Most of the rice tested in government warehouses 'substandard'

[Old Man River]

But I don't think i can help you with arguments that this was not just for the headlines. Most government policies in Thailand are implemented for the headlines without must thought or investigation being done. That was so with the previous government as well as with the current government (crackdown on visa runs which lasted about a month before they started easing the rules already, disgust about the rice scheme only to come up with a rubber scheme, etc).

It would seem both have something in common, the word "scheme".

So, will the 'rubber scheme" pay middle man, pay a price way above word price, no plans to limit volume and amounts, no plans for alternative crops, no plans for quality improvements?

If it is a subsidy, which it is, the price will be, per definition, above the market price.

So please quantify "way above".

The loss is being defined as the value of rice in stockpile vs market price. As of Jan. 2013, the loss was estimated to be over THB 440 billion. The losses would be higher now.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Yes, that is how you can measure a loss.

The point is that a subsidy always makes a loss (unless you can corner the market).

IMHO, there should be a threshold on the amount of loss a country is willing to take. After trying to move global prices up and failing. the PTP continually made no adjustments despite falling global prices

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[slapout]

Haven't seen any evidence of a scam. Bad policy, yes. Poorly managed, yes. Scam, no...I can;t see how Yingluck is implicated in this other than as the person running with a lousy policy.

When dishonest people, recruit coharts to develop poor programs, under the false promise for the betterment of the general public then, paid for using public funding and

and those funds end up missing, unaccouncted for, and/or in control of the dishonest group, etc, I believe scam, or even out right theft. could be construed as a true description.

[khunken]

Haven't seen any evidence of a scam. Bad policy, yes. Poorly managed, yes. Scam, no...I can;t see how Yingluck is implicated in this other than as the person running with a lousy policy.

Sir, you are an optimist. A deluded, fiercely loyal optimist. They claimed they had checked it all (in April I think) and it was all peachy, so SHE said!!!!!. At what point do you start to lose confidence in your own blind loyalty for these guys? Put a fox in charge of the hen house and what else do you expect? Only in Thailand with a beautiful photogenic ex-prime minister could we find ex-pat people posting like this with your level of "optimism", if that (after all these revelations) is still an appropriate word to describe your blind enthusiasm. Wake up & smell the coffee. There is still time to quietly admit with honour that "perhaps your charity was misplaced." Go on. Take a deep breath & say it. Otherwise it will just get worse every day. It's all downhill from here buddy!

You think natural deterioration of the product suggests a scam?

Beyond that, I think this statement without more details is actually incredibly damaging to the country and the government.

Substandard means what exactly? Inedible, or what? He has just rubbished the entire volume in storage.

No he hasn't rubbished the entire volume in storage.

He has spoken about samples where about 80-odd per cent is below standard. The final report is still over a month away so there may be a clearer idea of the magnitude of the problem then.

While there can be no doubt of deterioration, it should not be forgotten that some rice was missing (or never existed) and some has been mixed with cheaper grain.

The final report needs to provide some indication of what they intend to do with the substandard rice.

[Eric Loh]

Haven't seen any evidence of a scam. Bad policy, yes. Poorly managed, yes. Scam, no...I can;t see how Yingluck is implicated in this other than as the person running with a lousy policy.

When dishonest people, recruit coharts to develop poor programs, under the false promise for the betterment of the general public then, paid for using public funding and

and those funds end up missing, unaccouncted for, and/or in control of the dishonest group, etc, I believe scam, or even out right theft. could be construed as a true description.

Are you refering to the Thai Kheem Khaeg populist policy, the rice price guarantee scheme or the energy subsidies. All these fall under your description.

[Bob12345]

But I don't think i can help you with arguments that this was not just for the headlines. Most government policies in Thailand are implemented for the headlines without must thought or investigation being done. That was so with the previous government as well as with the current government (crackdown on visa runs which lasted about a month before they started easing the rules already, disgust about the rice scheme only to come up with a rubber scheme, etc).

It would seem both have something in common, the word "scheme".

