Kittiratt Admits Corruptions Found In Rice-Pledging Scheme: Thailand

[waza]

Here is an added explanation......the small farmer does not sell directly to the government......which might just explain why the merchants and millers have taken a large percentage of the government money for rice........because it is the merchants and the millers that are selling the rice they purchased from the farmer, to the government, hence the majority of the government payment would go through the merchants. Farmers also sell their produce to the banks at an agreed rate, I would suggest the banks may well use merchants also. This mechanism allows the farmers to borrow.

Would you now like to explain how this benefits the farmers?

Being honest, if you cannot understand how the mechanisms of raising the guaranteed end price makes it possible for an increase to the supplier, alongside an increased or maintained profit for the merchant.....then anything I say is not going to convince you.

It doesnt unless your a redshirt rice farmer like 473geo 's wife

[473geo]

Here is an added explanation......the small farmer does not sell directly to the government......which might just explain why the merchants and millers have taken a large percentage of the government money for rice........because it is the merchants and the millers that are selling the rice they purchased from the farmer, to the government, hence the majority of the government payment would go through the merchants. Farmers also sell their produce to the banks at an agreed rate, I would suggest the banks may well use merchants also. This mechanism allows the farmers to borrow.

Would you now like to explain how this benefits the farmers?

Being honest, if you cannot understand how the mechanisms of raising the guaranteed end price makes it possible for an increase to the supplier, alongside an increased or maintained profit for the merchant.....then anything I say is not going to convince you.

It doesnt unless your a redshirt rice farmer like 473geo 's wife

Is that really the best response you can come up with?

[ralphlsasser]

No surprise here from a country that gives out corruption credit cards. In Thailand, corruption is the culture. It's bread in to them. Sad really.

[jerrysteve]

Now truthfully why should this come as any suprise to anyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[waza]

It was a compliment 473geo , now you know a least one person read your posts. .

[siampolee]

473geo # 28

Thank you for the offer, however I don't think we would enlist the services of your wife as our negotiator.my family would like our neighbours would not be overly happy with your political stance and I presume your wife is of the same political frame of mind

A no no in the eyes of the family and as already said the neighbours..

What would be of interest is what price was your getting over the last two years as opposed to the price she negotiated this year?

Not saying the mills and merchants don't take a margin, but in the case I know of the farmer (my wife) has seen the improvement quoted.

The comment in the village is ,''That the government give us 100 baht of our tax money back but then steal 1000 baht of our rice pledging sale money from us to fill their own pockets.

No fly's on those old farmers, they know how corruption hits their income.

Certainly farmers in Surin have not seen any benefit, however it has been noticed that many of the millers and big buyers have invested heavily in new Mercedes and BMW's along with top end U.V.'S too.

My apologies for a tardy reply however friends arrived thus the cyber world was relegated to second place

Edited August 12, 2012 by siampolee

[whybother]

Well the only producer known to me shows a 50% increase per kg in the last 2 years for my producer......25% each year an increase of since 2010

That is quite a rise in income for the farmer

The policy is supposed to be for the farmers. When the farmers are not getting a large proportion of the subsidy, but instead it is getting syphoned off by the millers, then the policy is clearly not a success, even if the farmers do get a bit more money.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[OzMick]

Here is an added explanation......the small farmer does not sell directly to the government......which might just explain why the merchants and millers have taken a large percentage of the government money for rice........because it is the merchants and the millers that are selling the rice they purchased from the farmer, to the government, hence the majority of the government payment would go through the merchants. Farmers also sell their produce to the banks at an agreed rate, I would suggest the banks may well use merchants also. This mechanism allows the farmers to borrow.

Would you now like to explain how this benefits the farmers?

Being honest, if you cannot understand how the mechanisms of raising the guaranteed end price makes it possible for an increase to the supplier, alongside an increased or maintained profit for the merchant.....then anything I say is not going to convince you.

