Thailand witnessed several uprisings by farmers from several central Thai provinces in the mid-1970s. Thailand, transitioning to democratic government after nearly forty years of dictatorship was beset by revolution involving several segments of the population. Farmers were one of several politicized groups that rioted on the streets. They implored Thai Prime Minister Thanom Kittikachorn to reduce their debt and ensure fair rice prices.
These appeals were unsuccessful, as the prime minister declined to meet with representatives of the farmers. The farmers subsequently organised collective action, including announcing that they would cease paying taxes and refusing to recognise the authority of the Thai state leadership. They also established an autonomous liberated zone. According to contemporary accounts and later scholarship, these actions were intended to address indebtedness, increase farmers' influence over rice crop prices, and improve their economic conditions.
The objectives of the farmers' movement included seeking greater recognition for farmers' contributions to the state and advocating treatment equal to that of their landowners. During the revolt, the Farmers Federation of Thailand (FFT), a national, autonomous Thai farmers organisation, emerged. The FFT played a leading role in campaigns in northern Thailand that contributed to the passage of the Land Rent Control Act (LRCA) of December 1974, which standardised and lowered rents on rice land.
Following the 14 October 1973 movement, farmers and their allies, including students and members of the professional classes, organised mass protests and campaigns calling for reforms aimed at improving the living conditions of farmers. These activities brought the movement into conflict with some landowners and state officials. In the following years, activists were subjected to harassment, and a number of FFT leaders were assassinated. Between March 1974 and September 1979, 21 FTT leaders were assassinated, with most of the killings occurring in the Chiang Mai region. According to historians, the assassination of FTT leaders contributed to an atmosphere of fear in the countryside and significantly weakened the FFT and the broader farmers' movement.
Social and economic situation
Major issues in Thai society were rural poverty and regional underdevelopment. Cities enjoyed sharp growth and along with it, a growing and prospering urban middle class. Composing up to 78 percent of Thailand's total labour force, peasant farmers formed the largest occupational group in Thailand. Agricultural output, mainly rice, accounted for nearly 30 percent of Thailand's GDP.
The producers of these commodities, however, were not among the beneficiaries. Farmers depended on rice sales to survive. To better protect themselves, they organised themselves and formed a national coalition of farmers against exploitative market conditions. Though the farmers attempted in vain to defend their livelihood and source of income, their efforts were systematically frustrated by governmental authorities in collusion with landlords and others with vested interests in ensuring that rice prices remained low. In the 1970s a Thai farmer's average per capita income was only US$49. In contrast, the average national per capita income was US$125, and that of urban residents stood at US$428.
The growing income gap YearPer capita income of farmers (baht) (A)Per capita income of city dwellers (baht) (B)A/B (%) 1960 1,044 6,434 16.2 1970 1,310 8,618 15.2 1975 1,433 10,061 14.2 1980 1,525 12,964 11.8 1985 1,724 15,110 11.4 Source: News report in Prachtnippatai, 23 Jul 1974. quoted from Akira Takahashi, "Thailand: Growing Land Problems", in Z. M. Ahmadi, ed., Land Reform in Asia, Geneva, 1976, p. 118.
Thailand had not previously suffered from the runaway population growth found in most developing nations. The productivity of its soil, along with its external environment, combined with a non-existent political culture, based on the tenets of respect and love for a hereditary monarch, had the effect of creating political passivity in Thailand's rural population. But several policy changes enacted by the government had an adverse effect on rural Thailand, particularly during the period of open politics from 1973 to 1976. The combination of a sudden uptick in Thailand's population along with the increasing scarcity of arable land led to increasing political and social conflict.
Invariably, tenancy and debts increased among farmers, especially in the north and central plains. Though there was increased interaction between farmers and governmental officials due to improved infrastructure and the increasing presence of the government in the countryside, the nature of these interactions was frequently negative. Farmers were distrustful and over a period of time finally reached their breaking point. They turned to political action to make their grievances known to the government. In an era of more open politics, there were instances of petitions against land rents and demonstrations leading to the emergence of the Farmer Federation of Thailand (FFT). The FFT frequently clashed with the ruling elite in its attempt to improve the lives of the Thai farmers.
Rice production policies
Rice is central to Thailand's economy and culture. Cultivation occupies approximately 55 percent of Thailand's arable land and is the staple food across all income brackets. Thailand in the 1970s invested heavily in infrastructure improvements, agricultural research, and road networks to increase its rice production. The use of technology, combined with advanced knowledge of rice strains and fertilisers, along with helpful governmental policies, increased rice production. From the 1950s to the 1970s, rice production per unit of land increased by almost 50 percent.