So, will the 'rubber scheme" pay middle man, pay a price way above word price, no plans to limit volume and amounts, no plans for alternative crops, no plans for quality improvements?

If it is a subsidy, which it is, the price will be, per definition, above the market price.

So please quantify "way above".

The loss is being defined as the value of rice in stockpile vs market price. As of Jan. 2013, the loss was estimated to be over THB 440 billion. The losses would be higher now.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Yes, that is how you can measure a loss.

The point is that a subsidy always makes a loss (unless you can corner the market).

IMHO, there should be a threshold on the amount of loss a country is willing to take. After trying to move global prices up and failing. the PTP continually made no adjustments despite falling global prices

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Maybe there was a threshold but the losses didnt reach it yet, who knows?

But i think we can agree that the whole scheme was poorly designed/executed.

[SOTIRIOS]

..so the rice scam rip-off is much worse than they even imagined....

...80% of all the rice was switched....or what....???

[khunken]

Haven't seen any evidence of a scam. Bad policy, yes. Poorly managed, yes. Scam, no...I can;t see how Yingluck is implicated in this other than as the person running with a lousy policy.

When dishonest people, recruit coharts to develop poor programs, under the false promise for the betterment of the general public then, paid for using public funding and

and those funds end up missing, unaccouncted for, and/or in control of the dishonest group, etc, I believe scam, or even out right theft. could be construed as a true description.

Are you refering to the Thai Kheem Khaeg populist policy, the rice price guarantee scheme or the energy subsidies. All these fall under your description.

What is the 'Thai Kheem Khaeg populist policy' as Google doesn't recognise it?

Certainly the energy subsidies have not led to anything like the scams involved with PTP's rice subsidy. Besides everyone benefited from them, including the poorest of the poor who were excluded from the rice subsidy.

[Bob12345]

..so the rice scam rip-off is much worse than they even imagined....

...80% of all the rice was switched....or what....???

Maybe try reading the article a few more times...

(Given how you describe the rice subsidy scheme i doubt you are open for information though as it seems you are just scanning news articles to find confirmation for your beliefs)

[rubl]

So what is this damage worth in terms of the price?

I think cp is about to get to pick up a few million tonnes of pig feed very cheap. Of course, none of that would ever end up as rice products for human consumption.

Whilst it makes for a very nice story, if you were trying to export this to the market, please explain why you would state this in quite such a public fashion?

What value do you want to put on 'reputation'?

Well, u think that rice buying is just some random event without industry experts and priced just magicked out of the ether.

The industry knows very well what colorariin damage does to prices but I or u are left none the wiser. After a year colouring was to be expected and no one in the industry is going to be shocked by this at all.

But the product still has a value as the standard it is.

So, no?

No one knows? By the way. I have little doubt the buyers are buying this years crop with no issue and at top price as normal. The reputation argument is specious. Crop years are crop years.

It isn't as though the market didn't notice the subsidy scheme was in effect.

So, reputation has no price? Does that mean reputation has no value?

I thought you were in business. Do you make a unique product the market will buy from you anyway, or do you need to put on effort into selling?

[hansnl]

He said that no Thai would export sustandard rice.

What about..........

[rubl]

..so the rice scam rip-off is much worse than they even imagined....

...80% of all the rice was switched....or what....???

Maybe try reading the article a few more times...

(Given how you describe the rice subsidy scheme i doubt you are open for information though as it seems you are just scanning news articles to find confirmation for your beliefs)

Since you keep on naming the scam a subsidy, you seem to be less open as well.

The RPPS was based on a revolving fund. No need for reservations in the National Budget according to Ms. Yingluck, it would pay for itself by itself.

[fab4]

So what is this damage worth in terms of the price?

I think cp is about to get to pick up a few million tonnes of pig feed very cheap. Of course, none of that would ever end up as rice products for human consumption.

Whilst it makes for a very nice story, if you were trying to export this to the market, please explain why you would state this in quite such a public fashion?

What value do you want to put on 'reputation'?

Well, u think that rice buying is just some random event without industry experts and priced just magicked out of the ether.

