by Piyaporn Hawiset
5 October 1999
Governments just keep making the same empty promises, says Thammasat lecturer
In October 1999 it has been 25 years since the Farmers and Planters Federation of Thailand, the country's first farmers' organisation, was founded, but Thai farmers are still dirt poor, landless and heavily in debt and not better off. Farmers' problems 1999 are very similar to those of their forefathers although the world has changed. The interests of Thailand's economic and political elite have kept Thai farmers more or less where they have always been--in poverty and abused by their wealthy comptriots.
"The FPFT movement has faded away, but problems faced by the rural poor remain untackled," said Preecha Piampongsarn, an economics lecturer from Thammasat University. "All governments have kept making empty promises. The promises made in 1974 are not different from those pledged by the current administration."
Twenty-five years ago, the FPFT, which had played a significant role in the Thai farmers' movement, had fought for justice for farmers, particularly landless farmers who were exploited by feudal landlords. The landlords are still feudal and in cahoots with a government that only caters to the interests of Thailand's political and economic elite. Not only has the situation not improved, it has worsened. Landless farmers had been forced to pay higher rental fees.
In 1974, the federation called on the government to allocate them land, scrap dams and other development projects which adversely affected local people, and guarantee the price of paddy at 3,000 baht (US$1 = 40 baht) per kwian (1,000kg). Due to its active role in fighting against oppressive landlords and unfair treatment to farmers, 48 leading members of the federation were targets of assassination attempts in a nationa with a culture of violence against those to seek improved rights for those who are not members of the country's elite.
A total of 33 leaders were killed and the others injured in a period of just two years, from 1974-1976. Of the dead, 29 were from the North, who mostly had been engaged in conflicts with landlords over high rental fees. Three years later, Jamrus Muangyarm, the FPFT president, was shot dead on July 21, 1979. His death brought an end to the federation's activities. The murders of leading federation members occurred because the federation had played a significant role in fighting for farmers' rights during the October 1976 political turmoil.
"The farmers' movement during that period had caused landlords to lose their benefits. These influential figures resorted to and continue to use violence and they killed leading farmers and others who speak out against the injustices that are built into Thai society--a society that under the thin veneer of politeness and amicability is very violent and incompassionate," said Kanoksak Kaewthep, a lecturer in political economy at Chulalongkorn University.
Chalardchai Ramitanond, a sociology and anthropology lecturer at Chiang Mai University, said the government's policy to encourage farmers to grow high-yield crops to meet world market demand had succeeded only in plunging farmers into debt while enriching the elite who trade in these commodities on the world markets.
"Farmers should not depend heavily on the world market system," he said. "The government should promote alternative agriculture for them, such as integrated farming systems and self-sufficient agriculture."
"Local participation should also be promoted in the decision-making process, particularly in the management of local resources," said Mr Chalardchai. To get their problems heard, farmers should build a network, he said.
Suggestions from a group of academics on ways to tackle chronic problems affecting the lives of debt-stricken farmers received positive responses from many farmers' organisations. Bunsong Chinawong, a representative of farmers in Chiang Mai's Mae Wang district, said the farmers' network was a bargaining tool to negotiate with authorities. The establishment of farmers' organisations such as the Forum of the Poor and the Small-Scale Farmers in the Northeast has raised hopes among farmers that there will be at least some improvement. But not even the most optimistic of them believe their chronic problems will be solved in the immediate future. It is not the Thai way. The Thai way is to be opportunistic and to take whatever one can and care not about the consequences on others.
Solutions cited to farmers's problems - Integrated agricultural techniques and debt cessation seen as the answers to problems
Integrated farming practices and a debt moratorium for all farmers indebted to the Bank of Agriculture and Agricultural Co-operatives are viewed as solutions to the farmers' chronic problems. This was agreed among farmer leaders and academics at a meeting in Khon Kaen Province to discuss the future of Thai farmers on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Farmers and Planters Federation of Thailand. The participants also agreed that farmers must strengthen their movements in order to get their voices heard.