It was claimed that during the original rice pledging scheme only 37% of funding went directly to farmers, and most of those were NOT the poor farmers the scheme was supposedly designed to assist. That those farmers wealthy enough (married to a farang?) to benefit fully support the scheme is no surprise, but why they should be entitled to a subsidy is a valid question.

[slapout]

As I suggested on a eairlier post those who do not understand the Thai system, for what is called farm subsdities, may want to aquaint themselselves with the farm forum. I like to watch people quote percentage loss thru corruption, some seem to use the gross figure instead of the farm gate price vs the total allowed for the product.

The rice programs is a copy of the lamyai program which was put in place by the absent one, Thie rice program may set a record for loss to the taxpayer/government, before it ever reaches the spoiled, missing, accounting stage.

Anyone who claims this government or the government under 'big brother' programs were to benifit the small/landerholder farmer is blowing smoke against the wind

Now there is no doubt some supporters of the present government have benifeted from the programs, but its not due to fram gate price paid to the vast majority of the farmers. Those involved from the production side and those involved in lending, stocking product, milling, export, and retail to the end buyer know who they are and they should be jailed or follow the Chinese procedure for punishment.

[473geo]

I am astounded, no rush of figures to prove the per kg price of rice has not risen for the producer?

And just one more comment guys, capitalism is harsh and unequal, but however hard you try to make it so, is not corruption. I am sure the merchants are not stopping the farmers selling direct to the government. The banks however may well take a differing view.

[473geo]

473geo # 28

Thank you for the offer, however I don't think we would enlist the services of your wife as our negotiator.my family would like our neighbours would not be overly happy with your political stance and I presume your wife is of the same political frame of mind

A no no in the eyes of the family and as already said the neighbours..

What would be of interest is what price was your getting over the last two years as opposed to the price she negotiated this year?

Not saying the mills and merchants don't take a margin, but in the case I know of the farmer (my wife) has seen the improvement quoted.

The comment in the village is ,''That the government give us 100 baht of our tax money back but then steal 1000 baht of our rice pledging sale money from us to fill their own pockets.

No fly's on those old farmers, they know how corruption hits their income.

Certainly farmers in Surin have not seen any benefit, however it has been noticed that many of the millers and big buyers have invested heavily in new Mercedes and BMW's along with top end U.V.'S too.

My apologies for a tardy reply however friends arrived thus the cyber world was relegated to second place

Rather enlightening post, for one you are making a huge incorrect assumption regarding my 'political persuasion' given that all I do on this forum is project an alternative view. I woud certainly never expect my wife to take a rice price based on 'political persuasion' I expect her to negotiate the best price from the best source, but if you wish to accept a lower price due to your political stance as they say 'up to you'

I have addressed your thoughts on the merchant profit above.

Edited August 12, 2012 by 473geo

[473geo]

Another point, many of the low income farmers subsidised their annual income by daily hard labour reaping and threshing. I have done this too! but paid in kind However the introduction of machinery has taken out this additional earning potential, now I know I drift off topic here, but for the 'poor' farmer this coupled with rent increase could negate the increase in revenue, and is directly attached to the rice subsidy, especially if the increase in the end price facilitates the increased use of machinery/ rent increase....but this does not evidence there is no increase in the per kg price

Edited August 12, 2012 by 473geo

[OzMick]

I am astounded, no rush of figures to prove the per kg price of rice has not risen for the producer?

And just one more comment guys, capitalism is harsh and unequal, but however hard you try to make it so, is not corruption. I am sure the merchants are not stopping the farmers selling direct to the government. The banks however may well take a differing view.

Capitalism may be harsh and unequal, but it does not involve paying subsidies to inefficient producers, but rather lets market forces decide prices, and letting businesses succeed or fail on their merits. BTW from your posts I have learned that you are performing work from which you are banned, and I strongly suspect your wife is farming land bought with your capital - both illegal acts for which your land can be seized and you deported.

[rubl]

Geo, this is real fun. You pluck something out of thin air, I ask if you think, and now it's a 'fact'?

