With the aim of developing the country, strengthening the agricultural and industrial sectors and providing sources of income to rural people, centralised policy has been a mainstay of Thai governments since the 1960s.

Centralisation, however, has not been an unqualified success. The policies that the centralised government dictates from Bangkok have been put into place in rural areas without the participation of local people. Whether these policies involve the promotion of monocrop systems, industrial estates -- or even irrigation systems -- they have had a close impact on the lives and futures of people not consulted beforehand.

In addition to generating income, the policies have also had an impact on quality of life, education and religious practices, to such an extent that in many cases people who have followed government directives now find they cannot survive.

Deuramae Daramae (Poh Jih), 55, of Narathiwat's Bacho District, for example, used to have a natural rubber farm on which he also planted edible plants and vegetables. Not only did he earn an income from selling the rubber, he also had the food he grew.

When government officials asked him to join the Rubber Organisation, he agreed, replacing his natural rubber trees with a new high-yield species. But he was not allowed to grow any other plants, not even vegetables. All his land had to be devoted to rubber.

The government has been promoting its rubber monocrop policy since the 1960s, encouraging -- demanding, rather -- that farmers grow one species of rubber tree and forego their traditional mixed crops.

Over the years, the productivity of Poh Jih's plantation has continued to increase, as have international rubber prices. In spite of the increased income, however, Poh Jih found there still wasn't enough money to cover his family's daily expenses because the rubber couldn't be harvested during the rainy season, which in this area is as long as six months.

''The problem is that we depend on the market completely. We have to buy every staple, especially food. In the past, we survived without money because we raised our own food on the farm. But not now, because we're following a one-crop system,'' he said.

The government may have instituted a single crop policy, but not a single-policy policy. Rural people seldom deal with only one centralised policy. Instead, they face a barrage of policies, amidst economic crisis and limited natural resources.

In 1983, after Lamphun farmers watched their debts pile up from growing a rice monocrop, the government introduced a new policy promoting provincial industrial estate development. This policy drove up land prices, which were high enough already, to encourage the Lamphun farmers to sell most of their land.

The alternative of selling the land, paying off the debts and working in the industrial estates was attractive. Most of the villagers between 18 and 30 years old in Makhuajae Sub-District started working in factories.

Within 10 years, however, the workers, facing chemical hazards in the factories, began returning to their villages, where there was nothing to do except take out loans to survive. Those who still had some land considered farming again.

Another problem was waiting for them. The Mae Kuang Irrigation project was being constructed in the area. The farmers could no longer receive water from the former natural waterways that ran from the mountains.

''We then thought we could use water from irrigation canals, but it's not easy. The thousands of rai that were sold to land speculators are now keeping us from diverting water from the canal to our farm land,'' Bamrung Wongwarn, a Makhuajae villager, said.

At times villagers face not only a barrage of policies but a barrage of authorities, each with its own pet policies. The centralised system tends to find another line for the villagers to follow. Officials who present them with the options, however, tend to be very optimistic and do not cover the limitations or pitfalls of the project.

The Agriculture Ministry persuaded residents of more than 10 villages in Surat Thai's Bandon Bay to start shrimp farms after their rice cultivation was harmed by the incursion of salt water from the construction of Chiewlarn Dam. Loans were offered through the Bank of Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC).

Shrimp farming, however, is a gamble. In one season, all the stock can die at one time. The shrimp farmers fell easily into a debt cycle.

Later, fish meal factories set up in the area, under the policy of the Industry Ministry, and some of the villagers, who were small-scale fishermen, invested in trawlers large enough to provide the factories with sizeable catches.

Without guidelines, the resulting fish shortage sent a number of fishermen into debt, according to Manas Pholcharoen, who owns a trawler.

In another case, in Phangkon District of Sakon Nakhon, when the Royal Irrigation Department built the Nam Oon Dam, the agency also convinced villagers to join the contract farming project of Phuan Kaset, Chia Tai and Atam companies. The companies offered seed, fertilizer, labour cost and a guaranteed price for selected crops.

''The companies refused to buy our crops, claiming they were low quality. So all we got was debt and now the companies are pressuring us to do the next crop for them,'' said Wanyen Pitsuwan, who raises chillis to export seeds to Taiwan.

Nor does education provide villagers with a suitable assessment tool. As has happened elsewhere, after a farmer's son in Mae Wang, a district in Chiang Mai, graduated from vocational school, he convinced his father to switch to a monocrop. As a result, the family ended up Bt30,000 in debt.

Even with the best of intentions, government policy may not have the results intended. The government, for example, ordered that every imam in every mosque throughout Thailand must be elected. As a consequence, the election system encouraged politicking that reduced the respect that traditionally went to the imam.

The role of religion in the community was considerably weakened, said Nukul Rattanadakul, an academic from the Prince of Songkla University (Phattani).

Rural people can and have demonstrated that they can implement alternatives to centralised policies, as long as they have the guidance that helps build their self-confidence and power of analysis.

Nithi Iawsriwong, a prominent social critic from Chiang Mai University's Faculty of Humanities, said rural people, to survive, should not seek alternatives by themselves. Proper support, especially at the structural level, is also needed, he said.

Sue Sarng San Foundation's Sophon Suphaphong, who is one of the core members of the drafting team of the eighth national economic and social development plan, agreed with Nithi. Government must have a role in urging and supporting rural people through every channel to make them stronger and more self-sufficient.

''If you let rural people seek alternatives in the present situation of our country, it would be just like letting a weak child compete against a healthy adult,'' he said.

Kosit Panpiemras, a rural development expert and former agriculture and cooperatives minister, admitted that rural development has suffered from inconsistent government policies. In addition, government intervention in the agricultural sector has also weakened the sector.

Kosit said the government must play down its role by strengthening the Tambon Administrative Organisation as a key for rural development without government intervention.