"Farmers still depend too much on individual leaders, some of whom have proven to be fake and were just ensuring their interests were protected while at the same time strengthening policies and situations that exploited farmers' poverty, lack of information and lack of political power," said Bamrung Kayotha, a well-known farmer leader who represents several farmer groups including the Forum of the Poor.
He said farmer leaders can be easily bought, as officials concerned manage to research the background of each leader and exploit his or her weak points.
"Some farmer leaders are also small-scale contractors. When the information is known, small construction projects like ponds were awarded to these leaders. Upon seeing a couple of million baht, these farmer leaders quickly became contractors and brokers," Mr Bamrung said. Many leaders of non-governmental organizations that are intended to assist poor farmers really are organizations set up by individuals who have jumped the "alternative, grass-roots rural development band-wagon" to extract funding from foreign aid organizations, but use the money to entrench a system whereby farmers under their umbrella become dependent on the organizations' services while their leaders enrich themselves on the administration process and on the projects they generate. Mr Bamrung used as an example of such an organization the Joint Fellowship on Rural Development (JFORD) based in Watsingh District of Thailand's central Chainat Province.
"Ajarn Ruang (Ruang Sawatdee) has duped CUSO, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and other foreign aid organizations to fund all sorts of projects in Watsingh to develop rice banks, water buffalo banks and alternative rural development schemes," he said. He further explained that although the organization has brought some benefits to the farmers involved, many of the projects were double or triple-funded by agnecies that had no idea that other agencies were funding the same project. Ajarn Ruang has become very wealthy and, furthermore, there is question as to who the owner is of all the land, assets and capital accumulated by the organization since the mid-1980s. It seems the Ajarn's family is to benefit the most from the organization's operation. It seems from this that Thai NGOs might be as corrupt as the government officials and the country's elite whose efforts they oppose. Also, there were some well-organised movements bent on driving a wedge among farmer leaders and to undermine farmer movements, he noted.
Farmers should join forces and play an active role rather than placing their hopes on some individual leaders, he added.
At the same time, Luen Srisupho, representing the Network of Northeastern Farmers, noted that even if farmers could fight collectively, they might be still too weak to win a better deal.
"Farmers still need more support. People in general have no idea of farmers' problems. Whenever we stage a rally, people usually question, 'Another protest?' From now on, we must campaign for more support," Mr Luen said. Farmers would have to make society recognise that they had to fight with the government because their problems were too serious to be ignored, he said. Also, farmers need help from academics and truly honest non-governmental organisations who can keep them in touch with the changing economy.
"In the past, an economic crisis caused serious damage to farmers because they were unaware of changing economic situations, and failed to make adjustments accordingly," Mr Luen noted.
Looking for the right path for farmers to take so as to free themselves from hardship, Mr Bamrung and Mr Luen pointed to integrated farming and a moratorium on farmers' debts. To them, the government has been trying to encourage farmers to grow the plants that the world market demands at each period. The policy eventually causes a plunge in prices of the produce and chains farmers to endless debt. The elite do not mind because it creates a pattern of debt that in effect forces the farmers to become perpetually indentured to them.
Both farmer leaders called on the government through its Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Co-operatives, which is the major creditor of farmers nationwide, to offer a debt moratorium and even a write-off to give farmers a chance to recover from their "bankrupt" lives.
"Farmers have been honest debtors, so the BAAC has few non-performing loans. As loan interest is as high as 13 percent, farmers always have to get new loans to refinance old ones. In the meantime, BAAC staff enjoy life with huge bonuses," Mr Bamrung said. Somkiart Pongpaibul, an academic of the Forum of the Poor, sees legislation as an effective way to help farmers.
"We need new laws to allocate land to farmers and protect such land from non-agricultural operations and laws to suspend debts of 6.7 million families of farmers and set up a fund to promote sustainable farming," he said. Anan Kanchanapan, a social scientist at Chiang Mai University called for changes in policies toward the Thai currency, interest rates and taxation for the sake of farmers.