Abhisit's Rice Scheme Probed

[waza]

Hmmm interesting state of affairs, Tarit has probed Abhist so often one would think he is his proctologist. However, once this latest probe has concluded I am sure they will discover that the majority of the money the Democrat spent on the rice scams were spent paying the debts that ensued from the PPP and TRT .............

A spokesperson for Mr Chatikavanij said “the government knows the numbers but they are so bad the can’t disclose them.”We put the losses at Bt260 billion
(US$8.487 billion) with only some Bt80 billion (US$2.611 billion) having reached farmers. We say the storage and management fees alone are Bt40 billion (US$1.3 billion).

“Particularly problematic is that the government had asked the BAAC to advance money for the rice pledging scheme with no plan of paying it back. When the Democrats were in Government we had to allocate special funds to pay for failed TRT (Thai Rak Thai (Thais Love Thais), forerunner to the current Pheu Thai Party (PTP) ruling party) programs which had been funded by the BAAC” Mr Chatikavanij’s spokesperson added. http://www.establishmentpost.com/backflip-on-thailand-rice-pledging-scheme-cost-details/

Edited June 12, 2013 by waza

[473geo]

This little chestnut sitting in the Nation.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/TDRI-suspects-lower-rice-stocks-illicit-sales-30208106.html

TDRI suspects lower rice stocks, illicit sales

Kochaporn Suksuchit

The Nation June 12, 2013 1:00 am

The Thailand Development Research Institute suspects that the rice inventory held by government could be far less than the reported 17 million tonnes, as the system has given rise to illegal domestic sales so that certain parties could reap the benefit of a Bt5,000-per-tonne price differential.

The TDRI suggests that the government should limit the subsidy for rice farmers and refrain from price intervention, so as to avoid further fraud, corruption and illegal trading.

Contrary to the recent government announcement, based on a Public Warehouse Organisation (PWO) report, that the rice inventory held by the state was in the region of 17 million to 18 million tonnes, noted TDRI technocrat Niphon Puapongsakorn believes the actual stock level is only about 10 million tonnes, based on data compiled by the institute.

The government's rice-pledging scheme has been in place for the past two years, covering four producing seasons involving the harvesting of 24.4 million tonnes of rice.

Coupled with the 2 million tonnes carried over from the previous government, the grand total is 26.4 million tonnes of rice.

Hence, Niphon argues, the PWO's report that the rice inventory stood at 17 million tonnes means that as of year-end 2012, the government had been able to distribute as much as 9.4 million tonnes of rice without disclosing any of that amount to the public.

The government, on the other hand, has only mentioned the reimbursement of Bt120 billion to the Bank for Agriculture and Agriculture Cooperatives, of which Bt93 billion was from the sale of rice.

Based on this, the government sold Bt15,000-per-tonne pledged unmilled rice at only Bt10,000 per tonne, excluding other costs, he said. Questions arise, therefore, about the Bt5,000-per-tonne differential.

While data show sticky-rice exports of Bt1.06 million tonnes from January to September last year, in fact the rice-pledging scheme has no policy of using unmilled rice in place of sticky rice. Hence someone must have removed rice from the state's mills, Niphon reasoned.

Another observation is that since Thais consume about 10 million tonnes a year, and most of the rice stocks are held by the government, the domestic price should be very high.

However, the current domestic price is still Bt21,000 per tonne, which equates to Bt21 per kilogram or Bt105-Bt110 for a 5kg pack of rice, he added.

Another interesting point, he said, was that while the government had tried to keep the retail price at about Bt21,000 per tonne, it had perhaps been able to sell rice at only Bt10,000 in the market to rice traders, who had then sold it on for about Bt15,000.

The Bt5,000 differential probably then went into the pocket of someone with the authority to order the removal of rice from the state's mills for sale to traders, who likely distributed more than the computed figure of 9.4 million tonnes of rice.

In that scenario, the actual rice inventory in the state's hands should not exceed 17 million tonnes.

That is, in his view, what happened and the reason that the government dare not announce the actual figure of what it has actually sold. According to Niphon, rice brokers are typically used to source required stocks, earning about Bt15 per kilogram for doing so.

Normally, when farmers pledge unmilled stocks with the state mills, the pledged stocks will be milled and sent for storage at state-run warehouses via a PWO representative.

However, under the fraudulent method, the rice broker, or a person with political clout, will negotiate to buy state stocks from officials and ask the affiliated rice mills to deliver the produce directly to the rice-trading firm, bypassing the traditional route of sending the rice to the state warehouse, he said.

Thereafter, the parties involved in the fraudulent scheme will fix the figures in line with the amount of rice pledged with the state mills and the PWO.

Illegal domestic sales of rice in this manner would fetch Bt5,000 per tonne, or a Bt5-per-kilo profit for the trader. The exact illegal-profit figures depend on the actual quantity of rice sold illegally in the domestic market, Niphon added.

He reiterated that the government should continue to assist rice farmers, but not in the way it currently does so.

Every satang should reach the farmers, hence the government should place a monetary limit on the rice-pledging scheme, direct its support to poor small farmers and refrain from price intervention, as it will give rise to further fraud and corruption and illegal trading, Niphon said.

Oh no. If this is the case, then the expected losses from exports will be absolutely gargantuan if and when they get around to selling it.

When she got there, the cupboard was bare. I had a feeling that this might have been what was going on, and as long as you keep refilling the warehouses year on year and potentially making up how much was grown, this figure can be hidden quite nicely until you have an audit.

2 points here

1) Note the guy is proposing a cap on the subsidy amout per farmer a good idea, but is difficult to have a high price per kg and implement this practice. If the subsidy was based on a per rai basis this would result in the possibility of subsidy going to the land owner not the tennants, difficult to get the subsidy to the small farmer direct. The credit card idea which would work in a fashion and is actually sort of in place with the BAAC current mechanisms has already been trashed on this forum.

