Transcription
First of all, I must ask both of you. Uh, we hear about the toxic PM 2.5 dust every year. Brother Sombat and Sister Nu, you both go up to extinguish forest fires every year. Why is this year so severe? >> Uh, because the summer rain has a long break. Yes. >> Hmm, there's no summer rain, right? >> Uh, actually, there was one round, and it went away. But the second round didn't come, it hasn't come yet. >> And it had a long break. >> Yes. >> And it causes the fires we see, a huge number of them. Let's say 1,000 fires, 1,000 fires. Yes, hot spots. >> Yes. >> It doesn't mean 1,000 hot spots were set by people. >> Uh. >> But it means about 100 were set by people, and 900 are wind fires. >> Oh. >> And these spreading fires, if there's no rain to help, which normally every year there's rain to help. >> Yes, to help collect the rain, uh, to help extinguish the fire. So when the rain has a long break, it causes a situation where we >> cannot manage anymore because the number of people going to extinguish the fire is less than the number of fires, and it's a situation where the fire is spreading. >> So it means burning as usual but with less rain. >> There might be, there might be one incident that happened around, in this period, about 2-3 weeks ago. >> Yes. >> When fires started simultaneously all over the North. >> Hmm. >> With the number of fires increasing many times, about 3-4. >> 3-4 times. >> Uh. >> Which is a strange phenomenon. >> And people who follow the fires have observed that it's like they agreed to burn. >> And it's a simultaneous burning, but not just one spot, they're all burning at the same time. >> Which later became an issue where people dug into it, asking if there was >> this year, there was a procurement and contracting for private companies to manage fuel. >> Hmm. >> That was in the news, MPs. >> The opposition brought it up. But in the contract, when looking into the details, it was found that it was managed politically in January and February. >> Yes. >> But in practice, I still think there should be an investigation into the fires. >> Uh. >> To see why on that day, it escalated all at once and they couldn't cope. Let me tell you beforehand, after that day when the fires occurred, escalating by 300-400% all at once. >> Yes. >> The firefighting team could not contain the situation. They couldn't suppress the fires, and then it spread continuously like this. >> Uh-huh. >> It spread until now, some of the fires that have been extinguished, besides people extinguishing them, some are because the fuel ran out. >> Yes. >> The fuel along the lines. >> Uh. >> Yes. It will start to go down. >> But the amount of fire is still large. >> Yes, yes. Let's go into more detail. Let's ask Dr. Plodprasop. The question is similar. Why does it seem worse this year than every year? Who is burning? Who is doing what? >> The first point is. >> Yes. >> We should all see the same thing: people are the ones starting it. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> To avoid problems with lightning strikes or >> uh, disasters, natural disasters. There are no volcanoes erupting and setting forests on fire. >> Yes. So let's just say people are burning. >> Ah, ah, no argument, it's people burning. Okay. >> Ghosts can't burn either. >> Who is burning? >> Ah, who is burning? >> People in Bangkok don't burn. >> Yes. >> Far away. >> Uh. >> People in Songkhla are even further away. >> Ah. >> People in Chiang Mai city don't go. >> Oh, they can't walk that far. Why would they go? >> They might even get into trouble themselves. >> Yes. >> So who is left to burn? It must be people who are near the forest. >> Uh. >> 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. >> Yes. But personally, as a former Director-General of the Royal Forest Department, and as the founder of the Forest Fire Management Office, which I don't know who has abolished now. >> Uh. >> They abolished it. So fires will continue to happen like this. >> Because the person directly responsible is gone. And firefighting is a subject that is studied up to a doctoral level, I'll tell you. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Uh, 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, sometimes it can be explained. For example, >> they're angry at their neighbors. >> Ah, for example. >> Yes. >> They're angry at officials, they burn a little, they burn to teach a lesson. >> Uh, they burn to believe that after burning, >> uh, mushrooms will grow a lot because they remember where mushrooms used to grow. >> Ah. >> Or they burn because they feel, uh, to drive away certain animals for hunting. >> Yes. But nowadays, that's not common anymore. Not many people hunt. >> I don't know if they hunt to sell, or hunt to eat themselves. It's a sin. >> Uh. >> It's not common anymore. Very rare now. >> Regarding burning for hunting, it can probably be ruled out. >> Oh, it's likely very rare, extremely rare. >> Now, if I say this again, it must mean there are other motives. >> Hmm. >> You, Khun Sombat, just gave examples. I won't repeat them. >> Yes. >> Yes. Which I have received and believe some, and don't believe some. >> Yes. >> What do you believe? >> It's about making a living. If you say it crudely, it's about making a living. >> Oh, making a living from burning forests. >> Making a living from the process, both burning and extinguishing. >> Yes. Yes. >> Uh, the second thing I heard. >> Which I have already said. >> Some people got angry at me, hated me, wanted to curse me. Call me names. Call me whatever you want. I don't hear it. >> If you call me, I can hear