Chaiwat Limlikhit-akson explained to the Land Commission on the issue of Thap Lan forest land, condemning the disgraceful seizure of 80,000 rai as ALDO land as a trap. He suggested checking who occupied the land before the national park was officially established.
At 09:30 on 25 June 2026 at the Parliament, the Land, Natural Resources and Environment Committee of the House of Representatives held a meeting to consider the boundary adjustment of Thap Lan National Park, inviting Mr. Chaiwat Limlikhit-akson, former director of the National Park Office, Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, to provide clarification. He told reporters before the meeting that the Land Committee is their hope because it is the legislative body that enacts laws.
Regarding the Cabinet’s resolution to solve the Thap Lan forest land boundary problem, he said relying solely on claims of public hardship or that everyone lived there before the park’s declaration is insufficient. He came to explain the main legal points about how the forest was formed, when people settled, when ALDO land status was introduced, and when official corruption occurred. These points cannot be ignored or left to corrupt officials leading to this kind of whitewashing. Especially for group 2 areas, if the National Land Policy Office and its committee are the best planners of the One Map policy, why don’t they use their own authority to manage it? Instead, they shift authority to the Land Reform Office, which is known to have potential for joint ventures and partnerships without consulting the original local residents. Is this a security area? I have spoken about security from the start—it concerns the real residents and those genuinely affected.
Chaiwat continued, “Transforming land into assets for investors—is that a matter of security? I question this because my evidence is official. I cannot accept it and call it disgraceful. The 80,000 rai said to be annexed actually do not exist. The villagers oppose and disagree, yet officials claim to have gained some parts and lost others, saying it’s acceptable. This is unacceptable from state officials. It must be clarified that trying to whitewash state officials who have committed offenses and are under prosecution is not permissible. Section 64 of the National Park Act 1961 already provides for supporting impoverished people from the beginning. It has been amended to allow people to live with the forest. For more than 30 years, people have lived alongside the forest and wildlife. Later, the 2019 National Park Act, Section 64, outlines coexistence between people and forest habitats. We have just amended the law, yet now there is talk of not wanting to live with the forest or wildlife anymore.
“They claim they lived there first and that the forest boundaries came later. This is fraudulent. Such claims are invalid. If people truly lived there before 1954, the Department of Lands or the Land Committee should have issued land titles, not ALDO land. Doing it this way is improper. I will fully oppose it. The 2019 National Park Act Section 64 and the 2019 Wildlife Protection Act Section 121 protect the quality of life for people, which can be inherited. There is no forced relocation. Society understands this and knows it well. They claim the area is urbanized, but the 52,000 rai of ALDO land divided into three parcels that overlap the park—I accept those. But if any are improper, they are improper. If overlapping, assign to ALDO.
However, ALDO issued additional land documents, called 'swollen ALDO land,' which is corruption. They cannot simply assign land to ALDO and let ALDO resolve it as a legal matter. ALDO documents issued from 2019 to 2024 were granted after the cases began, indicating premeditation and a coordinated scheme. I have no personal interest, but as a former head of the ‘Wild Tiger’ team, I arrested investors and saw wealthy people building vacation homes and even posting land for sale. They claim the area is urban, but it is not. It only recently became developed. They say developed areas should be given away, but is that right? We must check who truly occupied the land before the park was declared.”