This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BANGKOK 004220 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SENV PGOV SOCI EFIS TH
SUBJECT: THAILAND:  UPDATE ON CONTROVERSIAL PAK MUN DAM 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary:  On June 15, Poloffs visited Ubon 
Ratchathani province, where the controversial Pak Mun Dam is 
located.  Representatives of an NGO alleged that the Pak Mun 
Dam has disrupted local fishing and farming communities, 
without producing anticipated levels of electricity and 
water. They have called for the Royal Thai Government (RTG) 
to keep the dam gates open all year round so that their 
communities can return "almost to normal."  At Pak Mun Dam 
itself, however, a small group of demonstrators was asking 
that the dam gates be closed most of the year so they could 
grow plants and farm fish.  Gates are currently scheduled to 
be opened four months per year, during the rainy season. 
Assembly of the Poor (AOP) representatives concerned with the 
dam alleged they are victims of government harassment and 
intimidation, and that fourteen of their members have been 
charged with "treason" for their peaceful protest activities. 
A reporter from the pro-government Thai Rath newspaper 
expressed little sympathy for the group, alleging they had 
threatened her in the past. End Summary. 
 
PAK MUN OVERVIEW 
 
¶2. (U) First approved by the Thai Cabinet in 1989, the Pak 
Mun Dam has been a source of controversy since its inception. 
Initial concerns focused on the plight of local farmers and 
fishermen whose lands and livelihoods would be threatened by 
the construction of the dam. The aggrieved villagers founded 
The Assembly of the Poor (AOP) in 1995. In the name of 
national development, the dam was built anyway, (with 
financial support from the World Bank) and was completed in 
¶1994. Since then, a series of ecological setbacks, including 
the disappearance of dozens of fish species from waters 
around the dam, and the failure of the dam to realize many of 
its production targets have led many to question whether or 
not the project had been worth all the trouble. The 
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) continues 
to vociferously defend the project, and is also involved in 
numerous other "mega-projects" throughout Thailand, including 
other dams. 
 
ASSEMBLY OF THE POOR 
 
¶3. (U) On June 15, 2005 Poloffs met with three 
representatives of AOP, who complained that the Pak Mun dam 
had destroyed their traditional way of life, and caused the 
social and economic breakdown of their local communities. 
Although the government promised monetary compensation, AOP 
complained they had to "fight to get it". Each affected 
family was allotted a total of 90,000 baht (about $US 2250) 
over a period of three years, with 30,000 baht (about $US 
750) going directly to the family and 60,000 baht (about $US 
1500) going to each family,s village cooperative. AOP 
asserts the affected families were also promised plots of 
land, but only a few families ever received them. 
 
¶4. (U) AOP members vehemently denied RTG allegations that 
overfishing by local villagers was to blame for the sudden 
disappearance of the fish population. They pointed out that 
the fish population only began decreasing once the dam was 
built. They noted that efforts by the Department of Fisheries 
to reintroduce fish into parts of the river from which they 
had disappeared were unsuccessful. 
 
¶5. (U) Poloffs observed a $1 million "fish ladder", which 
EGAT and the World Bank built after realizing the dam was 
impeding the natural migration of the fish. Villagers 
complained that the "ladder", which is supposed to aid fish 
in passing over the dam, has been entirely unsuccessful. 
(Note: A 2000 report by the World Commission on Dams reported 
that the fish ladder was too steep for most local species to 
negotiate. End Note.) 
 
OPEN VS. CLOSED GATES 
 
¶6. (U) With the dam already built, the main bone of 
contention now is to determine how many months per year to 
keep the dam's eight sluice gates open. AOP is fighting for 
the gates to remain open year-round, rendering the dam 
essentially useless. By keeping the gates open all year 
round, AOP argues that local communities could return "almost 
to normal." (Note: A 2001 Ubon Ratchathani University study 
concurred; See below. End Note.) 
 
¶7. (U) At Pak Mun Dam, Poloffs encountered a rival group of 
about thirty people, mostly women and children, who said they 
had camped out at the dam for several weeks to protest the 
fact that the gates were currently open. This group 
represented fishermen and farmers who wanted the gates to be 
closed most of the year, so that they could use the higher 
water levels around the dam for fish farming, and to grow 
plants. Poloffs are unaware of exactly how much support this 
group enjoys. Pak Mun gates are currently open on a loosely 
regulated 4-month per year timetable, scheduled during the 
annual rainy season. 
 