it. >> There must be something like, uh, a man's matter. >> Someone told me. >> About land. >> Uh. >> Yes. About land. >> There is. >> Because the law, the National Land Act, right? It has been issued. >> Ah. >> But it hasn't been. >> In practice, it hasn't really started. >> Yes. >> Because the survey is not finished yet. >> Uh. >> The survey. >> Yes. >> The second is identifying who is who. >> Uh. >> It's not finished yet. >> So it's stuck. So it doesn't. >> No one benefits. >> Uh. >> It's possible that there are people who want it to end and benefit from it. If we look at it positively, it's for good benefit. >> Yes. >> Yes. If we look at it negatively, it's to sell in the future. Whatever you choose. But anyway. >> They want it to end, but it never ends. >> Yes. So they burn it. >> So it can end. >> Ah. >> Because it's no longer a forest. >> Because you burned it until it's no longer a forest. >> Uh, until there's no forest left. >> There's no forest left. We can see it's already fire. It's all burned. >> It's already burned. This is piled up. >> Yes. >> This belief. >> Yes. People in the Royal Forest Department and National Parks believe that. >> Hmm. >> So that's gone. >> There's another thing about clean air. >> We've already discussed that. >> Yes. >> I am a committee member. I am the chairman of the advisory board. >> Yes. >> I almost became the chairman of the committee, but unfortunately, there was a political issue, someone asked, so I didn't. And I'm glad I'm not. I've attended many meetings, and lately, I've been. >> How is it? >> I feel bored. >> Uh. >> In these meetings. >> Uh. >> Among the more than 30 committee members. >> Yes. >> There are about 10-11 members from the People's Party. >> Yes. >> And there are people, public groups. >> Yes. >> Yes. Or sometimes they call them NGO groups. >> Yes. >> When I mention the name, it's like they're cursing. >> Please don't misunderstand, but if you want to misunderstand, please do. >> No problem. >> They argue, and the cow loses every time. Hmm. >> It's always like that. >> Yes. >> I remember the last day I attended, we talked about the provincial committee chairman. >> Yes. >> The meeting debated whether it should be the provincial governor or the provincial administrative organization president. I told the meeting that as a former civil servant, a permanent secretary, and director-general of 7 departments. >> Yes. >> And all the departments I was in had regional administration. >> Uh. >> Today, you mean well in terms of democracy, you mean well in terms of decentralizing power. >> But it's not time for the governor yet. >> Ah, it's not time yet. >> But when it comes to the provincial administrative organization president, bang! >> They are not officials. They are not subordinates. Thailand is governed by the state. >> State bureaucracy. >> Yes. >> And fires, and air, uh, PM 2.5 or unclean air, some of it occurs in cities. >> Ah. >> Another part occurs in forests. When it occurs in forests, it requires authority, a large number of people, and authority. >> Yes. >> It won't function. >> Uh. >> So there was a vote. The vote resulted in this. Ah, but one thing. >> Yes. >> All government agencies are very concerned right now. >> Uh, concerned about what? >> Concerned that it won't work. >> Meaning the. >> The provincial committee. >> Ah. Everyone involved is concerned. >> Uh. >> Whether it's forestry, national parks, or the Department of Promotion. Who 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 called the Polluter Pays System. >> Uh. >> You must understand, I am one of the first environmental students in Thailand. >> Yes. >> I teach environmental subjects in almost every university. >> Yes. >> So I agree with this. But the polluter pays system. >> It must not be so harsh that. >> Ah. >> You just said that. >> Until the investors. >> Invest. Uh. >> They all go bankrupt. They can't continue. >> So, perhaps a system needs to be created that has. >> Is it a step? >> Yes. >> Step by step. >> Ah. >> Qualify and quantify clearly. >> Ah. >> The clearest one is the Act, over 300 articles. >> Ah, so many articles. >> Oh, very many. >> Uh. >> On that day, when they voted. >> Yes. >> They voted for 5-6 hours, 5-6 days. >> Yes. >> They didn't eat. Everyone spoke, saying, "Hey, turn around and curse the committee." >> Ah, why so many? >> How did they meet? Why are there over 300 articles? I said, I warned them. >> That it shouldn't be. It should only be a little over 100. The rest should be secondary laws, issued as. >> As what? >> Uh, ministerial regulations. When it's a ministerial regulation, it's just the minister or the cabinet, and it can be changed at any time. But when you issue an Act, bang! >> Changing one article takes years. It can't be done. >> Ah, yes. >> So. >> Today, it seems everyone agrees. They will 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, but if you do it, you must finish it. >> Ah. >> Promise yourselves to finish it. Promise the public. >> That it must be finished within this year. No more than 1 year. Don't let them regret it. >> Okay, okay. We'll talk about it fully later. I'll pause here for now because the issue of the clean air Act is another point, but I'll return to forest fires and dust. >> Yes. >> From Sister Nu Ling's perspective. >> Yes. I'll update Khun Plodprasop a bit. This year, there have been several cases of people hunting. >> Yes. I still insist that hunting is still a significant issue. >> There still is. >> Yes. >> Second, it's evident that when the team goes to extinguish fires, we see the behavior of people in the forest