The Deputy Government Spokesperson refuted Sonthi's criticism regarding the Khlong Wang Tonod reservoir project, stressing that the Cabinet's project approval does not mean an order to flood the forest. She highlighted that there has been no approval to revoke national park land and insisted that accusations of beneficiaries require evidence to support them.
On 13 September 2026, Ms. Lalida Pertwivatana, Deputy Spokesperson at the Office of the Prime Minister, addressed Mr. Sonthi Limthongkul's critique of the Khlong Wang Tonod reservoir project in Chanthaburi province. She responded to questions about public consultations, impacts on forests and wildlife, and the roles of the government and relevant agencies, stating that the government is ready to listen and investigate all concerns, especially environmental data that may have changed since the EHIA report was prepared. She urged a clear distinction between "facts" and "political conclusions," noting that while questions are welcome, accusations must be backed by evidence.
Regarding claims that the public was never consulted, she said this is not entirely accurate. The Royal Irrigation Department held a consultation meeting both on site and online on 9 September 2021, with participation from community members, leaders, and local authorities, including documented concerns about compensation. However, the government does not consider a single consultation sufficient, as information about affected parties must be current, and consultations should be comprehensive, verifiable, and conducted before any steps involving national park areas proceed.
"To be clear, consultations have taken place, so it’s incorrect to say ‘there was never consultation.’ Yet, the government does not use that past event as a reason to deny further public input. Today, if there is new information, additional affected parties, or unresolved objections, agencies must listen and respond clearly before moving forward," Ms. Lalida said.
Addressing criticism that the Minister of Natural Resources and Environment "shifted responsibility" by stating the project belongs to the Royal Irrigation Department, the Deputy Government Spokesperson clarified the distinct roles: the Royal Irrigation Department owns the project, while the Ministry is responsible for environmental screening and legal processes related to national park areas. Identifying project ownership explains authority and duties, not a refusal to accept responsibility.
The Deputy Government Spokesperson said the Cabinet resolution on 5 August 2026 approved the project with a budget ceiling of 7.2 billion baht, a seven-year timeline, a reservoir capacity of 99.5 million cubic meters, and a target of supporting irrigation for 87,700 rai. However, she emphasized that "Cabinet approval of the project" is not equivalent to an immediate permit to cut forest or build within the national park.
The Cabinet resolution requires involved agencies to obtain proper permits for using reserved forest and national park land before construction, to use land only as necessary, and to strictly follow environmental measures. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment confirmed that no approval or revocation of national park land has been granted, and project details must be reviewed to minimize impacts on the area.
"Therefore, saying the Cabinet’s approval means the forest is ordered to be flooded is legally inaccurate. There are still steps to be taken, laws to follow, and agencies that must assess impacts before national park land can be used. Budget or project approval does not eliminate these procedures," Ms. Lalida stated.
Nonetheless, the Deputy Government Spokesperson stressed that the government does not dismiss scientific concerns about ecological impacts, especially regarding lowland dry evergreen forest, habitat of wild elephants, elephant population numbers, and tree counts in the area. She noted observations that recent survey data may differ from the data used in the EHIA report, which was approved on 10 August 2021.
"The government will not simply respond to these concerns by saying ‘EHIA has passed, end of discussion.’ If significant new scientific data arise, it must be compared openly with previous information. If government data is inaccurate, corrections are necessary; if mitigation measures are insufficient, they must be enhanced. Project details must be reviewed to minimize impacts. Project approval does not mean new data is excluded from review," Ms. Lalida explained.
Responding to allegations that the project’s goal is solely to supply water to industry, the Deputy Government Spokesperson said Cabinet documents state objectives covering water for consumption, agriculture, industry, and strengthening water security in the eastern region. The Royal Irrigation Department explained that water diversion to other areas would manage surplus water, prioritizing the water needs of the source area first.
"If the water volume is considered insufficient or allocations as explained are unfeasible, models, demand data, or scientific figures can be presented to challenge the claims. The government is open to verification but discussions should be based on data, as water management involves verifiable numbers. There is no need to judge project intentions based on rhetoric," the Deputy Government Spokesperson said.
Regarding allegations or implications that politicians, ministers, or individuals may benefit from the project, Ms. Lalida affirmed that if there is information or evidence, such as names, financial trails, contracts, or related proof, these should be submitted immediately to authorized agencies for investigation. The government does not protect wrongdoers, but accusations affecting individuals must also be supported by evidence.
"If there is evidence of improper benefit, present it openly. The government has no right to protect the guilty. However, the forum should not substitute microphones for evidence. Raising doubts is the starting point for investigation, but doubts should not be turned into facts without proof," Ms. Lalida said.
On claims that 500 Members of Parliament “do not care” about the issue, the Deputy Government Spokesperson said evaluations of MPs’ performance should be based on their parliamentary duties, including question sessions, committee work, budget review, and voting—not generalized from their absence at a particular event.
"Mr. Sonthi has the right to criticize, scrutinize, and question the government fully, and the government has the duty to disclose information, listen to the public, and take full responsibility for project impacts. But all parties should use the same standards—letting citizens judge based on documents, field data, evidence, and law. Oversight is most effective when facts outweigh the voices of any one side," Ms. Lalida concluded.