2) I have never known a subsidy scheme that does not result in a deficit balance for the entity providing the subsidy - for instance in the EU agricultual susidies can account for some 45% of the budget! I say again for the hard of hearing, calculate or read up on the amount of business that garner all or part of their income from agriculture, this is one reason the agricultural subsidies are important to the financial well being and not to be dismissed as 'wasted' funding.

Edited June 12, 2013 by 473geo

[thaicbr]

This little chestnut sitting in the Nation.

 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/TDRI-suspects-lower-rice-stocks-illicit-sales-30208106.html

  

 TDRI suspects lower rice stocks, illicit sales

 

Kochaporn Suksuchit

The Nation June 12, 2013 1:00 amThe Thailand Development Research Institute suspects that the rice inventory held by government could be far less than the reported 17 million tonnes, as the system has given rise to illegal domestic sales so that certain parties could reap the benefit of a Bt5,000-per-tonne price differential.

The TDRI suggests that the government should limit the subsidy for rice farmers and refrain from price intervention, so as to avoid further fraud, corruption and illegal trading.

Contrary to the recent government announcement, based on a Public Warehouse Organisation (PWO) report, that the rice inventory held by the state was in the region of 17 million to 18 million tonnes, noted TDRI technocrat Niphon Puapongsakorn believes the actual stock level is only about 10 million tonnes, based on data compiled by the institute. 

The government's rice-pledging scheme has been in place for the past two years, covering four producing seasons involving the harvesting of 24.4 million tonnes of rice. 

Coupled with the 2 million tonnes carried over from the previous government, the grand total is 26.4 million tonnes of rice.

Hence, Niphon argues, the PWO's report that the rice inventory stood at 17 million tonnes means that as of year-end 2012, the government had been able to distribute as much as 9.4 million tonnes of rice without disclosing any of that amount to the public. 

The government, on the other hand, has only mentioned the reimbursement of Bt120 billion to the Bank for Agriculture and Agriculture Cooperatives, of which Bt93 billion was from the sale of rice. 

Based on this, the government sold Bt15,000-per-tonne pledged unmilled rice at only Bt10,000 per tonne, excluding other costs, he said. Questions arise, therefore, about the Bt5,000-per-tonne differential. 

While data show sticky-rice exports of Bt1.06 million tonnes from January to September last year, in fact the rice-pledging scheme has no policy of using unmilled rice in place of sticky rice. Hence someone must have removed rice from the state's mills, Niphon reasoned. 

Another observation is that since Thais consume about 10 million tonnes a year, and most of the rice stocks are held by the government, the domestic price should be very high.

However, the current domestic price is still Bt21,000 per tonne, which equates to Bt21 per kilogram or Bt105-Bt110 for a 5kg pack of rice, he added. 

Another interesting point, he said, was that while the government had tried to keep the retail price at about Bt21,000 per tonne, it had perhaps been able to sell rice at only Bt10,000 in the market to rice traders, who had then sold it on for about Bt15,000. 

The Bt5,000 differential probably then went into the pocket of someone with the authority to order the removal of rice from the state's mills for sale to traders, who likely distributed more than the computed figure of 9.4 million tonnes of rice. 

In that scenario, the actual rice inventory in the state's hands should not exceed 17 million tonnes. 

That is, in his view, what happened and the reason that the government dare not announce the actual figure of what it has actually sold. According to Niphon, rice brokers are typically used to source required stocks, earning about Bt15 per kilogram for doing so. 

Normally, when farmers pledge unmilled stocks with the state mills, the pledged stocks will be milled and sent for storage at state-run warehouses via a PWO representative.

However, under the fraudulent method, the rice broker, or a person with political clout, will negotiate to buy state stocks from officials and ask the affiliated rice mills to deliver the produce directly to the rice-trading firm, bypassing the traditional route of sending the rice to the state warehouse, he said. 

Thereafter, the parties involved in the fraudulent scheme will fix the figures in line with the amount of rice pledged with the state mills and the PWO.

Illegal domestic sales of rice in this manner would fetch Bt5,000 per tonne, or a Bt5-per-kilo profit for the trader. The exact illegal-profit figures depend on the actual quantity of rice sold illegally in the domestic market, Niphon added.

He reiterated that the government should continue to assist rice farmers, but not in the way it currently does so. 

Every satang should reach the farmers, hence the government should place a monetary limit on the rice-pledging scheme, direct its support to poor small farmers and refrain from price intervention, as it will give rise to further fraud and corruption and illegal trading, Niphon said.

 

 

Oh no.  If this is the case, then the expected losses from exports will be absolutely gargantuan if and when they get around to selling it.  

 

When she got there, the cupboard was bare.  I had a feeling that this might have been what was going on, and as long as you keep refilling the warehouses year on year and potentially making up how much was grown, this figure can be hidden quite nicely until you have an audit.  

2 points here

 

1) Note the guy is proposing a cap on the subsidy amout per farmer a good idea, but is difficult to have a high price per kg and implement this practice. If the subsidy was based on a per rai basis this would result in the possibility of subsidy going to the land owner not the tennants, difficult to get the subsidy to the small farmer direct. The credit card idea which would work in a fashion and is actually sort of in place with the BAAC current mechanisms has already been trashed on this forum.

 

2) I have never known a subsidy scheme that does not result in a deficit balance for the entity providing the subsidy - for instance in the EU agricultual susidies can account for some 45% of the budget! I say again for the hard of hearing, calculate or read up on the amount of business that garner all or part of their income from agriculture, this is one reason the agricultural subsidies are important to the financial well being and not to be dismissed as 'wasted' funding.

