• 
• 

Published on September 2, 2007

In response to your editorial that emphasised the need for a more rational tone in the debate about genetically engineered (GE) plants, I agree and would like to contribute some facts to the debate. A key question is whether any bio-safety law, however well implemented and controlled, can prevent the unintended spread of genetically engineered plants into the environment and into our food. Recent experiences in Europe and the US indicate that the answer is probably no.

Last year the world's number-one crop, rice, was contaminated with an unapproved, experimental genetically engineered variety. Food products all around the world had to be recalled, and the damage to the rice industry was billions of baht. And this contamination came from a small, restricted field trial that was conducted five years earlier in the United States, a country that since has a bio-safety law. And only last week German authorities found the large-scale contamination of rapeseed plants, also very likely stemming from small, restricted and controlled field trials. Germany has arguably one of the toughest and best-controlled bio-safety laws in the world.

These two examples highlight a simple biological fact: genetically engineered crops are living organisms, which can spread through nature and interbreed with natural organisms in an uncontrollable way, thereby contaminating other environments and future generations. Can we be sure that Thai scientists can do a better job in controlling genetically engineered plants than German or American authorities? Can those who write our bio-safety law guarantee that they provide all the measures necessary to prevent disaster like those in Germany and the US? I note that some executives from international genetic-engineering companies happen to sit on the board that is tasked with designing our national bio-safety law, probably not a good recipe to ensure solid and scientifically sound regulations.

Imagine what would happen if commercial rice plantations in Thailand were contaminated with a genetically engineered variety. Consumers, retailers and traders all around Europe, in large parts of Asia and elsewhere in the world would immediately reject imports of Thai rice, as happened last year with the United States, when the US rice industry crashed after the contamination was reported. One single field trial with GE rice could be enough to contaminate our staple crop and at the same time cripple our multibillion-baht rice industry.

The current understanding of genetics is extremely limited, a fact that even most genetic scientists will readily admit. Scientists do not know the long-term effects of releasing these unpredictable organisms into the environment and people's diets. No scientifically sound method exists so far to test for undesired health effects. Any release of genetically engineered grains or fruits in our food chain is nothing but a giant human experiment, where consumers become testing animals and can only hope that the long-term negative effects are not too severe. Once released into the environment and into our food chain, genetically engineered crops can never be recalled. We had better stop it before it is too late.

Natwipha Ewasakul

Bangkok

Onus on Surayud to keep the next election clean

In your September 1 issue, you publish two letters of particular importance to the current and the ensuing political situation in Thailand ("Election observers now commonplace globally", "Thailand needs what help it can get from EU officials"). Between them, they make quite a number of highly valid points yet also make thoroughly depressing reading. Indeed, the first begins by asking why the present prime minister and the Election Commission rejected the EU's request to observe the forthcoming election. The reasons reportedly given by both the prime minister and the EC secretary-general are quite pathetic, indeed ridiculous, as Robert Jacobs makes crystal clear. The real reasons are to be found in the searing, honest and profound editorial on the same page ("For sale: political parties' integrity").

Quite simply, Thailand's political situation as it now stands stinks! With so many self-serving candidates reportedly willing to buy their way into power, that situation cannot face up to what the external observers would find.

For this present situation, regrettably, we have the prime minister to blame. Those of us who welcomed his appointment with high hopes for the future remain somewhat disappointed. His stated objectives were sound, resulting in, among other things, a much tighter constitution which, hopefully, politicians will not be able to tamper with as easily as they did the last one. Yet in the short time remaining, one important duty remains for him. If he is a man of the utmost probity, as we believe him to be, he has an absolute duty to make it totally illegal for candidates to either buy their way into power or to financially influence the electorate in any way at all. Many other countries manage it, and so can Thailand. If there's a will, there's a way.

Even then, the country will still be faced with many of the same grotesque politicians who seem more anxious to feather their own nests than to attend to the problems of their electorate. Consider the way so many rushed to join the People Power Party. Did they then look around for a leader of undoubted integrity? Well, not exactly! Indeed, the person they particularly selected would seem determined to make a very good substitute for their former leader. Yuck!

Henry Ashe

Bangkok

Northeast voters need to be given a real alternative

Re: "For sale: political parties' integrity", Editorial, September 1.

You may deplore the prevalence of dirty politics in rural areas of Thailand; however, you should not forget that Bangkokians were the ones who elected Samak Sundaravej governor. You may also condemn populist policies and call for Thai voters to "make rational choices as to who should govern them based on virtues such as honesty, effective leadership, respect for the rule of law, adherence to good governance and a dedication to the public good".

This is all well and good. However, the problem is that so far the Thai people have never been offered the opportunity to vote for such virtuous politicians. Are there any? It is easy to sneer at "populist policies through an irresponsible and unprincipled use of taxpayers' money to finance wasteful government programmes", but Thaksin Shinawatra, for all his faults, had the vision to reach out to the poor and make a concrete and positive difference in their lives and make them feel they counted for something in this country. This cannot be said of previous elected governments.

When will the Democrats start putting their natural leadership position as the oldest party in Thailand to good use by proposing policies that actually and concretely start to address the problems of income and regional disparities? Only then will they have a chance to make inroads in the Northeast. In the meantime those in Bangkok can scheme all they want: democracy means the poor can and will make their voices heard by electing populist politicians, even if corrupt, for lack of another choice.

Jean Flame

Bangkok

Copyright concerns not a matter of sensitivity

Re: "Learn a lesson in free speech with YouTube", Opinion, September 1.

In her column about YouTube, Veena Thoopkrajae confuses "freedom of speech" with the theft of intellectual property. It's not a freedom-of-speech issue if a video-producer, who needs a return on his investment, objects to freeloaders who rip off his content and freely post it for people too cheap to pay for it. Stopping piracy has nothing to do with the Thai government's high-handed, patronising censorship of YouTube and tens of thousands of other websites.

Paul Bradley

Cyberfish Media Co

Bangkok