• 
• 

Published on December 7, 2007

 The outgoing Surayud administration is pushing important bills through the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) so they can be enacted before it leaves office. Critics describe the move by the military-appointed interim government as opportunistic and suspect some of the proposed laws were influenced by certain powerful interest groups. They ask why some of these important bills, which will have serious impacts on the life and livelihood of a great number of people in this country, cannot be held back so that the democratically-elected government to emerge from the December 23 election can make the decision. After all, the new administration and legislature is supposed to receive a direct mandate from the people and should therefore, theoretically at least, be in a better position to make such important decisions.

The problem is, this is not always the case. From past experience, most democratically elected governments have tended to shy away from the necessary task of enacting important bills that bid to uphold the country's long-term national interest but which may cause pain to many in the short term.

In other words, most elected governments have lacked the backbone to pass politically unpopular laws. That explains why many reform programmes have been delayed or allowed to drag on for decades before they are actually implemented in watered-down versions by gutless, unprincipled politicians. As a result, Thailand has missed many opportunities for reform that could have put it in a better position to compete successfully in the world economy. 

One of the controversial bills that should be enacted before the interim government and NLA leave is the Water Resources Bill, which has passed its first reading and is now being scrutinised by an ad-hoc committee. The bill seeks to improve efficiency of water usage and fair distribution of limited water among the agricultural, industrial and tourism sectors, as well as urban and rural consumers.  

Most Thais continue to take water for granted. The great majority of farmers, particularly those in irrigated areas, continue to have free, virtually limitless access to water. Farmers attach no economic value whatsoever to water, even though it is an indispensable means of production in agriculture. But allowing farmers to use water free of charge does not help improve the productivity and competitiveness of Thailand's farm sector.  

On the contrary, the kind of mentality that takes water for granted has proven counterproductive because it weighs Thai farmers down with low yields and decreased competitiveness. Farmers have no incentive to improve or maximise use of water, or plan crop production more efficiently, when it is freely available.

To be fair, poverty-stricken farmers need all the help they can get, but allowing them to squander water is not a way to assist them. What Thailand needs to do is to lay the groundwork for the introduction of a water-pricing policy that everyone can live with.

A token, partial payment from farmers for water will give them a taste of market forces. It may be true that water is a renewable resource, but Thai society must start to ensure fair distribution of available water supply among different groups of users.

The agricultural sector used to be the most important and most voracious consumer of water. But with the explosive growth of industry and rapid expansion of towns and cities, the industrial sector and urban populations now vie for a greater share of water - which they pay for.

With between 1,200 and 1,600 millimetres of rainfall per year, Thailand is still considered a water-surplus country. The country has relatively few areas affected by seasonal drought. But the phenomena of global warming and climate change have, in recent years, brought periods of unpredictable weather, including frequent droughts and floods.

The country needs to take drastic action to improve its management of water resources - by passing the Water Resources Bill. If it does not, the agricultural sector will become more prone to the devastating effects of droughts and floods, and growing competition for water among the different groups of consumers could become a source of political tension and conflict in the near future.

The Nation