Commerce Min denies rumors of bad Thai rice to be sold in markets

[rametindallas]

OK Mr Rametindallas, what actual real proof do you have that only Thaksin and his family made money from the rice subsidy scheme and what is the source of that information ?

I found your use of the word "evil" to be OTT and then when you compared Thaksin's power in Thailand on a par with Hitler's in Germany then I realised you are way way OTT. By the way if you were a history student and have even read Shirer's book twice, then you would know Hitler was Austrian not German. I tried to explain to you how I would define "evil" by mentioning people I consider evil. This was not in any way to deflect from Thaksin just to put "evil" in a true context.

If you think stating facts "dark and scary" then I would suggest your talents belong in the US Tea Party.

ONLY??? Where does "only" come into it? If a politician proposes a policy which fails completely to meet its stated aims, causes a huge loss to the public purse, and he and his family profits from it, that is corruption. That others, cronies, co-conspirators and/or innocent parties also profited is immaterial.

A man who has based his huge fortune on corruption, monopoly, and abuse of office, and who continues to seek power to extend that wealth, may not be "evil" in your black and white world, but pardon us who see him as a bloody dark shade of grey.

My use of the word "only" was a reference to the comment in post 45, where it was stated "only Thaksin's family and their cronies benefited from the rice scam". It was with no intent to trivialise the crime.

My use of the word "only" was a reference to the comment in post 45, where it was stated "only Thaksin's family and their cronies benefited from the rice scam".

Wow, you misquoted me again. I never used the word 'only'. My post #45 said: But in Thailand, all those scams benefited just one family and their cronies Where do you read the word 'only'? This forum has copy/paste functions. There is no excuse for misquoting anyone. Stop it!

If you deliberately/maliciously remove/change around words from my sentence and then add the word 'only' as you did in your post #55 (OK Mr Rametindallas, what actual real proof do you have that only Thaksin and his family made money from the rice subsidy scheme), you have dishonestly changed the meaning/intention of what I wrote. Since you didn't respond directly to my post #45 or refer back to in your post #55, anyone reading your post #55 cannot see what I really wrote (or know where to look to verify) and will think your edited version is what I actually wrote.

It was with no intent to trivialise the crime.

No, the intent was to discredit me. Why did you leave out "and their cronies" when you posed your question to me in your post #55 and then challenge me to prove my source for something I never wrote? Read the forum rules before you respond to me again. By continually and consistently misquoting me you have already got on my bad side, Troll.

.

[billd766]

If all the rice has gone bad, why are they being told not to grow a new batch?

Perhaps a populist hand out subsidy is on the way.

Its not as if there is competition for new good rice.

Could the reason be a shortage of water for ALL the people of Thailand perhaps?

Do you know how many hundreds of litres of water are used to produce 1 kg of rice? I must admit I have no idea but I know it is a lot.

[mikemac]

In Europe many farmers only survive because of the "common agricultural policy". Many big farms make a shed load of money from it and French farmers couldn't exist without it. If helping farmers is ok in Europe ( and I believe the US has financial support for farmers too ) why do many posters on TV seem to think it's so wrong in Thailand ?

I am not sure about TVF posters, but the 'educated' Bangkok Elite did not because in their lethargy and living fat over the past 60 years had them fallen asleep in their ivory towers whilst the discontent continued to grow.....

Thaksin saw the opportunity for power and wealth and exploited it for his own gains... it was and is more than they ever got before, however small the crumbs were.

Maybe if their was some foresight/willingness to share at earlier stages then the vacuum TS stepped into would not have appeared.

You reap what you sow.

This line came straight out of the Little Red Book Of Propaganda -

"I am not sure about TVF posters, but the 'educated' Bangkok Elite did not because in their lethargy and living fat over the past 60 years had them fallen asleep in their ivory towers whilst the discontent continued to grow....."

But I agree with what you said about Thaksin.

Yingluck is the fall guy for the failed rice scheme while he is free to travel the world. He alone was behind the rice scheme fiasco, not Yingluck.

TVF members like myself are not against subsidies per se, just the ones that are scams masquerading as subsidies.

To me the most annoying thing about the whole thing is the way Yingluck has been coached to say that the rice scheme was designed to help the poor farmers which is absolute bs !

Anyone who knows anything about poor farmers knows they can only grow enough rice for their own use and do not sell into the rice scheme.

It was only the mid and high size farmers who had the quantity to sell into the market.

Some farmers, for one reason or another, did well out of it and were paid good money for their harvests, but they were not poor.

The millers and owners of storage sheds did well out of it, but they were not poor.

Please don't confuse the subsidies of Europe and the USA to the scamsidies of the Shinawatra government.

All the local village farmers I know, including my wife and father in law, sold into the rice scheme by way of the local mills.

Wifey has 4 rai, her dad 12 so hardly major players.

