500 Farmers Rally At Lumpini Park

[george]

500 farmers rally at Lumpini Park

BANGKOK: -- About 500 farmers gathered at the Lumpini Park early Thursday morning to camp out and rally to demand the government to tackle their debt.

The farmers led by Preecha Kaewnam, Chidchai Kesornkaew and Charin Duangdara, arrived at the park at 4 am in buses and other vehicles.

They are members of the Network for Solving of Thai Farmers' Debt.

They called on the government to hold election of farmer representatives in the Farmers Rehabilitation Fund and called on the government to punish the permanent-secretary for Agriculture for allegedly ignoring their debt problem.

-- The Nation 2007-01-18

[jumnien]

This is the first good news the junta has had all week. That they let 500 farmers (code word for Thaksin supporters) gather at all is a miracle, guess they trying to give the image of softening up or maybe they just don't get up at 4am. Sure wouldn't have looked to good if the headline had been different, like "Farmers beaten at mass protest".

[lukamar]

Sure wouldn't have looked to good if the headline had been different, like "Farmers beaten at mass protest".

That one's coming before long.

[astral]

What do they plan to plant in the park??

[hammered]

500 farmers rally at Lumpini Park

BANGKOK: -- About 500 farmers gathered at the Lumpini Park early Thursday morning to camp out and rally to demand the government to tackle their debt.

The farmers led by Preecha Kaewnam, Chidchai Kesornkaew and Charin Duangdara, arrived at the park at 4 am in buses and other vehicles.

They are members of the Network for Solving of Thai Farmers' Debt.

They called on the government to hold election of farmer representatives in the Farmers Rehabilitation Fund and called on the government to punish the permanent-secretary for Agriculture for allegedly ignoring their debt problem.

-- The Nation 2007-01-18

This demand was first made under the old government and was supported then by rallies. I wonder if the present government may actually be amenable to it although there are no doubt issues relating to who gets to vote and no doubt different farmers groups will have different agendas.

[sriracha john]

Sure wouldn't have looked to good if the headline had been different, like "Farmers beaten at mass protest".

That one's coming before long.

Gosh, when I asked my Magic 8 Ball that very question

and turned it over, I got a completely different answer:

Sorry to disappoint the blood-lusters and muddle up this thread with the truth, but it would seem this issue has already been resolved:

Cabinet Approves Debt Relief, Farmers end threatened march

[Plus]

Good job, SJ.

Now it's up to the other side to produce pictures of generals butchering those peasants, all covered with fresh farmer blood.

[Tony Clifton]

[younghusband]

Good job, SJ.

Now it's up to the other side to produce pictures of generals butchering those peasants, all covered with fresh farmer blood.

Leaving to one side for a moment your unfunny and poor taste comment, it is interesting to note another policy reversal by the junta.As the Economist recently pointed out perhaps it makes sense for the new government to obscure its predecessors achievements while stealing its best clothes.

The policy of the power elite is not to murder (most of them are decent human beings, though some are not) but to keep the majority of Thais as an unrepresented underclass.Notwithstanding your silly comment about "fresh farmers blood" we have seen in the past as you well know the power elite resort to violence when they perceived their intersts were threatened (although in Surayud's case denying he knew anything about shooting innocent civilians notwithstanding he was in command of the troops concerned)

And as someone who has respected your contributions albeit without often agreeing, may I politely ask whether you are entirely comfortable in the company of your current posting partners?

[Jet Gorgon]

Good job, SJ.

Now it's up to the other side to produce pictures of generals butchering those peasants, all covered with fresh farmer blood.

Leaving to one side for a moment your unfunny and poor taste comment, it is interesting to note another policy reversal by the junta.As the Economist recently pointed out perhaps it makes sense for the new government to obscure its predecessors achievements while stealing its best clothes.

The policy of the power elite is not to murder (most of them are decent human beings, though some are not) but to keep the majority of Thais as an unrepresented underclass.Notwithstanding your silly comment about "fresh farmers blood" we have seen in the past as you well know the power elite resort to violence when they perceived their intersts were threatened (although in Surayud's case denying he knew anything about shooting innocent civilians notwithstanding he was in command of the troops concerned)

And as someone who has respected your contributions albeit without often agreeing, may I politely ask whether you are entirely comfortable in the company of your current posting partners?

