Most of the rice tested in government warehouses 'substandard'

[manarak]

Looking very bad for the quality of what is there, but the quantity is another thing which has yet to be determined.

Just how much of Yingluck and Yanyomg's 19.8 million tons is really there.

BANGKOK, 24 April 2014

– Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has asserted that rice in the government's stockpile has not gone missing as suspected by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), urging the latter to conduct an inspection of the government's rice stock to determine whether rice was really missing.

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.

Well, I certainly hope that they will insist the rice has to be present in the specified quality.

If Yingluck declared 10 million tons of standard quality rice, but only 2 tons are of required quality, then 8 tons of rice are missing!

Though the farmers probably have been subsidized as if the stored rice was of standard quality...

[billd766]

http://thediplomat.com/2013/07/thai-rice-subsidies-disaster-in-the-making/

Just to keep the hyperbole under control

"Losses of usd4.4bn", but that was to last year.

Strewth.

Total Thai GDP was about 400 bn USD in 2013, so to give it round numbers 1% of GDP. Whether that is the total loss over 3 years I really can't be bothered, but then which case its 0.33% of GDP.

Which then isn't really a total loss because the money was spent in the economy with borrowed money which will be repaid over however many years the Thai govt borrows on average.

So........

Fact - Shinawatra lead governments (yes, yes yingluck was the PM) have put 1.5 trillion baht into rice schemes over 14 years yet the farmers they purport to help miss one paymentI will reinforce that by repeating it, they missed ONE payment from the government and some farmers are committing suicide while the rest travel to Bangkok to protest. Doesn't sound like they are prospering.

So when these farmers came to Bangkok pleading for money to survive and the farmers that committed suicide because they missed one payment from the PTP then how about YOU tell them "Thailand's rice losses are .33% of GDP. I am sure that will make them feel much better.

To brush of the rice losses in Thailand with the GDP argument shows that the "human factor" is not in play in your mindset and it also shows that one prefers a regime that supports terrorism than one that supports the people that brought them to power. That supporter base being the farmers. This says more about the supporters of the PTP than the party itself.

Disgusting.

​So.A scheme that could have only been .000000000001% of GDP means nothing. It lost billions, it was supposed to have no irregularities according to the PTP, it did not help the farmers, it did nothing for Thailand yet is still defended with pathetic GDP excuses only shows beyond a shadow of a doubt the PTP ministry of propaganda was the most effective ministry in the PTP.

And to think, you're an educated westerner that should know better?

I am not telling them anything. Somewhere else someone was claiming the loss was 2.2 tn USD. Which is a nonsense number. People claim this system broke the country and yet it cost 1% of GDP. Complete hyperbole.

The system was never going to be self funding but having seen the poverty out in the countryside I believe the govts should almost be paying old farmers to stop growing and give them a stipend. What is the point in them breaking their backs to produce something that the govt buys and they can't sell. If civil servants can retire at whatever age what is the point is a farmer living in poverty to grow something to survive that cannot be sold. It is cheaper and sociatelly better to let him stay home if he chooses.

Just give every rice farmer over the age of 55 a pension and get the supply down.

How much of a pension do yoiu suggest they get paid per month? 1,000, 2,000, 5,000, 10,000 a month or more?

How will the pension be funded? Which ministrys budget will it come from?

Raising the tax on the rich, an increase in VAT?

How many farmers do you think will take advantage of the offer. 1, 2, 5 or perhaps 10 million and how will they pay off their debts and farmers credit cards then?

I am sure that they will enjoy their pension. My mother in law at 68 gets a pension from the government. The magnificent sum of 600 baht a MONTH.

That is hardly enough to keep a monks helicopter landing pad working for a minute.

Edited August 30, 2014 by billd766

[Thai at Heart]

http://thediplomat.com/2013/07/thai-rice-subsidies-disaster-in-the-making/

Just to keep the hyperbole under control

"Losses of usd4.4bn", but that was to last year.

Strewth.

Total Thai GDP was about 400 bn USD in 2013, so to give it round numbers 1% of GDP. Whether that is the total loss over 3 years I really can't be bothered, but then which case its 0.33% of GDP.

Which then isn't really a total loss because the money was spent in the economy with borrowed money which will be repaid over however many years the Thai govt borrows on average.

So........

Fact - Shinawatra lead governments (yes, yes yingluck was the PM) have put 1.5 trillion baht into rice schemes over 14 years yet the farmers they purport to help miss one paymentI will reinforce that by repeating it, they missed ONE payment from the government and some farmers are committing suicide while the rest travel to Bangkok to protest. Doesn't sound like they are prospering.

So when these farmers came to Bangkok pleading for money to survive and the farmers that committed suicide because they missed one payment from the PTP then how about YOU tell them "Thailand's rice losses are .33% of GDP. I am sure that will make them feel much better.

To brush of the rice losses in Thailand with the GDP argument shows that the "human factor" is not in play in your mindset and it also shows that one prefers a regime that supports terrorism than one that supports the people that brought them to power. That supporter base being the farmers. This says more about the supporters of the PTP than the party itself.

Disgusting.

​So.A scheme that could have only been .000000000001% of GDP means nothing. It lost billions, it was supposed to have no irregularities according to the PTP, it did not help the farmers, it did nothing for Thailand yet is still defended with pathetic GDP excuses only shows beyond a shadow of a doubt the PTP ministry of propaganda was the most effective ministry in the PTP.

And to think, you're an educated westerner that should know better?