The industry knows very well what colorariin damage does to prices but I or u are left none the wiser. After a year colouring was to be expected and no one in the industry is going to be shocked by this at all.

But the product still has a value as the standard it is.

So, no?

No one knows? By the way. I have little doubt the buyers are buying this years crop with no issue and at top price as normal. The reputation argument is specious. Crop years are crop years.

It isn't as though the market didn't notice the subsidy scheme was in effect.

So, reputation has no price? Does that mean reputation has no value?

I thought you were in business. Do you make a unique product the market will buy from you anyway, or do you need to put on effort into selling?

I've told you before about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing so surely you should know by now that price does not equal value.

[Bob12345]

..so the rice scam rip-off is much worse than they even imagined....

...80% of all the rice was switched....or what....???

Maybe try reading the article a few more times...

(Given how you describe the rice subsidy scheme i doubt you are open for information though as it seems you are just scanning news articles to find confirmation for your beliefs)

Since you keep on naming the scam a subsidy, you seem to be less open as well.

The RPPS was based on a revolving fund. No need for reservations in the National Budget according to Ms. Yingluck, it would pay for itself by itself.

It was an economic policy where the government buys products from producers. These policies are called "subsidies", no matter if there was fraud involved or not. There are no policies named "scams" in economics, so thats why i dont use that word.

And not sure how i can be more open to information after having said, several times already, that it was a poor policy with probably lots of fraud involved. So please explain why you still think i am not open to new information.

[rubl]

Well, u think that rice buying is just some random event without industry experts and priced just magicked out of the ether.

The industry knows very well what colorariin damage does to prices but I or u are left none the wiser. After a year colouring was to be expected and no one in the industry is going to be shocked by this at all.

But the product still has a value as the standard it is.

So, no?

No one knows? By the way. I have little doubt the buyers are buying this years crop with no issue and at top price as normal. The reputation argument is specious. Crop years are crop years.

It isn't as though the market didn't notice the subsidy scheme was in effect.

So, reputation has no price? Does that mean reputation has no value?

I thought you were in business. Do you make a unique product the market will buy from you anyway, or do you need to put on effort into selling?

I've told you before about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing so surely you should know by now that price does not equal value.

It would seem that some will not put a price on something they do not value. Maybe that's why T@H only asked So what is this damage worth in terms of the price?

Your remark doesn't really help this discussion though and as such I do not value your priceless comments

[Robby nz]

Pre rice pledging scheme Thailand was the worlds top rice exporter by volume and by price, it also had a reputation for a quality product.

That reputation was why it could garner a premium for its rice.

PT sold inferior rice to the Ivory Coast one of the countries top 5 customers, Ivory Coast said they had to dump 20% of the shipment because of poor quality.

They sold inferior rice to the US who returned the shipment.

Iran, another of the top 5 customers, said they would no longer buy Thai rice.

These and other actions made customers cagey about buying Thai rice thereby ruining the previous reputation for quality.

Now the scheme is finished each seasons crop will be sold year on year plus some from whatever is still good in the stockpile which will be released in the off seasons so as not to compete with new seasons rice.

This will mean that Thailand should quickly regain the top exporter spot by volume.

However it will be far more difficult to get back the quality reputation for in some cases farmers in irrigated areas have planted quick maturing low quality crops in order to be able to sell as much as possible under the scheme. Buyers have also gone elsewhere and have to be lured back and that may not be easy in some cases as the buyers customers may be happy with what they are being sold at present and still have an aversion to Thai rice.

There now needs to be an emphases on quality rather than quantity, lowering production costs and getting farmers a decent income without subsidies.

From what I read this is well understood and measures are being put in place to achieve those ends.

[khunken]

Pre rice pledging scheme Thailand was the worlds top rice exporter by volume and by price, it also had a reputation for a quality product.

That reputation was why it could garner a premium for its rice.

PT sold inferior rice to the Ivory Coast one of the countries top 5 customers, Ivory Coast said they had to dump 20% of the shipment because of poor quality.

They sold inferior rice to the US who returned the shipment.

