The Insertion of Capitalism and its Clash with Community Rights

Many of the villages that we have visited throughout the semester have shared their respect and aspiration of community rights. They emphasize the importance of community within their daily life and cultural traditions. 

Large institutions have altered their way of life and have even displaced many of them, which has had many negative affects on their culture and traditions. These institutions have an apparent relation to the insertion of capitalism within the Kingdom of Thailand.

This has been true for the village of Rasi Salai. They have been greatly affected by the construction and implementation of the Rasi Salai Dam. The dam has now been in place for many years and the people of Rasi Salai have begun the process of coping with the reality of the dam.

The creation of the dam represents capitalism within Thailand because it has benefited many large corporations through its construction and upkeep. The dam cost millions of Baht to construct and many manufacturing companies were able to benefit from this production. Large-scale companies and wealthy business owners were able to profit from this dam project and have subsequently contributed to the corruption and oppression of local villagers. Those who have been able to benefit from the dam are largely those who do not live in the affected area and many of them have much more capital then those who live in Rasi Salai village. Unfortunately, this is a common occurrence among capitalistic conditions. Those who have more money often have more influence in critical projects and decisions, and they also happen to be the ones who benefit the most. 

The dam was also constructed for the purpose of avoiding major flooding in Bangkok and industries near by. The importance that has been placed upon Bangkok and creating industries has a large connection with Thailand’s yearn for development and capitalism. This has had many affects on the rural villagers of Thailand, which make up majority of the country’s population. For the Rasi Salai community, it has affected them through the creation of the dam and its affect of permanent flooding in their village. On behalf of the villagers, this has meant their farmland being flooded, years of protesting, changes to their traditional way of life and much financial uncertainty. The value and significance placed on capitalism has directly affected this people and their culture.

The villagers have opposing views to the principles of capitalism. The villagers of Rasi Salai made it clear that they greatly value community rights and a desire to be self-sufficient. They have stayed together through their fight against the dam and continue to support each other just like they have for generations. They fear that they may loose parts of their tradition and culture if they to let go of their emphasis and value on community rights. Their lives are dependent on each other and they are content with the culture that their ancestors have been practicing for hundreds of years. They do not value capitalism in the same way as many people with wealth and many of those who come from western societies.

Rasi Salai is currently considering the implementation of a co-op. They are very interested in working together as a community and creating optimal use of the compensation that they will receive from the government. By doing this they would be able to resourcefully support the community ideals and values of their culture.

The Rasi Salai villagers are fighting for more than just their flooded farmland. They are fighting to uphold their culture, to preserve community rights and to give a voice to those who are not financially wealthy. 

Ryan Kammerman

Occidental College 

Does any of this make a difference?

On October 31^st, our group of CIEE Development and Globalization students had an exchange with a woman named Sadsai Sang-Sok to close out our Unit Four homestay. Sadsai Sang-Sok is an NGO and independent researcher who spoke to our group as a representative of the Thai People Don’t Want Nuclear Power Plants Network. The exchange brought up some very interesting issues that I would have never considered had we not spoken with Sadsai Sang-Sok. According to her, the key reason people are resisting nuclear power plants in Thailand is not because they are opposed to nuclear power itself, but more because they invisible in the government’s consideration of the issue. Thai people who are most affected by the construction of these power plants are not allowed to participate in the government’s conversations over the plants, and are largely never informed in detail about the building of plants in close proximity to their villages. This complete lack of public participation in nuclear projects lies at the heart of the network’s resistance to nuclear power plants.

This particular day we visited the network, however, was a special occasion. Immediately after our exchange, Sadsai Sang-Sok was leaving to attend an unofficial hearing concerning the construction of a new nuclear power plant. This hearing would potentially counter the overwhelming problem of the lack of public voices in major decisions concerning nuclear power projects, as it would include a diverse audience of people from governmental departments, the media, networks, and villagers. This hearing was an opportunity for all parties to hear both sides of the issue and have a constructive conversation together. It sounded to me like an opportunity for substantial progress. Upon asked if she believed any great change would come of the hearing, however, Sadsai Sang-Sok replied, “Well, if the government wants to build it, it probably just will anyways.”

