Thap Lan National Park is currently at the center of a heated debate that has everyone from local villagers to environmental activists buzzing. National Park Office director Chaiwat Limlikhitaksorn is pushing for the cabinet to revisit a resolution from March 14, 2023, concerning the park’s boundary. The proposal aims to redefine a sweeping 265,000-rai (over 104,000 acres) region within the park. But, not everyone’s on board.
In a public hearing held recently, an overwhelming number of participants voiced their concerns. According to Mr. Chaiwat, this record-setting event pulled in 947,107 people—yes, you read that right, nearly a million participants. That’s like filling ten football stadiums! And guess what? A staggering 95.2% of them opposed the changes. Clearly, this isn’t a small ripple; it’s a tidal wave of public sentiment.
Let’s rewind a bit. What’s all the fuss about? The proposed plan, originally put forth by the previous government, suggests redrawing the boundaries within Thap Lan National Park. This would effectively move 265,000 rai of land, currently part of the national park, into the jurisdiction of local communities. The rationale was to avoid the ongoing conflict over land ownership between the park and state lands. Yet the idea mostly sparked concern instead of clarity.
Mr. Chaiwat unveiled the results of an online poll conducted from June 28 to July 12. Out of the 947,107 participants, 901,892 (that’s 95.2% of those polled) said a big, resounding “no” to the boundary changes. Only a small fraction—45,215 people—were in favor of it. Given the sheer number of voices, it’s clear that the people’s connection to this land runs deep.
Speaking on Saturday, Mr. Chaiwat expressed heartfelt gratitude to everyone who stood up for the park, saying, “In the name of the forest’s protector, I’d like to thank the people for trusting us and for all their votes in favor of the forest and its animals. Thank you for upholding the right thing.” His words echoed the sentiments of many who believe that the park’s natural beauty and animal habitats should remain untouched by human expansion.
Meanwhile, Chokedee Poralokanont, a former leader of a local group of villagers, took to Facebook to share his thoughts. Chokedee has a complicated history with Thap Lan National Park. Back in 1997, he was instrumental in transforming a 10,000-rai area in tambon Thaisamakkhi, Nakhon Ratchasima’s Wang Nam Khieo district, from an agricultural mecca into more of an urban landscape. In his recent post, he expressed regret for his actions, lamenting how the government allowed newcomers to take over the land for further development.
Chokedee’s heartfelt message reflected deep remorse over his past choices, realizing their long-term impact on the community and the environment. It served as a poignant reminder of the delicate balance between development and preservation. The land isn’t just dirt and trees; it’s a living tapestry woven with the lives and dreams of those who inhabit it.
As the cabinet considers revisiting their March 14 decision, the voices in the online hearing stand as a unified call for preservation over expansion. What’s at stake isn’t merely a boundary line on a map, but the future of a cherished national treasure. Whether you’re a local villager or someone who appreciates natural beauty from afar, it’s hard not to root for Thap Lan National Park to remain the untouched sanctuary it has long been.
Stay tuned, because this is one story where every voice truly counts, and the final chapter has yet to be written.
I think it’s outrageous that they’re even considering changing the boundaries! The park needs to be preserved for future generations.
Absolutely! These areas have already suffered enough from human encroachment.
But what about the local communities? They need space too.
Tom, I understand the need for development, but the environment should take precedence in certain areas. National parks are meant to be protected.
Actually, if managed properly, the land could benefit both the environment and the communities.
Dream on. We’ve seen what happens when the government promises to manage land responsibly.
This is a blatant disregard for public opinion. Nearly a million people said no for a reason.
Agree! There’s no justification for ignoring such a large outcry.
Democracy in action… or lack thereof.
It’s not just about numbers; it’s about preserving what little natural beauty we have left.
To think about how much wildlife will suffer if these changes go through! It’s heartbreaking.
Chokedee’s regret should be a lesson for all of us. Once the land is taken, there’s no going back.
True, but at least he’s acknowledging his mistake now.
Acknowledgement is great, but it needs to come with action.
I don’t see any harm in redrawing boundaries if it means resolving conflicts.
But at whose expense, John? The environment can’t keep paying the price.
Laura, it’s a complex issue. We need to find a balance.
Exactly, John. Conflicts over land ownership are real and need resolution.
95.2% opposed and they still want to reconsider? It’s insanity.
That’s politics for you. They often ignore the people’s voice.
Does anyone else think that the poll results might be manipulated? I mean, 95.2% is a huge majority.
Could be, Mark. Governments have their ways.
Even if it’s true, that many people can’t be entirely wrong.
Just playing devil’s advocate. We need transparency either way.
The irony is that this proposal was supposed to solve problems but has only caused more controversy.
Thap Lan should remain untouched. Period.
Couldn’t agree more. There’s too little untouched land left.
Exactly, Bethany. Future generations will thank us.
From a farming perspective, expanding communities might actually be beneficial. Just saying.
That’s a narrow view. Nature’s ecosystem provides services that are vital for farming too.
Fair point, EcoSam. But there must be some middle ground.
Seeing Chokedee go from a development proponent to a remorseful protector is something. Change is possible.
What a disaster this would be. Once the park land is gone, we can’t get it back.
Exactly. It’s like trying to unboil an egg.
I feel like the people who oppose this change are only seeing one side of the story.
Maybe, Kevin. But in this case, preservation seems more vital than expansion.
Chaiwat Limlikhitaksorn has guts to push this forward despite such massive opposition. It’s either brave or foolish.
Tough call. I’d lean towards foolish given the numbers against it.
I think we need a more sustainable approach to resolving the land disputes. This isn’t the way.