We KNOW that there will be a deficit. We KNOW that you cannot sell products for a lot more than the market will allow.

The problem is PTP do not seem to KNOW that!

And when asked about it the guy responsible said it was IMPOSSIBLE to get the figures until the scheme was finished (he actually said 2 years after)

Go figure

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[473geo]

This little chestnut sitting in the Nation.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/TDRI-suspects-lower-rice-stocks-illicit-sales-30208106.html

TDRI suspects lower rice stocks, illicit sales

Kochaporn Suksuchit

The Nation June 12, 2013 1:00 amThe Thailand Development Research Institute suspects that the rice inventory held by government could be far less than the reported 17 million tonnes, as the system has given rise to illegal domestic sales so that certain parties could reap the benefit of a Bt5,000-per-tonne price differential.

The TDRI suggests that the government should limit the subsidy for rice farmers and refrain from price intervention, so as to avoid further fraud, corruption and illegal trading.

Contrary to the recent government announcement, based on a Public Warehouse Organisation (PWO) report, that the rice inventory held by the state was in the region of 17 million to 18 million tonnes, noted TDRI technocrat Niphon Puapongsakorn believes the actual stock level is only about 10 million tonnes, based on data compiled by the institute.

The government's rice-pledging scheme has been in place for the past two years, covering four producing seasons involving the harvesting of 24.4 million tonnes of rice.

Coupled with the 2 million tonnes carried over from the previous government, the grand total is 26.4 million tonnes of rice.

Hence, Niphon argues, the PWO's report that the rice inventory stood at 17 million tonnes means that as of year-end 2012, the government had been able to distribute as much as 9.4 million tonnes of rice without disclosing any of that amount to the public.

The government, on the other hand, has only mentioned the reimbursement of Bt120 billion to the Bank for Agriculture and Agriculture Cooperatives, of which Bt93 billion was from the sale of rice.

Based on this, the government sold Bt15,000-per-tonne pledged unmilled rice at only Bt10,000 per tonne, excluding other costs, he said. Questions arise, therefore, about the Bt5,000-per-tonne differential.

While data show sticky-rice exports of Bt1.06 million tonnes from January to September last year, in fact the rice-pledging scheme has no policy of using unmilled rice in place of sticky rice. Hence someone must have removed rice from the state's mills, Niphon reasoned.

Another observation is that since Thais consume about 10 million tonnes a year, and most of the rice stocks are held by the government, the domestic price should be very high.

However, the current domestic price is still Bt21,000 per tonne, which equates to Bt21 per kilogram or Bt105-Bt110 for a 5kg pack of rice, he added.

Another interesting point, he said, was that while the government had tried to keep the retail price at about Bt21,000 per tonne, it had perhaps been able to sell rice at only Bt10,000 in the market to rice traders, who had then sold it on for about Bt15,000.

The Bt5,000 differential probably then went into the pocket of someone with the authority to order the removal of rice from the state's mills for sale to traders, who likely distributed more than the computed figure of 9.4 million tonnes of rice.

In that scenario, the actual rice inventory in the state's hands should not exceed 17 million tonnes.

That is, in his view, what happened and the reason that the government dare not announce the actual figure of what it has actually sold. According to Niphon, rice brokers are typically used to source required stocks, earning about Bt15 per kilogram for doing so.

Normally, when farmers pledge unmilled stocks with the state mills, the pledged stocks will be milled and sent for storage at state-run warehouses via a PWO representative.

However, under the fraudulent method, the rice broker, or a person with political clout, will negotiate to buy state stocks from officials and ask the affiliated rice mills to deliver the produce directly to the rice-trading firm, bypassing the traditional route of sending the rice to the state warehouse, he said.

Thereafter, the parties involved in the fraudulent scheme will fix the figures in line with the amount of rice pledged with the state mills and the PWO.

Illegal domestic sales of rice in this manner would fetch Bt5,000 per tonne, or a Bt5-per-kilo profit for the trader. The exact illegal-profit figures depend on the actual quantity of rice sold illegally in the domestic market, Niphon added.

He reiterated that the government should continue to assist rice farmers, but not in the way it currently does so.

Every satang should reach the farmers, hence the government should place a monetary limit on the rice-pledging scheme, direct its support to poor small farmers and refrain from price intervention, as it will give rise to further fraud and corruption and illegal trading, Niphon said.

Oh no. If this is the case, then the expected losses from exports will be absolutely gargantuan if and when they get around to selling it.

When she got there, the cupboard was bare. I had a feeling that this might have been what was going on, and as long as you keep refilling the warehouses year on year and potentially making up how much was grown, this figure can be hidden quite nicely until you have an audit.

2 points here

1) Note the guy is proposing a cap on the subsidy amout per farmer a good idea, but is difficult to have a high price per kg and implement this practice. If the subsidy was based on a per rai basis this would result in the possibility of subsidy going to the land owner not the tennants, difficult to get the subsidy to the small farmer direct. The credit card idea which would work in a fashion and is actually sort of in place with the BAAC current mechanisms has already been trashed on this forum.

2) I have never known a subsidy scheme that does not result in a deficit balance for the entity providing the subsidy - for instance in the EU agricultual susidies can account for some 45% of the budget! I say again for the hard of hearing, calculate or read up on the amount of business that garner all or part of their income from agriculture, this is one reason the agricultural subsidies are important to the financial well being and not to be dismissed as 'wasted' funding.

We KNOW that there will be a deficit. We KNOW that you cannot sell products for a lot more than the market will allow.

The problem is PTP do not seem to KNOW that!