Iran, another of the top 5 customers, said they would no longer buy Thai rice.

These and other actions made customers cagey about buying Thai rice thereby ruining the previous reputation for quality.

Now the scheme is finished each seasons crop will be sold year on year plus some from whatever is still good in the stockpile which will be released in the off seasons so as not to compete with new seasons rice.

This will mean that Thailand should quickly regain the top exporter spot by volume.

However it will be far more difficult to get back the quality reputation for in some cases farmers in irrigated areas have planted quick maturing low quality crops in order to be able to sell as much as possible under the scheme. Buyers have also gone elsewhere and have to be lured back and that may not be easy in some cases as the buyers customers may be happy with what they are being sold at present and still have an aversion to Thai rice.

There now needs to be an emphases on quality rather than quantity, lowering production costs and getting farmers a decent income without subsidies.

From what I read this is well understood and measures are being put in place to achieve those ends.

I've run out of TV likes so let me say that I like this.

[h90]

We have to make sure that only good-quality Thai rice is exported," he said.

So the sub-standard rice isn't good enough for the rest of the world but presumably will end up being served in Thailand. Not a good picture.

not good quality doesn't mean it is poison. It is just a cheaper quality.

Even with pest inside it is still good enough for producing beer.

If you are a buyer would you buy this - it might be good enough for animal feed perhaps although I don't know if that is possible with rice

or will end up on the shelves of Thailand supermarkets all nice white and bleached

Or the crook that made the offer to buy it for producing fuel provided benzene 95 was withdrawn

For food production good enough...beer, rice in bread, starch, whereever you can't see it.

Or for military (drafted), kindergarten, old people where the people can't complain.

(call my cynical but that is what I exactly learned and you wouldn't believe what kind of raw material is processed...)

[rubl]

So the sub-standard rice isn't good enough for the rest of the world but presumably will end up being served in Thailand. Not a good picture.

not good quality doesn't mean it is poison. It is just a cheaper quality.

Even with pest inside it is still good enough for producing beer.

If you are a buyer would you buy this - it might be good enough for animal feed perhaps although I don't know if that is possible with rice

or will end up on the shelves of Thailand supermarkets all nice white and bleached

Or the crook that made the offer to buy it for producing fuel provided benzene 95 was withdrawn

For food production good enough...beer, rice in bread, starch, whereever you can't see it.

Or for military (drafted), kindergarten, old people where the people can't complain.

(call my cynical but that is what I exactly learned and you wouldn't believe what kind of raw material is processed...)

On a lighter note to end this evening, anyone who remembers what a "Emulsified High-Fat Offal Tube" is?

Edited August 24, 2014 by rubl

[rametindallas]

Most of the rice tested in government warehouses 'substandard'

Premium price and only one in five was even 'standard' much less premium. Why are rice farmers so special compared to every other farmer in Thailand who also suffer the vicissitudes of unpredictable weather and market prices? Could it be that they vote PTP? Thaksin's behavior as caddy puppet master of Yingluck and the PTP is disgusting and criminal. The full magnitude of this crime has yet to be revealed as farmers are now in competition with their own government for world market share and costs to the public in lost opportunity to develop the country instead of lining the pockets of Dr. Thaksin and his cronies. Meanwhile, Thaksin has most of his confiscated money back and is living the 'high life' jet-setting around the world on his private jet.

Good thing for the lot of them that I am not in General Prayuth's position of power.

[Baerboxer]

Haven't seen any evidence of a scam. Bad policy, yes. Poorly managed, yes. Scam, no...I can;t see how Yingluck is implicated in this other than as the person running with a lousy policy.

She lied, and so did her cabinet. Whether they were involved in illegal activities, like the forged documents allegedly linked to the PTP MP wife of Arisman's company; or the organization responsible for administering the warehouses run by Chalerm's son's mate which presumably guaranteed all was well in quantity and quality etc etc. There are just too many hovering on the periphery.

