I've always believed a good crisis can make for a great opportunity. Yet, I find it hard to apply the Pollyanna principle to the case of water management in Thailand.
After the epic flood in 2011, I was optimistic and believed the deluge would usher in a new era of flood and water management in Thailand. If the 2011 flood could not teach us valuable lessons, then I don't know what else would.
The Yingluck government then approved the largest ever fund to manage water -- a mighty budget of 350 billion baht involving large-scale construction and scores of major dams and floodways, and information systems. Now people are asking what we learned, and what have we gained to date.
Not much, I am afraid. The latest update reveals that two major water-related departments, the Water Resources Department and the Underground Water Department, are being investigated over alleged spending irregularities. At the same time, Yingluck Shinawatra will have to face investigation over the approval of the 350-billion-baht budget. Poor lady. Ms Yingluck may not be my favourite politician. But the question is, can this regime do it differently and better?
Anchalee Kongrut writes about the environment in the Life section, Bangkok Post.
So, precisely what is this government doing? Still we are witnessing efforts to spend money on infrastructure -- dusting off the notorious Mae Wong dam project and completing concrete floodwalls along rivers and canals without having to comply with the rules such as the obligatory environmental impact assessment.
Don't get me wrong, I don't develop a skin rash or choke every time I hear the words "dam" or "concrete floodwall". I believe in science and technology, but only when mega structures are executed with credibility, with sufficient public debate and participation, not just by a wish to spend lots of money. If these water projects are executed without transparency, I think we better ask: What is the difference between the Yingluck administration and the current regime?
To be fair, the government should get credit for its sincerity to reform water management. Early this week, a story emerged that the government would create a water board -- a special body similar to the National Economic and Social Development Board -- to plan the big picture of water policy.
It is possible this government, or the next one, will pass a water act, a master law that governs water management regulations and ensures all is going in the same direction. The structural change is understandable. Thailand's water management has been anything but functional. We have three ministries -- Interior, Agriculture and Cooperatives and Natural Resources and Environment -- to oversee water resource management, and each has its own practices.
Of course, we have scores of ministerial regulations, but we have never had a water act. Believe it or not, our experts have spent more than 25 years drafting the bill. Yes, over two-and-a-half decades on a single piece of legislation to oversee and set water management regulations. A quarter century of drafting. We have been provided with five versions of the bill, with two shortlisted -- one proposed by the now defunct National Reform Council and the other by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.
The NRC had asked the ministry to drop its version because it involved centralisation and consolidation of management power and offered little regard to public participation. The NRC's version focused on public participation. The ministry, however, has been adamant about getting its version passed. That is worrying as the department that oversees water management is being investigated for corruption.
As our bureaucracy tries to cling to power, you and I are more worried about heavier rainfall and flooding. The recent news about a mass deluge in the central provinces, with images of a Buddhist statue almost submerged, or villagers paddling about in boats, evokes memories of 2011.
Last week, the deputy governor of Ayutthaya engaged in an harsh exchange of words with the Royal Irrigation Department for failing to divert water to the flood plains as the province had requested. The Prathum Thani provincial administration, meanwhile, accused the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration of shutting flood gates, causing water levels in the province to rise rapidly.
It's certain the regime will protect some areas -- most parts of the capital city will stay dry. And we know soldiers can be counted on to help with disaster relief and evacuation. But in the meantime we might care to ask ourselves: What kind of changes in water management do we want? But I fear the old cliche: Beware of what you wish for.