And when asked about it the guy responsible said it was IMPOSSIBLE to get the figures until the scheme was finished (he actually said 2 years after)

Go figure

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

Thank you, now lets allow the farmer take his price of 15 - 20 baht a kg (some 5-10 baht above neighbouring coutries 'natural level' ) and move on.....

Edited June 12, 2013 by 473geo

[Thai at Heart]

This little chestnut sitting in the Nation.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/TDRI-suspects-lower-rice-stocks-illicit-sales-30208106.html

TDRI suspects lower rice stocks, illicit sales

Kochaporn Suksuchit

The Nation June 12, 2013 1:00 am

The Thailand Development Research Institute suspects that the rice inventory held by government could be far less than the reported 17 million tonnes, as the system has given rise to illegal domestic sales so that certain parties could reap the benefit of a Bt5,000-per-tonne price differential.

The TDRI suggests that the government should limit the subsidy for rice farmers and refrain from price intervention, so as to avoid further fraud, corruption and illegal trading.

Contrary to the recent government announcement, based on a Public Warehouse Organisation (PWO) report, that the rice inventory held by the state was in the region of 17 million to 18 million tonnes, noted TDRI technocrat Niphon Puapongsakorn believes the actual stock level is only about 10 million tonnes, based on data compiled by the institute.

The government's rice-pledging scheme has been in place for the past two years, covering four producing seasons involving the harvesting of 24.4 million tonnes of rice.

Coupled with the 2 million tonnes carried over from the previous government, the grand total is 26.4 million tonnes of rice.

Hence, Niphon argues, the PWO's report that the rice inventory stood at 17 million tonnes means that as of year-end 2012, the government had been able to distribute as much as 9.4 million tonnes of rice without disclosing any of that amount to the public.

The government, on the other hand, has only mentioned the reimbursement of Bt120 billion to the Bank for Agriculture and Agriculture Cooperatives, of which Bt93 billion was from the sale of rice.

Based on this, the government sold Bt15,000-per-tonne pledged unmilled rice at only Bt10,000 per tonne, excluding other costs, he said. Questions arise, therefore, about the Bt5,000-per-tonne differential.

While data show sticky-rice exports of Bt1.06 million tonnes from January to September last year, in fact the rice-pledging scheme has no policy of using unmilled rice in place of sticky rice. Hence someone must have removed rice from the state's mills, Niphon reasoned.

Another observation is that since Thais consume about 10 million tonnes a year, and most of the rice stocks are held by the government, the domestic price should be very high.

However, the current domestic price is still Bt21,000 per tonne, which equates to Bt21 per kilogram or Bt105-Bt110 for a 5kg pack of rice, he added.

Another interesting point, he said, was that while the government had tried to keep the retail price at about Bt21,000 per tonne, it had perhaps been able to sell rice at only Bt10,000 in the market to rice traders, who had then sold it on for about Bt15,000.

The Bt5,000 differential probably then went into the pocket of someone with the authority to order the removal of rice from the state's mills for sale to traders, who likely distributed more than the computed figure of 9.4 million tonnes of rice.

In that scenario, the actual rice inventory in the state's hands should not exceed 17 million tonnes.

That is, in his view, what happened and the reason that the government dare not announce the actual figure of what it has actually sold. According to Niphon, rice brokers are typically used to source required stocks, earning about Bt15 per kilogram for doing so.

Normally, when farmers pledge unmilled stocks with the state mills, the pledged stocks will be milled and sent for storage at state-run warehouses via a PWO representative.

However, under the fraudulent method, the rice broker, or a person with political clout, will negotiate to buy state stocks from officials and ask the affiliated rice mills to deliver the produce directly to the rice-trading firm, bypassing the traditional route of sending the rice to the state warehouse, he said.

Thereafter, the parties involved in the fraudulent scheme will fix the figures in line with the amount of rice pledged with the state mills and the PWO.

Illegal domestic sales of rice in this manner would fetch Bt5,000 per tonne, or a Bt5-per-kilo profit for the trader. The exact illegal-profit figures depend on the actual quantity of rice sold illegally in the domestic market, Niphon added.

He reiterated that the government should continue to assist rice farmers, but not in the way it currently does so.

Every satang should reach the farmers, hence the government should place a monetary limit on the rice-pledging scheme, direct its support to poor small farmers and refrain from price intervention, as it will give rise to further fraud and corruption and illegal trading, Niphon said.

Oh no. If this is the case, then the expected losses from exports will be absolutely gargantuan if and when they get around to selling it.

When she got there, the cupboard was bare. I had a feeling that this might have been what was going on, and as long as you keep refilling the warehouses year on year and potentially making up how much was grown, this figure can be hidden quite nicely until you have an audit.

2 points here

1) Note the guy is proposing a cap on the subsidy amout per farmer a good idea, but is difficult to have a high price per kg and implement this practice. If the subsidy was based on a per rai basis this would result in the possibility of subsidy going to the land owner not the tennants, difficult to get the subsidy to the small farmer direct. The credit card idea which would work in a fashion and is actually sort of in place with the BAAC current mechanisms has already been trashed on this forum.

2) I have never known a subsidy scheme that does not result in a deficit balance for the entity providing the subsidy - for instance in the EU agricultual susidies can account for some 45% of the budget! I say again for the hard of hearing, calculate or read up on the amount of business that garner all or part of their income from agriculture, this is one reason the agricultural subsidies are important to the financial well being and not to be dismissed as 'wasted' funding.

I worked in the EU in agriculture during the CAP. The first thing they had that helped was an organisation to catalogue all of the farmers and how much land they owned, not rented. Should they "rent" land, they had to submit documents attesting to the rental agreement. They would then be allocated a strict quota on volume they produced. The distinct type of product they were producing, even down to the seed type received a given subsidy per kilo irrespective of quality, a little bit how the government here has stated that hom mali gets a higher price than other types.

