Hello, welcome to The Standard Now with me, Off Chainont. Today, we have another big issue that we need to discuss with everyone, especially our northern brothers and sisters. How are you all doing with the current dust situation? It has been bad for many days, spanning weeks and months, and it's still not improving. And it's getting close to Songkran. Early next week, many of you are worried about tourism in Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai, Lampang, Lamphun, Phayao, Nan, and Mae Hong Son. Because as of today, since this morning, the dust levels in Chiang Mai have been the worst in the world, number 1. Since this morning, it has far exceeded the limit. Overall, it's red at 184 US AQI. But if you look at the specific areas in Chiang Mai, it's not just red, it's purple. Some areas have exceeded 200, 300. In fact, it might have been even worse last week. Another place that is equally bad, or rather, worse, is Mae Hong Son. People in the remote districts say they can't take it anymore. This has already decreased. Viewers, what you see as purple-brown, 500, 400, this is already reduced. Just a few days ago, it was 1,000. Oh, over 1,000. I looked and was shocked. Oh, how can people live here? Look at this. But even though it has decreased somewhat, it's still bad, and there's still burning going on. All in all, we need to discuss why this time it's so severe. What caused it? Is it villagers foraging for forest products? Is it villagers burning for agriculture? Who is responsible for what? Is it neighboring countries burning, and the smoke drifts over, causing toxic PM 2.5 dust? And why do we have to discuss this every year? It comes back at the end of the year and the beginning of the year. So, can sustainable solutions be implemented or not? Ladies and gentlemen, at the same time, another issue that many are concerned about is the Clean Air Act. It is currently being pushed, and it is stuck at the Senate. Overall, whoever pollutes must pay and be responsible. But it turns out that from May 13th onwards, if the government does not allow the parliament to consider this draft further, it will be dropped. This means we have to start discussing it again, from scratch, from step one, and we don't know how long it will take, perhaps months or years. The signals coming from the government side, particularly from the Bhumjaithai Party, seem to agree, but they agree with reservations. They agree, but they question if the law is redundant, if it gives too much power to officials, if it creates unnecessary committees, what about existing agencies, will they be established anew? And will it be a cost burden for entrepreneurs? And who will invest? The Bhumjaithai Party agrees that it should exist but needs amendments. Therefore, today, I invite two genuine experts on this matter to join us for discussion and analysis. We have Dr. Polprasop Suraswadi, former Deputy Prime Minister, and Mr. Sombat Boonngam-ngern, political activist and Director of the Mirror Foundation. Hello.

Hello. Hello. Hello. Thank you to both of you for honoring the program. Actually, there are many issues today. First of all, I must ask both of you. We hear about toxic PM 2.5 dust every year. Brother Sombat, Brother Nu, you go to extinguish forest fires every year. Why is it so severe this year?

Because the summer rain has been delayed.

Hmm, there's no summer rain, right?

Actually, there was one round, and it swept through once. But the second round hasn't come yet.

And the delay is long?

Yes.

And it causes the fires we see in vast numbers, say 1,000 fires, 1,000 fires. It doesn't mean 1,000 hot spots were set by people.

Yes.

But it means about 100 people set them, and the other 900 are spreading fires.

Ah.

And these spreading fires, if there's no rain to help, which normally happens every year.

Yes, to help put out the fires. So, when the rain is delayed for a long time, it leads to a situation where.

Ah.

It cannot be managed because the number of people to extinguish fires is less than the number of fires, and it's a situation where fires are spreading.

So, the burning is the same, but there's less rain?

Maybe. There might have been an incident where, in this round, about 2-3 weeks ago.

Yes.

There was a simultaneous ignition of fires throughout the North.

Hmm. The number of fires increased by several times, about 3-4 times.

3-4 times.

Hmm.

Which is a strange phenomenon. And those who follow fires have observed that.

It's like they agreed to burn.

And it's a simultaneous burning, but not just one spot, they all burned together. Which later became an issue of people digging into whether there was.

This year, there was a procurement for private companies to manage fuel.

Hmm.

Which was reported by opposition MPs. But when looking into the details of the contract, it was found that they managed fuel in January and February.

Yes.

But in practice, I still think there should be an investigation into the fires.

Hmm.

To see why on that day, when it escalated all at once, and they couldn't cope. Let me state beforehand that after that day, when the fires occurred all at once, 300-400%, the firefighting team could not contain the situation. They couldn't put out the fires, and they spread further and further.

Uh-huh.

They spread until now. Some of the fires that have been extinguished, besides people putting them out, some are because the fuel ran out.

Yes.

The fuel lines are gone.

Hmm.

So, it started to subside. But the number of fires is still high.

Yes, let's go into more detail. Let's ask Dr. Polprasop as well. Similar question. Why does it seem worse than every year? Who is burning? Who is doing what?

First of all.

Yes.

We should all agree that people are definitely the ones starting the fires.

Yes.

So, let's rule out lightning strikes and natural disasters. There are no volcanoes erupting and setting forests on fire. So, let's just say people are burning.

Ah-ah, no argument, people are burning. Okay.

Ghosts can't burn either.

What's second? Who is burning?

Ah, who is burning?

People in Bangkok don't burn.

Yes.

They are far away.

Hmm.

People in Songkhla are even further away.

Ah.

People in Chiang Mai city don't go.

Oh, they can't walk anymore. I don't know why they would go. Burning might even get them into trouble.

Yes.