Plus is just doing the black humour twist. Chill, Younghusband. Valium works for me.

[Plus]

may I politely ask whether you are entirely comfortable in the company of your current posting partners?

Posting partners? What's that? I don't usually coordinate my posts with anyone else on the board. If by partners you mean people I agree with - why should I be uncomfortable? If I occasionally disagree with some of them, but why should I be uncomfortable?

I like exchanges with Oldmanriver, Martin, and Chownah, though we hardly ever agree on anything, even Lukamar I can live with.

There are posters that I consider as trolls - people whose driving force is to stir shit, with no genuine interest in a dialogue. I would never consioder them as partners, no matter which direction they are stirring.

[younghusband]

may I politely ask whether you are entirely comfortable in the company of your current posting partners?

Posting partners? What's that? I don't usually coordinate my posts with anyone else on the board. If by partners you mean people I agree with - why should I be uncomfortable? If I occasionally disagree with some of them, but why should I be uncomfortable?

I like exchanges with Oldmanriver, Martin, and Chownah, though we hardly ever agree on anything, even Lukamar I can live with.

There are posters that I consider as trolls - people whose driving force is to stir shit, with no genuine interest in a dialogue. I would never consioder them as partners, no matter which direction they are stirring.

All the posters you mention make decent and worthwhile contributions, and you know perfectly well I am not referring to them.Anyway enough of this unproductive topic.

[sriracha john]

may I politely ask whether you are entirely comfortable in the company of your current posting partners?

Posting partners? What's that? I don't usually coordinate my posts with anyone else on the board. If by partners you mean people I agree with - why should I be uncomfortable? If I occasionally disagree with some of them, but why should I be uncomfortable?

I like exchanges with Oldmanriver, Martin, and Chownah, though we hardly ever agree on anything, even Lukamar I can live with.

All the posters you mention make decent and worthwhile contributions, and you know perfectly well I am not referring to them.Anyway enough of this unproductive topic.

LOL@younghusband... yes, Lukamar's "decent and worthwhile contribution" that prompted all the subsequent posts in this very thread was, indeed, very considerable.

"posting partners".... you certainly do introduce a fair amount of comedy into these threads yourself...

Edited January 18, 2007 by sriracha john

[Gary A]

Just yesterday a friend of mine and I were in a small Thai village. There is a lot of sugar cane in this area. My friend asked how much per ton they were getting. That question got a lot on mournful looks. The answer was "Thaksin gone now. Last year 1,150 baht per ton and now only 850 baht per ton". They only know that when Thaksin was in power things were better for them.

[pampal]

It must have been broken up early because I rode my bike in Lumphini park from 11 am to  2 pm today and I didn't see any farmers, anyone camping or any rally for that matter.

[lukamar]

Just yesterday a friend of mine and I were in a small Thai village. There is a lot of sugar cane in this area. My friend asked how much per ton they were getting. That question got a lot on mournful looks. The answer was "Thaksin gone now. Last year 1,150 baht per ton and now only 850 baht per ton". They only know that when Thaksin was in power things were better for them.

Garry Garry Garry... You know that these poor uneducated and stupid people are finally getting what they deserve again after a few years with the TRT. The 300 Bt differential was only the government buying their vote. Now it's just being redistributed to the educated and smart city folk who should have had it all along. Once they finally get some education and more media availability they will learn that they were just stupid to ever think that they deserved that 300 Bt for their hard work and there are much better uses for it like payments for some rich educated and smart guy's new Mercedes. In time, maybe 20 years down the road, Thaksin will be forgotten by these impoverished souls and they will be able to happily till the soil knowing that they are supporting the rich of Bangkok, which indeed is the center of the Universe, with their sweat.

Didn't they hear everyone loves the CNS and the new government, I can't believe you found the only couple of people in Thailand that still like Thaksin...LOL

[Johpa]

This is the first good news the junta has had all week. That they let 500 farmers (code word for Thaksin supporters) gather at all is a miracle, .....

Farmers and the rural poor have been gathering to protest in Bangkok for decades and it would be a mistake to simply think of them as Thaksin supporters. For certain, Thaksin took notice of the poor and even threw them some bones in order to garner their votes. Any other political party can do the same thing, and it would be a good thing of they did.