carrying long guns, shotguns, and guns. >> This is still very common. If I want to send a signal about this, I'd like to signal that these guns, actually these shotgun guns, are illegal. >> Yes. >> And you go into the forest, and we don't know the reason. I think, about 20 years ago, there was a period when these shotgun guns, I don't know when, but during that period, many guns disappeared. Now, it seems they are everywhere. Easy to buy. >> Lamphun province, I'll say it. My subordinate reported that in Lamphun, it's very strange. >> When we go to extinguish fires, we only see villagers carrying guns into the forest to hunt. >> Uh, yes. >> Next is the issue of the assumption, I understand it's an assumption, right? That you, Khun Plodprasop, said it stems from the law, the National Land Act. >> Uh. >> Or the issue of claiming land. >> Yes. >> To claim land legally. >> 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 countless rounds of data per year. >> That data. It's used. Khun Plodprasop announced its use in 2008. >> Ah, correct, correct, correct. >> Others, others don't let them use it. I do. >> Yes. No, I want to tell Khun Plodprasop that currently, there is updated satellite data. >> So, I think we don't need to worry if anyone is encroaching on new forest areas. There is evidence. So, burning doesn't indicate that. >> Wait a minute, sorry. We're close. Wait. >> New forest encroachment, I'm not afraid. But what people get is not the same person. That's the problem. >> Uh. >> When we look back at 2008 and compare it to who is getting it today. >> Okay. >> That's the problem. >> Ah, yes. But if we explain, because you, Khun Plodprasop, explained the phenomenon of forest fires today. >> Yes. >> Therefore, the action must be the cause of the fire at this time. Therefore, forest fires at this time have no connection. >> It doesn't mean that. >> It doesn't mean that. >> I mean, if you link it and cause forest fires to pressure the land issue, it's to let them know. >> If the land issue isn't resolved, forest fires will continue like this. So, people who are troubled by land issues will burn. >> Uh. >> Okay, okay. >> Because it's impossible to say that a taxi driver or a red taxi driver in Chiang Mai went up to burn it. >> Yes. It's just that. >> Yes. I just want to tell you, Khun Off. >> Uh, this technological data can detect everything. There is data. It's enough for the agencies responsible for forest areas to make decisions. The database is sufficient. >> Yes. Therefore, I have the opinion on this matter, hypothetically, that it's unlikely to be related to pushing for legal issues that are happening now. >> But human fire usage behavior is very diverse. It ranges from malicious intent, deliberate hunting. These hunters are not ordinary. Before, when they start a fire, they don't start a small one. >> They start it. We encounter fires that are. >> What do you call it? A line of fire, 10 fires. And they herd animals in. It's clear. This time, we see them lit, lined up everywhere. >> Large incense sticks, like brooms. >> Set the timer. >> And wait for the incense to fall, then it flares up. When it flares up, the person, the person can escape. >> From the moment it's lit. From the moment it's lit. >> Ah, there are indeed people like that. And there are those who don't intend to, but they go to find forest products, like going to collect 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 yet. A little more. To speak humorously, not to argue. I know each other very well. >> You said it yourself. And I agree. The Director-General told me, "Sir, it burns 3-4,000 spots in one day. If they didn't agree, it couldn't be done." This is the problem. >> You said it yourself, not me. >> Uh, there wasn't a day with 3,000 spots at once, but those 3,000 spots are from the fire spreading. I want to paint this picture first: Thai society is not that bad. >> 90% of the fires we see are wind fires. >> This requires a systemic approach. We have to go back to the people who created the firefighting teams. Currently, fire behavior and natural behavior are like this. This year, it has a break of 2-3 weeks. >> No rain to help extinguish the fire. >> Ah. >> Look at what's burned. >> Uh. >> If it's not horizontal, uh, vertical from top to bottom, then it's hypothesized. >> They started it from above, and it came down to the village, and then they went to sleep. >> I'll tell you. >> If it doesn't go like this, village by village. >> It will be about land. >> Uh, I. >> I'd like to, because this is a team from Mookani Krachong, they took the photos. This is a circle. >> But I'll tell you what the facts are 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 line like this. >> Those who set fires, quickly, quickly. >> Correct, correct. And this behavior is not ordinary. >> Yes. >> This happens extensively. It means if the fire reaches a certain point, 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 invading their community or their own garden, they take care of it first. >> Yes, they set it on fire. They call it "setting fire to clear." The reason for this "clearing fire" is unknown, maybe it's a percentage, maybe it's not. >> Which I disagree with. >> Disagree with what? >> With setting fire to clear. >> For what reason? >> In practice, after burning, they can't control it. >> The person who burns 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 many intentions. Some are malicious. Some are for self-defense. >> And importantly, there's another intention, a good intention: fuel management. They burn it first, right? They analyze this. Forestry