Amend the biosafety bill
Impromptu opposition to the bill on biosafety, better known as the genetically-modified organism (GMO) bill, that quickly grew into a raucous protest at Government House this week, should remind the government and bureaucrats that the time to force-feed legislation to people, especially laws that directly affect their livelihoods, is over.
Instead, a serious debate that takes into account viewpoints and concerns of every party involved is needed before a law such as the one in question that seeks to regulate, or allow, the cultivation of GMOs can be enacted.
This process of public consultation and formulation of public agreement should be applied not just to the GMO bill, but to every law and project that carries serious, long-term or large-scale impacts on the public.
An atmosphere of trust and tolerance must be established before such a process can take place.
As the government is looking at a long line-up of possible controversies from the new draft charter down to a proposal to build an expensive promenade and bike lanes over the Chao Phraya River, it must start preparing an open, unprejudiced atmosphere into which it will ease society.
When it comes to the biosafety bill, it was not right from the beginning for the law to be considered under the military-controlled atmosphere, when all administrative bodies are strictly supervised and freedom of expression is vastly curtailed.
The cabinet itself may have underestimated how sensitive the GMO issue is when it endorsed the draft law late last month.
What came after the quiet cabinet nod was an explosion of debate among people who support and object to the bill starting on online and social media forums before spreading to mainstream news outlets.
Before long, farmers, environmentalists, health activists and consumer groups were united in their opposition to the bill and decided to rally in front of Government House to demand that the legislation be suspended.
The activists also want the government to let them have a say in a review of the bill before it is forwarded to the National Legislative Assembly (NLA).
While the debates over the bill and GMO products are tinged with emotional overtones at times — food after all is a subject that forms the basis of livelihoods and thus is close to the hearts of many farmers and consumers — most of them are very informed and focused on the concerns at hand.
It is therefore very unfortunate that these debates are occurring after the bill had received the cabinet nod instead of before.
Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha could be forgiven for expressing annoyance at the state agencies concerned for failing to strike an understanding among stakeholders before sending the bill on to the cabinet.
All sides agree that a biosafety bill is necessary for the country when biotechnology and GMOs are becoming realities of modern life. However, farmers and health activists believe that more stringent regulations are necessary before free trials and plantations are allowed, that representatives from other groups should sit on the biosafety board and that there should be clearer accountability in the event of contamination. All of these concerns are valid and must be incorporated into the bill.
The revisions will serve the purpose of enacting the law as stated in the draft, which is to conserve biological diversity, safeguard people’s health and that of other living organisms, and protect consumers.
Since the government has refused to put the draft bill on hold and have it reviewed, it is now up to the NLA to have the draft bill revised.