I am not telling them anything. Somewhere else someone was claiming the loss was 2.2 tn USD. Which is a nonsense number. People claim this system broke the country and yet it cost 1% of GDP. Complete hyperbole.

The system was never going to be self funding but having seen the poverty out in the countryside I believe the govts should almost be paying old farmers to stop growing and give them a stipend. What is the point in them breaking their backs to produce something that the govt buys and they can't sell. If civil servants can retire at whatever age what is the point is a farmer living in poverty to grow something to survive that cannot be sold. It is cheaper and sociatelly better to let him stay home if he chooses.

Just give every rice farmer over the age of 55 a pension and get the supply down.

How much of a pension do yoiu suggest they get paid per month? 1,000, 2,000, 5,000, 10,000 a month or more?

How will the pension be funded? Which ministrys budget will it come from?

Raising the tax on the rich, an increase in VAT?

How many farmers do you think will take advantage of the offer. 1, 2, 5 or perhaps 10 million and how will they pay off their debts and farmers credit cards then?

I am sure that they will enjoy their pension. My mother in law at 68 gets a pension from the government. The magnificent sum of 600 baht a MONTH.

That is hardly enough to keep a monks helicopter landing pad working for a minute.

Dunno.

Age limit first.

How much are the rubber, sugar and rice subsidies going to cost the country this year.

Maybe that might be more than enough to fund it, and if it is one baht cheaper than the total subsidy then it saves the country money.

You seem to resent the idea. Have u ever been out in the villages in Thailand and seen the poverty in some of these places. Finding a solution to the agricultural markets and making sure people aren't starving is thailands greatest challenge.

If you solve it, you can probably be prime minister for a decade, until the next coup comes along. My mother in law get 12k because her husband was a civil servant.

What is the point in paying a farmer 30 or 40k for rice produced on marginal land that u can't sell?

Edited August 30, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[harrry]

Well having worked in another industry a little similar this amount of samples means nothing.

They have 19mn (even more apparently now) tonnes, contained in 100kg sacks.

19,000,000 x 10 = 19,000,000,00 sacks and u reckon 1800 samples is.enough to work out the quality of colour? If their report at the end the month is using sampling data like this good luck.

3% random visual sample would have done it. Now, all they have is a blanket statement that 80% is substandard.

It may have been tobacco. For many years the cheaper brands (by major manafactures) of cigarettes are made of offcuts and dust from processing which is then made into a kind of paper and cut again to make a product which on first glance looks like the full product.

[billd766]

To T@H post #185

Too many quotes again.

Actually I have been out to the villages in rural Thailand every time I go out out of the gate because I LIVE in a rural village. Nobody starves out here as people look after each other. If you have no money and no food you can go to the village temple and you will eat after the monks and before the temple dogs (which are also a problem). You can even live at the temple and depending on your age, ability and sex you will be asked to do what you can in return. At least that is the way the temple and forest monks work out here.

The age limit I can agree with as that makes sense.

I don't resent the idea but you came up with something which may not be a bad idea but you offered nothing else.

The problem will as usual be how to fund it and which ministry will take the hit on it and I feel that the cost will be very high.

There is no point in the government being in the rice commodity business in the first place.

[rubl]

http://thediplomat.com/2013/07/thai-rice-subsidies-disaster-in-the-making/

Just to keep the hyperbole under control

"Losses of usd4.4bn", but that was to last year.

Strewth.

Total Thai GDP was about 400 bn USD in 2013, so to give it round numbers 1% of GDP. Whether that is the total loss over 3 years I really can't be bothered, but then which case its 0.33% of GDP.

Which then isn't really a total loss because the money was spent in the economy with borrowed money which will be repaid over however many years the Thai govt borrows on average.

So........

As a taxpayer I can be bothered. Also this 4.4 billion US$ compares badly with lots of Thai being (almost) happy with 300 Baht a day.

As for 'no real loss as money was spent', seems to indicate a total lack of moral or feeling for justice. Some corrupt people or maybe 'the wrong people' went off with the money and you only comment on 'it was spent, Thai government will pay it back'.

You like and accept the idea of a government misspending it would seem.

BTW how you know the money was spent in the economy? As far as I know we only know 500 or 700++ billion was lost, but not really how. Therefore it's difficult to say where that money went and if it was spent locally (i.e. Thailand) or abroad.

Edited August 30, 2014 by rubl

[Thai at Heart]

To T@H post #185

Too many quotes again.

Actually I have been out to the villages in rural Thailand every time I go out out of the gate because I LIVE in a rural village. Nobody starves out here as people look after each other. If you have no money and no food you can go to the village temple and you will eat after the monks and before the temple dogs (which are also a problem). You can even live at the temple and depending on your age, ability and sex you will be asked to do what you can in return. At least that is the way the temple and forest monks work out here.

The age limit I can agree with as that makes sense.

I don't resent the idea but you came up with something which may not be a bad idea but you offered nothing else.

The problem will as usual be how to fund it and which ministry will take the hit on it and I feel that the cost will be very high.

There is no point in the government being in the rice commodity business in the first place.

No, but they can alleviate poverty. In deepest is a an there are some vilaages so dirt poor its depressing.

Having old people farming on marginal land to have a subsistence living is to a point now that it is uneconomic for rice production. There are plentyvof places where rice grows well.

This way the farmer gets his money to do nothing, volume drops and prices tighten. The only people hurt are the exporters, but I don't see why an economic structure should be in place where a farmer doesn't earn enough and the government subsidises a private exporter.

They need to produce less not more rice for the viable farmers to make living. There is too much rice grown in unviable places.