Let's step back a wee bit. You said "For exmple if I told you 90% of the monies involved had indeed gone into the pocket of the producers as intended, yes there would be corruption but the scheme itself would not have been a disaster in terms of delivering monies where intended, to buy votes if you choose to take that opinion." Now that figure seems to be plucked out of thin air, but independent of actual figure you seem to think that 'at least some got to the intended people'. Actually I think and I may be wrong in thinking so, I do think you are saying nothing but just enjoy plucking figures out of the sky and suggest that you might or might not put meaning to them depending on what others think you might be saying. And of course you do not provide evidence. All clear now.

PS farang size, XL or XXL, mind you I have to check with various vocal members here if I as a well-known yellow/pink/green/blue shirter am allowed to wear red

You sum iit up well Rubl, you see my intial point was that nobody has the actuals on the amount lost to the farmer due to corruption. Now without this knowledge, then completely ignoring that there may have been benefit to a substantial amount of farmers, the scheme is labelled a scam. To quote Mick a "corruption disaster"

Unlike Europe where agriculture is handed 40% of the annual disposable budget, and expect no return other than re-investment in the economy! The criticism levelled at the Thai government is that they have subsidised the farmers and may have to incur storage costs and may have undersell the product. Given the comparrison the Thai government at least hold some return for their input. The Euro government consider the investment in agriculture essential to the well being of the economy. It would appear many of the detractors on the forum completly miss the positives. Let alone the fact that due to poor climate conditions there appears to be a massive hike in grain prices which may well open up further markets for Thai rice, who knows?

Long sleeve or short?

Dear geo, we had this discussion before and I'm not going to do it again for 'fun sake'.

Long sleeves ? Maybe I've been here too long

[473geo]

I am astounded, no rush of figures to prove the per kg price of rice has not risen for the producer?

And just one more comment guys, capitalism is harsh and unequal, but however hard you try to make it so, is not corruption. I am sure the merchants are not stopping the farmers selling direct to the government. The banks however may well take a differing view.

Capitalism may be harsh and unequal, but it does not involve paying subsidies to inefficient producers, but rather lets market forces decide prices, and letting businesses succeed or fail on their merits. BTW from your posts I have learned that you are performing work from which you are banned, and I strongly suspect your wife is farming land bought with your capital - both illegal acts for which your land can be seized and you deported.

God Mick, tere are people here arguing tooth and nail that the subsidiesare not reaching the producer and here you are saying they don't deserve it anyway. Did you read my comments regarding stimulating the domestic econoy when there is a world slow down?

I cannot help but be amused by your assumptions ......I would advise against a new career in palmistry

[Skywalker69]

The rice pledging scheme was noting but a very expensive vote-buying, using tax-payers money.

[whybother]

I am astounded, no rush of figures to prove the per kg price of rice has not risen for the producer?

And just one more comment guys, capitalism is harsh and unequal, but however hard you try to make it so, is not corruption. I am sure the merchants are not stopping the farmers selling direct to the government. The banks however may well take a differing view.

No one is saying that the farmers (in general) are not getting some more money. The problem with this policy is that the middle men are getting more of the money than the farmers. If the policy's (public) aim was to for the middle men to make money from government subsidies, then it would be a huge success.

[OzMick]

I am astounded, no rush of figures to prove the per kg price of rice has not risen for the producer?

And just one more comment guys, capitalism is harsh and unequal, but however hard you try to make it so, is not corruption. I am sure the merchants are not stopping the farmers selling direct to the government. The banks however may well take a differing view.

Capitalism may be harsh and unequal, but it does not involve paying subsidies to inefficient producers, but rather lets market forces decide prices, and letting businesses succeed or fail on their merits. BTW from your posts I have learned that you are performing work from which you are banned, and I strongly suspect your wife is farming land bought with your capital - both illegal acts for which your land can be seized and you deported.

God Mick, tere are people here arguing tooth and nail that the subsidiesare not reaching the producer and here you are saying they don't deserve it anyway. Did you read my comments regarding stimulating the domestic econoy when there is a world slow down?