experts bring this knowledge. >> How? >> Because in foreign countries. >> Yes. >> They have canopy fires. >> Uh. >> Right? Our forestry students study abroad. We study, and then they say if you let the fire rage, it's almost impossible to extinguish. It uses tens of thousands of resources, planes, etc. So the method is to manage it first, to reduce the fuel, especially in strategic areas. Therefore. >> Fuel management in countries with forest fires from flammable materials is very necessary. We need to set fuel checks. Then we, people, go to study. >> Uh. But here, we don't have much flammable material, unless we plant it ourselves. Correct, correct. But that. >> But this knowledge has been brought to Thailand. In the past 10 years, Thai society has become increasingly interested in forest fire issues. >> And the people involved, whether they are government officials responsible for this or academics doing research. >> Looking left and right, they can't find tools. >> Yes. >> This tool is being used because it's one of the successful approaches abroad, even though the context is very different. Thailand doesn't need it that much. >> Uh. >> But when it's brought in, when it's lit, they don't. They don't bring the foreign methods with them. >> In foreign countries, people who can use fire must be trained. >> Uh. >> When lighting, they light on flat ground. >> Yes. >> There are water trucks accompanying them. >> Uh. >> Burning and extinguishing, burning and extinguishing, with firebreaks properly prepared. Ours is fuel management on hills. >> Which is. >> I can't imagine how you extinguish it when you light it. >> How do you control it? >> Yes. >> Uh, and. >> But I'm curious. I'm curious, asking in case. >> Consider me ignorant. >> Yes. >> Regarding lighting fires by officials in the forest, in my time, it was not allowed unless I permitted it. It had to be permitted by the Director-General. >> Oh. >> To be permitted to burn, and people had to be gathered, and they had to explain to me. >> Why? >> To what extent? >> And how confident are you? >> The heads of national parks, provincial forest departments, district forest departments. You decide. >> Uh. >> To burn as you please. I'll kill you. I'm telling you. >> So, I'd like to update you. What's happening now? This year, the Department of National Parks has announced that it will manage fuel over 400,000 rai. >> Uh. >> National Parks alone, not including the Royal Forest Department. >> Which means 400,000 rai will be used. >> It's a policy. A policy and announced publicly. >> 4,000 rai by burning to clear. >> Clearing fires on which day? From how many fuel plots, who knows? If you say this, then you deserve it. >> Ah, ah, in the 4. >> This is 400,000 rai, not a small amount. >> Yes, yes, yes. >> Yes. You just have about. >> And you know that this fuel, 4-5 years ago, was done very well. Since the end of General Prayut's term, Khun Srettha's term, Khun Lung Ying's term. >> Ah. >> For 4-5 years, there were very few fires. >> Because this fuel is left in abundance. >> Uh. >> You know, if it's true, there's a lot left. And you still dare to burn 400,000 rai. How can you control it? I ask you. And there's no budget. How can you do this? >> But they explain why they use this method for all 400 rai. Okay. >> The Director-General didn't say a word to me. If he said this, I would have cursed his mother because I was appointed. >> This year, this year he retires. You must hurry. You must hurry to talk. You can still pick up the phone and ask like this. >> Uh, let's talk about this first. The whole issue stems from the fact that in the past 10 years, there have been no tools for the responsible people. And those who try must think of solutions. And these solutions are brought from academia, which is. Let me just add. >> You just said what? Uh, lack of tools, lack of what? Tools, no tools. Tools, tools. I consider people and structure as well. >> Yes. >> I am the one who established the Forest Fire Management Office. Which human being abolished it? Abolished it. Why? Now there is no Forest Fire Management Office. >> Yes. >> I established the Forest Fire Management Office. I sent people to study until they got master's degrees and returned to be heads. >> Uh. >> Firefighting work is done all year round. When there are no fires, they do other things, train people, go here and there. When there are fires, they cooperate with the public. >> Yes. >> Abolished. >> Abolished. >> Whose era? >> Are you looking for this person? >> Ah, you, Khun Plodprasop, know well. Know well. Whose era? >> Know well. General Prayut's era. General Prayut's era. >> And why abolish it? >> Yes. >> The Prime Minister has no choice. He's too far away. But General Prayut doesn't not know. >> General Prayut is interested in forest fires. >> When General Prayut was just a commander of the 21st Infantry Regiment. >> Yes. >> I performed a forest fire parade for Her Royal Highness. General Prayut came and stood next to me. >> And do you, Khun Plodprasop, know? >> But I don't know who proposed it to General Prayut. >> Ah, and do you, Khun Plodprasop, know that current forest firefighters, in the past several years. >> Uh. >> The Budget Bureau does not allow them to be hired. They don't allow them to be hired all year round. >> They don't allow them to be hired all year round. They say you extinguish forest fires for how many months a year? The forest is good. You extinguish for 3 months. >> It's only for a period. Hire them for training for 3 months. And what you just said, "Serves them right." >> It's not, but okay, okay. I