BROKEN PROMISES 
 
¶8. (U) AOP representatives told Poloffs that in 2001, the RTG 
allowed a team from Ubon Ratchathani University (URU) to 
conduct a one-year study on the economic and environmental 
costs and benefits of the dam. AOP asserts that the RTG 
agreed to abide by the team,s recommendations. The URU study 
found that the dam,s ability to generate electricity and 
supply water for irrigation was lower than originally 
projected, and grossly insufficient to justify the negative 
impact on fisheries, the river environment and the local 
community. The study also concluded that much of the 
ecological damage could be undone by keeping the gates of the 
dam open, recommending that this be done for a period of five 
years. Instead of abiding by the committee,s recommendation, 
the RTG asked the National Statistics Office to conduct its 
own study (over a period of three days), which recommended 
that the dam gates be opened for about four months per year. 
 
CHARGES OF TREASON AND INTIMIDATION 
 
¶9. (SBU) Mrs. Lamduan Silathong, a member of AOP, told 
Poloffs that several years before, she had applied for a 
passport to attend a meeting overseas. To her surprise, 
authorities told her they could not issue a passport because 
there was a warrant out for her arrest. She went to her local 
police precinct, where she learned that she had been charged 
with "treason" several months before. Although never jailed, 
she and thirteen other AOP members are "out on bail", and 
have been told by the police that they risk being taken to 
task for their "crimes" if they continued with their 
anti-government activities. 
 
¶10. (SBU) In addition to the charges of treason, AOP said 
their work had also been hampered by the use of the local and 
national media to discredit their organization and its 
activities. They also asserted that local leaders, including 
village headmen, have tried to intimidate AOP members and 
suppress the organization,s anti-dam activities. Mrs. 
Lamduan felt these local officials were presumably taking 
orders from above. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Dr. Kanokwan Manorom of Ubon Ratchatani University 
told Poloffs that organizations like AOP had become much 
weaker under the Thaksin administration because of increased 
government pressure. She pointed out that Thailand,s 
Northeastern Isan region had traditionally been a hotbed of 
political activism. However, most of the local population was 
content with their improved quality of life under the Thaksin 
administration, leading most people to shrug off the fact 
that civil liberties have been decreased. 
 
REPORTER REFUTES AOP ASSESSMENT 
 
¶13. (SBU) Ms. Venus Iamsa'at, a newspaper reporter for the 
pro-government daily Thai Rath (circulation: 
800,000-1,000,000), also acknowledged that AOP had slowed 
down its activities in recent years, though she credits their 
lowered profile to threats from the government to expose 
internal corruption by its leaders. Ms. Iamsa'at also claimed 
that she had been physically threatened by members of AOP in 
the past for writing stories critical of the movement. She 
felt that more and more people seemed to appear each year to 
collect "compensation", and that enough was enough. (COMMENT: 
Although AOP is well-known for its non-violent resistance 
efforts, it would not be surprising if certain radical 
elements within the organization were involved in some of the 
unsavory activities reported by the TR reporter. END COMMENT) 
 
¶14. (U) Although the Thai Rak Thai Party of PM Thaksin 
Shinawatra is extremely popular with Thailand's rural poor, 
Mrs. Lamduan repeatedly stressed that the Thai government 
"doesn't understand the problems of the poor". Using somewhat 
leftist jargon, Ms. Somphan Khuendi argued that the 
"capitalist" government in Bangkok just uses money to solve 
all of its problems and Mrs. Lamduan said she believes the 
government "undervalues people", since there had never been 
any public hearings regarding the dam, and local people had 
never been consulted about the project. They pointed out that 
there were victims of similar government projects throughout 
Thailand, and that their organization now included members 
whose lives had been disrupted by thirty different dams all 
over the country. 
 
¶15. (SBU) COMMENT. After fifteen years of protesting, it 
appears that the Pak Mun villagers are no closer to reaching 
their ultimate goal of getting back their land. Although many 
sources (including a report published by the World Commission 
of Dams) agree that the Pak Mun dam has been more trouble 
than it's worth, it seems that RTG and EGAT are reluctant to 
broach dissent for fear that doing so would jeopardize future 
dams and "mega-development projects." As time goes by and 
residents leave the area, it will become more and more 
difficult for Pak Mun villagers to resuurect their lost 
communities. The overreaction of the RTG to this kind of 
grass-roots activism, (particularly with regard to charges of 
treason) is a worrying example of how this government 
perceives civil society groups that don,t toe the government 
line. END COMMENT 
BOYCE