Toxic policies just as bad as toxic chemicals

A network of farmers and activists stages a demonstration against the government's decision to renew the import licences for toxic chemicals in June. Deputy Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives Minister Wiwat Salyakamthorn endorsed a ban. Tawatchai Kemgumnerd

It seems Deputy Agriculture and Agriculture Cooperatives Minister Wiwat Salyakamthorn's days with the military regime are numbered. His likely exit has been widely speculated upon after his strong stance against "three dirty farm chemicals", namely, paraquat, chlorpyrifos and glyphosate.

Now rumours are circulating that he has been dumped from the Prayut Chan-o-cha cabinet. A source in his circles told the media of his likely departure. The minister could not be reached for comment as of press time yesterday.

Late last month, the civic-leader-turned-minister made it clear he was in favour of a total ban on the three chemicals. His unflinching stance went viral on social media.

"If I cannot achieve this [ban on toxic chemicals], I won't stay," said Mr Wiwat, known by the nickname Ajahn Yak.

His strong words immediately cast him as something of a black sheep in the regime, although in this context the colour "white" may be more appropriate.

I have neither spoken with nor interviewed Mr Wiwat. I knew of him from his organic farming project, and the "Yak and Chon" development paradigm which dwells on the sufficiency economy theory, which earned him great respect. Chon refers to Chon Jandai, a Karen scholar from the North who believes in the aforementioned philosophy.

His joining the cabinet late last year received an "ooh-aah" response from the get-go. As we now know, it was hardly a match made in heaven.

For many, the regime may want to cash in on Ajahn Yak's reputation at a time when its popularity has nose-dived due to a series of scandals. It has become evident that he failed to cut it as a cabinet minister.

Mr Wiwat did not hide his frustration over the toxic chemicals saga, which make sense, even though his reaction came later than expected.

Several months earlier, the agriculture ministry locked horns with health officials and food safety activists over the chemical ban. Those in favour of still using them defiantly ignored the calls for the ban, despite research indicating a rise in the number of sick farmers and greater contamination in food chains. They claimed there was information showing the chemicals were harmful to people's health.

Just a day after Mr Wiwat made his stance on the matter clear, the Hazardous Substance Committee chaired by Mongkol Pruekwatana, chief of the Industrial Works Department, came up with a resolution on the controversial chemicals that has raised questions about how practical it is.

On Aug 30, the committee, apparently trying to show how it wanted to regulate the use of the three chemicals, said it would allow them to be used for six crops or plants including corn, cassava, sugarcane, rubber, oil palm and fruits, but not for other edible plants.

The committee insisted the chemicals would be banned in watershed areas, which is to say a zoning system could be implemented. It also pledged to promote the safer use of the three chemicals. But will that happen? Paraquat is a leading herbicide among Thai farmers. Imports increased to 44,501 tonnes last year, up from 31,525 tonnes in 2016 and 30,441 tonnes in 2015.

Even if the committee is sincere about the measures, the first question to ask is which state agency will be tasked with monitoring usage of the chemicals to ensure they stay "within bounds". Secondly, how would they propose doing this? And why would chemical traders abide by the limitation if farmers want to purchase them for their vegetables or rice? In sum, can they really be banned from watershed areas?

Those who are opposed to the use of the chemicals know the measures are just a time-buying tactic. Eventually, the issue will fade from public view.

Mr Wiwat is brave to speak up. But will he be courageous enough to part ways with the regime? Or will he be forced to leave?

Some may say his resignation won't bring about any changes to the chemical business.

But at least he can lead the battle against these toxic chemicals, which harm farmers and consumers alike.

If he fails he'll probably have to go. But at least he'll leave with his values, beliefs and the respect of the public intact.