It is a shame that the main opposition groups to Thaksin, who garner their support from the Thai-Chinese middle class in Bangkok, like to use the rural poor as the bogeyman for Thailand's ills and also use the rural poor as the scapegoat for Thaksin's excesses. Both have no basis other than ignorant racism.

[ColPyat]

This is the first good news the junta has had all week. That they let 500 farmers (code word for Thaksin supporters) gather at all is a miracle, .....

Farmers and the rural poor have been gathering to protest in Bangkok for decades and it would be a mistake to simply think of them as Thaksin supporters. For certain, Thaksin took notice of the poor and even threw them some bones in order to garner their votes. Any other political party can do the same thing, and it would be a good thing of they did.

It is a shame that the main opposition groups to Thaksin, who garner their support from the Thai-Chinese middle class in Bangkok, like to use the rural poor as the bogeyman for Thailand's ills and also use the rural poor as the scapegoat for Thaksin's excesses. Both have no basis other than ignorant racism.

I am convinced that if they would have done so, we would never had to bear with Thaksin.

Almost the first action of the present government was to cancel the rice subsidies Thaksin has introduced, and has cost the already indebted rice farmers substantial loss of income. I have difficulties to believe that any substantial help for the rural poor will come from this government, or any other government, other than promoting that they should be happy peasants, and send them off with empty promises as usual.

It is very sad that only a corrupt, authoritarian and brutal megalomaniac such as Thaksin has given the first substantial progress to the rural poor after every other government has excelled in doing nothing for them.

[sriracha john]

Just yesterday a friend of mine and I were in a small Thai village. There is a lot of sugar cane in this area. My friend asked how much per ton they were getting. That question got a lot on mournful looks. The answer was "Thaksin gone now. Last year 1,150 baht per ton and now only 850 baht per ton". They only know that when Thaksin was in power things were better for them.

Garry Garry Garry... You know that these poor uneducated and stupid people are finally getting what they deserve again after a few years with the TRT.

< - snipped - >

OR...

I'm not sure, but may I venture to guess that those price differences has something to do with the removal of the sugar subsidy last March? (btw, Thaksin's time)

Admittedly, the removal of governmental subsidies for any commodity makes for a difficult situation for the producer who end up with smaller payments and the consumer who end up with higher prices of those commodities.

Analysis: Swallowing the bitter sugar pill

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/03/13...ss_20002592.php

Recalling the removal of the benzene/diesel subsidy met with much furor... it was a disliked, but necessary, decision.

[Plus]

Almost the first action of the present government was to cancel the rice subsidies Thaksin has introduced, and has cost the already indebted rice farmers substantial loss of income. I have difficulties to believe that any substantial help for the rural poor will come from this government, or any other government,

Are you defending the same rice scheme that cost the country around 100 bil last year?

That was surely the best way to keep farmers happy - just buy the stuff from them at above the market prices. It looks like Thai farmers can't feed themselves, or live within their means.

Thailand is not the US, not even France. It can't afford agricultural subsidies, it's supposed to earn money from agriculture, not spend on it.

Subsidising prices is not help. It's quite the opposite in the long run.

Edited January 19, 2007 by Plus

[hammered]

This is the first good news the junta has had all week. That they let 500 farmers (code word for Thaksin supporters) gather at all is a miracle, .....

Farmers and the rural poor have been gathering to protest in Bangkok for decades and it would be a mistake to simply think of them as Thaksin supporters. For certain, Thaksin took notice of the poor and even threw them some bones in order to garner their votes. Any other political party can do the same thing, and it would be a good thing of they did.

It is a shame that the main opposition groups to Thaksin, who garner their support from the Thai-Chinese middle class in Bangkok, like to use the rural poor as the bogeyman for Thailand's ills and also use the rural poor as the scapegoat for Thaksin's excesses. Both have no basis other than ignorant racism.

The farmers if they are organized may even sense an opportunity to win a few thigns for themselves as the current government seem to want to improve their image up country, and also get a new constitution accepted.

[ColPyat]

Almost the first action of the present government was to cancel the rice subsidies Thaksin has introduced, and has cost the already indebted rice farmers substantial loss of income. I have difficulties to believe that any substantial help for the rural poor will come from this government, or any other government,

Are you defending the same rice scheme that cost the country around 100 bil last year?