[Thai at Heart]

http://thediplomat.com/2013/07/thai-rice-subsidies-disaster-in-the-making/

Just to keep the hyperbole under control

"Losses of usd4.4bn", but that was to last year.

Strewth.

Total Thai GDP was about 400 bn USD in 2013, so to give it round numbers 1% of GDP. Whether that is the total loss over 3 years I really can't be bothered, but then which case its 0.33% of GDP.

Which then isn't really a total loss because the money was spent in the economy with borrowed money which will be repaid over however many years the Thai govt borrows on average.

So........

As a taxpayer I can be bothered. Also this 4.4 billion US$ compares badly with lots of Thai being (almost) happy with 300 Baht a day.

As for 'no real loss as money was spent', seems to indicate a total lack of moral or feeling for justice. Some corrupt people or maybe 'the wrong people' went off with the money and you only comment on 'it was spent, Thai government will pay it back'.

You like and accept the idea of a government misspending it would seem.

BTW how you know the money was spent in the economy? As far as I know we only know 500 or 700++ billion was lost, but not really how. Therefore it's difficult to say where that money went and if it was spent locally (i.e. Thailand) or abroad.

I look at it from the point of view of whether all subsidies are bad or good.

When the figure balloons to 2.2tn USD in a discussion like this it needs a little calm. The agribusiness in Thailand is at a cross roads.

Farmers are old in some businesses, some areas are marginal, some areas are poorly served with irrigation. The rubber and sugar industries are just as deserving as the rice. So was thaksins idea horrendous?

Not at all to me. Was the implementation wrong. Yes. Now there is this govt doing basically the same thing or in some cases worse with soft loans at 12%, but the debate is that this govt is nice and the other one was not.

Well from an agribusiness or moral perspective that is just childish. Not course I don't like corruption. What a dumb question. The armed forces in Thailand are among one of the most corrupt organisations in the country. They feather their nests every year day in and day out, and don't need elections. Maybe Thailand should divert half the military budget direct to aleviating poverty in the country. Any major wars recently for Thailand. The choice is not whether subsidies shouldn't be paid because there is corruption. The whole of the Thai public system is corrupt. ALL

Is there and agricultural subsidy system anywhere in the world 100% free of it? No. So how to come up with a plan to put money in farmers hands because right now all the major produce markets Thailand accesses are in a glut.

So it cannot be a case of Thaksin bad, ncpo good when the problem still persists. I predict there will be eventually a nationwide stipend for farmers to call on if they choose not to produce anything. Paid direct to farmers not middlemen or producers.

Thailand has a problem. It has 10mn farmers. Some rich and some very poor. How to solve.

Edited August 30, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[rubl]

http://thediplomat.com/2013/07/thai-rice-subsidies-disaster-in-the-making/

Just to keep the hyperbole under control

"Losses of usd4.4bn", but that was to last year.

Strewth.

Total Thai GDP was about 400 bn USD in 2013, so to give it round numbers 1% of GDP. Whether that is the total loss over 3 years I really can't be bothered, but then which case its 0.33% of GDP.

Which then isn't really a total loss because the money was spent in the economy with borrowed money which will be repaid over however many years the Thai govt borrows on average.

So........

As a taxpayer I can be bothered. Also this 4.4 billion US$ compares badly with lots of Thai being (almost) happy with 300 Baht a day.

As for 'no real loss as money was spent', seems to indicate a total lack of moral or feeling for justice. Some corrupt people or maybe 'the wrong people' went off with the money and you only comment on 'it was spent, Thai government will pay it back'.

You like and accept the idea of a government misspending it would seem.

BTW how you know the money was spent in the economy? As far as I know we only know 500 or 700++ billion was lost, but not really how. Therefore it's difficult to say where that money went and if it was spent locally (i.e. Thailand) or abroad.

I look at it from the point of view of whether all subsidies are bad or good.

When the figure balloons to 2.2tn USD in a discussion like this it needs a little calm. The agribusiness in Thailand is at a cross roads.

Farmers are old in some businesses, some areas are marginal, some areas are poorly served with irrigation. The rubber and sugar industries are just as deserving as the rice. So was thaksins idea horrendous?

Not at all to me. Was the implementation wrong. Yes. Now there is this govt doing basically the same thing or in some cases worse with soft loans at 12%, but the debate is that this govt is nice and the other one was not.

Well from an agribusiness or moral perspective that is just childish. Not course I don't like corruption. What a dumb question. The armed forces in Thailand are among one of the most corrupt organisations in the country. They feather their nests every year day in and day out, and don't need elections. Maybe Thailand should divert half the military budget direct to aleviating poverty in the country. Any major wars recently for Thailand. The choice is not whether subsidies shouldn't be paid because there is corruption. The whole of the Thai public system is corrupt. ALL

Is there and agricultural subsidy system anywhere in the world 100% free of it? No. So how to come up with a plan to put money in farmers hands because right now all the major produce markets Thailand accesses are in a glut.

So it cannot be a case of Thaksin bad, ncpo good when the problem still persists. I predict there will be eventually a nationwide stipend for farmers to call on if they choose not to produce anything. Paid direct to farmers not middlemen or producers.

Thailand has a problem. It has 10mn farmers. Some rich and some very poor. How to solve.

Here we discuss the disaster called 'rice price pledging scheme'. That was ill-conceived as a self-financing scheme with some golf caddies even calling it profitable. That has nothing to do with subsidies.

To "look at it from the point of view of whether all subsidies are bad or good" suggests you try to ignore the topic and deflect and distract.

