One scene, two views

The following are excerpts from the report of the public hearing committee. First, a description of the conflict between supporters and opponents of the project:

Gas as a source of energy: The PTT is a state agency mandated to produce energy for Thai society. It claims that Thai society needs more energy despite the fact that the state of the economy has worsened. It also claims that gas is a cheap source of energy and is less polluting than any other sources.

Environmentalists believe that Thailand should re-examine the direction of current development, which requires increasing amounts of energy. Although natural gas does not cause much pollution, it still has a detrimental effect on the environment.

Cost of energy: The PTT believes that the cost of the gas is acceptable, and that it will be able to supply a sufficient amount by July or August. The PTT has a contract with a consortium comprised of Total, Unocal, Myanmar Oil Cooperation, and Thailand PTT Exploration and Cooperation Plc (PTTEP).

According to the PTT, since this joint venture does not involve the Burmese government the issue of human rights is not relevant to the debate.

Environmentalists consider human rights an issue since the gas is from Burma. To them, buying the gas from Yadana is tantamount to bestowing legitimacy on the Slorc government.

Money from the Yadana gas project will strengthen the Burmese government, they say. Opponents believe that this increased strength will only result in more human rights violations, threatening minorities and democracy in general. Thailand should instead find other sources of energy, such as from the Joint Development Area (JDA), they argue.

The point of consignment: The PTT believes that Baan I-tong must be the point of consignment, where the Burmese pipeline meets the PTT pipeline. The Burmese government said that it can guarantee security only at Baan I-tong.

Environmentalists point out that the PTT accepted the Burmese proposal unconditionally, thus indicating an acceptance of human rights violations by the Burmese government. In addition, this unconditional acceptance resulted in the pipeline passing through a 1A watershed area.

The decision-making process: The PTT believes they have acted for the good of the country, and that their actions have been legitimised by cabinet resolutions, the chamber of commerce and provincial authorities.

These official organisations agree with the PTT that opponents of the gas pipeline project are "ill-intentioned", violent protesters.

They believe they have done their bit to conserve the environment.

The environmentalists, on the other hand, believe that the decision-making process was less than proper.

For instance, the government approved the project before the Environmental Impact Assessment was concluded. The public did not participate in the decision-making process.

The actions of the PTT over the past three years suggest that it had no intention of allowing public participation.

The environmentalists, on the other hand, showed their concern for the earth, plants and animals, using non-violent methods of protest.

The committee also pointed out that the root of the conflict lies in the differing perspectives of the two sides. The following are exerpts from their observations:

Relationship between humans and nature: Project supporters believe humans own nature, which exists for the interest of mankind, and it is necessary to sacrifice nature for the sake of people. The opponents believe that the survival of humans depends solely on nature and it is vital that humans do not abuse nature to ensure the future of the world.

Concepts of development: Project supporters believe that humans are moving in the right direction of development and that the demand for energy is growing along with economic and population growth. They believe that development is the capacity to respond to the unlimited wants of the people.

The opposition, however, adheres to a Buddhist approach to nature, giving importance to a more balanced use of natural resources. They believe that humans should develop in a way that promotes appreciation of life by learning to limit "wants".

Replacement of nature: Project supporters think in commercial terms, that nature can be replaced. They see nature in terms of commercial value; teak and rosewood are expensive while other woods have no value. Project opponents think all wood is invaluable and important to the livelihood of villagers and that people who live in the forest are part of nature.

Concepts of tasks and lessons: Project supporters believe that the future of the country's energy supply lies with them, and their task is to meet the demand. Project opponents believe there are more important things than energy such as living in a healthy society where people care about others. They think humans are too involved to care about their trading partners. Humans overlook past brutality and human rights violations, misleading youngsters into believing that such abuses are unimportant.