The Thai parliament approved last week the Ethnic Way of Life bill in its second and third readings, despite opposition from civil society, which withdrew support for the bill following several omissions and changes to core sections, including the use of the term “indigenous” and the exemption of conservation laws in Ethnic Way of Life Protection Areas.

Protesters being blocked at the gate by parliament security personnel during last Wednesday's protest.

Last Wednesday (5 February), the House of Representatives voted 312 to 84, with 2 abstentions and 4 absences, to approve the third reading the Strengthening and Protection of Ethnic Way of Life bill.

The approval came after parliamentary discussion on the bill was delayed several times. It first went to parliament for a second reading on 25 September 2024, when parliament voted to have the committee withdraw the bill for revision following discussions about whether to include the term “indigenous people”.

The majority of the drafting committee voted not to include the term, while a minority proposed that it be included in Section 3 of the bill so that the definition of ethnic groups would include those who “self-identify” as indigenous. On 22 January, the bill was returned to parliament, which voted to remove the term from the bill.

Several government MPs also objected to Section 27 of the bill, which concerns the declaration of Ethnic Way of Life Protection Areas. The section states that to declare an Ethnic Way of Life Protection Area, the community and relevant government agencies in the area must come up with a master plan and map, which must be in line with the community’s way of life. Regulations relating to habitation and land use under the Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act, Forestry Act, National Reserved Forests Act, and National Parks Act will also not be enforced in the protection area unless there is a violation of peace and order, good morals, national security, public health, or impact on the ecosystem or biodiversity.

The MPs said that it would be unconstitutional and inappropriate to exempt protection areas from these regulations. Parliamentary discussion was then suspended and previously scheduled to resume on 15 January, but was postponed again to Wednesday (5 February) after Pheu Thai MP Chanin Rungtanakiat said that some MPs were concerned that parts of the bill would be unconstitutional and asked that the committee take more time to revise the bill.

This version of the bill was written by a drafting committee formed by the House of Representatives after 5 bills on indigenous rights were approved in their first readings. Two of these bills were proposed by civil society: an Indigenous Council of Thailand bill proposed by the Council of Indigenous Peoples in Thailand and P-Move’s Indigenous and Ethnic Rights Protection and Way of Life Promotion bill. The two bills passed their first reading in February 2024, along with three other similar bills proposed by the now-dissolved Move Forward Party, a working group from the Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre under the Ministry of Culture, and the House Committee on Children, Youth, Women, Older Persons, Persons with Disabilities, Ethnic Groups, and LGBTs.

No room for another step back

Pachara Khamchamnan

On Wednesday morning (5 February), as parliament resumed discussion of Section 27, the People’s Movement for a Just Society (P-Move) and several indigenous right groups staged a protest in front of the parliament compound to push for parliament to approve Section 27 as written by the majority in the drafting committee.

Pachara Khamchamnan, an indigenous right activist and a member of the drafting committee, said that many core sections in the bill have already been cut. The term “indigenous” is nowhere to be found, while sections on penalties for violating indigenous rights have also been cut.

“I don’t think we can take another step back, because stepping back would be stepping off a cliff,” he said.

Having a cultural protection area would make indigenous communities more secure and put them on equal standing with the rest of the society, Pachara said. In a protection area, communities would have the right to manage resources, and therefore need less assistance from the government, and they would have the right to their land. They would also have a full legal right to protect their land from development projects like mines and dams. Meanwhile, protecting indigenous culture means that they would have the opportunity to develop their cultural potential.

The bill does not intend to revoke national park land, Pachara said. It intends to exempt cultural protection areas from some regulations so communities could work with the authorities to manage resources. He notes that it is not easy to declare a cultural protection zone, as the bill requires a community wishing to establish a cultural protection area to come to an agreement with the authorities about how the land is to be used, make a master plan, and apply to a committee. There are also penalties for breaking the rules, such as revoking the protection area or criminal penalties under existing laws.

Several indigenous communities have had cultural protection areas declared under two Cabinet resolutions issued in 2010 to protect the way of life of the Karen and Chao Le indigenous communities. But Pachara said the Cabinet resolutions were ineffective in practice as indigenous communities living on land declared to be national parks continue to be evicted.

Niraphon Chapho

For 23-year-old Niraphon Chapho, who came from Chiang Rai’s Ban Huai Hin Lad Nai indigenous Karen community, the development guidelines under the 2010 Cabinet resolutions cannot be implemented since communities are still under conservation laws. Ban Huai Hin Lad Nai is one of Thailand’s first indigenous cultural protection areas, but Niraporn said there has not been a lot the community could do due to the restrictions imposed on them by conservation laws in force in the area.

Without a legally recognized cultural protection area, Niraporn said, communities may not be able to sustain their culture, whereas allowing such an area would mean they could take care of the forest they live in. She said that Section 27 is the core of the bill, and without it, the legislation will not work in practice.

“This law is written only to make us equal to people in the cities,” she said. “It doesn’t make us privileged or above anyone, because in the past we have always been placed lower than everyone else. We just make this law so that we can become equal to people in the city.”

Civil society withdraws support

Members of the civil society on the drafting committee held a press conference announcing that they are withdrawing their support for the bill.

Last Wednesday afternoon (5 February), the House of Representatives voted to reject the version of Section 27 as proposed by a majority in the drafting committee, which exempted cultural protection areas from some conservation regulations. Instead, they voted in favour of a version proposed by Pheu Thai MP Nikom Boonwiset, who is one of a minority of MPs on the committee. In this version, conservation laws covering an area would remain in force once the area becomes a cultural protection zone.

Following the vote on Section 27 in the bill’s second reading, members of civil society on the drafting committee held a press conference announcing they had withdrawn support for the bill and will no longer participate in the legislative process.

Suriyan Tonghnueid, a member of the drafting committee, condemned parliament’s rejection of the original version of Section 27. He said that under the version approved by parliament, no community would ever be able to establish a cultural protection area, and that the bill in its current version would give the authorities more power and legitimize their violation of indigenous rights.

Pachara said that as it stands, the bill cannot protect indigenous peoples as it does not protect their land and culture. Indigenous peoples in Thailand have long been repressed and persecuted, he said, and now the civil society members involved in the drafting committee no longer want the bill to go forward or for it to be presented to the international community as an effort of protecting indigenous rights when it would instead continue the repression of communities.

The House of Representatives, meanwhile, voted to approve the bill in its third reading. It will now go to the Senate for three more readings.