So, who is left to burn? It must be those who are close to the forest.

Hmm.

Or in the forest.

Yes.

I'm not forcing you to believe this. Unlike the first point, I'm forcing you to believe that people are burning. But personally, as a former Director-General of the Royal Forest Department, as the founder of the Forest Fire Division, which I don't know who has abolished now.

Hmm.

They abolished it. So, fires must increase.

Because the person directly responsible is gone. And forest fire management is a subject. It's studied up to a doctorate. I'll tell you.

Yes.

Now, if I say people living near the forest are the ones burning, there must be a reason.

Why are they burning?

Ah, why are they burning?

If they burn a little, it can sometimes be explained. For example.

They're angry at their neighbors.

Ah, for example.

Yes.

They're angry at the officials. They burn a little to teach them a lesson.

Ah.

Or they burn because they believe that after burning, mushrooms will grow in abundance. Because they remember where mushrooms used to grow.

Ah.

Or they burn because they want to drive away certain animals for hunting.

So, there are some cases, but not many nowadays. They're not hunting much anymore. I don't know if they hunt to sell. If they hunt to sell, they get caught. If they hunt to eat, it's a sin.

Hmm.

Not many nowadays. Very few. The issue of burning for hunting is probably very little, very, very little.

Now, if I say this again, it means there might be other motives.

Hmm.

You, Sombat, just gave an example. I won't repeat it.

Yes.

I have heard it and believe it to some extent.

Which part do you believe?

It's about making a living. To put it crudely, making a living from forest fires.

Ah, making a living from the process.

Both burning and extinguishing.

Yes?

Second, which I have heard.

Which I have already spoken about.

There are people who get angry at me, hate me, want to curse me. Call me names. Call me whatever you want. I don't hear it.

If you call me, I'll hear it.

There must be something like a man's honor.

Someone told me.

Land issues.

Hmm.

Land issues.

There is.

The law, the Biodiversity Act, right? It has been enacted.

Ah.

But the implementation has barely begun.

Yes.

The survey is not yet finished.

Hmm.

The survey.

Yes.

Second, identifying who is who.

Hmm.

Is also not finished. So, it's stuck. When it's stuck, no one benefits.

Hmm.

It's possible that there are people who want it to end so they can benefit. If we look at it positively, it's for good.

Yes.

If we look at it negatively, it's to sell in the future. Whatever you choose. But the point is.

They want it to end, but it never ends.

Yes.

So, they burn it.

So that it can end.

Ah.

Yes.

Because it's no longer a forest.

You burned it until it's no longer a forest.

Hmm.

Until there's no forest left.

There's no forest left. It's already on fire. It's all burned.

It's already burned. This is piled up.

The belief.

Yes.

People in the Forest Department and National Parks believe that.

Hmm.

Okay, that's done.

There's another issue, clean air.

We just discussed it.

Yes.

I am a committee member. I am the chairman of the advisory board.

Yes.

I almost became the chairman of the committee, but there was a political request, so I didn't. And I'm glad I didn't. I attended many meetings, and later on.

Ah.

How was it?

I felt bored.

Hmm.

In the committee of over 30 people.

Yes.

There are about 10-11 people from the People's Party.

Yes.

And there are people, citizen groups.

Yes.

Or sometimes they call them NGOs.

Yes.

When I, specifically, mention the name NGO, it sounds like an insult.

Please understand, but if you want to understand it that way, go ahead.

No problem.

They argue, and the cow loses every time.

Hmm.

Every time.

Yes.

I remember the last day I attended, we discussed the provincial committee chairman.

Yes.

The meeting debated whether it should be the provincial governor or the provincial administrative organization chairman. I told the meeting that as a former civil servant, a permanent secretary, a director-general of 7 departments.

Yes.

And all the departments I headed had regional administration.

Hmm.

Today, you mean well in terms of democracy, you mean well in terms of decentralization.

But it's not time for the governor yet.

Ah, it's not time to get there yet.

But when it comes to the provincial administrative organization chairman, bang!

They are not officials. They are not superiors. Thailand is governed by the state.

Yes.

Bureaucracy.

Yes.

And this fire, this air, PM 2.5, or unclean air, some of it occurs in the city.

Ah.

Another part occurs in the forest. When it occurs in the forest, it requires authority. It requires many people. It requires authority.

Yes.

It won't function.

Hmm.

So, there had to be a vote. The vote resulted in.

It came out like this. One issue.

Yes.

All government agencies are very concerned right now.

Hmm. Concerned about what?

Concerned that it won't work.

Meaning the.

The provincial committee.

Yes.

Everyone involved is concerned.

Hmm.

Whether it's forestry, national parks, promotion departments, or whoever is on the committee, I don't know. I've forgotten.

Yes.

Another thing is that this concept.

All parties agree. The vote was almost zero.

Yes.

Especially on the issue of the Polluter Pays System.

Hmm.

You need to understand. I am one of the first environmental students in Thailand.

Yes.

I taught at universities. Almost every university on environmental issues.

Yes.

So, I agree with this. But the Polluter Pays System.

It must not be so harsh that.

Ah.

You mentioned it earlier.

That the investors.

Invest. Hmm.

All go bankrupt. It can't move forward.

So, it might need to create a system that has.

A step-by-step approach.

Yes.

Step by step.

Ah.

Clear and quantifiable.

Ah.

The clearest one. The act has over 300 articles.

Ah, so many articles.