They obviously kept enough for their own consumption and had a surplus which they could sell. Hope they were lucky enough to be paid for their crop.

I was referring to the poor farmers who own even less land than your family and do not have a surplus they can sell.

[phusingpete]

In Europe many farmers only survive because of the "common agricultural policy". Many big farms make a shed load of money from it and French farmers couldn't exist without it. If helping farmers is ok in Europe ( and I believe the US has financial support for farmers too ) why do many posters on TV seem to think it's so wrong in Thailand ?

Were any of those farmers paid 140% of world market prices by their governments? Were any of those farm subsidy programs 'off budget'? Were all trade deals kept secret? Did any of those governments you are referring to actually buy and then try to store, long term, perishable crops? How many fake G to G deals did those governments cover up? How much better off are the Thai rice farmers now that the government has a huge surplus to sell in competition with the farmers and world prices have dropped because of a glut in the market? You sure are glossing over the corruption endemic in Yingluck's Thaksin's Rice Scheme Scam.

Rule One of being a Thaksin apologist is: Ignore the facts, they get in the way of the propaganda narrative. This 'other countries subsidize their farmers' comparison has been shot down seven ways to Sunday and still the Thaksin apologists keep repeating it. Never mind, I don't get tired of refuting the propaganda.

.

You seem to be assuming that landowners in Europe have to produce something to qualify for their subsidies, they certainly did not a few years back. This may have changed but I doubt it. Large rich landowners in the UK get nice big juicy payments every year just for owning the land, no need to grow anything.

[rametindallas]

In Europe many farmers only survive because of the "common agricultural policy". Many big farms make a shed load of money from it and French farmers couldn't exist without it. If helping farmers is ok in Europe ( and I believe the US has financial support for farmers too ) why do many posters on TV seem to think it's so wrong in Thailand ?

Were any of those farmers paid 140% of world market prices by their governments? Were any of those farm subsidy programs 'off budget'? Were all trade deals kept secret? Did any of those governments you are referring to actually buy and then try to store, long term, perishable crops? How many fake G to G deals did those governments cover up? How much better off are the Thai rice farmers now that the government has a huge surplus to sell in competition with the farmers and world prices have dropped because of a glut in the market? You sure are glossing over the corruption endemic in Yingluck's Thaksin's Rice Scheme Scam.

Rule One of being a Thaksin apologist is: Ignore the facts, they get in the way of the propaganda narrative. This 'other countries subsidize their farmers' comparison has been shot down seven ways to Sunday and still the Thaksin apologists keep repeating it. Never mind, I don't get tired of refuting the propaganda.

.

You seem to be assuming that landowners in Europe have to produce something to qualify for their subsidies, they certainly did not a few years back. This may have changed but I doubt it. Large rich landowners in the UK get nice big juicy payments every year just for owning the land, no need to grow anything.

In the US they pay large farm operators NOT to produce to keep prices up. The government also helps farmer by mandating ethanol be mixed with gasoline which creates a ready market for any farmer who can grow corn. The grain the government does buy, they give away as aid to poor countries. What they don't do is buy grain for above market price and then sit on it in storage like the Yingluck Thaksin government did. Now the Thai government is in competition with farmers to sell their rice.

Why, does that happen in Europe; buying and never selling what they buy, and fake G to G sales? If you are trying to compare farm subsidies in the West to the Rice Support Scheme devised by the Yingluck Thaksin government, you need to post to someone else as I think one keeps farmers in business and able to produce when needed and the latter distorted/destroyed the market for Thai farmers with added the benefit of driving up their costs. Are the West's farm support programs 'off-budget' like the Yingluck Thaksin government were?

If you believe they are equivalent, you are either a dupe/dope, incredibly naive, or incredibly uninformed/misinformed. Bye, now.

.

Edited June 24, 2015 by rametindallas

[apetley]

In Europe many farmers only survive because of the "common agricultural policy". Many big farms make a shed load of money from it and French farmers couldn't exist without it. If helping farmers is ok in Europe ( and I believe the US has financial support for farmers too ) why do many posters on TV seem to think it's so wrong in Thailand ?

I am not sure about TVF posters, but the 'educated' Bangkok Elite did not because in their lethargy and living fat over the past 60 years had them fallen asleep in their ivory towers whilst the discontent continued to grow.....

Thaksin saw the opportunity for power and wealth and exploited it for his own gains... it was and is more than they ever got before, however small the crumbs were.

Maybe if their was some foresight/willingness to share at earlier stages then the vacuum TS stepped into would not have appeared.

You reap what you sow.

This line came straight out of the Little Red Book Of Propaganda -

"I am not sure about TVF posters, but the 'educated' Bangkok Elite did not because in their lethargy and living fat over the past 60 years had them fallen asleep in their ivory towers whilst the discontent continued to grow....."

