Under the spotlight of the Senate, a contentious bill has emerged, setting the stage for animated debates among politicians, protestors, and environmentalists alike. The Senate took a significant step forward on Monday by voting 165 to a mere 11, propelling a bill to amend the Fisheries Executive Decree of 2015 into its first reading. Yet, even as the legislative gears begin to turn, a fervent opposition brews, spearheaded by fishermen groups who zealously raise their voices against the proposed changes, particularly the authorization of elusive night-time fishing using fine-mesh nets within a 12 nautical mile perimeter from the historic coastline.
This proposition, initially unveiled by the now-defunct Move Forward Party (MFP)—an early iteration of the People’s Party (PP)—seemed destined for political inertia in the previous parliament. However, like a phoenix rising from its ashes, the bill found new life when Woraphop Viriyaroj, a distinguished PP list-MP, resurrected and resubmitted it to the House of Representatives in 2023.
The clause in the spotlight, and perhaps the ember of much of the controversy, is the proposed amendment to Section 69 of the decree. If passed, it would mark a profound shift by permitting the use of fishing nets with a mesh smaller than 2.5 centimeters within the stipulated nautical bounds. As it stands, the decree imposes a strict embargo on employing these fine-mesh traps during the cloak of night, safeguarding the coastal waters from potentially skewed fishing practices.
In a nod towards due diligence, the Senate has decided to construct a dedicated panel, tasked with dissecting the amendment bill in granular detail. Set to embark on a month-long evaluation, this committee’s insights will shepherd the bill through the Senate’s further readings.
Outside the echoing chambers of the Senate, a hubbub of protest unfurled against this backdrop of policymaking. A hundred-strong assembly of concerned citizens, marshaled by the Federation of Thai Fisherfolk Association (FTFA), gathered with banners aloft and fervor unleashed, casting their dissent as the Senate carried out its readings.
FTFA President Piya Tetyam didn’t mince words when he posited that should this legislation be enacted, an estimated 200 billion baht could evaporate from Thailand’s economy annually. The fear? A devastating blow to the sea’s bounteous yield, with swathes of juvenile fish and untold marine species potentially caught in the snare of fine-mesh nets.
The FTFA isn’t standing alone in its quest for amendment reconsideration. Pledging further resistance, the association urges the Senate to engage representation from all stakeholders—fishermen, environmentally conscious voices, and coastal resource specialists—to partake in the scrutiny of the bill.
Adding fuel to the opposition’s fire is a provision within the bill that endorses transference of fish catches between vessels out in the depths of the sea. This provision could open the trawling doors to illegal fishing tactics, making the traceability of ethical supply chains a logistical nightmare, according to critics.
The bill’s fine print further touches on the prospective cessation of legal defenses for workers within the seafood processing industry—an action that deepens the FTFA’s resolve to see the bill ferry off course.
Conversely, not everyone stares daggers at the bill. Bancha Sukkaew, the reputable director-general of the Department of Fisheries, offers a narrative of economic prudence and necessity. He highlights the scant 20,000 tonnes of stolephorus anchovies Thailand currently imports yearly, suggesting that the bill’s passage could bolster homefront catch capacities, thereby diminishing reliance on such foreign imports.
As the decision day looms ever closer, the forum remains divided, heated discussions inflamed by both staunch advocacy and apologetic acceptance. Whether the bill sails smoothly into law or capsizes in a swirl of dissension, the journey promises to be both labyrinthine and dramatic—the tale of tomorrow’s Thai waters yet unwritten.
This bill threatens the livelihood of thousands of local fishermen. It’s outrageous that the government is considering allowing night-time fishing with fine-mesh nets!
I agree. It’s not just about the fishermen, it’s about the whole ecosystem being disrupted.
Exactly! We can’t allow the seas to be overfished to the brink of collapse. It’s not sustainable.
Thanks for understanding. We must protect both our livelihoods and marine life.
But what about the economic growth this bill could bring? We can’t ignore that potential.
I think it’s a necessary change for economic growth. We import too much seafood and this bill could help reduce that.
You’re missing the bigger picture. Short-term economic gains don’t justify long-term environmental loss.
I see your point, but I think there are ways to manage both responsibly.
Has anyone considered the impact on local seafood workers? They lose protection under this bill.
Exactly. Workers’ rights always seem to get sidelined. They are a crucial part of this debate.
But will protecting workers help if the seas are depleted and there’s no work left?
The move to allow fish catch transfers seems sneaky. Could open doors to illegal practices.
That’s a valid concern. It’s not just about the fish, but also how they can track all this activity.
I don’t see the problem. Let the fishermen fish. They know how to manage their resources.
But local fishermen are the ones protesting! They’re against this bill for a reason.
We’re against it because it could decimate our fish stocks and our way of life.
Can’t they just agree on a compromise? Like part-time night fishing with smaller nets.
Honestly, who benefits the most from this bill? Big fishing corporations or local communities?
Certainly not the small communities. Big corporations probably have more to gain here.
I support the bill’s push for self-sufficiency in seafood. Dependency on imports is risky.
But at what cost? The ocean isn’t an endless resource.
This issue should involve more public consultation. Has anyone actually surveyed the local fishermen?
Good point! Listening to those directly affected should be a priority.
Evidence shows modern fishing practices are harming biodiversity. This bill could be disastrous.
With tech advancements, fishing can be more efficient without depleting resources. Let’s not ignore that.
New fishing regulations always scare people, but innovation can save both our economy and ecosystem.
That’s possible, but only if regulations are strictly enforced, which isn’t happening now.
Why push this controversial bill so hard? There’s gotta be more behind the scenes than we’re told.
Maybe environmental protesters could offer alternative solutions instead of just opposing?
We have! Sustainable fishing practices and stricter enforcement are top suggestions.
Those are good ideas, but will they work in reality?
It’s never simple. Economic benefits vs environmental cost always creates such division in policy.