Furthermore, as outlined in the previous section, the law fails to provide concrete guidance on compensation to victims of State-sanctioned land acquisition. In this way, too much legal leeway is allowed to companies to make their own judgements on fair land values. The one legal protection offered to Kyaikmayaw farmers is found in the 2012 Farmland Act’s requirement that land for State projects must be returned if the project is terminated or not carried out within the prescribed timeframe.235 However, the lack of transparency surrounding company activities makes it difficult to know where a project stands, whether it is sanctioned by the State, or what timeframe is assigned to it. HURFOM thereby calls for a full investigation of these conditions and, if warranted, the return of residents’ land.
(IV) RESIDENTS’ CALLS FOR SUPPORT Many interviewees in Kyaikmayaw Township expressed a desire for assistance with their land disputes. This was particularly true in Mae Gro village where over the years farmers fell victim to company after company seeking to acquire land. Nai Tun Kyi, 55, was one of several residents who called for legal counsel: “We would like to appeal for a fair lawyer [to advocate] for our field and we want help from the people from humanitarian groups, people who help farmers like us.”236 Others called for assistance from members of parliament, specifically mentioning MPs Mi Yin Chan (USDP) and Mi Myint Than (AMDP).237 These calls for help depict farmers’ acknowledgement of the need to garner experienced support that can advance their cause and build their own capacities to negotiate effectively with companies. A Ka Don Si resident said:
235
Farmland Act (2012), Article 32. HURFOM Interview No, K1, Mae Gro village, April 2013. See also HURFOM Interview K4, Mae Gro village, April 2013. 237 HURFOM Interviews K2 & K4, Mae Gro village, April 2013. 236
HURFOM Ι October 2013
82