Even Yinggy and the senior Shins can't have been that arrogant and daft enough to be personally involved, can they? Guess we'll never know,

But the lies told are on record. Lying in a public office, denying there was anything wrong, claiming imaginary deals had been done, saying they had enough money to pay, saying loans weren't needed, vowing to pay the farmers and then just breaking the promise without further comment. All lies. No real accounts ever presented - incompetence, or fraud. All should be investigated but hey, this is Thailand and the top class HiSo's never get punished.

But why all the lying? What were they trying to cover up? Or just trying to buy time hoping for a quick election, get back in office, bring the boss home and get their hands on the 2,2 trillion? Who knows.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Baerboxer

[surangw]

store any food for a while, and what did they think would happen ( if they think at all)

[Thai at Heart]

Haven't seen any evidence of a scam. Bad policy, yes. Poorly managed, yes. Scam, no...I can;t see how Yingluck is implicated in this other than as the person running with a lousy policy.

Sir, you are an optimist. A deluded, fiercely loyal optimist. They claimed they had checked it all (in April I think) and it was all peachy, so SHE said!!!!!. At what point do you start to lose confidence in your own blind loyalty for these guys? Put a fox in charge of the hen house and what else do you expect? Only in Thailand with a beautiful photogenic ex-prime minister could we find ex-pat people posting like this with your level of "optimism", if that (after all these revelations) is still an appropriate word to describe your blind enthusiasm. Wake up & smell the coffee. There is still time to quietly admit with honour that "perhaps your charity was misplaced." Go on. Take a deep breath & say it. Otherwise it will just get worse every day. It's all downhill from here buddy!

You think natural deterioration of the product suggests a scam?

Beyond that, I think this statement without more details is actually incredibly damaging to the country and the government.

Substandard means what exactly? Inedible, or what? He has just rubbished the entire volume in storage.

No he hasn't rubbished the entire volume in storage.

He has spoken about samples where about 80-odd per cent is below standard. The final report is still over a month away so there may be a clearer idea of the magnitude of the problem then.

While there can be no doubt of deterioration, it should not be forgotten that some rice was missing (or never existed) and some has been mixed with cheaper grain.

The final report needs to provide some indication of what they intend to do with the substandard rice.

Would you trust that 300 samples makes a completely representative result and he really knows that 80% is off from such a tiny sample. There are 1800 warehouses with god knows how many stacks.

Stating 80% is substandard is incredibly dangerous. It may as well be 100%

[Thai at Heart]

Well, u think that rice buying is just some random event without industry experts and priced just magicked out of the ether.

The industry knows very well what colorariin damage does to prices but I or u are left none the wiser. After a year colouring was to be expected and no one in the industry is going to be shocked by this at all.

But the product still has a value as the standard it is.

So, no?

No one knows? By the way. I have little doubt the buyers are buying this years crop with no issue and at top price as normal. The reputation argument is specious. Crop years are crop years.

It isn't as though the market didn't notice the subsidy scheme was in effect.

So, reputation has no price? Does that mean reputation has no value?

I thought you were in business. Do you make a unique product the market will buy from you anyway, or do you need to put on effort into selling?

I've told you before about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing so surely you should know by now that price does not equal value.

It would seem that some will not put a price on something they do not value. Maybe that's why T@H only asked So what is this damage worth in terms of the price?

Your remark doesn't really help this discussion though and as such I do not value your priceless comments

In agricultural trading, everything has a value. New crop, old crop,mouldy. Reputation counts to make the price but crop years and policy changes change this perception.

I sold dust and floor sweeping from a processing factory once.

[JesseFrank]

Would you trust that 300 samples makes a completely representative result and he really knows that 80% is off from such a tiny sample. There are 1800 warehouses with god knows how many stacks.

Stating 80% is substandard is incredibly dangerous. It may as well be 100%

They took 1339 samples, not 300 as you claim, and only 235 of those passed the quality standards. I assume they took a random sample from each warehouse, and that is how it is done elsewhere in the world. It may even be that the 235 samples that passed the test, were from the only good bag in the whole warehouse.

Would you suggest that they had to take 3.500.000 samples to get a clear picture ?