That was surely the best way to keep farmers happy - just buy the stuff from them at above the market prices. It looks like Thai farmers can't feed themselves, or live within their means.

Thailand is not the US, not even France. It can't afford agricultural subsidies, it's supposed to earn money from agriculture, not spend on it.

Subsidising prices is not help. It's quite the opposite in the long run.

Yes, i do defend that. A country is not a company that can be run on a profit basis, where unprofitable parts of the population are simply pushed off. It cannot happen that Thailand is the biggest rice exporter in the world, but the producers are indebted and make hardly any profit from their produce, while rice mills, agents and exporters make enormous profits. There is something deeply wrong.

And yes, Thai Farmers cannot feed themselves, which is one of the biggest problems of Thailand since the completely failed green revolution of the 70s and 80s. You cannot stop this problem by simply getting rid of the rice susidies, and push the farmers into even more poverty and debts.

A multi pronged approach is necessary. One part is advocating the sufficiency farming system where it can be done (which is not on most rice growing land). That also makes a land reform necessary.

A much more important step is slowly bringing down the amount of people who depend on farming, and make a slow and easy transition into further industrialisation with the main emphasis of decentraliation of industry, moving industry into the provinces so that the very negative impacts of migration is minimised.

Railways have to be built, and energy supply has to be improved, so that investors can be attracted to the provinces.

That's though needs a government with more vision than just trying to preserve the status quo of a mass of supposedly happy and realistically though dirt poor peasants ruled by military and technocrats, while the urban middle class can accuse those farmers not to live within their means, while continuing to go shopping in Siam Paragon.

Until such improvements have been made farmers have to be subsidised by the state, in order to avoid a future catastrophy that will have far higher costs then the advocated susidies. For far too many decades the successive Thai governments have failed to change the status quo, while countries such as Malaysia had subsidies for farmers, and managed with far more visionary politics to push Malaysia on the road to developed status. In Malaysia you do not see impoverished villages as you can see in Thailand, you see a far better infrastructure, and a far better decentralisation of the industry.

It is ironic somewhat that a autocratic businessman like Thaksin, who grew that rich in such a corrupt environment, has introduced the first real changes upcountry, even though it was not entirely for altruistic reasons, and many of them were entirely populist in nature and not properly implemented. Changes that should have been introduced yonks ago by the previous governments.

And it is sad that the present government does not see the importance of such subsidies, and believes it can replace them by a ideology that is internationally openly criticised (and in Thailand not so openly for obvious reasons).

[hammered]

Almost the first action of the present government was to cancel the rice subsidies Thaksin has introduced, and has cost the already indebted rice farmers substantial loss of income. I have difficulties to believe that any substantial help for the rural poor will come from this government, or any other government,

Are you defending the same rice scheme that cost the country around 100 bil last year?

That was surely the best way to keep farmers happy - just buy the stuff from them at above the market prices. It looks like Thai farmers can't feed themselves, or live within their means.

Thailand is not the US, not even France. It can't afford agricultural subsidies, it's supposed to earn money from agriculture, not spend on it.

Subsidising prices is not help. It's quite the opposite in the long run.

Yes, i do defend that. A country is not a company that can be run on a profit basis, where unprofitable parts of the population are simply pushed off. It cannot happen that Thailand is the biggest rice exporter in the world, but the producers are indebted and make hardly any profit from their produce, while rice mills, agents and exporters make enormous profits. There is something deeply wrong.

And yes, Thai Farmers cannot feed themselves, which is one of the biggest problems of Thailand since the completely failed green revolution of the 70s and 80s. You cannot stop this problem by simply getting rid of the rice susidies, and push the farmers into even more poverty and debts.

A multi pronged approach is necessary. One part is advocating the sufficiency farming system where it can be done (which is not on most rice growing land). That also makes a land reform necessary.

A much more important step is slowly bringing down the amount of people who depend on farming, and make a slow and easy transition into further industrialisation with the main emphasis of decentraliation of industry, moving industry into the provinces so that the very negative impacts of migration is minimised.

Railways have to be built, and energy supply has to be improved, so that investors can be attracted to the provinces.

