Mae Wong dam, cable car debates rear their ugly heads
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.