understand. Serves them right. The budget officials. >> Uh. >> No, but they don't care. They don't. >> But when you criticize, and the budget officials are happy, the relatives of the budget officials who happen to be in Chiang Mai, relatives of budget officials who went to visit Chiang Mai and couldn't go. >> They suffer the consequences. >> How can you think like this? Stupid. >> Ah, hire them. You must understand that firefighters need skills and experience. Not just anyone. >> Yes. And you hire them for 6 months. They get discouraged and go to work elsewhere. Instead of retaining these people, do you know that. >> Talented people who fight fires are very expensive. They are paid minimum wage, 9,000 baht per month. Believe it? In my time, the children who fought forest fires. >> Yes. >> Died 10 people a year. >> Uh. >> Uh. >> Her Majesty Queen Sirikit, Her Royal Highness, donated personal funds, 500,000 baht, 500,000 baht. I don't know how much for Promlab. To pay them because she pitied them. >> Yes. >> Uh. >> Yes. So, Budget Bureau, you are useless. How can you do this? You waste so much money elsewhere, as politicians, uh, as politicians point you to do. This is for the people. >> Uh. >> Khun Off. On the media, we often discuss, which is necessary, the causes of fires. We must understand this, of course. But very few people talk about the mechanisms for controlling fires. >> Uh-huh. >> From my perspective, I hypothesize that 90% of the fires we see, the hot spots, are wind fires. >> Uh. >> How can wind fires spread if there's a strong enough team to contain them? >> And their behavior, you can ask them. The subordinates of yours, Khun Plodprasop, who are old subordinates. >> Yes. >> When they meet, they ask, "We've been extinguishing this fire for 3 days." 3 days, 5 days, some say a week, and it's still not extinguished. >> Uh. >> Because why? Because their manpower is insufficient. They have no equipment. You send people to walk up, you don't find equipment, you don't find. >> Hands. >> They lack everything. Now, if I listen. >> Manpower. >> Uh. >> I'll tell you, pause for a moment. Right now, the situation is like this. When there's a fire, they give orders. The national park officials or the fire tigers. When they go, there's a pickup truck. >> Yes. >> Behind the whole truck, there are 10 people, no more than 10 people. >> Uh. >> 7 people go to extinguish, 3 people stay below. >> Coordinate, communicate. 7 people are extinguishing. You encounter a fire that's 2-3 kilometers long. >> Can they handle it? >> They are extinguishing, but how can they extinguish it all? >> And the equipment, by the time it arrives, is insufficient. >> Uh. >> Yes. >> They lack personnel, they lack equipment. >> Why are there only 10 people? Why in my time were there not 10 people? There were many more than 10 people. >> They are divided into zones. They are divided into zones of responsibility. >> No, it wasn't divided like this before. The forest was this big. >> Or is it because of the hiring, not giving money? >> No money, that's why. They don't have money. So they have to divide the team smaller. >> No. Yes, they don't give it because the Budget Bureau doesn't see the importance. >> They put money elsewhere. >> Ah, yes. If you want to speak harshly, like I'm a politician, a minister is useless, useless, doesn't know what's important or not. If the minister himself says it's important, they will be respected. If the minister is interested and talks to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister orders, or the Deputy Prime Minister in charge, they will be respected. This is left to drift, and it will fail. >> It must be given importance. >> Yes, the Prime Minister must give importance for the budget to come down. >> It has to be like that. Or the minister goes down a bit. The minister. >> Must, must fight. Because I have to follow up on the budget in the committee. When they discuss in the budget room, they don't discuss the content or necessity. >> The Budget Bureau comes and says, "What you requested, we have 10." >> Yes. >> But you requested a total of 40. >> Uh. >> So, you all discuss among yourselves, whether it's for any agency or any budget. Discuss and agree to reduce it to 10. Because in reality, they only have 10. >> Oh. >> They discuss like this. So, if those 10 are to be for the forest fire budget, there must be a senior person from above to fight, to point, to push, saying, "Hey, this forest fire budget, let's allocate it here because it's a national strategy." The committee chairman comes and does what? >> I don't know. But. >> I'm just asking. I'm asking because I've been through all of that, as a Director-General, as a Permanent Secretary, as a Minister. But if I were there, this wouldn't happen. Let's do this. There's a viewer's comment. They say. >> The Department of National Parks requested about 1,478 million, but only received 392 million. >> The Royal Forest Department requested 509 million and received 137 million. >> Uh. >> When the difference for various agencies is added, the money is reduced by billions. >> Yes. >> Is this true? >> True. >> Uh. >> And I still wonder why we have to use the central budget to help. But the central budget doesn't help the mechanism, the thing they requested from the department. The field operators say, "We'll add, we'll hire villagers." And sorry, when we hire villagers, you have to go through the village headman, etc. They bring their cronies. Each person is weak. When we don't see them, they are weak. They can't speak. Okay, the team might not be suitable for extinguishing fires. They