That's though needs a government with more vision than just trying to preserve the status quo of a mass of supposedly happy and realistically though dirt poor peasants ruled by military and technocrats, while the urban middle class can accuse those farmers not to live within their means, while continuing to go shopping in Siam Paragon.

Until such improvements have been made farmers have to be subsidised by the state, in order to avoid a future catastrophy that will have far higher costs then the advocated susidies. For far too many decades the successive Thai governments have failed to change the status quo, while countries such as Malaysia had subsidies for farmers, and managed with far more visionary politics to push Malaysia on the road to developed status. In Malaysia you do not see impoverished villages as you can see in Thailand, you see a far better infrastructure, and a far better decentralisation of the industry.

It is ironic somewhat that a autocratic businessman like Thaksin, who grew that rich in such a corrupt environment, has introduced the first real changes upcountry, even though it was not entirely for altruistic reasons, and many of them were entirely populist in nature and not properly implemented. Changes that should have been introduced yonks ago by the previous governments.

And it is sad that the present government does not see the importance of such subsidies, and believes it can replace them by a ideology that is internationally openly criticised (and in Thailand not so openly for obvious reasons).

Just a few thoughts on this interesting subject.

I would add education as being important if Thailand wants to move forward in the future. I think Malaysia included this in the mix that has put it in a better position than Thailand right now.

Malaysia being a neighbor and also a fellow member of ASEAN is a fair comparison although we should remember that Malaysia has a couple of advantages in terms of development and better distribution of wealth: Distance from the coast is always small. A smaller poulation. And arguably being previosly colonised placed it in a better position. However, it does offer an example of how things can be done a tad differently.

Land reform in Thailand has traditionally consisted of governments allowing previously (illegally) settled forest or mountain land owned by the state to be turned over to occupants. This land is not always the best for farming an kind of limits the amount that has till now been "reformed". Due to the nature of where these reserves are located it also means some areas have seen less land reform than others. An outstanding issue that many other countries have tried to deal with but to date Thailand has not is that of arable or potentially arable land located in rural areas owned by the largely although not exclusively urban based upper middle and ruling classes as well as the state. This thorny political issue needs to be addressed to truly tackle rural poverty. Taking the example of Malaysia again the middle and elite business classes have been willing to see their wealth taxed and reforms carried out to benefit the poor and rural groups in order to see a stable country, and the dominant political party has maintained the support of even the wealthy ethnic minorities while doing this, so while it may be difficult politically it is obviously not impossible.

[ColPyat]

Just a few thoughts on this interesting subject.

I would add education as being important if Thailand wants to move forward in the future. I think Malaysia included this in the mix that has put it in a better position than Thailand right now.

Malaysia being a neighbor and also a fellow member of ASEAN is a fair comparison although we should remember that Malaysia has a couple of advantages in terms of development and better distribution of wealth: Distance from the coast is always small. A smaller poulation. And arguably being previosly colonised placed it in a better position. However, it does offer an example of how things can be done a tad differently.

Land reform in Thailand has traditionally consisted of governments allowing previously (illegally) settled forest or mountain land owned by the state to be turned over to occupants. This land is not always the best for farming an kind of limits the amount that has till now been "reformed". Due to the nature of where these reserves are located it also means some areas have seen less land reform than others. An outstanding issue that many other countries have tried to deal with but to date Thailand has not is that of arable or potentially arable land located in rural areas owned by the largely although not exclusively urban based upper middle and ruling classes as well as the state. This thorny political issue needs to be addressed to truly tackle rural poverty. Taking the example of Malaysia again the middle and elite business classes have been willing to see their wealth taxed and reforms carried out to benefit the poor and rural groups in order to see a stable country, and the dominant political party has maintained the support of even the wealthy ethnic minorities while doing this, so while it may be difficult politically it is obviously not impossible.

Yes, education definately belongs into this mix. Important though is that education is not a singular issue. What many politicians propose is just not feasable, and will result in the opposite. One such proposal is to lengthen the minumum mandatory schooling. That will most likely result in even more drop outs especially in the rural poor, and leave more of those folks without the necessary qualifications. It is important to improve the quality of education without thouching the mandatory years.