The companies buying the product would contract this farmer and register his as supplying to us. This was an amazingly competitive business, and the best farmers would start to negotiate with companies about what they expected to receive, companies would advance money to farmers to fund them through the growing period, and produce would be delivered. Against the quotad volume they produced, they would receive the subsidy price, plus what the companies were willing to pay for the product. Any overage was only paid from what the company was willing to pay. The subsidy payment only made up 20 to 30% of the total of what the farmer produced because there was a strict restriction on supply of this commodity, and the farmers produced generally excellent quality, often not bothering to even deliver the very lowest quality portion of what they produced.

So, in comparing the Abhsit system with PTP, the most obvious question is, did the money actually go to the farmer's hand? I can't see how they can catalogue all of the farmers and their output, when so many of them are renting land, and profit sharing with the land owner.

[OzMick]

Thank you, now lets allow the farmer take his price of 15 - 20 baht a kg (some 5-10 baht above neighbouring coutries 'natural level' ) and move on.....

Paying more than something is worth is economic idiocy, even more so in the 33-50% range you consider acceptable, and not viable in the long term. It would be better to assist the grower to change to a viable crop, or increase his efficiency to the point he can make a sustainable return.

Paying subsidies of that size that are not having an effect, but are dissipated along the way including to those proposing the subsidies, is CORRUPTION.

Edited June 12, 2013 by OzMick

[473geo]

Watch it you fellas Geo is an expert on rice farming.

He said so on another topic.

Expert enough to know 'the money' did not go direct to the farmers.......it went to the fertiliser outlets..if you bought fertiliser as a farmer you paid last years price.......if you couldn't afford fertiliser you sold your rice to the middlemen and millers at whatever they chose to give, no help for you, and guess what the middlemen and the millers still made money....do you think they loved Abhisit that much the waved their profit

I mean what sort of statement further up the thread

"I don't know much about the Dems rice scheme but I was under the impression that the money went directly to the farmers."

Now where did you get that impression...on Tvisa perhaps

One lap, and all is forgotten because you know that rice farmers buy fertilizer and sell to millers and middlemen who are in business to make a profit.

Here it is again, the Democrat's subsidy was paid to farmers to spend on the things farmers buy. Next lap.

The Abhisit scheme pushed circa 35 billion into fertiliser subsidies, the fertiliser price was allowed to rise (ensuring a profit margin) the farmer could obtain documents from the BAAC to enable purchase at the previous year price, the subsidy did not only cover rice but other crops such as maize, tapioca........

The poor farmer? Who could not afford fertiliser......well I believe Korn stated the BAAC would loan the money at 7% interest.......which by my calculation means the farmer has paid almost the full price of the fertiliser anyway...........

Where in this little scenario do you see an incease in the revenue and cash in hand for the poor farmer?

Edited June 12, 2013 by 473geo

[OzMick]

The Abhisit scheme pushed circa 35 billion into fertiliser subsidies, the fertiliser price was allowed to rise (ensuring a profit margin) the farmer could obtain documents from the BAAC to enable purchase at the previous year price, the subsidy did not only cover rice but other crops such as maize, tapioca........

The poor farmer? Who could not afford fertiliser......well I believe Korn stated the BAAC would loan the money at 7% interest.......which by my calculation means the farmer has paid almost the full price of the fertiliser anyway...........

Where in this little scenario do you see an incease in the revenue and cash in hand for the poor farmer?

PTP allowed rent for rice-growing land to double, and the price of fertilizer is still rising. Where in this little scenario do you see an increase in the revenue and cash in hand for the poor farmer?

Why is it costing B260 billion with NO effect?

[473geo]

By the way the BAAC still operates the system of rice purchasing, usually when the rice is collected from the farmers, as it has to be before the new crop is dried and installed in the rice barn, you will see the farmers at the bank with their paperwork to negotiate next years price and loan.....so a bank is buying the rice...at an agreed price..the government pays the BAAC (eventually) .I fail to see where the farmer is not getting his money.....in this particular scenario......

Edited June 12, 2013 by 473geo

[thaicbr]

 

 

Watch it you fellas Geo is an expert on rice farming.

 

He said so on another topic.

Expert enough to know 'the money' did not go direct to the farmers.......it went to the fertiliser outlets..if you bought fertiliser as a farmer you paid last years price.......if you couldn't afford fertiliser you sold your rice to the middlemen and millers at whatever they chose to give, no help for you, and guess what the middlemen and the millers still made money....do you think they loved Abhisit that much the waved their profit

 

I mean what sort of statement further up the thread

 

"I don't know much about the Dems rice scheme but I was under the impression that the money went directly to the farmers."

 

Now where did you get that impression...on Tvisa perhaps

 

One lap, and all is forgotten because you know that rice farmers buy fertilizer and sell to millers and middlemen who are in business to make a profit.

 

Here it is again, the Democrat's subsidy was paid to farmers to spend on the things farmers buy. Next lap.

 

The Abhisit scheme pushed circa 35 billion into fertiliser subsidies, the fertiliser price was allowed to rise (ensuring a profit margin) the farmer could obtain documents from the BAAC to enable purchase at the previous year price, the subsidy did not only cover rice but other crops such as maize, tapioca........

 

The poor farmer? Who could not afford fertiliser......well I believe Korn stated the BAAC would loan the money at 7% interest.......which by my calculation means the farmer has paid almost the full price of the fertiliser anyway...........

 

Where in this little scenario do you see an incease in the revenue and cash in hand for the poor farmer?