I cannot help but be amused by your assumptions ......I would advise against a new career in palmistry

"...reaping and threshing. I have done this too! but paid in kind.." Even for free, deportation. You were erroneously claiming it as capitalism, but yes, I believe that corrupt vote-buying subsidies to prop up of uneconomic industries is gross stupidity and wrong. As a beneficiary, it would hard for you to agree, but I can see no reason why taxpayer's money should be handed out to you rather than spent on the infrastructure of the country.

[473geo]

I am astounded, no rush of figures to prove the per kg price of rice has not risen for the producer?

And just one more comment guys, capitalism is harsh and unequal, but however hard you try to make it so, is not corruption. I am sure the merchants are not stopping the farmers selling direct to the government. The banks however may well take a differing view.

No one is saying that the farmers (in general) are not getting some more money. The problem with this policy is that the middle men are getting more of the money than the farmers. If the policy's (public) aim was to for the middle men to make money from government subsidies, then it would be a huge success.

Good so we are agreed that the revenue to the farmer has increased.

So now you are about to come up with an answer as to why the Thai farmer is selling to the middlemen rather than the government direct?

Let me suggest, haulage costs would reduce the profit margin, milling costs would reduce the profit margin........unless you own your own truck or Mill......

Am I close?

[473geo]

I am astounded, no rush of figures to prove the per kg price of rice has not risen for the producer?

And just one more comment guys, capitalism is harsh and unequal, but however hard you try to make it so, is not corruption. I am sure the merchants are not stopping the farmers selling direct to the government. The banks however may well take a differing view.

Capitalism may be harsh and unequal, but it does not involve paying subsidies to inefficient producers, but rather lets market forces decide prices, and letting businesses succeed or fail on their merits. BTW from your posts I have learned that you are performing work from which you are banned, and I strongly suspect your wife is farming land bought with your capital - both illegal acts for which your land can be seized and you deported.

God Mick, tere are people here arguing tooth and nail that the subsidiesare not reaching the producer and here you are saying they don't deserve it anyway. Did you read my comments regarding stimulating the domestic econoy when there is a world slow down?

I cannot help but be amused by your assumptions ......I would advise against a new career in palmistry

"...reaping and threshing. I have done this too! but paid in kind.." Even for free, deportation. You were erroneously claiming it as capitalism, but yes, I believe that corrupt vote-buying subsidies to prop up of uneconomic industries is gross stupidity and wrong. As a beneficiary, it would hard for you to agree, but I can see no reason why taxpayer's money should be handed out to you rather than spent on the infrastructure of the country.

Infastructure for what Mick, if the majority of the population has no purchase ability, and the all the associated business collapses, why do you need infrastructure, you have no market to supply. Seems like a sure road to increasing debt to me!.....and isn't that the major complaint regarding the intended 'credit card' system? I don't know about your area but in the village there are new concrete road improvement every year, I see gentle progress on a local level. Routes out to the north east are seeing more dual carriage way. The railway system requires an major overhaul but for the moment remains well priced in first class for those that can afford it, low priced in the other categories. You think improvements here would not come at an increased cost to the consumer?

Thanks for your concern regarding my own personal situation, I don't think assisting friends and famiy on the odd occasion followed by sitting down and enjoying a bite to eat is viewed as anything more than a social activity where I reside.......especially when my major income is from working abroad far too frequently.

Edited August 12, 2012 by 473geo

[473geo]

It was a compliment 473geo , now you know a least one person read your posts. .

My understanding of the Tvisa use of the discriptive term "red shirt" in relation to Thai would insinuate, political activist, anti government, communist, supporter of violence in the political arena, a wearer of a red shirt, and no doubt many other derogatory comments bandied about on this forum...

None of which apply to my peaceful, calm, hardworking, thoughtful compassionate wife.....I accept your phrasing was not intended to offend......

