|
Thailand Tenancy and Land Reform
Historically, agricultural tenancy nationwide appeared to
have been low except in the commercial rice-growing areas of the
central plain and in the North. This situation was the result of
land reforms instituted by King Chulalongkorn beginning in 1874,
the great availability of free land, the absence of population
pressures, and the relatively small amount of funds required by
the individual farmer to start cultivating rice. Together with
customary practices that tended to limit the amount of cultivable
land that could be claimed, these factors resulted in a national
pattern of small independent farms. Of great significance to this
development was the law that the farmer had to cultivate his own
land; if it was more than he or his family could handle, the
farmer had to supervise cultivation of the excess. Four hectares
were considered the maximum tillable by one family, although with
hired help up to about eight hectares could be managed, the
amount varying with soil differences and climatic conditions.
Nineteenth-century legislation set a four-hectare limit on
freely acquirable agricultural land and acted as a major
deterrent to the accumulation of land into large estates.
Nevertheless, large holdings did exist as grants to nobles and
officials under the
sakdi na (see Glossary) system
(see Social and Political Development
, ch. 1). Chulalongkorn's reforms
played an important part in the breakup of at least some large
estates. In such cases the law provided that the uncultivated
land would revert to the state after a period of three years. In
the area around the capital, however, where many larger holdings
were located, land could be rented out, and the landholdings
therefore remained intact.
Statistical data on tenancy in the mid-twentieth century
varied considerably. A problem of classification concerning
whether the fairly numerous part owner-part tenant arrangements
should be included with owners or tenants also led to different
conclusions. The part owner-part tenant group consisted largely
of farmers who owned small plots but also worked as tenants on
other larger farms.
In some areas, 95 percent of the farmers were reported to be
deeply in debt. According to the government censuses of
agriculture in 1950 and 1963, the rates of full tenancy for the
country as a whole were 6.6 percent and 4.1 percent,
respectively. Rates varied significantly by region. In 1963 the
rate in the Center, the chief agricultural area containing the
rice-growing central plain, was 10.7 percent as compared with 1.1
percent in the North. A special 1967-68 survey of the Center
determined the full tenancy rate to be 22.5 percent (part
owners-part tenants constituted an additional 15.8 percent). A
1973-74 survey of the Center, as well as other regions, showed
the full-tenancy rate in the Center to be 12 percent (part
owners-part tenants constituted another 28 percent). The
remainder were full owners. Tenancy in the Center in areas
devoted completely to commercialized agriculture was very high,
however, especially in some districts near Bangkok where as many
as 75 to 85 percent of the farmers were reported in the mid-1970s
to be full tenants. Lower, but still comparatively high, rates of
tenancy were also found in certain other districts of the plain.
The unusually high tenancy rates were attributed to several
factors, including the proximity to Bangkok of estates that were
granted to the ancestors of present-day holders under the
sakdi na system; large holdings received as remuneration
for the digging of canals; and, since the 1950s, acquisition of
land as investment by individuals residing mostly in Bangkok.
Figures published in 1975 covering 4 provinces in the Bangkok
area cited 119 estates ranging in size from 160 hectares to 1,600
hectares and comprising a total of more than 60,000 hectares.
Another factor contributing to tenancy in the central plain was
the loss of holdings to creditors by farmers unable to repay
loans. A large proportion of the small leaseholds was reported to
be owned by storekeepers, local craftsmen, and other farmers.
The 1973-74 agricultural survey also provided data on tenancy
in other regions. In the North, the survey found that 4 percent
of the farmer operators were full tenants, 25 percent were part
owners-part tenants, and 69 percent were full owners. The
southeastern provinces of the North, where conditions resemble
those of the central plain, reportedly had a higher percentage of
farmers renting some or all of their land. In the Northeast, full
tenants constituted only a negligible proportion; 89 percent of
farm operators were full owners, and 8 percent were part
owners-part tenants.