Oh, so many.

Hmm.

That day, when they voted.

They voted for 5-6 hours, 5-6 days.

Yes.

They didn't eat or drink. Everyone spoke and criticized the committee members.

Why so many? How did you meet? Why did it come out to over 300 articles? I said I warned them.

Yes.

It shouldn't be. It should only be about 100. The rest should be secondary laws, issued as.

What do they call it? Ministerial regulations. When it's ministerial regulations, it's just the minister or the cabinet, and it can be changed at any time. But when you issue it as an act, bang!

Changing one article takes years. It can't be done.

Ah.

So.

Today, it seems everyone agrees. Let's rewrite it. So, I told everyone.

Rewriting it. First, I'm not sure if I'll agree because I've already drafted it.

Yes.

Second, if you do it, you must finish it.

Make a promise to yourselves. Make a promise to the people.

That it must be finished within this year. No more than 1 year. Don't let them regret it. Okay, we'll discuss it fully later. I'll pause here for now because the Clean Air Act is another issue. But I want to return to the forest fires and dust first.

Yes.

From Brother Nu Ling's perspective.

Yes.

I'd like to update Dr. Polprasop a bit. This year, there have been many cases of people hunting. I still insist that hunting is still a significant issue.

Still there?

Still there.

Second, it's evident. When we go as a team to extinguish fires, we see the behavior of people in the forest carrying long guns, shotguns.

This is still abundant. If I want to send a signal about this, I'd like to signal that these guns, these cap guns, are actually illegal.

Yes.

And when you go into the forest, you don't know the reason. I think about 20 years ago, there was a period. These cap guns, I don't know from which era, but during that period, many guns disappeared. Now, it seems they are everywhere. Easy to buy. In Lamphun province, I'll say it. My subordinate reported that Lamphun is very strange. When we go to extinguish fires, we only find villagers carrying guns into the forest to hunt.

Hmm.

Next is the issue of the hypothesis, as Dr. Polprasop mentioned, that it's due to the Biodiversity Act.

Hmm.

Or issues related to land.

Yes.

To legalize land.

Uh-huh, okay, but it never gets there.

Okay, okay. In reality, there are satellite images.

Yes.

When anyone, whether they are ethnic groups or anyone else, actually, the Royal Forest Department has data. Especially now, with technology, there are many rounds per year.

That data. It can be used. Dr. Polprasop announced the use of it in 2008.

Ah, correct, correct. Others, others, they don't let me use it. I do.

Yes. I will inform you that currently, there is updated satellite data.

Therefore, I think we don't need to worry if anyone wants to encroach on new forest areas. There is evidence to confirm it. Therefore, burning is not suspicious.

Wait a minute. Excuse me. We are close. Wait.

New forest areas are not feared. But the problem is who benefits. It's not the same person. That's the problem.

Hmm.

When we go back and look at 2008 and who benefits today.

Okay.

That's the problem.

Yes, but if we explain it as Dr. Polprasop explained the current forest fire phenomenon.

Yes.

Therefore, the action must be the cause of the fire at this time. Therefore, forest fires at this time are not suspicious.

It doesn't mean that.

I mean, if you link it and cause forest fires to pressure land issues, it's to let people know that.

If the land issue isn't resolved, forest fires will continue like this. So, those who are troubled by land issues will burn it.

Hmm.

Okay, okay.

Because it's impossible to say that a tuk-tuk driver or a red taxi driver in Chiang Mai went up to burn it.

That's it.

Yes. I just want to tell you, Off.

Uh, the technology data can detect everything. There is data. It's enough for the agencies responsible for forest areas to make decisions on these matters. The data is sufficient.

Therefore, I have the opinion on this matter, hypothetically, that it is unlikely to be related to the push for various laws that are happening.

But human fire usage behavior is very diverse. It ranges from malicious intent, deliberate, to hunting. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires. They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

Everyone realizes they have to rely on themselves. Instead of the fire encroaching on the community or their own garden, they preemptively manage it. They light a fire to preempt it. This preemptive burning is a reason.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small ones.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more. Let me speak entertainingly, not to argue. I know each other very well.

You're speaking for yourself, and I agree. Because the Director-General told me, "Sir, it burned in one day, 3-4,000 spots. If they didn't coordinate, it's impossible." This is the problem.

You said that yourself, not me.

Uh, there was no day with 3,000 spots at once, but 3,000 spots were caused by the fire spreading. I want to give this picture first: Thai society is not that bad.

90% of the fires we see are spreading fires.

This needs to be analyzed systemically. It must go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. It's a year where.

It's delayed for 2-3 weeks, no rain to put out the fires.

Ah, look at what's burning.

Hmm.

If it burns horizontally, or vertically, from top to bottom. They hypothesize.

They lit it from above, and it came down to the village, and they went to sleep.

I'll tell you.

If it doesn't burn like this, like a village.

It will be a land issue.

Hmm. I.

Excuse me, because this is a team from the Mirror Foundation. They took the photos. This is a circle. But let me tell you the facts first. There was a fire above.

Ah.

This person is taking care of the garden here.

And the fire is above.

Afraid it will come down to the garden, even though there's a large firebreak.

They lit a fire to preempt it.

Correct. And this behavior is not ordinary.

Yes.

If this happens widely, it means that if the fire reaches a certain extent, and the fire comes, villagers don't believe officials will come to extinguish it.

I don't know the percentage. I don't know.

Which I disagree with.