It also is improtant to understand that education cannot be improved without injecting new life into the villages, by decreasing migration through decentralisation of industry, and decreasing small scale and landless farmers. Without family stability there is no way that any educational reform will work in reality.

Malaysia had surly a few advantages, but it also had some serious disadvantages that do somewhat offset the advantages. Such as a communist insurgency at the beginning of its independence, and a very explosive ethnic situation.

Very clearly one can say that the economic policies of malaysia since the last two or three decades have been far better than in Thailand, and the results do speak for themselves.

[hammered]

Just a few thoughts on this interesting subject.

I would add education as being important if Thailand wants to move forward in the future. I think Malaysia included this in the mix that has put it in a better position than Thailand right now.

Malaysia being a neighbor and also a fellow member of ASEAN is a fair comparison although we should remember that Malaysia has a couple of advantages in terms of development and better distribution of wealth: Distance from the coast is always small. A smaller poulation. And arguably being previosly colonised placed it in a better position. However, it does offer an example of how things can be done a tad differently.

Land reform in Thailand has traditionally consisted of governments allowing previously (illegally) settled forest or mountain land owned by the state to be turned over to occupants. This land is not always the best for farming an kind of limits the amount that has till now been "reformed". Due to the nature of where these reserves are located it also means some areas have seen less land reform than others. An outstanding issue that many other countries have tried to deal with but to date Thailand has not is that of arable or potentially arable land located in rural areas owned by the largely although not exclusively urban based upper middle and ruling classes as well as the state. This thorny political issue needs to be addressed to truly tackle rural poverty. Taking the example of Malaysia again the middle and elite business classes have been willing to see their wealth taxed and reforms carried out to benefit the poor and rural groups in order to see a stable country, and the dominant political party has maintained the support of even the wealthy ethnic minorities while doing this, so while it may be difficult politically it is obviously not impossible.

Yes, education definately belongs into this mix. Important though is that education is not a singular issue. What many politicians propose is just not feasable, and will result in the opposite. One such proposal is to lengthen the minumum mandatory schooling. That will most likely result in even more drop outs especially in the rural poor, and leave more of those folks without the necessary qualifications. It is important to improve the quality of education without thouching the mandatory years.

It also is improtant to understand that education cannot be improved without injecting new life into the villages, by decreasing migration through decentralisation of industry, and decreasing small scale and landless farmers. Without family stability there is no way that any educational reform will work in reality.

Malaysia had surly a few advantages, but it also had some serious disadvantages that do somewhat offset the advantages. Such as a communist insurgency at the beginning of its independence, and a very explosive ethnic situation.

Very clearly one can say that the economic policies of malaysia since the last two or three decades have been far better than in Thailand, and the results do speak for themselves.

Add to the mix that Malaysia has also done it in a way that has been independent and in the national interests of the country. Its dealing with the Asian crisis of 1997 by totally ignoring the IMF is a case study in itself.

On education I wouldnt disagree and education reform is probably a better wording for what I intended than just education as this particular area is probably the most overlooked of any in Thailand, and a lot of work is needed here. Sadly this very real need will difficult to fulfill as again it requires a very very strong politcal will.

And now we are getting into a need for political reform, land reform, educational reform. I cannot wait to see the promises of the parties before the next election. I truly wonder if any of them will mention these issues (well maybe not politcal reform), and if they do whether they will actually propose substantive recommendations and policies?

[Plus]

The gist of that post, that rice should be subsidised until a proper land reform and overhaul of rice trading system have taken place is plain wrong. The reality is, like it or not - there will be NO reform of any kind in a forseeable future.

Successive governments manipulated agricultural prices since forever to shore up votes and to POSTPONE any talk about reforms, and it's not going to change.

...A country is not a company that can be run on a profit basis, where unprofitable parts of the population are simply pushed off. It cannot happen that Thailand is the biggest rice exporter in the world, but the producers are indebted and make hardly any profit from their produce, while rice mills, agents and exporters make enormous profits. There is something deeply wrong.

And yes, Thai Farmers cannot feed themselves, which is one of the biggest problems of Thailand since the completely failed green revolution of the 70s and 80s. You cannot stop this problem by simply getting rid of the rice susidies, and push the farmers into even more poverty and debts.