can be used for observation, for guarding. Anyone who comes in and out can do it. But to use them multifunctionally, to extinguish fires, is not possible. This is the problem. When we transfer money or responsibility. >> Uh. >> To the regions, to local administration. Which ultimately. >> The decision-making power falls to the village headman and sub-district headman, which is unavoidable from being a big house, a small house. Am I right or wrong? >> Instead of choosing strong, capable people who have been trained. >> Uh. >> All of this is because we are too obsessed with the system and don't stand on reality. Let's talk about the budget again. >> We're talking about the central budget. >> Asked if they are suffering now. Suffering. >> Economically, they are suffering. Tourism. >> Yes. >> Health-wise. >> How many people are suffering? Try to quantify it. It might be tens of billions or hundreds of billions. >> Correct, yes, correct, correct. >> And you're haggling over a budget of only 100 million, 40 million, 50 million. >> Uh, is it worth it? The Budget Bureau like this should be dismissed. >> Uh. >> Should I be between people? >> Must, must want to be with people like this. >> No, no, it's not the Budget Bureau. >> I don't know who is involved. >> Must, must talk to the minister. Must talk to the Budget Bureau. Say, "Hey, this budget for this matter, you must let them do it. You must stand firm. You must stand. Someone must go." Who knows. >> If you think like this, don't be a civil servant. Let them go back to the people. Don't vote for them. Khun Plodprasop knows. Who is it? >> In my time, I couldn't have happened because I'm not afraid. I curse them. I curse them to their faces, in meetings. >> That's why I can boast that in my time, this never happened. >> Ah. >> I'm listening to both of you, and I'm wondering about one thing. We are talking about the mission of extinguishing forest fires, right? But outsiders or people in Bangkok might wonder about the root cause of the burning. >> Uh. >> It's people, right? >> We can't stop it, right? Burning for agriculture, burning for this, burning for that. >> Okay, okay, okay. Let's calm down. There are many reasons for burning. >> There is a fact that for agriculture in high-altitude areas, if you want to clear weeds before planting. >> Uh. >> You have to burn it. There's no other choice. Burning, but it can be managed. >> Yes. >> Just that when they have an application. Excuse me. >> Excuse me for burning. Request to use fire. There is. And a narrative has been created called "necessary fire." Is it really necessary? It is necessary because there is no solution. If there is no solution, it is necessary. Peak means this application does not guarantee that when you get approval, the fire is good. >> Where is it? >> At CMU. CMU produced it. >> What university? >> CMU, Chiang Mai. >> Chiang Mai. >> Chiang Mai University. >> Yes. >> And is it a law? Is it an article? >> It is recognized by government agencies. They register. >> They apply for fire. Everyone agrees. >> And is it legal? >> Ah, legality is a very interesting topic. Very few people talk about it. Because I've checked the laws, and I haven't found any law that allows the state to use fire. This is not. I said even for officials, in the Forest Act, I haven't allowed anyone to approve except me. So I ask, how? >> I'll tell you, I've asked about this in the subcommittee that deals specifically with fires. >> There is no answer as to which law allows the use of fire. Therefore, all fuel management is risky. >> Risky. >> Extremely risky. >> Ah, but let's cut this first. Calm down. Let's cut the law first. But by method, if you don't allow it. >> By method, there is no way out. You have to use fire. You might pressure them, saying, "If so, burn it before the fire season." Ah, during the time when there's no problem, or after the rain has fallen, at the beginning. There are methods of burning. I've seen villagers burn during the rainy season. >> But not while it's raining. There are methods. >> Plans. >> Ah. For example, let's not talk about legal or illegal. >> Yes. >> Let's talk about tradition or what has been done. >> In the past. >> Back when I was Director-General, going back to when I was just a baby. It can be done. >> Because the hill tribes, there were only a few of them. >> Oh. >> The areas where the hill tribes cultivated were on the mountaintops. There were only a few hundred rai, a few thousand rai. >> Nowadays, there are millions of hill tribes. >> The population has increased. >> Yes. The area used is millions of rai. >> So, if a million people burn in millions of rai. >> On. >> Based on this belief, there will be nothing left. >> If everyone uses it the same way.
Yes, that's correct. Nothing is left. However it is, it's left as we see it every day. How is it?
No, no, but let's get back to it. Let me explain first. That actually...
Therefore, the thing that is chased, just a little bit more. Therefore, what is called chasing, drifting, what is it called, it doesn't reach here. It's not like before. It took 5 years to come back. Now, they don't come back. They stay there, they have to do what they have to do there because there's nowhere else to go.
Uh-huh.
I'm going to state the facts first, that there is information about the area where the fire occurred.
Uh-huh.
Mostly, it occurs in forests. It doesn't, mostly, it occurs in forests. It doesn't occur in agricultural areas.
Therefore, the problem is, is it possible? This hypothesis is possible, that it might start from agricultural areas and then be washed away.