Disagree with what?

With preemptive burning.

Why?

In practice, once it's burned, it can't be controlled.

The person who burned it can't control it because the fire is too widespread.

Correct. It goes left and right.

But the intention is to explain that.

When people use fire, it comes from various intentions. Some are malicious, deliberate, to hunt. These hunters are not ordinary. When they start a fire, they don't start small fires.

They start them. We have found fires that are.

What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals into it.

Now, we found fires that were lit, arranged in a pattern, like large incense sticks, like brooms.

Set the timer.

And wait for the incense to fall. Then it flares up. The person who lit it can escape.

From the start, it was deliberate.

Ah. There are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go foraging for forest products, like collecting honeycombs.

They use smoke to fumigate.

And they have to climb trees.

And sparks fall below, and they haven't finished collecting. They can't come down. Just a little more.

And then there was an innovation created, called fire. Is it necessary? Actually, it asks if it's necessary, and it is necessary because there is no other solution. If there's no other solution, then it's necessary. It's just that this application doesn't guarantee that when you receive approval, it depends on the university. The university is the one producing it. What university? Chiang Mai University. Yes. And it's legal, it's recognized. Government agencies register and request to use fire. Everyone has an agreement. Yes, and it's legal. Ah, the legality is a very interesting topic that not many people talk about because I've gone through the laws and I haven't found any law that allows the government to use fire. I haven't even found it for employees. Even for officials, in the Forest Act, I haven't allowed anyone to approve it, except for me. So I asked how it was possible. I'll tell you, I've asked about this in a subcommittee specifically on forest fires. There is no answer as to which law permits the use of fire. Therefore, all fuel management is risky. Risky. Extremely risky, yes. Well, but let's cut this off first, calm down, cut it. Let's talk about the law first. But by custom, if you don't allow it, there's no way out. You have to use fire. You might pressure them and say, "If so, can we burn before or after the rain?" During the time there are no problems, or after the rain, in the early period. Actually, there are methods of burning. I've seen villagers burn during the rainy season. But not while it's raining. There are methods. Let's assume we don't talk about legal or illegal. Yes. Uh, let's lean towards tradition or what has been done. In the past, going back. When I was director-general, going back to when I was just a baby. It can be done. Because there are only a few hill tribes. Yes. The areas where the hill tribes cultivate on the mountaintops are only a few hundred or a few thousand rai. Nowadays, there are millions of hill tribe people. Yes, the population has increased. Yes, the area used is millions of rai. Therefore, if a million people burn in millions of rai of land, based on this belief, nothing will be left. If everyone uses it the same way. Yes, that's right. Nothing will be left. It's as we see every day. No, no, but let's come back, let's come back. I want to explain first that actually, therefore, what is called shifting cultivation, or whatever it's called, it doesn't reach today. It didn't used to be. It took 5 years to return. Nowadays, it doesn't return. They have to stay there because there's nowhere else to go. Yes. I want to state the facts first, that there is information about the areas where fires occur. Yes. Most of it occurs in forests, not in agricultural areas. Therefore, the problem is that it's possible. This hypothesis is possible that it might start from agricultural areas and spread. To agricultural areas in forests, or agricultural areas in open fields, agricultural areas in forests, agricultural areas in forests. But it's like this. Ah, when we go to do, and no one allows us to farm in the forest, ah, we have to say, okay, just a moment, please. Ah, according to their customs, is there a chance of it spreading? There is a chance. However, in recent measures, there has been a lot of talk about being more careful, but incidents still occur. It's just that I think if there is a necessity, and the tools, there is this idea, this is how it's explained. Yes, that if we have a necessity and we forbid them from burning, they will secretly burn. Instead of secretly burning, come and register. This fire ID is to do this, to register. What's your name? What area, how many rai? When will you burn? And the problem with it is only one thing. Is it? Is it? Is it? When you finish requesting, this approval is debatable, but I'll put it aside for now. But after burning? There is no report that the burning is finished, with evidence that the fire did not spread. Oh. It's like this, I'm not just talking about those who use fire in agriculture. Anyone who is allowed to use fire out of necessity, yes, must report that your use of fire is within the scope and that the fire can be controlled. Yes. We don't see this. Therefore, this is the origin of some fire chasers who hypothesize that once you get approval to use fire, so much, yes, how do we know that the fire you lit will not spread, that you can control it? Because when you light a fire, you light a fire like this. Light a fire on a high place. We are firefighters. We know that fire goes uphill. Fire goes up. It's very difficult to control. It means there is a starting point. We know who will do what, when they will burn, but no one closes it. There is no evidence shown. Everyone says they have lit it, everything is ready, it has been done, but where is the evidence? And when a fire occurs, there is no investigation of the fire. Yes. The fire must be investigated to see where each point of fire that has erupted comes from. Yes. It's a fire that burns for 7 days and 7 nights. Yes. You go and say that someone lit this, you have to go back and trace the hotspot back to where it started. Ah. And investigate what possibilities there are. And then, if a fire investigation occurs, we will find the person. There is a chance of finding the person who lit it. Yes. And we will clearly understand the reason why they lit it. Yes. And if we find that person, we can check their record. There are 2 points being discussed here. Yes. Yes. The first point, which we have actually