2 weeks Ago
Lawmakers have a historic opportunity this week to right a wrong by passing legislation to protect ethnic groups and their way of life. This is not just about justice -- it's about securing a future where cultural diversity thrives alongside environmental sustainability. Thailand is home to over 60 ethnic groups, comprising 6 million people, or one-sixth of the population.
Many, especially hill tribes and indigenous peoples, have been unfairly portrayed as outsiders and forest destroyers, despite having lived here for generations. These false narratives have cost them legal status and land rights, trapping them in perpetual poverty. In reality, indigenous and ethnic communities are globally recognised as protectors of forests and natural ecosystems.
Their traditional knowledge and sustainable practices play a vital role in addressing environmental challenges. After years of tireless advocacy by indigenous and human rights groups, the House of Representatives unanimously agreed last year to review the Protection and Promotion of Indigenous and Ethnic Groups Bill. Despite early support from coalition parties, it took the House committee seven long months and five drafts to finalise key points.
The bill guarantees ethnic groups' constitutional rights, protection from hate and discrimination, access to cultural education in their own languages, and rights to land, resources, public utilities, and welfare. The bill also establishes a national system to protect ethnic rights and ways of life. A National Ethnic Affairs Committee, led by the prime minister, will oversee policies, while the Ethnic Council of Thailand will give communities a voice.
Meanwhile, the national committee will designate cultural protection zones for ethnic communities to preserve their traditions and the environment in line with their indigenous knowledge and way of life. Indigenous and ethnic groups had high hopes. After all, the legislation aligns with Section 70 of the 2017 constitution, which requires the state to protect ethnic groups and ensure their right to live according to their customs and way of life.
However, deep-seated ethnic prejudice remains a significant obstacle. One major issue is the removal of the term "indigenous" from the bill. Opponents argue that recognising indigenous peoples would threaten national unity and the concept of the "Thai race".
The United Thai Nation Party and other opposition groups insist that Thailand has no true indigenous peoples, preferring the term "ethnic groups" instead. They even cite the national anthem, which celebrates Thai unity, to justify this stance. This denial of cultural diversity has been ingrained in the national mindset through the education system, despite the injustice of erasing the existence and history of other cultural groups.
On Feb 5, the House will debate the bill for the fourth time, with a key focus on cultural protection zones. While the removal of "indigenous peoples" reflects racial nationalism, opposition to these zones is driven by control over natural resources. Cultural protection zones aim to restore dignity and security to ethnic communities.
Many live in protected forests and are wrongly labelled as encroachers, often facing evictions and violence. These zones would demonstrate that the traditional ways of indigenous and ethnic communities can contribute to conservation. To gain this status, communities must receive approval from the national committee and various state agencies, including forest authorities.
The designation can also be revoked if communities violate the rules. Old-guard politicians and forest authorities oppose this initiative. They claim it contradicts existing laws and grants ethnic communities "special rights", making them "above the law".
This is false. The bill follows legal processes and simply establishes clear regulations for the communities it covers -- just as other laws do for different groups. Still, these claims have fuelled hate speech online.
Furthermore, policy testing through regulatory relaxation is not unprecedented. Governments routinely use "sandbox" projects to trial new approaches. In this case, cultural protection zones would allow indigenous knowledge to be integrated into conservation efforts.
The fierce opposition is unsurprising. Forest officials fear losing authoritarian control over protected areas. Politicians with ties to the mining industry worry about losing business when local communities gain a say in resource management.
Their resistance is not about legal concerns or environmental protection -- it is about protecting their power and profits. On Feb 5, lawmakers must prioritise the public good over vested interests. They have an opportunity to end prejudice and fear by passing legislation that recognises the importance of protecting ethnic groups and their way of life.
If passed, the bill will proceed to the Senate for further review..
