It’s been 6 years since the community in Chana District began fearlessly fighting for their rights, their environment and their livelihoods against the Thai-Malaysian Gas Pipeline Project. Located in Songkhla Province, Chana District is a home to over 50,000 small-scale fisherfolk whose livelihoods have been greatly dependent on marine and coastal resources for many generations. Their contribution to the national revenue in the form of processed fish production is enormous, considering the fact that small-scale fisherfolk only harvest 12 per cent of the total fish stock in Thailand (Nasea, 2002). Today, it appears that their livelihoods are being threatened as a result of government’s decision based on the interest of the politicians and capitalists but at the expense of the poor.

In 1979, the Malaysian and Thai governments signed a memorandum agreeing to explore the possibility of jointly developing natural gas reserves found in an area called the Joint Development Area (JDA), 255 kilometers east of Songkhla province in the Gulf of Thailand. Since then, the community of Chana have had no peace. The total budget intervention is projected at 1,034 million dollars through which the Petroleum Authority of Thailand (PTT), a state run petroleum company agreed to half the cost with Petronas (a private Malaysian company) on the cost of project construction in order to transport and process natural gas from the JDA. In doing so, the project agreement did not seek consultation from the Thai communities who have resided in the area over a long period of time and who sustain their livelihoods through traditional fishery. After a series of protests and demands for a review of this project, the government has refused to listen to the community’s concern on the projects’ economic, socio-economic and environmental impacts. Furthermore, it has failed to provide a clear solution or alternatives concerning the community’s relocation which would distort their histories as traditional fisherfolk.

DECEMBER VIOLENCE
The situation was exacerbated when, on the 20 December 2002, the communities organized a march to JB Hotel, Had Yai in Songkhla Province, simply to submit a letter to Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, requesting him to review his decision about the project. However, as they gathered peacefully in front of the police fencing, some were having dinner with their children, while some were praying to their god for the success of their campaign, a group of over 100 policemen stormed through the fence and brutally beaten up the gathered praying community.

From this incident, 12 NGO activists, students and villagers are being prosecuted for obstructing and attacking officers, a claim that does not reflect what actually happened during the time of the attack. They were sent to jail with their bail being denied. 50 community members were injured including students and elders while children were separated from their parents during the time of attack along with extensive damage to property. One of the elders lost a finger that was brutally battered by a policeman who accused him of being a troublemaker.

There were widespread reaction from both National and International Human Rights institutions, which included the National Human Rights Commission and the United Nations. It has been viewed that the Thai government has violated human rights through the use of all forms of violence, both physical violence and hiding information from the public. This nondisclosure of information conflicts with the 1997 Constitution that promulgates the freedom of people to participate in all form of development as well as promulgating government to seek consultation with the local communities affected by large-scale infrastructure and development. In March 2003, the UN Special Envoy on Human Rights Hina Jilani visited the affected community at Lan Hoi Seab, known as a hotspot of biodiversity and community’s fishing ground which is the project site. Backed up by international support, she has advocated with the Thai government to lift all charges against the arrested civil societies members. However, the Thai government has chosen to discredit the concern raised by the UN.

From the community’s perspective on the incident that occurred in December 2002, Mrs. Areeya Made, one of the community leaders against the Gas Pipeline Project expressed that “We can no longer trust the government and despite the incident that has happened, our position remains strong that the project cannot go on as the government is being unfair to treat us this way. It is clear that the government has absolutely no interest in addressing the problems of the poor and its way of resolving conflicts with the community is to ignore the community” (2003, interview at Chana district, Songkhla province). At the current stage, its been reported that 500 armed security officers have been deployed in the area of Lan Hoy Seab, where the construction of the gas separation plant is to be situated. The security and livelihood of the community are thus being threatened since the people are too frightened to come out of their homes.

URGENT ECOLOGICAL ISSUES

Aside from the concern of sustaining livelihoods, if the project comes through, the community, 1,400 academes and the environmentalists are also voicing out another issues on the potential impacts on the priceless ecosystem, particularly beach forest in Ban Rai Village, Talingchan sub-district where rare flora and bird species of over 70 kinds are present (2002, Sa Rak Ka Dee Magazine). Furthermore, they have been flagging out the danger of this project due to its design and that Thailand has entered into a non-winwin partnership with Malaysia. This has been highlighted in a number of literatures for example in Matichon Magazine written by Professor Krangsak Lewchanpattani, 2003 which has raised a number of interesting points in regard to the project plan, specifically, gas separation activity that would be taking place solely in Thailand before being transported back through pipelines to Malaysia for direct exploitation. Through such separation procedures, a number of waste gas namely carbon dioxide which would be released into the atmosphere 9,800 tonnes/day, forcing Thailand to shoulder environmental problems upon the already degraded coastal resource condition, while Malaysia would only have to be responsible for less than 1 per cent. This raised an important issue whether it is worth for Thailand to share 50 per cent of the project cost to extract the gas, but having to bear the environmental cost of 100 per cent.

QUESTIONING DEMOCRACY
It remains the position of the community and civil society that the information on Trans Thai-Malay Gas Pipeline project must be opened to the public if Thailand is still is a democratic country and if the project has proved its legitimacy. Distortion of facts and information conducted by the government has been the main reason why community has been mobilized and even until now, this has continue to expand. It has been strongly requested by the community that the government should organize a public forum to open up all details and information that the project might entails. It is therefore, seeking the public to play a greater role in assessing government’s action to ensure that to right to information, to resource and recognition of rights can be achieved in the Thai Society.

preecha@mozart.inet.co.th