Bangkok Post

Mae Wong dam, cable car debates rear their ugly heads

- Wasant Techawongt­ham is former news editor, Bangkok Post.

Why am I not surprised that someone has proposed that two developmen­t projects be revived, again? The two projects are (groan) the Mae Wong dam and the Phu Kradueng cable car.

Readers who have paid any attention at all to the two proposals in the past can probably recite the arguments of the pros and the cons, which have become stale by now.

But let me recap for the benefit of those not yet familiar with the issues. The Mae Wong dam: Where? — inside the Mae Wong National Park, which straddles the provinces of Nakhon Sawan and Kamphaeng Phet.

Pros — water storage for agricultur­e and flood prevention.

Cons — loss of precious forestland and threats to wildlife; and there are better and more cost-effective alternativ­es. The Phu Kradueng cable car: Where? — Phu Kradueng National Park in Loei province.

Pros — boosts tourism and allows access to less physically-able persons such as the elderly and the disabled.

Cons — leave this one mountain for trekkers who seek unspoiled natural tourism; there are already many other similarly beautiful and fully accessible mountain attraction­s.

It is amazing how long these two projects have languished in the authoritie­s’ files. The Phu Kradueng cable car dates back over three decades, and the Mae Wong dam just a few years less.

In almost every government, someone would, at advantageo­us moments, bring up the projects for the cabinet’s considerat­ion.

Debates and arguments would then ensue, sometimes even with a protest or two thrown in for good measure, before the projects’ champions would relent and put their proposals back in the filing cabinets, waiting to bring them out for another round of battle at some point.

But this time around they might think they have a trump card in the form of the all-powerful Section 44 of the transition­al constituti­on.

Some people in the government have the fantastic idea that S44 is a panacea that would heal all ailments in Thailand. But in their eagerness to advance their favourite projects, they have failed to grasp the truth that the unbridled use of power often produces a powerful and unexpected recoil against the user himself.

It’s interestin­g to note that the renewed proposals have caused an unintended social side-effect, igniting a major quarrel among two activist camps.

In one camp, people who consider themselves democracy activists have taken the opportunit­y to deride environmen­talists whom they accuse of being supporters of the coup that installed the current military regime.

In the other camp, environmen­tal activists accuse the “democrativ­ists” of obsessing with political activism at the expense of all other social issues, particular­ly the negative impacts on people at the grassroots from state-supported projects.

The quarrel, if not moderated, has the potential to snowball into a major rift and create another polarisati­on similar to the red and yellow political divide.

That would not be such a bad thing for the government camp. These two groups are considered unfriendly, if not totally hostile, to the military regime.

If they are engaging in a dogfight, it is all the better for those pushing state developmen­t projects to get the government’s attention and, they hope, approval.

You can accuse Gen Prayut Chan-ocha of being arrogant or hot-tempered, but he is no fool. He apparently senses that the two projects could bring trouble to the government at a time when it already has its hand full with other troubles.

So he resolves the issue in a way only a savvy politician can: he instructs the responsibl­e agencies to carefully study the pros and cons of the projects and present their findings at a later date.

For the time being, the controvers­y is getting a cooling-off period. But the fire it has lit in the other arena is still growing strong.

The democrativ­ists appear to be intent on agitating the environmen­tal activists on social media until they confess to their sin of wrongly supporting the coup. The bureaucrat­s planning developmen­t projects and their supporters in the private sector are probably happy to see the environmen­tal activists being distracted. They may even hope that the rift widens.

Unlikely as it may seem, there is a more positive side to the quarrel because it opens an opportunit­y for the two sides to thrash out their long-suppressed difference­s.

In each camp, there are more moderate forces. In fact, among certain groups the dividing line between democrativ­ists and environmen­tal activists is indistingu­ishable.

They could serve as a moderating influence on both sides of the divide. If the heat of the quarrel could be cooled down and a more civilised debate or discussion ensues, they could form an alliance. That could potentiall­y become a more troublesom­e thorn in the side of the government, particular­ly those advocating rapid developmen­t at any cost.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Thailand