Link to this scheme please

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[473geo]

The Abhisit scheme pushed circa 35 billion into fertiliser subsidies, the fertiliser price was allowed to rise (ensuring a profit margin) the farmer could obtain documents from the BAAC to enable purchase at the previous year price, the subsidy did not only cover rice but other crops such as maize, tapioca........

The poor farmer? Who could not afford fertiliser......well I believe Korn stated the BAAC would loan the money at 7% interest.......which by my calculation means the farmer has paid almost the full price of the fertiliser anyway...........

Where in this little scenario do you see an incease in the revenue and cash in hand for the poor farmer?

PTP allowed rent for rice-growing land to double, and the price of fertilizer is still rising. Where in this little scenario do you see an increase in the revenue and cash in hand for the poor farmer?

Why is it costing B260 billion with NO effect?

Rice reveue price is up 25-30% - fertiliser is not.....rent is usually paid in rice farmer loses a ton of rice same every year not entered into the revenue equation (although there may be a little production increase)

[Thai at Heart]

http://asiancorrespondent.com/87168/thailands-rice-pledging-scheme-comes-under-fire-part-ii-survey-of-farmers-on-pledging/

It's all in here. It's all in the reported and assessed moisture content. All of these prices are assumed on a 15% moisture level in the paddy rice at delivery, which is deducted. Absolutely nonsensical way around to do it, and apparently, no one knows who is responsible for checking the calibration of the machines.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[thaicbr]

By the way the BAAC still operates the system of rice purchasing, usually when the rice is collected from the farmers, as it has to be before the new crop is dried and installed in the rice barn, you will see the farmers at the bank with their paperwork to negotiate next years price and loan.....so a bank is buying the rice...at an agreed price..the government pays the BAAC (eventually) .I fail to see where the farmer is not getting his money.....in this particular scenario......

Only land owning farmers are eligible for the scheme.

Also who pays for the storage?

Who pays for the milling?

In the old days that would be the exporters who would buy mill.store and sell high quality rice in the same year it was grown. But as there is not a lot of rice for them to export (they are being forced to buy Cambodian paddy) as the pretty much ALL the rice is going into government warehouses. Who's paying?

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[thaicbr]

 

 

 

The Abhisit scheme pushed circa 35 billion into fertiliser subsidies, the fertiliser price was allowed to rise (ensuring a profit margin) the farmer could obtain documents from the BAAC to enable purchase at the previous year price, the subsidy did not only cover rice but other crops such as maize, tapioca........

 

The poor farmer? Who could not afford fertiliser......well I believe Korn stated the BAAC would loan the money at 7% interest.......which by my calculation means the farmer has paid almost the full price of the fertiliser anyway...........

 

Where in this little scenario do you see an incease in the revenue and cash in hand for the poor farmer?

 

PTP allowed rent for rice-growing land to double, and the price of fertilizer is still rising. Where in this little scenario do you see an increase in the revenue and cash in hand for the poor farmer?

Why is it costing B260 billion with NO effect?

 

Rice reveue price is up 25-30% - fertiliser is not.....rent is usually paid in rice farmer loses a ton of rice same every year not entered into the revenue equation (although there may be a little production increase)

Link please

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[rubl]

Interesting, but isn't the current rice pledge scheme and it's figures a wee bit more important at the moment? I mean we still have Moody's, other rating agencies and investors waiting apart from the fact that the scheme can still be stopped if need be. The scheme under Abhisit may be investigated, but surely doesn't effect the economy of Thailand anymore.

BTW did I miss the announcement on figures?

[473geo]

By the way the BAAC still operates the system of rice purchasing, usually when the rice is collected from the farmers, as it has to be before the new crop is dried and installed in the rice barn, you will see the farmers at the bank with their paperwork to negotiate next years price and loan.....so a bank is buying the rice...at an agreed price..the government pays the BAAC (eventually) .I fail to see where the farmer is not getting his money.....in this particular scenario......

Only land owning farmers are eligible for the scheme.

Also who pays for the storage?

Who pays for the milling?

In the old days that would be the exporters who would buy mill.store and sell high quality rice in the same year it was grown. But as there is not a lot of rice for them to export (they are being forced to buy Cambodian paddy) as the pretty much ALL the rice is going into government warehouses. Who's paying?

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

Not even worthy of response....do you know what a 'rice barn' is and how it is utilised....

[473geo]

Interesting, but isn't the current rice pledge scheme and it's figures a wee bit more important at the moment? I mean we still have Moody's, other rating agencies and investors waiting apart from the fact that the scheme can still be stopped if need be. The scheme under Abhisit may be investigated, but surely doesn't effect the economy of Thailand anymore.

BTW did I miss the announcement on figures?

Of course you are correct, so you leave us to carry on the discussion while you wait for the figures....seems like a win win to me

[OzMick]

The Abhisit scheme pushed circa 35 billion into fertiliser subsidies, the fertiliser price was allowed to rise (ensuring a profit margin) the farmer could obtain documents from the BAAC to enable purchase at the previous year price, the subsidy did not only cover rice but other crops such as maize, tapioca........

The poor farmer? Who could not afford fertiliser......well I believe Korn stated the BAAC would loan the money at 7% interest.......which by my calculation means the farmer has paid almost the full price of the fertiliser anyway...........

Where in this little scenario do you see an incease in the revenue and cash in hand for the poor farmer?

PTP allowed rent for rice-growing land to double, and the price of fertilizer is still rising. Where in this little scenario do you see an increase in the revenue and cash in hand for the poor farmer?

Why is it costing B260 billion with NO effect?

Rice reveue price is up 25-30% - fertiliser is not.....rent is usually paid in rice farmer loses a ton of rice same every year not entered into the revenue equation (although there may be a little production increase)

So you are getting a little more (you claim) while the country is getting F##ked. A classic "I'm alright Jack".