A multi pronged approach is necessary. One part is advocating the sufficiency farming system where it can be done (which is not on most rice growing land). That also makes a land reform necessary.

A much more important step is slowly bringing down the amount of people who depend on farming, and make a slow and easy transition into further industrialisation with the main emphasis of decentraliation of industry, moving industry into the provinces so that the very negative impacts of migration is minimised.

Railways have to be built, and energy supply has to be improved, so that investors can be attracted to the provinces.

That's though needs a government with more vision than just trying to preserve the status quo of a mass of supposedly happy and realistically though dirt poor peasants ruled by military and technocrats, while the urban middle class can accuse those farmers not to live within their means, while continuing to go shopping in Siam Paragon.

Until such improvements have been made farmers have to be subsidised by the state, in order to avoid a future catastrophy that will have far higher costs then the advocated susidies. For far too many decades the successive Thai governments have failed to change the status quo, while countries such as Malaysia had subsidies for farmers, and managed with far more visionary politics to push Malaysia on the road to developed status. In Malaysia you do not see impoverished villages as you can see in Thailand, you see a far better infrastructure, and a far better decentralisation of the industry.

It is ironic somewhat that a autocratic businessman like Thaksin, who grew that rich in such a corrupt environment, has introduced the first real changes upcountry, even though it was not entirely for altruistic reasons, and many of them were entirely populist in nature and not properly implemented. Changes that should have been introduced yonks ago by the previous governments.

And it is sad that the present government does not see the importance of such subsidies, and believes it can replace them by a ideology that is internationally openly criticised (and in Thailand not so openly for obvious reasons).

A couple of months ago Colpyat argued that the populist policies would definetly crash Thai farmers in a year or two. Two days ago he was arguing that the present government would crash them even faster, and now he is offering a "solution" - throw more bad money at them.

He really wanted to see the crash, btw, as that would "awaken" the masses, probably to rise against their masters and overthrow the whole system, which he openly detests.

19th century socialist revolutionary.

[ColPyat]

19th century socialist revolutionary.

...while you seem to be very content with a 18th century power and wealth distribution here in Thailand, and consistently defend it, even with sectarian religious arguments, such as highlighting the importance of protective deities.

If Thailand does not one day want to fight a 21st century revolution with all its chaos and brutalities, it is more than high time to pick up the ideas and proposals of people who you label as "19th century Socialist revolutionaries" who in reality are nowadays in educated Europe labeled as mainstream liberal, as the here proposed reforms have been performed there more than two or three generations ago.

The reforms are not going to happen as long as the from you supported elite is not making them happen.

[John K]

Some time back I came up with a number that each person in Thailand was losing out on 5,000 to 10,000 baht per year due to corruption. I would imagine much of that money is now available seeing is who was on the take is now taken out. So whatever the settlement was I would imagine it was their money to begin with.

[Johpa]

Almost the first action of the present government was to cancel the rice subsidies Thaksin has introduced, and has cost the already indebted rice farmers substantial loss of income. I have difficulties to believe that any substantial help for the rural poor will come from this government, or any other government,

Are you defending the same rice scheme that cost the country around 100 bil last year?

That was surely the best way to keep farmers happy - just buy the stuff from them at above the market prices. It looks like Thai farmers can't feed themselves, or live within their means.

Thailand is not the US, not even France. It can't afford agricultural subsidies, it's supposed to earn money from agriculture, not spend on it.

Subsidising prices is not help. It's quite the opposite in the long run.

Can someone explain to me why it is propper for large industrialized countries with small rural populations to subsidize agricultural prooducts and not propper for smaller countries with large rural populations to subsidize their agricultural products? And just what do you expect to happen when large masses of Thai farmers are not able to feed themselves or live within their means, whatever the heck that means? Is there no longer any memory of the historical phrase "Il n'y a pas du pain!"?

[hammered]

The gist of that post, that rice should be subsidised until a proper land reform and overhaul of rice trading system have taken place is plain wrong. The reality is, like it or not - there will be NO reform of any kind in a forseeable future.

Successive governments manipulated agricultural prices since forever to shore up votes and to POSTPONE any talk about reforms, and it's not going to change.