Concomitantly, the government sought to accelerate growth in urban areas. One of its policies was to tax the rice industry and use the profits to fund much-needed projects in the larger cities. Thai authorities levied taxes on rice exports known as the "rice premium". This increased tax revenues, while at the same time decreasing the price of rice domestically. The government, in enacting this policy, shifted from protecting the farmers to leaving the rice industry to market forces, often leading to unbridled profit taking.
Though technology had greatly improved rice production, it had not translated into success for peasant farmers. Escalating prices left many farmers unable to hold onto their lands. Many had to become tenants to sustain themselves. Despite uncertainty in the Thai economy, the government appeared unconcerned. Taxes were collected good year or bad, which further drove down farming profits.
The introduction of new technology meant that rice farming barriers to entry mounted, leaving most peasant farmers unable to own their land outright. Larger farming operations were able to meet the rising costs of these new technologies and were able to purchase fertiliser, improved rice strains, and machinery without much problem. The average farmer though, had to make a living as a manual labourer on a farm earning barely enough to feed himself and his family.
Problems of tenancy and rural debt The construction of new rural infrastructure was initiated and managed by the bureaucratic elite in Bangkok rather than by rural villagers. At the top, corruption was prevalent. High-ranking officials received kickbacks. While the government sought to implement measures to improve agricultural output, these projects in general did relatively little to improve farmer's lives. Instead, the agricultural sector was plagued by the growing issues of indebtedness and land shortages. The country's total agricultural debt was estimated at 143 million baht, with the bulk of the debt (78 percent) concentrated in Chiang Mai and the central plains.
Though indebtedness in rural areas was present as early as the 1930s, farmers during that period still owned their lands outright. Tenant farmers and absentee landlords were non-existent. A survey conducted by the National Statistical Office found that 40 percent of farmers were renting out part or all of their land they farmed in the central plains. In Chiang Mai and other northern regions, up to 18 percent of farmers were tenants, whereas in other areas of Thailand the figures were comparatively lower.
Eight years later, another study was conducted which found 56 percent of farmers in the central plains rented some of the lands they tilled while 27 percent did not own any land at all. In a decade, the rate of tenancy in the central area had more than doubled with only approximately 17 percent of farmers fully independent of landlords. The report also found that four of every five farming families were in debt for an aggregate sum of 16 billion baht. The average farm family debt was US$200, compared to an average family income of less than US$300 a year. Some of the families lived on US$25 or less a year.
A number of significant factors contributed to the higher rates of tenancy, rural indebtedness, and land rents in the north and central plains. It was found that the land holdings in the north were smaller than in any other region of the country, thus reducing efficiency. Farming was done on a much smaller scale, which combined with lower productivity, yielded low incomes.
Population growth in Thailand As the Thai economy evolved with higher standards of living, farmers saw their incomes shrink. Small scale farming operations had to borrow from money lenders, usually middlemen involved in the rice trade or owners of rice mills. The loans made at high interest rates. The problems of land fragmentation and subdivision also contributed to problems in the north. A report submitted by the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) found that subdivision of land holdings was growing rapidly in Thailand. Sub-divisions occurred mostly following the death of the landholder.
1850191119431958196719731978 Population in millions 4 8 16 24 32 40 47 Source: Compiled from National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), Bangkok.
Relations between farmers and landlords Aggravating the situation, farmers, often illiterate, were often cheated. When harvests were poor, farmers had no choice but to mortgage their land as collateral to obtain a loan. Should the farmer fail to repay the loan, he would forfeit his land. Farmers with a run of bad harvests, combined with high interest rates, would lose ownership of their land.
Farmers in the central and northern plains have suffered from severe indebtedness since the 1930s. By the 1970s, most of the farmers had lost their land to creditors. The government ignored this issue as Thai farmers lacked political clout. Farmers were seen as disorganised, scattered, and politically apathetic, accepting misfortune and poverty as their lot in life. This all changed in 1973, when farmers decided to take matters into their own hands and sought to change their lives.
The political mobilization of farmers 1973 was a watershed year for Thai politics. The government transitioned from a military dictatorship to a moderate civilian government. This provided an opening for the political mobilisation and participation of various segments of society in the political affairs of the country. Social discontent and the urgent needs of oppressed classes formerly subjugated by authoritarian rule, were thrust into the forefront and these issues were openly raised. Labour disputes were suddenly discussed with great vigour.