discussed, is that we are within the rules of the country. Yes. It's illegal. If it were a good thing, it would have been legal for a long time, like clean air. See? It's a good thing, and eventually, it will become law. Or like the National Biodiversity Act, it's a good thing, and eventually, it will become law. This case of requesting permission to burn has never been a law. This means it's a bad thing. Let me disagree, let me disagree, let me disagree. This side sees it as good. Another point, then disagree with another point. If it's good, it should have been legal for a long time. It should have been done. What's next? Point 2. Point 2. Listeners, please don't be angry with me. But if you want to be angry, be angry. If you want to scold me, scold me. Yes. A long time ago. Before Thailand existed, it was done. Yes. But nowadays, there are still cannibals in Borneo. Yes. There are cannibals. Nowadays, they've stopped eating people. Huh? So there's a question on this concept. Since fire cannot be controlled, the Thai population is increasing a lot. The Thai population on the mountains is also a lot. The importance of forests in making the ecosystem better, so that more than 70 million people can live happily, without illness, without anything. Yes. Uh, we must stop lighting fires in the forest. Yes. And we must find other ways to make a living. Yes. Simply put, right? What I'm saying is not what I'm saying. There are books. Because I've tried to look at the history written about where the hill tribes actually came from. They used to be in southern China. China thought like this, chasing them away, until they came to Burma, chasing them away until they came to Thailand. Yes. And as we see today, I don't dislike hill tribes. But I'm telling the truth, what history tells us. Therefore, in China, there are not many people burning now because there are no hill tribes. Yes. Or the hill tribes are no longer on the mountains, they have come down and are making a living in other ways. Some professions are not suitable for some areas. If we don't accept change, we have to face this. Which is fine. Okay, simply put, 1, if this method were good, it would have been legal for a long time. And 2, is to stop lighting fires in the forest, simply put. Change to other professions. It's too harsh to say that. I understand. It's like telling me to quit. It's like telling me to die. It's the same. I apologize for saying this, but I understand. It might preserve the forest. It's not the forest that preserves the people of the whole country, to have good health. There must be sacrifices. People must accept. Okay. What to do? 2 points. I'll go back to the facts first. The fires that are problematic are fires in the forest. Yes. That's correct again. But the point we are arguing about is where the starting point of the fire is. Right? Is it clearly visible? Those who go hunting, those who illegally do other things, it's not clear. But people who are in agriculture, on high ground, it's clear, it's tangible. So it becomes the point. But high-altitude agriculture is all in the forest. Because I understand, but they are allowed to be there. No, not exactly. Not exactly. Not exactly. Wait a moment, wait a moment. There will be a group. There will be a group that is allowed. Yes, that's right, that's right. Ah, but when, because it is. And this group is usually within the framework of high-altitude agricultural projects, which Mr. Chakraphan, with royal permission, has helped to develop and improve. His reason, for the King, I've heard him speak hundreds of times. I was director-general, don't forget. He cares about the forest and cares about the hill tribes. Yes. He even ordered me, hill tribes, don't be violent. Yes. You must understand them. They live on the mountain. Oh. Therefore, any subordinate of mine who arrests a hill tribe will be transferred by me. Oh, okay. Let's say there is a right to use granted. Yes, indeed, by the state. Therefore, when the state grants the right to use, and it can be used, it means it is legal, right? Well, not exactly. Ah, not exactly again. Not exactly. Oh, I can't go on. Ah, let me continue. They have the right to use the area. Yes. And their agricultural land, their farming, is necessary to use fire. The point for me is, those areas are not large. It's just that I want to see that we are working together. Since society is so aware, I want to see support or find any tools that allow anyone, whether it's a farmer on the mountain, or a villager, or anyone else who uses fire, or an official who uses fire. Can you take responsibility for using fire? That's all I ask. If you are necessary, and you defend that you are necessary, and you have received permission, then you take responsibility. When you use fire, you must use fire well, within the scope. Because most fires, when they spread, 90% of them are not related. They are not beneficial to anyone. They are not beneficial to the person who started it. Therefore, can you please see it? Can you control the fire? That's all. It's not possible. It's not possible. It means if it's possible, then it's possible. Oh, because it can't be controlled. Calm down. There are real approaches. I've seen hill tribes, Karen people, who have methods of using fire. It's their knowledge. They use fire, but they can actually control it. They gather it into small piles, small piles, small piles. After that, they will start burning one pile at a time, one pile at a time. Burning from top to bottom. Controlled. Controlled by 2-3 people. Yes. Did it succeed? It's the same as what I said. If there are few, the hill tribes are few, the area used is small. It can be gathered together because it's small and controllable. But nowadays, for whatever reason, it has gone too far to the point where the population is large, the area is large. Therefore, it cannot be done like that. I'm speaking based on truth. Okay, okay. But I think the current tools can help. If it's enforced, that if you let the fire spread, then you are wrong. Let's be clear. If you use the reason of necessity, or not, I don't care. But whenever you use fire and it spreads outside, it is the responsibility of the user of the fire. Yes. I think this is very important. If we draw a clear line, then we can argue about whether to change from perennial trees to annuals, or whatever. We have methods. We might not need to use fire often. Or move the production base of some crops down to the lowlands, not allowing them to be planted on the high ground. There are management tools for these issues. But on this side, with the understanding that if you