But I agree with what you said about Thaksin.

Yingluck is the fall guy for the failed rice scheme while he is free to travel the world. He alone was behind the rice scheme fiasco, not Yingluck.

TVF members like myself are not against subsidies per se, just the ones that are scams masquerading as subsidies.

To me the most annoying thing about the whole thing is the way Yingluck has been coached to say that the rice scheme was designed to help the poor farmers which is absolute bs !

Anyone who knows anything about poor farmers knows they can only grow enough rice for their own use and do not sell into the rice scheme.

It was only the mid and high size farmers who had the quantity to sell into the market.

Some farmers, for one reason or another, did well out of it and were paid good money for their harvests, but they were not poor.

The millers and owners of storage sheds did well out of it, but they were not poor.

Please don't confuse the subsidies of Europe and the USA to the scamsidies of the Shinawatra government.

All the local village farmers I know, including my wife and father in law, sold into the rice scheme by way of the local mills.

Wifey has 4 rai, her dad 12 so hardly major players.

They obviously kept enough for their own consumption and had a surplus which they could sell. Hope they were lucky enough to be paid for their crop.

I was referring to the poor farmers who own even less land than your family and do not have a surplus they can sell.

Nobody in our village keeps the rice they grow because basically it's crap. It's ordinary white rice that they grow 3 sometimes 4 crops a year and is taken straight to the mill after harvesting.

Under the rice scheme they were paid between 12k and 13k bht per tonne and until they last crop under the scheme they were always paid on time. Then it went tits up. Last payments in our village were Sept/Oct 2013 and they had to wait for the Junta to take power before being paid.

Most seem to buy their rice in Tesco or Makro although wifey prefers expensive Jasmine or Riceberry.

Edited June 24, 2015 by apetley

[rijit]

Some great points well put. But what The Thaksins did diferently from the european and usa aid packages was to try and avoid the loss the usa and europe automatically accept when they set these aid packages up. How? They gambled that the price of rice would carry on going up and by sitting on the rice and selling later maybe part or the loss from the subsidy would be covered. Ok it <deleted> up and its admin got abused but i can see the logic in the thought.

rijit

[halloween]

Some great points well put. But what The Thaksins did diferently from the european and usa aid packages was to try and avoid the loss the usa and europe automatically accept when they set these aid packages up. How? They gambled that the price of rice would carry on going up and by sitting on the rice and selling later maybe part or the loss from the subsidy would be covered. Ok it <deleted> up and its admin got abused but i can see the logic in the thought.

rijit

While you're being generous in seeing the logic in what everybody else saw as stupidity or worse, you should also be able to see the logic of negligence charges for allowing the scheme to continue long after it was apparent that it was making huge losses, to the extent of refusing to release figures and lying about its "profitability". Perhaps not.

[Robby nz]

Some great points well put. But what The Thaksins did diferently from the european and usa aid packages was to try and avoid the loss the usa and europe automatically accept when they set these aid packages up. How? They gambled that the price of rice would carry on going up and by sitting on the rice and selling later maybe part or the loss from the subsidy would be covered. Ok it <deleted> up and its admin got abused but i can see the logic in the thought.

rijit

What you are saying is that they attempted to manipulate the price of rice on the world market by withholding Thai rice from the market.

Some things you forgot to mention, it was never a subsidy and was never touted as such, or as running at a loss, rather it was said to eventually run at a profit.

The rice was stored in less than optimal conditions that led to a large proportion deterioration to the stage it is not fit for human consumption. Indeed inspection tells us that several million tons still in storage are not even fit for animal feed.

There was substandard rice sold to other countries, in one case the US returned a shipment because of low quality in another the Ivory Coast had to dump 25% of a shipment because of poor quality.

In one case rice ordered by Iran through a Thai agent was never shipped and because of that to this day, Iran which was once one of Thailand's top rice customers has refused to buy any more Thai rice.

There were fake G2G deals with Chinese companies where low prices were paid for rice that never left the country. This has been shown by the impeachment of Govt officials and cabinet ministers who are now awaiting court action on criminal charges relating to one of these deals.

Personally I don't see the logic in attempting to defend a scheme that will, when all the rice in storage is disposed of and the numbers added up will cost the country close to, if not more than, a Trillion Baht.

Right now the repayments of interest and principal of the loans taken out to fund the scheme are reported to be costing 64 billion Baht a year, these repayments will continue for many years as a millstone around the neck of the Thai economy.

And for what ? The average farm debt was estimated to have risen 6% per year during the tenure of the PT Govt and the average farmer is now in deeper debt than ever before.

[rijit]

So are.you saying that thailand.produces shit rice or did it just for the scheme?

I honestly think that it was done to help thai farmers, its just very unfortunate that the system is corrupt in Thailand and took advantage of a poorly administered scheme. now its not unreasonable that people are held accountable

rijit