Agricultural areas in forests, or agricultural areas in agricultural areas in forests, agricultural areas in forests, agricultural areas in forests.
But the point, the point is this.
Ah, when we go to do...
Which, no one allows them to go and farm in the forest. Ah, I have to say, okay, just a moment. Please. Ah, it's that...
In their way of life.
You ask if there's a chance of it spreading. There is a chance.
Yes. However, in recent times, 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, and the ideas are like this. The team is managed like this.
Yes, that if we have a necessity and we prevent them from burning.
They will secretly burn.
But to secretly burn, come and register. This fire, this is to register. What's your name?
What's the latitude and longitude of the area? How many rai? When will you burn? And that's it. The only good thing about the problem is...
Is...
Is, is, when you finish requesting, this approval is debatable, but I'll leave it aside for now.
But after the burning is finished.
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, who has a necessity to use fire.
Yes.
Must report that your use of fire is within the scope and you can control the fire.
Uh-huh.
We don't see this. Therefore, this is the origin of some people who track fires, who hypothesize that when you request approval to use fire, it's so much.
Yes.
How do we know, how do we know that the fire you start.
Will it, will it not spread? Will you be able to control it? Because when you start a fire, you start a fire like this.
Start a fire on a high place. We are firefighters. We know that fire goes uphill. Fire goes up.
It's uncontrollable. Very difficult to control. But there's a starting point. We know who will do what, who will burn when. But no one closes it.
There is no, uh, there is no evidence presented. Everyone says they've started it, everything is done, everything is completed. But where is the evidence?
It's not. And when a fire occurs, there is no investigation of the fire.
Yes.
The fire must be investigated. Where did each point of fire that we see come from?
Yes.
It's, it's a fire that burns for 7 days and 7 nights.
Uh-huh.
You go, you go and say that this place, someone cannot start it. You have to go back. Trace the hotspots back to where the fire started.
Ah.
And investigate what are the possibilities. And then, the fire investigation, if it happens, we will find the person. There's a chance of finding the person who started it.
Uh-huh.
And we will clearly understand the reason.
Why they started it.
Yes.
Uh-huh.
And if we find that person, we can check their record.
Yes.
There are 2 points that we are discussing.
Yes.
The first point, which in fact we have already discussed. Everything we've talked about so far, we are within the laws of the country.
Uh-huh.
It's illegal.
If it were a good thing, it would have been law for a long time. Like clean air, you see? It's a good thing, and eventually it will become law. Or like the National Ethnicity Act, it's a good thing, and eventually it will become law.
The case of requesting permission to burn, it has never been law. This means it is something...
Something bad. Let me, let me disagree. Let me disagree. Let me disagree. This side sees it as good. Let's argue the other point later.
If it's good, it should have been law for a long time.
We have to make it happen. Uh, what next?
Point 2. Point 2. Please, listeners, don't be angry with me.
But if you want to be angry, be angry. If you want to scold, scold me.
Ah.
A very long time ago. Ah.
Before Thailand existed. You go.
Yes.
But even now, there are still cannibals in Borneo.
Yes.
There are cannibals.
Now they don't eat people anymore.
Huh?
There are questions on this concept. That since fire, it cannot be controlled. The Thai population is increasing a lot. The Thai population on the mountains is also a lot. The importance of forests.
Uh-huh.
To make the ecosystem better. So that the more than 70 million people can live happily, without illness, without anything.
Yes.
Uh, we, we have to stop starting fires in the forest.
Uh-huh.
And we have to, we have to make a living elsewhere.
Yes.
Let's put it simply, right?
What I'm saying is not what I'm saying. There are books. Because I tried to look at the history written about the hill tribes. Where did they actually come from? Before, they were in southern China. China thought like this. They chased them away, until they came to Burma, chased 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 has happened. History tells us. Therefore, in China, there are not many people burning now because there are no hill tribes.
Uh-huh.
Or the hill tribes are no longer on the mountains. They have come down and are making a living elsewhere. Some professions, some areas, are not suitable. If we don't agree to change, we will have to face this.
Which is fine.
Okay, let's put it simply. 1. If this method is good, it would have been law for a long time. 2.
Stop starting fires in the forest. Let's put it simply.
Change to other professions.
It's said like this. It's too harsh. I understand. It's like telling me to stop.
To live, to die. It's the same. I apologize for saying this. But...
Understand.
It might preserve.
The forest.
Not the forest, but the people of the whole country. To have good health. There must be sacrifices. People must yield.
Uh-huh. Okay.
What to do?
I'll go back to the facts first. The fire that is a problem is fire in the forest.
Uh-huh.
That's correct again.
But the point we are arguing about is where the starting point of the fire is.
Right? You ask if it's clearly visible. What is clearly visible is those who go hunting, those who do other illegal things. It's not clear. But people who are in agriculture, in highland agriculture, it's clear. It's tangible. So it becomes the point.
But highland agriculture is all in the forest.