[Thai at Heart]

http://thediplomat.com/2013/07/thai-rice-subsidies-disaster-in-the-making/

Just to keep the hyperbole under control

"Losses of usd4.4bn", but that was to last year.

Strewth.

Total Thai GDP was about 400 bn USD in 2013, so to give it round numbers 1% of GDP. Whether that is the total loss over 3 years I really can't be bothered, but then which case its 0.33% of GDP.

Which then isn't really a total loss because the money was spent in the economy with borrowed money which will be repaid over however many years the Thai govt borrows on average.

So........

As a taxpayer I can be bothered. Also this 4.4 billion US$ compares badly with lots of Thai being (almost) happy with 300 Baht a day.

As for 'no real loss as money was spent', seems to indicate a total lack of moral or feeling for justice. Some corrupt people or maybe 'the wrong people' went off with the money and you only comment on 'it was spent, Thai government will pay it back'.

You like and accept the idea of a government misspending it would seem.

BTW how you know the money was spent in the economy? As far as I know we only know 500 or 700++ billion was lost, but not really how. Therefore it's difficult to say where that money went and if it was spent locally (i.e. Thailand) or abroad.

I look at it from the point of view of whether all subsidies are bad or good.

When the figure balloons to 2.2tn USD in a discussion like this it needs a little calm. The agribusiness in Thailand is at a cross roads.

Farmers are old in some businesses, some areas are marginal, some areas are poorly served with irrigation. The rubber and sugar industries are just as deserving as the rice. So was thaksins idea horrendous?

Not at all to me. Was the implementation wrong. Yes. Now there is this govt doing basically the same thing or in some cases worse with soft loans at 12%, but the debate is that this govt is nice and the other one was not.

Well from an agribusiness or moral perspective that is just childish. Not course I don't like corruption. What a dumb question. The armed forces in Thailand are among one of the most corrupt organisations in the country. They feather their nests every year day in and day out, and don't need elections. Maybe Thailand should divert half the military budget direct to aleviating poverty in the country. Any major wars recently for Thailand. The choice is not whether subsidies shouldn't be paid because there is corruption. The whole of the Thai public system is corrupt. ALL

Is there and agricultural subsidy system anywhere in the world 100% free of it? No. So how to come up with a plan to put money in farmers hands because right now all the major produce markets Thailand accesses are in a glut.

So it cannot be a case of Thaksin bad, ncpo good when the problem still persists. I predict there will be eventually a nationwide stipend for farmers to call on if they choose not to produce anything. Paid direct to farmers not middlemen or producers.

Thailand has a problem. It has 10mn farmers. Some rich and some very poor. How to solve.

Here we discuss the disaster called 'rice price pledging scheme'. That was ill-conceived as a self-financing scheme with some golf caddies even calling it profitable. That has nothing to do with subsidies.

To "look at it from the point of view of whether all subsidies are bad or good" suggests you try to ignore the topic and deflect and distract.

What disaster?

The system has been closed, and exports are back to 9mn tonnes. The public purse hasn't been decimated despite people crying that the sky was falling and that Thailand had incurred 2.1 tn USD of cos????? If it is 500bnbaht it is 10bn GBP. The country has weathered it.

Its finished with and some people will get punished for pocketing cash.

The debate now, is what system can be put in place that will solve the problem in the long term, whilst making sure a huge part of the populous can feed survive on peanuts. Because believe me, the junta isn't going to let it happen.

[Ricardo]

Well having worked in another industry a little similar this amount of samples means nothing.

They have 19mn (even more apparently now) tonnes, contained in 100kg sacks.

19,000,000 x 10 = 19,000,000,00 sacks and u reckon 1800 samples is.enough to work out the quality of colour? If their report at the end the month is using sampling data like this good luck.

3% random visual sample would have done it. Now, all they have is a blanket statement that 80% is substandard.

It may have been tobacco. For many years the cheaper brands (by major manafactures) of cigarettes are made of offcuts and dust from processing which is then made into a kind of paper and cut again to make a product which on first glance looks like the full product.

Just to point out that reprocessed/reconstituted tobacco dust is only added-back to cut-rag at perhaps 1% of the total, no cigarettes are made exclusively with this minor by-product, but every little helps when trying to minimise production-losses of raw-materials.

Tobacco dust can also be used to help make snuff.

Cigarettes damaged in production are usually chopped-up, the tobacco recovered is then fed straight back into the cut-rag, at the start of the production process.

Chopped twig or stem, a natural part of the dried tobacco-leaf, can also be several-to-ten percent of the cut-rag used for cigarette-production.

But I doubt whether these processes would be sufficient, to cope with a problem with adulterated or overage rice, on the scale which the new government is now discovering.

[JesseFrank]

Here we discuss the disaster called 'rice price pledging scheme'. That was ill-conceived as a self-financing scheme with some golf caddies even calling it profitable. That has nothing to do with subsidies.

To "look at it from the point of view of whether all subsidies are bad or good" suggests you try to ignore the topic and deflect and distract.

What disaster?

The system has been closed, and exports are back to 9mn tonnes.

I'm sure you do understand the difference between, expect to export 9 million tonnes, and export them in real life. Or do you have any figures that show they exported 8 million tonnes since the 22nd of May ?

[rubl]

Here we discuss the disaster called 'rice price pledging scheme'. That was ill-conceived as a self-financing scheme with some golf caddies even calling it profitable. That has nothing to do with subsidies.

To "look at it from the point of view of whether all subsidies are bad or good" suggests you try to ignore the topic and deflect and distract.