burn, you burn, but you must control it. Control it. Or during certain periods when there is a lot of smoke, even if you can control it, I won't let you burn. I mean, with this much smoke, you can't burn. Many provinces have announced a ban on burning, right? That's right. But in reality, the people who own the land and manage agricultural areas are not burning now. Yes. Actually, they don't dare to burn. But there are people who burn outside, who burn in the forest. Burning in the forest. That's what I'm saying. It's in the forest now. We have to follow. And when it burns, and it's in the forest, people go in, it's few, so they can't control it. The fire expands faster than the ability to control the fire. I've tried to say many times that our problem is a technical problem. The fire control department, you must develop the fire control team to be larger. Yes. You think that just pressing the fire won't be enough. So the fire control team has quit. So what? We have to help speak to another person. Okay, let's do this. And this fire control team, it doesn't have to be with the Department of Forestry or the National Parks. It can be anywhere, as long as it's a fire control team. As long as it has that. But not like today. The governor will do something. He announces and orders the deputy. The deputy will tell the district chief. The district chief will tell the village headman. And then mobilize the army to help. And it goes back to what I said earlier. The army comes to help. Can the army stay in the forest for more than 1-2 days? Can they stay in the fire for more than 1 hour? They can't. I want to say that this time, the army was mobilized from various provinces to help. After helping, they stood at the bottom of the mountain. They couldn't speak. The military, the military can't extinguish the fire. Their uniforms are not suitable for it. Their equipment is not provided. They can't extinguish it. Forest fires are like this. You will die. The fire burns, and it burns, and it burns. Is it rubber? And then it eats flesh. So there must be special clothing for them. Children in forest fires use cotton, right? All of it. Even the color is the same. So it must be a color that, if it's anywhere, we can find it. There are red specks. I've seen it. People were sent from Pathum Thani, from what? Camouflage uniforms. Oh, no. Camouflage uniforms. Let's go. It will not reach the Clean Air Act. Ah, time is almost up. Earlier, you mentioned the Clean Air Act. Ah, let me ask you first. So, listening to the government, they don't disagree with the Clean Air Act, but as you said, is it too much? The authority. Okay, the redundancy. Okay, the first point. It doesn't collect from everyone. Yes. It collects from those who create pollution. And pollution is an environmental cost, a health cost, a cost I don't know what. Yes. Since you create environmental costs for the country and society, you must pay. This is the first rule. You must pay. But how much to pay, and how to manage the fund, that's the issue. Yes. Actually, we have funds. The Environmental Fund. No one asks about it. Or how much of the environmental fund budget, billions of baht, is used to extinguish forest fires? No one is interested. The fund exists, but we use it too leniently. The Environmental Fund was used for something disastrous. It was used for what? For mapping twice. Who is responsible? Is it finished? But that can be used. This cannot be used. Hmm, I think collecting money from those who create pollution is correct. Next, there must be a fund. Which I agree with. Which I agree with. Okay. Which this fund must help those who, promote, maybe pay half, to make your production process and tools reduce pollution. There must be money to support, to increase the capacity for control. So, having a fund is reasonable. Yes. And it can, if it happens, like in the case of the North, right? It can use the fund's money as another zone. Oh. To help extinguish forest fires or manage forest fires. But the problem. The problem is that in Thailand, the management of funds established under the law has problems. Like labor. These funds have many problems. Therefore, this time, there are NGOs, right? As you said, they get involved, they set up committees. In reality, it comes from the idea that if the state is left to manage, in the bureaucratic style, it's finished. Finished by bureaucrats. They will move money around. Therefore, the NGOs are looking at it. They are designing the characters to be themselves. Exactly. It's like this. But this is a matter of perspective. Yes. Trust or distrust. And you are not a bureaucrat. You will manage the fund. You will get involved. It's this kind of perspective. But the people who actually do it, their intention is because they are afraid that once the fund is established, it will be handed over to bureaucrats. They are afraid of this. Therefore, they are looking for a compromise. But I think this act is important. Yes. It must exist. Yes. Otherwise, we have no tools to manage these people. And it must be adjusted, because the government also sees that it must exist, but it must be adjusted. These more than 300 articles are too many. They say this. I interviewed Mr. Suchart Chomklin that day. Mr. Suchart said that investment must be considered. If everything is adjusted, they won't have to pay for this. No one will invest if it's more than neighboring countries. No, no, but okay, it's understandable that the law must not be an obstacle. Yes. To the impact on production, private companies, and so on. Yes. But if private companies are good, who will be affected? How can you adjust them if they don't release pollution? Right? So that private company is not good. Not good, so it must be adjusted. It's correct. Therefore, don't worry about good private companies being adjusted. Yes. This is not carbon credits. This is not about carbon emissions that cause the cement industry in Europe and elsewhere to have huge cost increases. But this is the pollution that is released. And our pollution problem is a real problem. Therefore, this kind of capital must be managed. If it goes bankrupt, let it go bankrupt. If others can survive and you go bankrupt, you go bankrupt because you release pollution. Because you release pollution and you are fined and you go bankrupt. You go bankrupt. And let only those who do it correctly survive. They don't have to be fined. Don't fine them. Let them continue. If it can be done like this, it's good. But if everyone in the industry is fined, then we have to talk again. Hey, why can't it be done? Or is it too harsh? And it's normal. It