A little lateral thought will also bring you up to date on the fact that at least two people read my posts

[slapout]

The Thai rice farmer is like farmers the world over, they pay retail for needs to produce and sell at wholesale, what they do produce. Only those who have a couple hundred rai or more, can justify buying machinery to farm same and few of the 10 to 20 rai farmers own any transport, other than a 125 cycle with a trailer they pull behind. This lends to a system which benifits everyone but the farmer.

The fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide as well as much of the machinery used on the farm, are imported from China. In most cases the prices have gone up in the past few years. Add in the increase in wage for labor, fuel for irrigation/cycle, etc and they are caught in a vicious circle. Throw in that in many cases the individuals supply the farmers needs are also buying/handling his produce, with a little to themselves at every oppurnity, which they can create.

To compare farm subsidy in Thailand to the real world is a no brainer as far as trickle down effect (most consumables are imported) and payment to the farmer/producer (not direct) is concerned. The payment/subsidy here are made thru people associated with the government and as happens in virtually every part of the Thai way of doing business, a piece of the windfall is charged for handling.The predictable part is the payments are many times handled by those referred to in the above paragraph who make their monies from at the farmers expense.

[473geo]

The Thai rice farmer is like farmers the world over, they pay retail for needs to produce and sell at wholesale, what they do produce. Only those who have a couple hundred rai or more, can justify buying machinery to farm same and few of the 10 to 20 rai farmers own any transport, other than a 125 cycle with a trailer they pull behind. This lends to a system which benifits everyone but the farmer.

The fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide as well as much of the machinery used on the farm, are imported from China. In most cases the prices have gone up in the past few years. Add in the increase in wage for labor, fuel for irrigation/cycle, etc and they are caught in a vicious circle. Throw in that in many cases the individuals supply the farmers needs are also buying/handling his produce, with a little to themselves at every oppurnity, which they can create.

To compare farm subsidy in Thailand to the real world is a no brainer as far as trickle down effect (most consumables are imported) and payment to the farmer/producer (not direct) is concerned. The payment/subsidy here are made thru people associated with the government and as happens in virtually every part of the Thai way of doing business, a piece of the windfall is charged for handling.The predictable part is the payments are many times handled by those referred to in the above paragraph who make their monies from at the farmers expense.

May well be an effect of the trickle down through government, but we are informed in the thread that 63% of the payments went to merchants, who directly pay the producer? another large proportion (from memory) went to the millers, who also pay the producer direct?

I have been a smallholder in "the real world" I can assure you the financial constraints and the profit for the 'middlemen' business is similar if not replicated where direct subsidies are in place.

Tell me without the subsidy how would the producer have managed the rising prices concerning imports from China?

[metisdead]

An off topic discussion has been removed.

Edit: A flame post has been removed.

Edited August 12, 2012 by metisdead

[slapout]

473, you have pointed out in your first paragraph the facility for corruption that is inherent/utilized by the 2 mentioned groups. if the government wants a clean subsidy payment it has to pay direct to those producing the product, they put money into the grass roots population/businesses and hopefully have a little to bank. That is trickle down effect at its best.

Having been involved in farming in the real world as well as the small grain storage/purchase/farm supplu sales (we called them elevators with feed/fertilizer facilities) , I assure you I have never received a government subsidy check from nor paid one as a middleman i have mentioned. If the farmer wanted to sell small grain we bought it via check and sold it with a margin of a 1 to 2 baht profit/bushel. Not sure where your real world experience was, but I can tell you that in mine if my family had tried to make the profit the middle men make here, the present facilities which are still run by family would not have been around for 7 much less 70 years

As far as you question to me, the Thai leaders talk of self substence just needs to include, break the depndence on foreign produced necessities for the farm sector and tax those farm iproducts which are being dumped in Thailand by the same country sending in the farming necessities. This might be difficult as it appears some of the same investors are involved on both ends. Farmer coops are another avenue which could be widely approached here as well as other avenues which have proved successful in the real world and in isolated parts of Thailand