landscape, as are government officials of various ilk, Thai nationalism, and other sets of ideas and images that make it hard to draw clear lines between facts and rhetoric. So I hope you’ll keep at it (and keep the rest of us posted)!

• 10 Stephen // Jan 27, 2009 at 9:59 pm

  I recently spoke with an acquaintance who works in Mae Yao District of Chiang Rai province. He informed me that the Thai Forestry Department had already begun preparations for the establishment of a new conservation area in the region. The site will be called Mae Yao Conservation Area and is set to cover 400,000 rai of land along the Gok River of Mae Yao District. The funds for the project have reportedly been already granted to the Forestry Department and a local Forestry Department office already established. While the Forestry Department appears to have begun its preparations, the establishment of the conservation area has still not been officially announced. The acquaintance works with Mien, Karen, Akha and Lahu communities living in 17 villages situated in the proposed conservation area and believes that without strong and organized opposition by local communities the residents of these villages will face evictions should the proposed Mae Yao Conservation Area be established (or unless some agreeable form of community forest legislation is passed). Unfortunately, I cannot provide much more detail, but you may wish to follow up with the Mirror Art Foundation which also works in the area.

Leave a Comment