...A country is not a company that can be run on a profit basis, where unprofitable parts of the population are simply pushed off. It cannot happen that Thailand is the biggest rice exporter in the world, but the producers are indebted and make hardly any profit from their produce, while rice mills, agents and exporters make enormous profits. There is something deeply wrong.

And yes, Thai Farmers cannot feed themselves, which is one of the biggest problems of Thailand since the completely failed green revolution of the 70s and 80s. You cannot stop this problem by simply getting rid of the rice susidies, and push the farmers into even more poverty and debts.

A multi pronged approach is necessary. One part is advocating the sufficiency farming system where it can be done (which is not on most rice growing land). That also makes a land reform necessary.

A much more important step is slowly bringing down the amount of people who depend on farming, and make a slow and easy transition into further industrialisation with the main emphasis of decentraliation of industry, moving industry into the provinces so that the very negative impacts of migration is minimised.

Railways have to be built, and energy supply has to be improved, so that investors can be attracted to the provinces.

That's though needs a government with more vision than just trying to preserve the status quo of a mass of supposedly happy and realistically though dirt poor peasants ruled by military and technocrats, while the urban middle class can accuse those farmers not to live within their means, while continuing to go shopping in Siam Paragon.

Until such improvements have been made farmers have to be subsidised by the state, in order to avoid a future catastrophy that will have far higher costs then the advocated susidies. For far too many decades the successive Thai governments have failed to change the status quo, while countries such as Malaysia had subsidies for farmers, and managed with far more visionary politics to push Malaysia on the road to developed status. In Malaysia you do not see impoverished villages as you can see in Thailand, you see a far better infrastructure, and a far better decentralisation of the industry.

It is ironic somewhat that a autocratic businessman like Thaksin, who grew that rich in such a corrupt environment, has introduced the first real changes upcountry, even though it was not entirely for altruistic reasons, and many of them were entirely populist in nature and not properly implemented. Changes that should have been introduced yonks ago by the previous governments.

And it is sad that the present government does not see the importance of such subsidies, and believes it can replace them by a ideology that is internationally openly criticised (and in Thailand not so openly for obvious reasons).

A couple of months ago Colpyat argued that the populist policies would definetly crash Thai farmers in a year or two. Two days ago he was arguing that the present government would crash them even faster, and now he is offering a "solution" - throw more bad money at them.

He really wanted to see the crash, btw, as that would "awaken" the masses, probably to rise against their masters and overthrow the whole system, which he openly detests.

19th century socialist revolutionary.

I tend to agree that there will be no land reform in the foreseeable future by any of the present parties or sets of politicians. The political will backed by a mass movement is not there yet, and yes all governemnts buy off the farmers in many ways to avoid facing the reality, so we should expect some form of subsidies to continue. What disappears in one way is replaced in another. The constant cycle of granting credit and then forgiving the debt that inevitably follows is just another form of subsidy. It is easy for politicians to keep the subsidies going, and I do not want to get onto an arguement of the present validity or necessity of them. The fact is though they all come from tax, and at the moment the tax base in Thailand is quite small. Yes there is the consumption tax which crosses all groups, but income tax is pretty much limited to the salaried sector. Corporation tax as we have seen is often bypassed by the influential. Small business owners too that are often making reasonble incomes find ways of avoiding taxation as do many of the the self employed. Unless there is tax reform(hmm another reform), or at least fair collection and enforcement at some point the cost of bearing the subsidies will beome too great and there will be a need to increase the taxes on the salaried ones which could create conflict between the poor and the salaried urban workers (who earn enough to pay tax) and middle classes.

While at the moment reasons can be found to support subsidies to avoid national conflict and they can be seen as a short term fix for gross iniquities, in the long term these iniquities need to be fixed by more substantive changes such as land reform (plus the related educational, tax, political and bureaucratic reform. Have I forgotten any?) to avoid potential clashes in the medium to long term. However, unless the current largely self interested and self serving set of politicians and related groups (who by and large own vast tracts of the land we are talking about) are replaced or become enlightened, I agree it is unfortunately unlikely, and we are quite likely to see more friction between the divers groups in the country, which no doubt some politicians will find ways of manipulating for their own ends. This is not only about what is in the next constitution but also about changes in mindsets. That is probably why there is increasing discussion on how the middle classes must step up to the plate.