In the South, full tenants likewise were only a very small
minority; 83 percent were full owners, and 16 percent were part
owners-part tenants. One reason given for the development of the
part owner-part tenant situation was the effect of Islamic
inheritance laws, which in theory divide the land equally among
the children. In such cases, the inherited holding might be
inadequate to meet family needs, and supplementary land would be
rented. The part owned-part rented condition was not in itself
detrimental. There appeared to be many cases in which additional
land was rented solely because the farmer family believed it
would benefit financially by cultivating it.
Unrest among tenants, who constituted a substantial portion
of the nation's poorer farmers, began to manifest itself in the
early 1970s. Tenant discontent centered chiefly on the amount of
rent, but also of great concern was the fact that use of the land
was often based on a verbal agreement that rarely exceeded one
year and carried no guarantees of renewal. In 1950 a land rent-
control act covering part of the central plain was passed but
proved generally ineffective. The civilian cabinet that succeeded
to power in October 1973 promised rent and land reform.
Implementing action was not immediately forthcoming, however, and
farmer dissatisfaction mounted, finally erupting in
demonstrations in May and June 1974. In December of that year,
the government passed a rent reform law known as the Agricultural
Land Rent Control Act of 1974, providing for six-year,
indefinitely renewable rental contracts. Rents were to be payable
once a year only, and procedures for determining the amount were
specified. Moreover, if a poor harvest occurred, the rent was to
be reduced, and none would be paid if the harvest were less than
one-third normal.
Associated with tenancy was the equally serious problem of
landless farmers, who by the early 1980s numbered an estimated
500,000 to 700,000. In January 1975, the civilian government,
over strong opposition, managed to get through the National
Assembly a second reform measure of potentially far-reaching
effect. This was the Agricultural Land Reform Act of 1975. The
legislation called for the establishment of the Agricultural Land
Reform Office in the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives to
serve as the implementing agency. Under the act, landless and
tenant farmers could be allocated up to eight hectares of land
that would be paid for on a long-term installment basis. The land
to be allocated was to come from purchases from private holders
and from forest and crown lands. Individual landowners were
required to make available to the program all but eight hectares
of their holding. Under certain circumstances, larger holdings
could be retained, but such holdings could be expropriated later
if the provisions of the exception were not met. Payment for the
private land taken was to be 25 percent in cash and the remainder
in government bonds.
Implementation of land reform slowed after the coup of
October 1976, which ousted the civilian government, and the act's
goals were subsequently shifted. The government of Prime Minister
Thanin Kraivichien, installed as head of a military regime in
October 1976, announced that a land reform program covering 1.6
million hectares and taking place over a period of four years
would be carried out. Prime Minister Kriangsak Chomanand, who
succeeded to office in November 1977 after still another military
coup, modified this goal to a more realistic one of 1.3 million
hectares over five years. By early 1979, almost eighty areas
throughout the country had been designated Land Reform Areas
under the program. At the same time, although tenancy remained a
major issue, a somewhat different concept of reform seemed to
have emerged, based on the belief that the most pressing problem
was to improve the situation of the large numbers of illegal
squatters in the forests. The Land Reform Areas included some
areas of high tenancy, but the new goal of helping forest
squatters appeared easier to promote than land acquisition by the
Agricultural Land Reform Office in the high-tenancy areas of the
central plain. There it was strongly opposed by large landowners,
including wealthy aristocrats, businessmen, and senior military
officers.
The program as projected included furnishing legal titles to
squatters and providing them with needed infrastructure and
credit. The areas brought under the program were to be organized
into self-sufficient cooperatives. Implementation of a given
project was expected to take about two years, including about a
year and a half to get the basic infrastructure well under way
and to provide titles. The latter would permit the landholder to
pass on the land to heirs but would not confer the right to sell
it to private parties. The title, however, could be used as
collateral for credit. According to government sources, by 1978
some 320,000 hectares consisting mainly of public land had been
distributed, and another 160,000 hectares were ready to be
apportioned.
Data as of September 1987
|