goes back to the government's mechanism. They sit and amend the law, saying, hey, this is too much. It's an obstacle to production and national development. Let's talk about it. Okay, what do you think about the pay-as-you-throw system? Ah. The system that must pay. It's just emerged. About when I told you, I was the first environmental student in Thailand. I was born in my generation. It emerged faintly during the establishment of the National Environmental Office. Yes. The Faculty of Environment at Phumiphon, at Mahidol University. Which I was also a first-generation lecturer. I used to teach at a hotel. The hotel was near the Government House, before moving to Salaya. So this is something I've studied. And I agree. And I gradually support it slowly because others who haven't studied can't keep up. Until I became Permanent Secretary myself. I pushed it. Until I entered politics. Do you know? To show my purity. The Director-General of the Pollution Control Department has the same surname as me. My son. Yes. I sent him. And told him this matter is important. Yes. Since then, this matter has required more detail. I told him, hey, there's another department that doesn't work much, the Department of Environmental Promotion. Yes. So I adjusted the Department of Environmental Promotion. Yes. To also deal with global warming. Yes. To separate these two matters. Yes. And then became a committee member. I took my son to be a committee member. Therefore, by myself, through education, through intention. I definitely agree with the polluter pays system. But how it's actually implemented, it must be in the law. Yes. This law, so that it works. And it's gradual. Yes. It's too much in the articles. It must be in subordinate laws, in ministerial regulations. Ministerial regulations can be issued as much as they want. How much to adjust. For each industry, it can be different. It can go up, it can go down, anything. Right now, it has become too many articles. It appears in the articles. Yes. So when the operational units say, oh my god, it's in the articles. If it's time to change, what will happen? But it passed the previous House of Representatives. Yes. Yes, it passed. Out of emotion. Yes, I was there too. I was there out of emotion. Ah, I told you, I was a committee member. The chairman of the advisory board. Out of emotion to show off. Absolute, what do you call it? But the resolution. On the 1st. Yes. Yes, absolute. The resolution at the end. At first, it wasn't absolute. Later, they said, okay, let's agree. Ah, they all agreed. And then they thought of a solution. Yes. And there was gossip too. That they will fix it in the next parliamentary session. Because at that time, it was about to expire. Go and check. How many days before dissolution was it approved? Because it passed, even though they knew. Ask any representative at that time. Ah, but at that time, Pheu Thai also agreed. Everyone agreed. I'm not arguing about anything. So, take it, and then come to fix it again. That's now. That's why I'm talking from the beginning. Yes. If it's held back, or released and the government holds it back. You must finish it within this parliamentary session. People are afraid. They don't know. Can you swear? Can you swear to be a gentleman? You can't swear. But if you insist on this. What happens? Let me see a fortune teller. It won't pass. It will fail. Hmm. What do you think? It won't pass. But actually, it didn't fail. It expired. The matter is over. But it's a commitment that was announced before. The election also mentioned it. When it comes to this point, and then they back out, they must take political responsibility. I call it this. We don't know who is who. Wait, wait, wait. Political responsibility. What does it mean? If the government doesn't consider it, will there be an outcry? Definitely, definitely, definitely. This is something that the previous government did. It was clear. Everything was clear. No one opposed it. Yes. And it was clear to all MPs. Yes. To the entire parliament. Yes. They all agreed. That's right. It's called bipartisan. It went through the entire parliament. Yes. But this time, if they realize something. Yes. Then political responsibility? Political responsibility is that there is time to do it. They might explain it as you said. They might take the legal basis again, start anew, it takes time. Last time, for example, as advice. Like the Fisheries Act. Yes. The Fisheries Act and this act. They came together. Yes. All of them were ordained. I said jokingly, hey, if I can amend the Fisheries Act, I can amend this too. But then someone asked me to do it myself. They said, let them do it. In reality, I didn't indulge them. And it was good. Because if I were the chairman, I wouldn't let it be 300 articles. Yes. I would let it be. Because I'm old. I don't know when I'll die. So whatever I do, I want to see it completed. But as I told you, in the meeting. It went. If we use the voting system, it's too complicated. I just want a little bit. Please. I think when we talk about the problem that the law has too many articles, I think it still sounds unclear. Like, I understand, but I don't understand. I think the political side that thinks the law that needs to be brought back should provide details on which articles are problematic, which should be cut, which should be cut, and then think that after that, it will be adjusted here. If it's detailed like this, society will progress. But if it's like this, it's like throwing it away. It's like starting over. I feel it myself. I feel that if I have to participate, I will be a little more comfortable that the foundation is already done. More than 300. Just reduce it to fewer. And the remaining ones, combine them. The content doesn't disappear. But it will be condensed a lot. And it can be used to create ministerial regulations for each ministry. Because the ministry is the ministry. Yes. That has authority. Because each ministry will be an official. Yes. Ah. But not like Mr. Supachai. Mr. Supachai did not point out this issue. He did not point out the issue of amending the law to be in some articles in ministerial regulations for easier adjustment to be consistent, so that it's not practically usable, so it can be adjusted without having to amend the law, but adjusted in ministerial regulations. But Mr. Supachai said something else. Supachai said that this law will cause businesses to go bankrupt. Yes. Redundant, and it will cause the entire industrial sector to go bankrupt. Ah, so Supachai, just listen and then change what you said. As an elder, they call me brother every