These words resonated with me. If the government is simply going to do and build whatever it wants regardless of public opinion, then what was the point of the hearing in the first place? What was the point of maintaining this whole network of Thai people against nuclear power plants if the government will do what it wants anyhow? And moreover, why were we as CIEE students there, looking to possibly complete a collaborative final project to help the network’s progress, if no change were to come of it?

These feelings that villagers’ and our efforts to create change for the better in Thailand are completely futile in the long run are something I have grappled with since the start of my semester here. In Unit Two, our group visited a forest community of individuals who have been fighting to get their land back from the government and have been doing so through the establishment of a protest village since 2009. As of now, negotiations with the government are at a complete standstill. The community must helplessly wait on the government as it decides what it wants to do with the future of the community.

This trend of community powerlessness arose once again in this recent Unit Four trip, as we visited the community of Rasi Salai that has been protesting the presence of a dam in the village since its construction in 1994. It is now 2012, and while some villagers have been slightly compensated for the dam’s negative effects and the government agreed to complete a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) on the dam, that SIA still remains incomplete and the government still controls the opening and closing of the dam gates.

This brings me back to Sadsai Sang-Sok’s quote from the beginning, “if the government wants to build it, it probably just will anyways.” Do villagers and NGOs have any kind of power in these situations? Do we as American students ultimately have any impact on the progression of their projects? I know much too little to fully and confidently answer these questions, but from what I have seen and experienced thus far, I might argue: no.

Mallory West

Tulane University

Our Baby Steps for Rasi Salai

The Rasi Salai Dam was completed in 1993. It divides the Mun River in Srisaket Province, located in the southern region of Isaan. The dam was originally proposed as a weir, small enough that neither an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) nor a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) was required. Of course, the project was larger than planned. An SIA should have been done, but it was not until 2010, 17 years later, that the SIA was finally completed. But by then the damage had already been done – flooding, a loss of biodiversity, depletion of soil fertility.

CIEE has been working with the Rasi Salai community for years, and a group of us returned to complete a Collaborative Community Consolation (CCC) report. A CCC is meant to be an up to date reference point on a given community. Shorter than our usual home stays, this trip was meant to scope out the feasibility of a possible project for the end of the semester. Because CIEE has been working with Rasi Salai community for so long we were able to see the result of past CIEE projects. In 2010 CIEE students helped the community with establishing a learning center. The semester before us was working to help start a green market.

But we won’t be continuing the green market project. Apparently it’s a cold issue. Instead, the villagers are focusing on becoming economically self-sufficient. We met with P’Banya, our NGO contact for the community, and a few villagers. They explained to us, briefly, about their finances, how they have a welfare fund and are expecting a large sum of money for restoration plans. But they aren’t sure about the best means to manage their finances. There are two methods they are considering, a co-op system or a community enterprise system. The latter involves government management, something the Rasi Salai community is understandably hesitant about. However they aren’t clear about details for either system, which is where CIEE could help.

P’Banya told our group that the Rasi Salai community would like more information about possible financial systems. We spent time learning a brief summary of what the community wants, their finances, and as well as a few other possible smaller projects. Once we returned to Khon Kaen and had been working on our CCC, believing we had a good possible project, we were given new information: Rasi Salai isn’t ready for this project. We were told that before a financial system could be suggested a financial needs assessment would have to be done. The assessment would be a project for this semester. Somehow it just didn’t hold the same weight.

I heard some discontent at the smallness of the possible projects when we were back in the large group. How much help would a pamphlet be? Is a human rights survey even worth anything? Why can’t an NGO find out financial information for the community himself? And I had to agree, just a little. Doing research seems a small step to aid communities facing such huge problems we’ve learned about. But it was explained to me that researching is something we do well as students. American students are, truly, good at it. While some of the projects might seem small it’s what the communities want. CIEE only does projects the villagers suggest; everything is about collaboration. These projects carry on from semester to semester, so our total impact is greater than this single semester. A future semester won’t be able to present the Rasi Salai villagers financial information unless the financial needs assessment is done. Nothing in unrelated, our small part can help.

Anne Sledd

Carleton College

Transitioning from Chemical to Organic Farming

Originally, when studying chemical versus organic farming methods, it all seemed so clear; organic was the obvious choice and all chemical farmers should switch over. It seemed that farmers were scared to do so because it meant more labor and possible lower yields for the first few years. But why didn’t chemical farmers see that after the first few years it gets easier and the yield and quality improve? Why did they continue to choose chemicals over organic?