What disaster?

The system has been closed, and exports are back to 9mn tonnes. The public purse hasn't been decimated despite people crying that the sky was falling and that Thailand had incurred 2.1 tn USD of cos????? If it is 500bnbaht it is 10bn GBP. The country has weathered it.

Its finished with and some people will get punished for pocketing cash.

The debate now, is what system can be put in place that will solve the problem in the long term, whilst making sure a huge part of the populous can feed survive on peanuts. Because believe me, the junta isn't going to let it happen.

What disaster? Well, the topic of finding rice in stock not being what it should be, of bad storage, bad quality, enormous damage to Thailand's name (ADD: and reliability as honest) export partner with 'good' rice.

The export might be back in volume, but surely not in price. 19 million tonnes of rice will not significantly diminish the total loss what with repayment of the 500 - 700++ billion, interest and management. The country may have weathered it, but could have done so much more with the lost money. WE could have had a 'high speed train' for instance

The debate here is still on the RPPS (aka rice scam) and trying to finish it properly with an audited account of the money involved, the decisions, the responsibilities. Ongoing, my dear chap.

It's not like having a company, letting it go bankrupt and saying "well, that's finished" start a new one and just replay.

Edited August 30, 2014 by rubl

[Thai at Heart]

Here we discuss the disaster called 'rice price pledging scheme'. That was ill-conceived as a self-financing scheme with some golf caddies even calling it profitable. That has nothing to do with subsidies.

To "look at it from the point of view of whether all subsidies are bad or good" suggests you try to ignore the topic and deflect and distract.

What disaster?

The system has been closed, and exports are back to 9mn tonnes.

I'm sure you do understand the difference between, expect to export 9 million tonnes, and export them in real life. Or do you have any figures that show they exported 8 million tonnes since the 22nd of May ?

That is the prediction. That is what they normally export. Most of it will I guess be new crop.

The old crop will take years to shift.

[Thai at Heart]

Here we discuss the disaster called 'rice price pledging scheme'. That was ill-conceived as a self-financing scheme with some golf caddies even calling it profitable. That has nothing to do with subsidies.

To "look at it from the point of view of whether all subsidies are bad or good" suggests you try to ignore the topic and deflect and distract.

What disaster?

The system has been closed, and exports are back to 9mn tonnes. The public purse hasn't been decimated despite people crying that the sky was falling and that Thailand had incurred 2.1 tn USD of cos????? If it is 500bnbaht it is 10bn GBP. The country has weathered it.

Its finished with and some people will get punished for pocketing cash.

The debate now, is what system can be put in place that will solve the problem in the long term, whilst making sure a huge part of the populous can feed survive on peanuts. Because believe me, the junta isn't going to let it happen.

What disaster? Well, the topic of finding rice in stock not being what it should be, of bad storage, bad quality, enormous damage to Thailand's name (ADD: and reliability as honest) export partner with 'good' rice.

The export might be back in volume, but surely not in price. 19 million tonnes of rice will not significantly diminish the total loss what with repayment of the 500 - 700++ billion, interest and management. The country may have weathered it, but could have done so much more with the lost money. WE could have had a 'high speed train' for instance

The debate here is still on the RPPS (aka rice scam) and trying to finish it properly with an audited account of the money involved, the decisions, the responsibilities. Ongoing, my dear chap.

It's not like having a company, letting it go bankrupt and saying "well, that's finished" start a new one and just replay.

For the rice industry it is exactly like that.

The system finished, business is back to normal and the govt has to shift stock. You can moan about accountability and punishment. It is extremely unlikely to happen.

Next problem. Farmers on the bread line in rubber, sugar and rice business in Thailand. What to do.

[longway]

^ Yes the scam 'only' cost 1% of GDP, despite this incredible number the real significant point which is lost the 1%ers is that the government operates on a budget that is ring fenced. the 2013 budget for example was 470 billion baht for ALL economic activities, while they can reallocate resources, they cannot change the amount spent. That they are spunking away over close to 300 billion baht a year on this scam alone means that it will decimate expenditure in ALL the other sectors, unless of course they found a way of borrowing it elsewhere or nicking it from the BACC.

This of course will 'only' retard economic growth by a fraction of a percent a year until the money from the scam is paid back, so it aint no biggie. Just call it a faux pas, or an oopsie, its akin to something like using your dessert spoon on the soup course.

Edited August 30, 2014 by longway

[Old Man River]

Here we discuss the disaster called 'rice price pledging scheme'. That was ill-conceived as a self-financing scheme with some golf caddies even calling it profitable. That has nothing to do with subsidies.

To "look at it from the point of view of whether all subsidies are bad or good" suggests you try to ignore the topic and deflect and distract.

What disaster?

The system has been closed, and exports are back to 9mn tonnes. The public purse hasn't been decimated despite people crying that the sky was falling and that Thailand had incurred 2.1 tn USD of cos????? If it is 500bnbaht it is 10bn GBP. The country has weathered it.

Its finished with and some people will get punished for pocketing cash.

The debate now, is what system can be put in place that will solve the problem in the long term, whilst making sure a huge part of the populous can feed survive on peanuts. Because believe me, the junta isn't going to let it happen.

What disaster? Well, the topic of finding rice in stock not being what it should be, of bad storage, bad quality, enormous damage to Thailand's name (ADD: and reliability as honest) export partner with 'good' rice.