time. Yes. But people are also watching the stance of the Pheu Thai Party. What will they do? As I said. Yes. As I said. Agree, support, strongly agree. But it must be a law that can actually be used, beneficial to all parties. Currently, there are flaws. Yes. Pheu Thai has more responsibility than them. Because the chairman is Pheu Thai. Top. Ah, ah. The act that was issued. Yes. Because of that, Pheu Thai has nothing. Agree, but must. Agree, but must. Make it usable. Make it usable. And it must be done within this year. How it will be finished, I don't know. But believe it or not, whether they will deceive or not, it's up to you. I don't know what to do. What do you estimate? Will it be considered in mid-May? It depends on social trends and whether we talk like this. I call for us to talk about concrete issues. It will make us feel that this matter can be negotiated. It's a technical issue. Or a negotiation issue, and it's still acceptable. It can proceed. But the current emotion is like, take it or leave it. It's a fight. So starting over. Those who have worked hard, invested time and effort like this. And you voted at the end, the government voted to accept it. Don't start over. Believe me. I'll give an example of fisheries. Yes. The Fisheries Act, which needs to be amended. Believe me, it was finished during General Prayut's time. General Prayut caused the fishing industry to go bankrupt. He issued decrees twice. Later, he felt remorse. So he amended it. It turned out. Ah, okay. It was submitted too late, within 60 days. Yes. It was submitted too late. Within 60 days. When the new government came in, I complained that it was finished, and why was it left for 60 days? They said it was 60 days because the government couldn't be formed. Yes. I said, form the government, then vote again. Now. Yes. Everyone agreed. And I was the chairman. And I finished it within a year. Ah, so at that time. There is an example. Just me. It has happened. Okay, even if this time it falls, and it has to start from scratch. What do you think? It can be done. It can be done. Because there's an example. 1 year is enough. Enough. Yes. Enough. Ah, what do you think? But I don't want it to be like this. I don't intend to. I don't mind the point you mentioned about reducing the process to make it easier to adjust. I understand that in practice. But the main point, the flag planted by the government party, Pheu Thai. They didn't talk about this point. Ah, they didn't talk like this. It's a way of speaking as a representative of capital, who releases pollution. And they sympathize with them. Why don't they sympathize with those who are affected? I think this matter, I think Mr. Supachai needs to come back. But this is not related to the Pheu Thai Party. Pheu Thai has no such stance. Millions of people say they will join the government to talk. It's not related. It's individual. They voted, but Pheu Thai doesn't think like this. There are no capitalists. Okay, okay. Pheu Thai came with this flag. They explained it like this. Those outside who are following this matter are suspicious. If a new law comes, it will be cut. Some important content will be removed. And the Clean Air Act will become a clean paper act. Yes. It's just paper that comes out as a law, but it can't do anything. This is what is feared. You start. But when you finish, it's not a Clean Air Act that can be a tool to manage the problem. I'm telling you this for fun, to make you feel at ease. Yes. Right now, the Pheu Thai Party is the second party. The number of MPs. Yes. Now, if it has to be done again, according to custom, the first party must be the chairman. But the chairman is accused as mentioned earlier. Yes. That he speaks like a representative of capital. Ah. So let the second party be the chairman. To honor that we are the ones doing it, we will continue. And I promise, I will never side with capitalists. Ah. Yes. It gets stuck at the vote. Yes. The vote is not enough. Yes. And it falls to the Senate. Bhumjaithai speaks exactly like the Senate. Exactly the same. Exactly the same. I'm confused. It won't pass anyway. So, whether it passes or not, if the law is rewritten, it won't be like what we are discussing now. It will fall. It won't work. It won't work. It will protect. They are afraid of everything. The tools to manage those who release this will be gone. Yes. It will become this type of law. There are many laws. We have laws to control pollution. I'll give an example. Yes. I was Deputy Prime Minister. And chairman of the Environmental Committee. I was also secretary. When I was Permanent Secretary, there was a cement company. Yes. The first time, the matter was brought in. Request to make cement. Ah. The chairman didn't come. Yes. The company chairman didn't come. Yes. The chairman of the meeting said it's disrespectful. Not allowed. Ah. Allowed. Yes. Because the chairman is an environmentalist. And with the people. Yes. The next meeting, the chairman came. I said I've read all the conditions. I'm not satisfied. Yes. Here, you use the people's resources. Yes. You give very little money. I ask you now. Write it down. How much will you donate? Yes. Answer me now. If you can't answer, the meeting is adjourned. Yes. Finally, for the first time, the company had to pay money. Additional. Based on usage. Interview card, right? Wait, wait. You'll be surprised about the donation card. Yes. Card. Write it again as a new rule. The chairman wants it like this. You have to pay. Yes. I'm saying this. Why am I saying this? I'm trying to convey that if government officials, whether political or permanent officials, have genuine intentions, good intentions, see the common good of the nation. Yes. The country can do it. I've done it. What I'm saying is not a lie. Yes. If someone like me can do it, why can't others? I've done it. Pheu Thai is the party. It's the second party. Fewer votes in the government. Yes. Yes, to be honest, we have to listen to the first party. Yes. If they have a flag. We have to negotiate. If they have a flag. It's tiring. Yes. Honestly, I was shocked when Mr. Supachai said this. I am concerned. That it will be changed. Can it be discussed with coalition partners? No, no, no. Okay, okay. That's enough for now. We've reduced the time. Today, thank you to both of you for joining the program. Thank you very much. Goodbye. We hope that the issues of dust and forest fires will be solved both in the short and long term. Today, I and the guests. Goodbye.

Get Our Mobile App

วิกฤตไฟป่า สร้างฝุ่นพิษ PM 2.5 ซ้ำซาก พ.ร.บ.อากาศสะอาดตก ปชช.ต้องทนอีกกี่ปี? | THE STANDARD NOW

Transcription