Because I understand, but they are allowed to be there. This is not entirely true. Not entirely true. Not entirely true.
Not entirely true. Not entirely true.
Just a moment. Just a moment.
There will be a group. There will be a group that is allowed.
Yes, that's correct. That's correct. Ah, but because...
And this group, they are often within the framework of the highland agriculture project. Which Mr. Chakraphan, uh, received royal permission to help develop and improve.
His reason, His Majesty King Rama 9's reason, I've heard him speak hundreds of times. Because I'm a good listener, don't forget. He wishes well for the country and wishes well for the hill tribes.
Uh-huh.
Yes. He even ordered me, "Hill tribes, Mr. Por Prasop, don't be harsh."
Uh-huh.
You must understand them.
They live on the mountain.
Oh.
Therefore, any of my subordinates who arrest a hill tribe will be transferred by me.
Oh, let's say there is. Let's say there is a right to use the land. Yes, yes, by the state. Therefore, therefore, when the state grants the right to use the land, it means it is legal, right?
It's not entirely.
Ah, not entirely again. Not entirely.
Oh, I don't know where to go. Ah, that permission. Let's assume permission is granted by the state. Okay, they've granted it. Now, the...
Not entirely, because why? You are where you are legally. There must be title deeds. If there are no title deeds, then there is no right to use the land. I am confident that this is legal.
This side is about to say that since...
Not entirely, but not entirely. Not entirely. It can't go on. It can't go on. Let me continue. They have the right to use the area.
Yes. And their agricultural areas, their farming, they need to use fire. The point for me is.
Those areas are not many. However, I just want to see that we are working together. Since our society is so aware, I want there to be support or tools to help anyone, whether it's a farmer on the mountain, or villagers, or anyone else, who uses fire. Or is a consequence of using fire.
Can you take responsibility for using fire? That's all I ask. That's all I ask.
If you have a necessity, and you are good, you have a necessity, and you have been granted permission, then 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 from the beginning.
Therefore, please see.
Can you control the fire? Can you control it or not? Because it's not that you can't. It means if you can, you can.
Oh, because it's uncontrollable. Calm down. There are real ways. I've seen hill tribes, Karen people, who have methods of using fire. It's their knowledge that they use fire, but they can actually control it. They gather it into small piles. Small piles, small piles. Then they start burning one pile at a time. One pile at a time. They burn from top to bottom because it won't be strong. Uh-huh. Controlled by 2-3 people.
Uh-huh.
They do it successfully. No spread.
That's the same thing I said. If there are few. The hill tribes have few. The areas are few. To gather them together, it can be done because it's few. It can be controlled. But now, for whatever reason, it has gone too far. So many people, so much land. 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 that if, if...
I will 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.
Uh-huh.
I, I think this is very important. If we draw a clear line here. As for arguing whether we should change from perennial trees to annuals, or perennial trees, or what. We have ways. We might not need to use fire often.
Yes. Or move.
The production base for some crops down below. Don't allow planting on top. There are ways to manage these things. But this side understands that if you are going to burn, burn, but you must control it.
Control it. Or, or during some periods when there is a lot of smoke.
Even if you can control it, I won't let you burn. Because now, with this much smoke, you can't burn. Many provinces have announced a ban on burning, right?
Correct. But, but in reality, no, no. But in reality, now, the owners of the land who manage agricultural areas are not burning.
Ah.
Ah, yes.
Now, actually.
Actual agricultural areas.
They dare not burn. They dare not burn. But there are people who burn outside. They burn in the forest.
Burning in the forest. I said, now it's in the forest.
You have to follow. And when it burns, and it's in the forest, people go in less. So they can't control it. The fire spreads 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 team, you need to develop the fire control team to be larger.
Uh-huh.
You think about just pressing the fire, it won't be enough.
So the fire control team has quit. Then what? We have to help speak to another person. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Like this, soon.
And this team, this fire group, doesn't have to be with the forestry department or the national park department. It can be anywhere, as long as it's a fire control team.
It must have knowledge, responsibility, and authority. That's all. But not.
Like today, the governor has something. He announces and orders the deputy. The deputy tells the district chief. The district chief tells the village headman.
And then they mobilize the villagers to help. It goes back to what I said earlier. They mobilize villagers to help. Can villagers stay in the forest for more than 2 days? Can they stay in the fire for more than 1 hour? They can't.
I will say that this time, villagers from various provinces were mobilized to help. When they helped, they stood at the bottom. Talking about...
The military. The military also took them up to fight the fire. The team is not suitable for it. The shoes, the uniforms, the tools are not provided. They go to fight.
Wildfires. Like this, it's not right. You die. The fire burns. It burns. It burns. What is it? It's rubber, right? And then it eats flesh. It must be special clothing for them. Children in wildfires, they use cotton, right? All of it. Even the color is the same. It must be a color. So if it's anywhere, we can find it. Red, fluorescent.
I saw it. People were sent from Pathum Thani. From...
Camouflage. Oh, my God.
Camouflage.