The export might be back in volume, but surely not in price. 19 million tonnes of rice will not significantly diminish the total loss what with repayment of the 500 - 700++ billion, interest and management. The country may have weathered it, but could have done so much more with the lost money. WE could have had a 'high speed train' for instance

The debate here is still on the RPPS (aka rice scam) and trying to finish it properly with an audited account of the money involved, the decisions, the responsibilities. Ongoing, my dear chap.

It's not like having a company, letting it go bankrupt and saying "well, that's finished" start a new one and just replay.

You can moan about accountability and punishment. It is extremely unlikely to happen.

There will be accountability for the rice scheme. It will start at the top.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[rubl]

^ Yes the scam 'only' cost 1% of GDP, despite this incredible number the real significant point which is lost the 1%ers is that the government operates on a budget that is ring fenced. the 2013 budget for example was 470 billion baht for ALL economic activities, while they can reallocate resources, they cannot change the amount spent. That they are spunking away over close to 300 billion baht a year on this scam alone means that it will decimate expenditure in ALL the other sectors, unless of course they found a way of borrowing it elsewhere or nicking it from the BACC.

This of course will 'only' retard economic growth by a fraction of a percent a year until the money from the scam is paid back, so it aint no biggie. Just call it a faux pas, or an oopsie, its akin to something like using your dessert spoon on the soup course.

Now you know why this alleged "self-financing" or even profitable scam was kept out of the National Budget. Less obvious, less immediate impact. Only a 500 - 700++ billion Baht gap in the BAAC administration guaranteed by the Yingluck Administration.

[Thai at Heart]

^ Yes the scam 'only' cost 1% of GDP, despite this incredible number the real significant point which is lost the 1%ers is that the government operates on a budget that is ring fenced. the 2013 budget for example was 470 billion baht for ALL economic activities, while they can reallocate resources, they cannot change the amount spent. That they are spunking away over close to 300 billion baht a year on this scam alone means that it will decimate expenditure in ALL the other sectors, unless of course they found a way of borrowing it elsewhere or nicking it from the BACC.

This of course will 'only' retard economic growth by a fraction of a percent a year until the money from the scam is paid back, so it aint no biggie. Just call it a faux pas, or an oopsie, its akin to something like using your dessert spoon on the soup course.

Now you know why this alleged "self-financing" or even profitable scam was kept out of the National Budget. Less obvious, less immediate impact. Only a 500 - 700++ billion Baht gap in the BAAC administration guaranteed by the Yingluck Administration.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/88179/siam-intelligence-thailands-budget-2013/

The total budget for 2013 is 2.4 trillion baht.

[rubl]

^ Yes the scam 'only' cost 1% of GDP, despite this incredible number the real significant point which is lost the 1%ers is that the government operates on a budget that is ring fenced. the 2013 budget for example was 470 billion baht for ALL economic activities, while they can reallocate resources, they cannot change the amount spent. That they are spunking away over close to 300 billion baht a year on this scam alone means that it will decimate expenditure in ALL the other sectors, unless of course they found a way of borrowing it elsewhere or nicking it from the BACC.

This of course will 'only' retard economic growth by a fraction of a percent a year until the money from the scam is paid back, so it aint no biggie. Just call it a faux pas, or an oopsie, its akin to something like using your dessert spoon on the soup course.

Now you know why this alleged "self-financing" or even profitable scam was kept out of the National Budget. Less obvious, less immediate impact. Only a 500 - 700++ billion Baht gap in the BAAC administration guaranteed by the Yingluck Administration.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/88179/siam-intelligence-thailands-budget-2013/

The total budget for 2013 is 2.4 trillion baht.

The 2012/2013 National Budget of 2.4 trillion Baht had a projected deficit of 250 billion. If 200 to 300 billion would have been added for the RPPS the deficit would have been 450 to 550 billion Baht. For 2013/1014 the National Budget was projected at 2.52 trillion with projected deficit of 200 billion Baht. Again RPPS excluded and it would seem also a few other items excluded as they fitted more conveniently in the 2.4 trillion Baht Infrastructure Plan.

In the mean time we the poor(er) taxpayers are waiting for an audited account of the money spend on this Rice Scam.

[Thai at Heart]

^ Yes the scam 'only' cost 1% of GDP, despite this incredible number the real significant point which is lost the 1%ers is that the government operates on a budget that is ring fenced. the 2013 budget for example was 470 billion baht for ALL economic activities, while they can reallocate resources, they cannot change the amount spent. That they are spunking away over close to 300 billion baht a year on this scam alone means that it will decimate expenditure in ALL the other sectors, unless of course they found a way of borrowing it elsewhere or nicking it from the BACC.

This of course will 'only' retard economic growth by a fraction of a percent a year until the money from the scam is paid back, so it aint no biggie. Just call it a faux pas, or an oopsie, its akin to something like using your dessert spoon on the soup course.

Now you know why this alleged "self-financing" or even profitable scam was kept out of the National Budget. Less obvious, less immediate impact. Only a 500 - 700++ billion Baht gap in the BAAC administration guaranteed by the Yingluck Administration.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/88179/siam-intelligence-thailands-budget-2013/

The total budget for 2013 is 2.4 trillion baht.

The 2012/2013 National Budget of 2.4 trillion Baht had a projected deficit of 250 billion. If 200 to 300 billion would have been added for the RPPS the deficit would have been 450 to 550 billion Baht. For 2013/1014 the National Budget was projected at 2.52 trillion with projected deficit of 200 billion Baht. Again RPPS excluded and it would seem also a few other items excluded as they fitted more conveniently in the 2.4 trillion Baht Infrastructure Plan.

