1 week Ago
A celebrity marine park adviser has been dismissed -- but the real issue isn't him. It's the corruption, secrecy, and autocratic control his departure exposes. Siranudh "Psi" Scott Bhirombhakdi, 26, from the Singha beer family, has sparked fierce debate.
He rose to fame. His supporters fondly call him a whistleblower, others a troublemaker. Appointed four years ago as an adviser to the director-general of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife, and Plant Conservation (DNP) to promote park activities and marine tourism, he instead used his platform to shame irresponsible tour operators, criticise officials for negligence, and demand strict enforcement of park rules.
He posted photos of tour boats damaging coral, scolded tourists for collecting shells, and reprimanded others for drinking in protected zones. He even expelled a couple for greeting him with the Chinese "Ni Hao," calling it a racial slur against Thai dignity. Scott also accused marine park officials of turning a blind eye to environmental destruction -- allegedly in exchange for bribes.
He claimed that large tour companies routinely paid under-the-table money to national park heads to ignore rules and secure convenience. Park authorities, however, say he acted beyond his advisory role, misused park boats and state resources mostly for "creating content", and flew drones without permission. They accuse him of blurring the line between advocacy and self-promotion, treating national parks as his personal campaign stage.
These complaints have some merit; but let's not pretend this is only about procedure or discipline. It's about what he exposed. The DNP earned 2.
2 billion baht in 2024, up about 50% from the year before, from growing tourism. A few years ago, the DNP amended the park law so it could keep all its tourism income rather than send it to the central government. The result? Rich national parks became high-stakes posts.
Being appointed head of an "A-grade" national park is widely believed to involve bribes. The money, meant to protect nature and improve rangers' welfare, flows without transparency and oversight. The big money also fuels tension between Bangkok headquarters and local national parks over tourism income.
Last month, the Similan Islands Marine National Park chief was transferred over corruption charges. The number of e-ticket payments sent to headquarters fell far short of actual visitor numbers. On-site, tourists often paid in cash -- no receipts, no records.
It is an open secret in national parks. No one knows where the money goes. When someone breaks the silence, the response is swift.
Park officials who previously disagreed close ranks to protect the system. Scott wasn't easy to endorse. His "conservation" style was outdated, confrontational, lone-fighter, top-down.
He pushed rules without building relationships with stakeholders -- some of whom are villagers who need to be included, not pushed away. He left communities out of his conservation map. There was no consultation, cooperation, no local participation.
Describing himself as "merman" or "aquaman", Scott spoke for the sea and marine animals -- but not for the people who depend on it. Sustainable conservation depends on collaboration. Park officials, scientists, tour operators, and communities need to work together.
When rules made in Bangkok are enforced and advertised via an individual's social media platforms, there's no room for trust or shared ownership. Still, his clash with the DNP reveals a deeper problem in national park management. In the same vein as Scott, park authorities prioritise top-down control, treating locals as intruders rather than partners.
Indeed, local communities lived in these areas long before they became parks, yet have no role in managing their land and receive none of the tourism income -- only the burden of rising costs and crowds. This structure invites conflict, breeds resentment, and blocks reform. The law gives officials sweeping powers to police, prosecute, and profit, with little oversight.
Ironically, these authorities argue Scott had no such authority. A one-man crusade can't fix this, even with good intentions. Enforcement without inclusion creates tension, not solutions.
But the problem Scott raised -- that conservation is being traded for cash -- is real, and the silence surrounding it is damaging. Scott's conflict with the DNP is not a simple story of hero versus villain. It's a wake-up call.
What's needed is scrutiny of how national parks are managed, how money flows, and who gets a say. We need a system where wrongdoing can be called out without retaliation. Where park officials answer not just to superiors but to the public.
And where communities are included in decisions about their land and livelihoods..
