In the quaint province of Phrae, the peaceful day was dramatically interrupted as about 1,000 residents rallied against the ruling Pheu Thai Party’s contentious revival of the Kaeng Suea Ten Dam project in Song district. The air was thick with a unique blend of resistance and solemnity as locals converged at tambon Sa Lab, parading three coffins ominously marked with the names of Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Phumtham Wechayachai, Public Health Minister Somsak Thepsutin, and former deputy prime minister Plodprasop Suraswadi. These prominent figures have found themselves at the heart of the controversy, accused of breathing new life into a project long buried by dissent.
The protest was a direct response to Mr. Phumtham’s recent comments underscoring the government’s renewed interest in a colossal 200-billion-baht water management program. This ambitious agenda includes the controversial dam, touted as a solution to the perennial flooding in the Yom River basin. The Kaeng Suea Ten Dam project, first suggested in 1980, has a history marred by criticism from both locals and environmentalists. Though it resurfaced briefly under the Yingluck Shinawatra administration in 2012, it was once again shelved following the 2014 military coup.
This time around, Mr. Phumtham’s proposal aims to alleviate flood risks by controlling water levels in the Yom River, a tributary feeding into the Chao Phraya River, which meanders through the Central Plains and flows into the Gulf of Thailand. His vision gained support from Mr. Somsak, a political heavyweight in the adjacent Sukhothai province, and Mr. Plodprasop, an experienced former natural resource and environment permanent secretary. Together, they see the dam as a necessary advancement for the region’s water management.
However, not everyone shares their enthusiasm. Harnnarong Yaowalers, president of the Foundation for Integrated Water Management, has been a vocal critic, warning of the severe ecological and social consequences. He estimates that the construction of the dam could decimate 40,000 rai of the precious golden teak forests, among Thailand’s few remaining. The loss of these forests would not only be an environmental calamity but also a cultural one, disrupting the delicate balance of nature that has been maintained for centuries.
Moreover, the project poses a grave threat to local communities, potentially displacing at least 2,000 families in three villages: Baan Mae Ten, Don Kaew, and Don Chai. The familiar landscapes, homes, and livelihoods of these families hang in the balance, threatened by a flood of legislative power and infrastructural ambition. As the battle lines are drawn, both sides of the debate prepare for what is sure to be a heated clash between progress and preservation.
For the residents of Phrae and the surrounding regions, the Kaeng Suea Ten Dam isn’t just a debate over water management—it’s a fight for their heritage and future. The protest, rich with symbolism and defiance, underscores the communal spirit and deep-rooted connection to their land. As the coffins were carried, they served as a stark reminder that for some, the price of progress can be unbearably high. Whether this controversial dam will ever become a reality remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: the voices of Phrae’s residents will not be easily silenced.
These people need to realize the dam can save lives by controlling floods. Progress has its costs, but isn’t it worth it?
Joe, easier said than done. It’s not just about controlling floods; it’s about destroying ecosystems and displacing communities!
Couldn’t some of the potential environmental impacts be mitigated with modern technology?
Linda, sometimes sacrifices are necessary. Plus, the government is promising to help relocate those displaced.
How can we trust a government that revives a project that was deemed too controversial decades ago?
History has shown that economic benefits are often prioritized over environmental concerns. It’s no surprise they’re pushing it again.
This project might ruin the last golden teak forests we have. There’s no justification for that.
Can’t we just plant more trees elsewhere to compensate?
Jake, you can’t replace centuries-old forests with new saplings. It’s about the biodiversity and the cultural heritage that’s irreplaceable.
Sacrificing forests for flood control is shortsighted. There are other ways to manage water levels without destroying nature.
Are we seriously still debating this? The project will create jobs and boost the local economy. Priorities, people!
Arthur, at what cost? Displacing families and ruining ecosystems isn’t worth any economic boost.
Sandra, displaced families will get compensated. And with new jobs, the overall quality of life might even improve.
The loss of 40,000 rai of forest is a crime. We owe it to future generations to protect what little natural beauty we have left.
NatureFirst, idealism doesn’t solve real-world problems. We need practical solutions, and sometimes that means tough decisions.
Why isn’t there more discussion about alternative solutions? Why jump to such a drastic measure like building a dam?
Exactly! There are definitely eco-friendly alternatives to explore before jumping to such destructive projects.
Phrae’s residents deserve to have their voices heard. This isn’t just about water management; it’s about respecting people’s homes and heritage.
How much of this protest is driven by real concerns, and how much is just political maneuvering by opposition parties?
SkepticalSam, even if politics are involved, the concerns are legitimate. Both sides have their agendas, but the impact on locals is real.
grower134, true, but we need to ensure the opposition isn’t just inflaming fears for their gain. Objective analysis is key.
The government needs to keep in mind the socio-cultural impacts of displacing families. You can’t just offer compensation and expect people to move on.
Using coffins in a protest is powerful symbolism. Shows how deeply this affects the community. It’s not just an abstract issue for them.
I feel like focusing on alternative water management strategies would be more beneficial in the long run.
This dam project was shelved for a reason. It seems to revive it now is ignoring past lessons. Are we not progressing in our thinking?
Harnnarong Yaowalers is right to warn about the ecological consequences. What are 2,000 families supposed to do if they lose everything?
Flooding is a serious issue, but surely we can find a solution that doesn’t involve such a high ecological and social cost.
Jenny, there are always pros and cons. It’s about finding a balance. For every loss, there’s a potential gain in flood management.
Joe, some losses are irreplaceable. You can’t balance out cultural heritage and ancient forests.