Thailand's Poor and Farmers Continue to Fare Badly by Phairath Khampha 30 November 2001 High property prices keep people in slums Land reform policies in Thailand are making farmers, who form the majority of Thailand's population, and the poor worse off, a seminar was told. They are designed to benefit only the country's economic and political elite while impoverishing the rest of the country's population. "State policies are beautifully planned but meaningless," one speaker told a seminar on the government's land reform policy, held to mark the 27th anniversary of Thai Farmer's Federation. The National Economic and Social Development Board said half a million Thai families were landless. Pairoj Pholpet, director of Union for Civil Liberty, said 90% of landowners held less than one rai [1 rai = 1600 m2], while the rest owned more than 100 rai. A large proportion the people in Thailand's population are landless. "The land development direction needs to be re-oriented to stop this stark contrast where landholding is concentrated in the hands of the few elite," said Mr Pairoj. The government should provide wasteland owned by local agencies and the private sector to poor farmers. It should also give poor people a say in shaping solutions. Boonlert Wisetpreecha, of the Human Settlement Foundation, said the main problem in Bangkok was the inflated price of land. "The cheapest price for a house in Bangkok is 450,000 baht [US$1 = 44.5 baht] or more. Such high prices have forced about 2.4 million people to live in slums and almost 2,000 to become homeless," said Mr Boonlert. Moving slum-dwellers to the outskirts of Bangkok would not work as most were temporary service workers who worked in town. Mr Boonlert said the government should break the price wall by collecting progressive tax from wealthy landowners. Agencies such as the Expressway and Rapid Transit Authority and State Railway should allow poor people to rent unused land at cheap prices. Sukeaw Fungfoo, of the northern farmer association, urged the authority to end disputes over state land between local residents and private investors. Many farmers forced to leave their land by drought, found on their return that ownership documents had been issued to private investors by corrupt land deed officials. He was puzzled that farmland which had been passed down for generations could end up in the hands of local influential people and businessmen without any intervention by authorities nor by the actual landholders.