Your post is typical babble, rent is a ton of rice - per what? plenty of reports of CASH rent doubling. Paying rent is not part of revenue, the value of the rent has gone up but the taxpayer is paying so WGAF? Production is increasing because of lower grade rice, but the idiots pay the same so lucky me.

[OzMick]

By the way the BAAC still operates the system of rice purchasing, usually when the rice is collected from the farmers, as it has to be before the new crop is dried and installed in the rice barn, you will see the farmers at the bank with their paperwork to negotiate next years price and loan.....so a bank is buying the rice...at an agreed price..the government pays the BAAC (eventually) .I fail to see where the farmer is not getting his money.....in this particular scenario......

Only land owning farmers are eligible for the scheme.

Also who pays for the storage?

Who pays for the milling?

In the old days that would be the exporters who would buy mill.store and sell high quality rice in the same year it was grown. But as there is not a lot of rice for them to export (they are being forced to buy Cambodian paddy) as the pretty much ALL the rice is going into government warehouses. Who's paying?

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

I think those renting land sell to the landlord, who then sells it as his own production. How can it be proved to be not? Also allows him to mix in some smuggled Cambodian rice to cover that which the tenant farmers keep for personal consumption, without making his production figures unrealistic.

[thaicbr]

 

By the way the BAAC still operates the system of rice purchasing, usually when the rice is collected from the farmers, as it has to be before the new crop is dried and installed in the rice barn, you will see the farmers at the bank with their paperwork to negotiate next years price and loan.....so a bank is buying the rice...at an agreed price..the government pays the BAAC (eventually) .I fail to see where the farmer is not getting his money.....in this particular scenario......

Only land owning farmers are eligible for the scheme.

Also who pays for the storage?

Who pays for the milling?

In the old days that would be the exporters who would buy mill.store and sell high quality rice in the same year it was grown. But as there is not a lot of rice for them to export (they are being forced to buy Cambodian paddy) as the pretty much ALL the rice is going into government warehouses. Who's paying?

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

 

Not even worthy of response....do you know what a 'rice barn' is and how it is utilised....

No I don't. Please enlighten me. What a ' rice barn ' has to do with the PTP government pledging scheme and subsequent costs of milling and storage.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[thaicbr]

By the way the BAAC still operates the system of rice purchasing, usually when the rice is collected from the farmers, as it has to be before the new crop is dried and installed in the rice barn, you will see the farmers at the bank with their paperwork to negotiate next years price and loan.....so a bank is buying the rice...at an agreed price..the government pays the BAAC (eventually) .I fail to see where the farmer is not getting his money.....in this particular scenario......

It would seem from a few recent polls that only about 46% deal with BAAC. The rest deal direct with the mills or through cooperatives.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[Thai at Heart]

They have created a mess, which has been a long time in the making. It is really as though it has all been set up so that the private millers used to take no risk, and now they take no rice.

Deliver a product to a private mill and they do their own test to tell you how much the moisture is, with no independent verification, and take it or leave it. What role did government mills used to play before? Why do they exist? Why hasn't the government set up it's own laboratories inside the private mills to verify the moisture, and do daily checks on the weigh scales? Why hasn't the media put it out there that these pledge prices assume that the paddy is delivered at 15% moisture, and subject to quality? What is the declared delivery moisture of the rice, and what is the declared quality according to government grade? Why hasn't it been ever mentioned in the press that the main reason farmers receive less than the pledge price is because they are choosing to deliver rice at 20 to 30% moisture, so the price is reduced accordingly? Why have there never been any facilities built in the villages to dry rice to 15% to insure it is delivered at optimal moisture saving the farmer the risk?

http://asiancorrespondent.com/87168/thailands-rice-pledging-scheme-comes-under-fire-part-ii-survey-of-farmers-on-pledging/

[longway]

^ Because its not about the poor rice farmers. Its about a transfer of wealth to special interest groups and naked vote buying under the guise of 'populist' policies. Its ironic where Thaksin's policies used to deliver money on a broad level to the poorer sectios of Thai society his policies now match the caricature that his opposition painted.

Its pathetic to see how badly his policy making has floundered. Perhaps the banning of the 101 from the TRT has so decimated the ranks of Thaksin's circus only the clowns are left, or he has to spend heavily to keep support from his covert backers from eroding.

They seem even worse than the democrats.

[Noistar]

As long as the rice farmer benefitted, always bound to draw a little criticism from the expat tax payer........

Wait a minute...............where are the crticising expat taxpayers on this thread.......

The criticism from "the expat tax payer" is not about the farmer benefiting, it's about the millers and middlemen benefiting instead of the farmer.

Right.......so the millers and middlemen benefit from the PTP scheme.......but not the Abhisit scheme.......ok I see where you are coming from now.....

And the army.....

[apetley]

 

By the way the BAAC still operates the system of rice purchasing, usually when the rice is collected from the farmers, as it has to be before the new crop is dried and installed in the rice barn, you will see the farmers at the bank with their paperwork to negotiate next years price and loan.....so a bank is buying the rice...at an agreed price..the government pays the BAAC (eventually) .I fail to see where the farmer is not getting his money.....in this particular scenario......

Only land owning farmers are eligible for the scheme.

Also who pays for the storage?

Who pays for the milling?

In the old days that would be the exporters who would buy mill.store and sell high quality rice in the same year it was grown. But as there is not a lot of rice for them to export (they are being forced to buy Cambodian paddy) as the pretty much ALL the rice is going into government warehouses. Who's paying?

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

 

I think those renting land sell to the landlord, who then sells it as his own production. How can it be proved to be not?  Also allows him to mix in some smuggled Cambodian rice to cover that which the tenant farmers keep for personal consumption, without making his production figures unrealistic.

