The renewed campaign against illegal resorts built on public beaches and protected forests is a welcome sign that authorities are taking conservation more seriously.
Encroachers have been ordered to demolish resorts, restaurants or even shops they built on public beaches in Phuket, for example, such as Bang Tao, Nui Beach or Freedom Beach. That follows similar crackdowns in other tourist destinations, and sends an important message that public land cannot simply be appropriated for private gain.
That is why a proposal raised during this week's budget debate by Bhumjaithai Party MP Kulwalee Nopamornbodi deserves close scrutiny. Instead of demolishing illegally built resorts, the chair of the House subcommittee on land use suggested the government should consider retaining and using the structures to generate revenue, arguing demolition would create carbon emissions while preserving them would benefit the local economy.
At first glance, the idea may appear pragmatic. Tourism is a vital industry, and demolishing buildings undoubtedly carries environmental and economic costs. But the proposal overlooks a far more important principle: developments built illegally on public land should not be rewarded simply because they prove commercially successful.
The government's enforcement campaign has been welcomed by conservationists after years of concern over unchecked encroachment on beaches, forests and national parks. Volunteer groups have even begun offering rewards for information leading to the discovery of illegal resorts, reflecting growing support for stronger protection of natural resources.
Allowing illegally constructed resorts to remain in operation would undermine those efforts. If developers come to believe that unlawful construction can ultimately be legitimised because it generates income, respect for land-use laws will inevitably weaken. Illegal encroachment would become a calculated business risk rather than an offence carrying meaningful consequences.
The proposal also deserves attention because it comes from the chair of the House subcommittee on land use. Parliamentary committees and subcommittees play an important role in shaping future legislation and public policy. They also provide opportunities for businesses and interest groups to present their views. Any study of this proposal must ensure the long-term public interest is not overshadowed by short-term commercial considerations.
The case for protecting public land extends well beyond tourism. Forests replenish water resources, absorb carbon and reduce the impact of floods. Coastal ecosystems protect biodiversity and help guard against erosion and increasingly severe storms. Once these natural assets are lost to unplanned development, restoring them is both costly and, in many cases, impossible.
Economic development and environmental protection need not be mutually exclusive. But sustainable development depends on respect for the rule of law. Thailand cannot credibly claim to be protecting its natural heritage while allowing illegally built resorts to remain simply because they have become profitable. The government should enforce land laws consistently and restore public land to its intended purpose. Weakening enforcement now would send the wrong signal: that those who disregard the law may eventually be rewarded rather than held accountable.