[JesseFrank]

In agricultural trading, everything has a value. New crop, old crop,mouldy. Reputation counts to make the price but crop years and policy changes change this perception.

I sold dust and floor sweeping from a processing factory once.

That's probably why you didn't succeed in your business and had to move out of Thailand quickly.

[NeilSA1]

This can not be true as I fully remember Yingluck making the announcement that she ordered and inspection or these warehouses and the stockpiles were in good condition. It is known to all that a Shiniwatra would not lie

I will do all in my power to nominate you for a Pulitzer prize as your funny and sarcastic writing here exposed, for the first time in history, a government that told a lie.

Well done sir!

It seems sarcasm is contagious...........

[Thai at Heart]

Would you trust that 300 samples makes a completely representative result and he really knows that 80% is off from such a tiny sample. There are 1800 warehouses with god knows how many stacks.

Stating 80% is substandard is incredibly dangerous. It may as well be 100%

They took 1339 samples, not 300 as you claim, and only 235 of those passed the quality standards. I assume they took a random sample from each warehouse, and that is how it is done elsewhere in the world. It may even be that the 235 samples that passed the test, were from the only good bag in the whole warehouse.

Would you suggest that they had to take 3.500.000 samples to get a clear picture ?

They have 18 MILLION tonnes.

So, if you were to buy 100,000 tonnes. How many samples would you fancy for pesticides?

10? So. 18mn with a sample every 10,000.

Do the maths.

Evsluating visual effects from 1000 samples in 18 MILLION tonnes means nothing. In fact less than nothing. They took sample from 1000 sacks. Phooooowee.

BIIIIIIG sample.

That doesn't even make one sample per warehouse.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[kiddeemak]

It's just incredibly sad really, a countries main export and what they were renowned for internationally has been reduced to rot, the farmers literally killing themselves over the damage it has done to them. All because of some stupid policy that everyone who wasn't blinded by dollar signs could see was just insane.
I can laugh about getting the boats out on the river to push the floods back out to sea, but this is just beyond funny

[longway]

^^ they said from public warehouses, they did not say the quantity that was in them, just accept that the rice pledging policy was a scam; you are insulting your own intelligence in looking for ways to defend the scam.

You are only kidding yourself in the end.

Edited August 24, 2014 by longway

[Robby nz]

Would you trust that 300 samples makes a completely representative result and he really knows that 80% is off from such a tiny sample. There are 1800 warehouses with god knows how many stacks.

Stating 80% is substandard is incredibly dangerous. It may as well be 100%

They took 1339 samples, not 300 as you claim, and only 235 of those passed the quality standards. I assume they took a random sample from each warehouse, and that is how it is done elsewhere in the world. It may even be that the 235 samples that passed the test, were from the only good bag in the whole warehouse.

Would you suggest that they had to take 3.500.000 samples to get a clear picture ?

They have 18 MILLION tonnes.

So, if you were to buy 100,000 tonnes. How many samples would you fancy for pesticides?

10? So. 18mn with a sample every 10,000.

Do the maths.

Evsluating visual effects from 1000 samples in 18 MILLION tonnes means nothing. In fact less than nothing. They took sample from 1000 sacks. Phooooowee.

BIIIIIIG sample.

That doesn't even make one sample per warehouse.

They said there was 19.8 million tons of rice :

Minister Yanyong visited the NACC on Wednesday to submit a letter asserting that inspections of the rice stock in warehouses, carried out in March by Ministry of Commerce officials and members of the rice stock inspection committee, found that the entire 18.7 million tons of rice was intact and another 1.1 million tons was being fumigated.

They also said it was all in good condition.

We now know that what is there is not in good condition so what confidence can we have of the quantity that is there ?

We do know that there are considerable quantities missing from several warehouses but as yet we don't know how much or how much is actually there.

18 million tons is only your number and your maths is only just that 'your maths' and the numbers are only yours that you are presenting as truth in an attempt to defend.

Personally I am not about to do any speculation until I see the report at the end of next month which will present all of us with the facts.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Robby nz