Wifey is renting out her paddy this year to a local guy.

He gets the subsidy direct by showing a signed copy of the chanote of wifeys paddy.

Sent from my GT-I9003 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Thai at Heart]

By the way the BAAC still operates the system of rice purchasing, usually when the rice is collected from the farmers, as it has to be before the new crop is dried and installed in the rice barn, you will see the farmers at the bank with their paperwork to negotiate next years price and loan.....so a bank is buying the rice...at an agreed price..the government pays the BAAC (eventually) .I fail to see where the farmer is not getting his money.....in this particular scenario......

Only land owning farmers are eligible for the scheme.

Also who pays for the storage?

Who pays for the milling?

In the old days that would be the exporters who would buy mill.store and sell high quality rice in the same year it was grown. But as there is not a lot of rice for them to export (they are being forced to buy Cambodian paddy) as the pretty much ALL the rice is going into government warehouses. Who's paying?

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

I think those renting land sell to the landlord, who then sells it as his own production. How can it be proved to be not? Also allows him to mix in some smuggled Cambodian rice to cover that which the tenant farmers keep for personal consumption, without making his production figures unrealistic.

Wifey is renting out her paddy this year to a local guy.

He gets the subsidy direct by showing a signed copy of the chanote of wifeys paddy.

Sent from my GT-I9003 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Aha. Thanks for that little chestnut. I wondered how that system worked.

[kimamey]

Watch it you fellas Geo is an expert on rice farming.

He said so on another topic.

Expert enough to know 'the money' did not go direct to the farmers.......it went to the fertiliser outlets..if you bought fertiliser as a farmer you paid last years price.......if you couldn't afford fertiliser you sold your rice to the middlemen and millers at whatever they chose to give, no help for you, and guess what the middlemen and the millers still made money....do you think they loved Abhisit that much the waved their profit

I mean what sort of statement further up the thread

"I don't know much about the Dems rice scheme but I was under the impression that the money went directly to the farmers."

Now where did you get that impression...on Tvisa perhaps

I mean what sort of statement further up the thread

"I don't know much about the Dems rice scheme but I was under the impression that the money went directly to the farmers."

Now where did you get that impression...on Tvisa perhaps

I would call that an honest statement. I don't think I can explain it in a more simple way for you to understand.

Yes I did see some posts on here about it although I think I saw it elsewhere as well. Thaivisa is also where I'm reading your comment of course. Should I perhaps treat your post with suspicion?

I'm off out right now but when I get back I'll certainly try to find some more information about the Dems rice scheme and post again.

Be sure to check back.

Well I've checked as much as I can and although I've found conflicting reports regarding the Dem's price guarantee scheme I can't find anything about fertiliser subsidy of the type you mention. It seems odd that the only person who knows about this is you.

I'm including links to some of the sites I looked at. These give differing views on parts of both schemes so I don't know quite what to make of it.

If there are any sites dealing with subsidised fertiliser I'd love to see them. I'm sure if this scheme existed there would be some record of it.

http://www.bday.net/rice-price-guarantee-scheme/

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/08/01/business/Farmers-prefer-Democrat-style-income-guarantee-sch-30161594.html

http://oryzamarket.com/Rice-News/12942.html

http://isaanrecord.com/2011/10/07/yinglucks-rice-policy-discourages-local-corruption-farmers-say/

[itchybum]

My God, this PTP is so bloody childish, when will they just MAN UP and admit they have no idea how to run a country, ...............

Face.

Cannot.

[longway]

Watch it you fellas Geo is an expert on rice farming.

He said so on another topic.

Expert enough to know 'the money' did not go direct to the farmers.......it went to the fertiliser outlets..if you bought fertiliser as a farmer you paid last years price.......if you couldn't afford fertiliser you sold your rice to the middlemen and millers at whatever they chose to give, no help for you, and guess what the middlemen and the millers still made money....do you think they loved Abhisit that much the waved their profit

I mean what sort of statement further up the thread

"I don't know much about the Dems rice scheme but I was under the impression that the money went directly to the farmers."

Now where did you get that impression...on Tvisa perhaps

I mean what sort of statement further up the thread

"I don't know much about the Dems rice scheme but I was under the impression that the money went directly to the farmers."

Now where did you get that impression...on Tvisa perhaps

I would call that an honest statement. I don't think I can explain it in a more simple way for you to understand.

Yes I did see some posts on here about it although I think I saw it elsewhere as well. Thaivisa is also where I'm reading your comment of course. Should I perhaps treat your post with suspicion?

I'm off out right now but when I get back I'll certainly try to find some more information about the Dems rice scheme and post again.

Be sure to check back.

Well I've checked as much as I can and although I've found conflicting reports regarding the Dem's price guarantee scheme I can't find anything about fertiliser subsidy of the type you mention. It seems odd that the only person who knows about this is you.

I'm including links to some of the sites I looked at. These give differing views on parts of both schemes so I don't know quite what to make of it.

If there are any sites dealing with subsidised fertiliser I'd love to see them. I'm sure if this scheme existed there would be some record of it.

http://www.bday.net/rice-price-guarantee-scheme/

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/08/01/business/Farmers-prefer-Democrat-style-income-guarantee-sch-30161594.html

http://oryzamarket.com/Rice-News/12942.html

http://isaanrecord.com/2011/10/07/yinglucks-rice-policy-discourages-local-corruption-farmers-say/

Yes 473geo is the undisputed expert on fertiliser on this forum.

[Thait Spot]

Thailand's budget - billions of baht

High Speed Rail 2,200

Education 493

Water Projects 350

Rice 260

Public Health 254

Defence 178

Interior 144

Well done PTP