After going to a village where 100% of the farmers used chemicals, I got a new perspective. Most farmers in Ban Na Samai switched to use chemicals about 7 years ago. The whole village made the transition at the same time. Some farmers like Songsri and Chalong Sailabad explained that they made the switch because of weeds. Over the years, the region has gotten drier with less and less rain each year. Without the rain, weeds started to take over more of the rice paddies which meant much more physical labor for farmers in order to remove the weeds. Most farmers were not willing to put in more physical labor, as farming already demands so much. With chemicals they no longer have to weed.

On top of that, when farmers use chemicals, they still have a chance of harvesting rice even if there was not enough rain for the year. This food security issue is what almost every farming family we spoke to brought up. Their reasons for using chemicals are legitimate. The constant comment throughout our stay in the village was, “without chemicals we will not eat.” These farmers are using chemicals because they are afraid that if they don’t, their food will not grow. Chemicals almost guarantees them a harvest for the year.

The villagers have also not experienced the negative effects of chemical use than can occur. One family boasted that their soil was the best it’s ever been. They could tell by our faces that we did not believe them so they said it over and over again. Most families had not experienced any health problems relating to chemicals either. There was one woman, Sric Veruwanarak, who was widowed because her husband had died from walking in a newly sprayed field when he had an open wound on his leg. The wound became infected and spread to both his feet and hands and two weeks later he died. Although people know about the negative effects of chemicals on health, many feel they are safe as they have not experienced any problems yet.

Even Sric Veruwanarak continues to use chemicals because she too is afraid she won’t have food on the table if she doesn’t.

The head of the health clinic, Vira Seangchat in the area also uses chemicals on his farm, although he has reduced his use and has plans to dig a well next year. The well would provide his land with the water it is starved for. He is sure that once he has that water, there will no longer be a need for chemicals.

Could irrigation systems like this work for other families as well? These farmers are not bad people for using chemicals. Their concerns for switching are legitimate, as food means life. They know and understand the benefits of going organic and it is something they all want to do. Although they want to transition, they don’t see it as a possibility until they have more water. More water would mean less weeds and higher yields making it possible for farmers to make the switch.

Anya Chang-DePuy

University of Massachusettes

A Chemical Compromise

The villagers that we went to visit used unpronounced amounts of chemicals. So much that normal mills would not buy the rice from any farmer in their sub-district. (Of course, the government sponsored mills do buy the rice.) This was shocking, to say the least. But, what boggled my mind rougher than any of these gruesome numbers was the fact that these villagers were willing to change.

Let me lay down some background. Our students group of CIEE representatives went to a village called Na Samai 11. This village has little to no water supply, no irrigation system. Their parents started using chemical fertilizer and now they’re all about the pesticides too. We sat through exchanges wondering why. It wasn’t always like that- their grandparents, and ancestors never had that chemical advantage. How did they make it work? The answer (it’s simple and sweet): They had water back in the day. There’s the epiphany that’s been slapping us in the face for years and years to come: Global warming.

Now, back to the point. The people in this village have no way to harvest their rice crop without some help from chemicals. Otherwise, the leaves will turn yellow and the rice will grind into the ground like sand. Secondly, perfect enough, the villagers gain about four times as much yield, and so profit, from using chemical agriculture. That’s right, four times! They make bank, so to speak. And although, we know morals are the ‘right way’ to travel through life, we know that it’s much easier to live the life as close to a king as one can get. The villagers were willing to drop this sort of profit, because they have come to understand that chemical farming is bad.

Someone has got to give these guys credit. Alternative Agriculture Network is going to help the transition from chemical to organic be as smooth as possible, but let’s be realistic. The transition is not going to be easy. They will likely gain little yields for the first three years of transitioning. They may loose all hope in organic farming. They will have to work harder than they have worked in last seven years (since switching to organic.) And, they may have a hard time grasping why they have to be responsible, when millions of others are reaping off the ill-morals of industrialization and chemical heavy productions. In the long run, though, they will be thanked. By the soil, by their health, and by the silent thanks that run deep into the veins of the potential future prosperity.

Jahala Dudley

University of Vermont