In the mean time we the poor(er) taxpayers are waiting for an audited account of the money spend on this Rice Scam.

Be intersesrint how they account for revenues into the rice scheme.

[billd766]

To T@H post #185

Too many quotes again.

Actually I have been out to the villages in rural Thailand every time I go out out of the gate because I LIVE in a rural village. Nobody starves out here as people look after each other. If you have no money and no food you can go to the village temple and you will eat after the monks and before the temple dogs (which are also a problem). You can even live at the temple and depending on your age, ability and sex you will be asked to do what you can in return. At least that is the way the temple and forest monks work out here.

The age limit I can agree with as that makes sense.

I don't resent the idea but you came up with something which may not be a bad idea but you offered nothing else.

The problem will as usual be how to fund it and which ministry will take the hit on it and I feel that the cost will be very high.

There is no point in the government being in the rice commodity business in the first place.

No, but they can alleviate poverty. In deepest is a an there are some vilaages so dirt poor its depressing.

Having old people farming on marginal land to have a subsistence living is to a point now that it is uneconomic for rice production. There are plentyvof places where rice grows well.

This way the farmer gets his money to do nothing, volume drops and prices tighten. The only people hurt are the exporters, but I don't see why an economic structure should be in place where a farmer doesn't earn enough and the government subsidises a private exporter.

They need to produce less not more rice for the viable farmers to make living. There is too much rice grown in unviable places.

Up here where I live we have grown corn and man saparang (tapioca) because the ground is sloping and there is not enough water at the right time to grow rice. Actually sometimes there is just not enough water anyway.

Across the road they grow sugar cane and a few km away they do grow rice but it is flat and with more water.

We have fruit trees as do many other people but the fruit generally ripens around the same time and so the prices drop.

What I feel IS needed is some real agriculture and farming experts to travel the country and examine the land to see what could be grown though I feel that many old time farmers from generations ago will dismiss them as young whipper snappers and ignore their advice.

That of course means some farming areas will be richer than others but that is a worldwide problem.

[Old Man River]

^ Yes the scam 'only' cost 1% of GDP, despite this incredible number the real significant point which is lost the 1%ers is that the government operates on a budget that is ring fenced. the 2013 budget for example was 470 billion baht for ALL economic activities, while they can reallocate resources, they cannot change the amount spent. That they are spunking away over close to 300 billion baht a year on this scam alone means that it will decimate expenditure in ALL the other sectors, unless of course they found a way of borrowing it elsewhere or nicking it from the BACC.

This of course will 'only' retard economic growth by a fraction of a percent a year until the money from the scam is paid back, so it aint no biggie. Just call it a faux pas, or an oopsie, its akin to something like using your dessert spoon on the soup course.

Now you know why this alleged "self-financing" or even profitable scam was kept out of the National Budget. Less obvious, less immediate impact. Only a 500 - 700++ billion Baht gap in the BAAC administration guaranteed by the Yingluck Administration.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/88179/siam-intelligence-thailands-budget-2013/

The total budget for 2013 is 2.4 trillion baht.

The 2012/2013 National Budget of 2.4 trillion Baht had a projected deficit of 250 billion. If 200 to 300 billion would have been added for the RPPS the deficit would have been 450 to 550 billion Baht. For 2013/1014 the National Budget was projected at 2.52 trillion with projected deficit of 200 billion Baht. Again RPPS excluded and it would seem also a few other items excluded as they fitted more conveniently in the 2.4 trillion Baht Infrastructure Plan.

In the mean time we the poor(er) taxpayers are waiting for an audited account of the money spend on this Rice Scam.

Rubl, I agree with your comments above vis a vis the economics.

Fun fact:

According to TDRI's research, 39% of the PTP's rice budget targeted the high income earning rice farming segment (30% of rice farmers), 43% targeted the middle income earning rice farming segment (40%) and only 18% of the PTP's rice budget targeted the lowest earning rice farmers (30%).

Of course, this had nothing to do with actual amounts to farmers, middlemen etc.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[rubl]

The 2012/2013 National Budget of 2.4 trillion Baht had a projected deficit of 250 billion. If 200 to 300 billion would have been added for the RPPS the deficit would have been 450 to 550 billion Baht. For 2013/1014 the National Budget was projected at 2.52 trillion with projected deficit of 200 billion Baht. Again RPPS excluded and it would seem also a few other items excluded as they fitted more conveniently in the 2.4 trillion Baht Infrastructure Plan.

In the mean time we the poor(er) taxpayers are waiting for an audited account of the money spend on this Rice Scam.

Be intersesrint how they account for revenues into the rice scheme.

Good question!

The deficit of 250 - 350 bilion caused by the RPPS in 2012/2013 was mostly a lot paid out minus not so much sold (Yet). The same for 2013/2014 although more rice was sold.

Now of course since all of the RPPS was kept out of the National Budget we only know that BAAC paid out 880 to 1,000 billion and received 150 - 250 billion out of rice sales. None of these figures really well documented, Ms. Yingluck was somewhat negligent.

Officially it would seem at least 500 billion Baht is lost. That figure includes money paid out and revenue of sales. The loss can increase as the value of the remaining 18 or 19 million tonnes of rice in stock is only diminishing and the 'best' parts are probably sold already. Add to that the cost of maintaining this "non-revolving" funds at BAAC and accumulating interest on the amount.

Oh, before I forget, it would seem even this state bank BAAC would like it's guarantor (the Yingluck Administration) to settle its debt. Imagine

[AleG]

The 2012/2013 National Budget of 2.4 trillion Baht had a projected deficit of 250 billion. If 200 to 300 billion would have been added for the RPPS the deficit would have been 450 to 550 billion Baht. For 2013/1014 the National Budget was projected at 2.52 trillion with projected deficit of 200 billion Baht. Again RPPS excluded and it would seem also a few other items excluded as they fitted more conveniently in the 2.4 trillion Baht Infrastructure Plan.

In the mean time we the poor(er) taxpayers are waiting for an audited account of the money spend on this Rice Scam.

Rubl, I agree with your comments above vis a vis the economics.

Fun fact:

According to TDRI's research, 39% of the PTP's rice budget targeted the high income earning rice farming segment (30% of rice farmers), 43% targeted the middle income earning rice farming segment (40%) and only 18% of the PTP's rice budget targeted the lowest earning rice farmers (30%).

Of course, this had nothing to do with actual amounts to farmers, middlemen etc.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Even more "fun", the poorest of the poorest farmers got nothing, zip, zero, nada.

Those at subsistence level not able to have a surplus to sell and benefit from the scheme were completely left behind. Even worse, since land rental prices, fertilizers, seed and pesticides went up immediately with the introduction of the scheme, they were arguably worse off than before.

[Old Man River]

The 2012/2013 National Budget of 2.4 trillion Baht had a projected deficit of 250 billion. If 200 to 300 billion would have been added for the RPPS the deficit would have been 450 to 550 billion Baht. For 2013/1014 the National Budget was projected at 2.52 trillion with projected deficit of 200 billion Baht. Again RPPS excluded and it would seem also a few other items excluded as they fitted more conveniently in the 2.4 trillion Baht Infrastructure Plan.

In the mean time we the poor(er) taxpayers are waiting for an audited account of the money spend on this Rice Scam.

Rubl, I agree with your comments above vis a vis the economics.

Fun fact:

According to TDRI's research, 39% of the PTP's rice budget targeted the high income earning rice farming segment (30% of rice farmers), 43% targeted the middle income earning rice farming segment (40%) and only 18% of the PTP's rice budget targeted the lowest earning rice farmers (30%).

Of course, this had nothing to do with actual amounts to farmers, middlemen etc.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Even more "fun", the poorest of the poorest farmers got nothing, zip, zero, nada.

Those at subsistence level not able to have a surplus to sell and benefit from the scheme were completely left behind. Even worse, since land rental prices, fertilizers, seed and pesticides went up immediately with the introduction of the scheme, they were arguably worse off than before.

So, it didn't help those that needed it the most, it cost Thailand billions and left the current government with stockpiles of substandard rice. And people wonder why reforms are needed.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Robby nz]

The 2012/2013 National Budget of 2.4 trillion Baht had a projected deficit of 250 billion. If 200 to 300 billion would have been added for the RPPS the deficit would have been 450 to 550 billion Baht. For 2013/1014 the National Budget was projected at 2.52 trillion with projected deficit of 200 billion Baht. Again RPPS excluded and it would seem also a few other items excluded as they fitted more conveniently in the 2.4 trillion Baht Infrastructure Plan.

In the mean time we the poor(er) taxpayers are waiting for an audited account of the money spend on this Rice Scam.

Be intersesrint how they account for revenues into the rice scheme.

Good question!

The deficit of 250 - 350 bilion caused by the RPPS in 2012/2013 was mostly a lot paid out minus not so much sold (Yet). The same for 2013/2014 although more rice was sold.

Now of course since all of the RPPS was kept out of the National Budget we only know that BAAC paid out 880 to 1,000 billion and received 150 - 250 billion out of rice sales. None of these figures really well documented, Ms. Yingluck was somewhat negligent.

Officially it would seem at least 500 billion Baht is lost. That figure includes money paid out and revenue of sales. The loss can increase as the value of the remaining 18 or 19 million tonnes of rice in stock is only diminishing and the 'best' parts are probably sold already. Add to that the cost of maintaining this "non-revolving" funds at BAAC and accumulating interest on the amount.

Oh, before I forget, it would seem even this state bank BAAC would like it's guarantor (the Yingluck Administration) to settle its debt. Imagine

There are also the ongoing costs which will keep going on until such time as all the stockpiled rice is disposed of.

Even after that there will be interest on all money borrowed up to the time the debt is cleared.

I wonder if it will be included in the accounting just what has been borrowed, from whom and on what terms ?

[longway]

^ Yes the scam 'only' cost 1% of GDP, despite this incredible number the real significant point which is lost the 1%ers is that the government operates on a budget that is ring fenced. the 2013 budget for example was 470 billion baht for ALL economic activities, while they can reallocate resources, they cannot change the amount spent. That they are spunking away over close to 300 billion baht a year on this scam alone means that it will decimate expenditure in ALL the other sectors, unless of course they found a way of borrowing it elsewhere or nicking it from the BACC.

This of course will 'only' retard economic growth by a fraction of a percent a year until the money from the scam is paid back, so it aint no biggie. Just call it a faux pas, or an oopsie, its akin to something like using your dessert spoon on the soup course.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/88179/siam-intelligence-thailands-budget-2013/

The total budget for 2013 is 2.4 trillion baht.

Im not talking about the entire budget but the portion earmarked for all economic activities, any shortfalls in for the rice scam would have to come from that portion of the budget, unless they can borrow it. This means important items like essential infrastructure maintanance gets slashed for example. All other subsidies must come from that portion of the budget.

I have no objection to subsidies to farmers what i object to is this scam.

Edited August 31, 2014 by longway