The similarities – and difference – in the rice policies of Yingluck and Prayut

[webfact]

The similarities – and difference – in the rice policies of Yingluck and Prayut
By Nophakhun Limsamarnphun 
The Nation

 

 

BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has followed the path of his predecessors, including former premier Yingluck Shinawatra, in addressing the plight of rice farmers hit hard by a price slump.

 

So far, the Prayut government has endorsed combined spending of Bt53.9 billion in taxpayers’ money to shore up domestic rice paddy prices via rice-pledging and low-interest loan schemes.

In general, these rice-pledging schemes share similarities with those used by the previous Yingluck government, though their scale is vastly different.

 

Full story: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/politics/30299481

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2016-11-09

[trogers]

There is a difference between helping and enriching...

 

The latter causes someone to cough blood!

[Thailand]

I guess the main difference is that one has been fined and prosecuted and the other one is likely to go down the same road sometime in the future.

[sharecropper]

People are so stupid. Here's the difference:

 

One is Ours and one was Theirs.

 

Yours jackbootingly...

[Thechook]

Similar, lucky prayuth has granted himself a full amnesty.

[Brer Fox]

That's just blown PM Prayut's 2016 budget clean out of the water.

 

A 59 billion baht rice subsidy expenditure was not accounted for in the that budget and this represents a 15% increase in the current account deficit. How is he going to weave his financial magic and get that back into the kitty to buy his war game toys like submarines and tanks?

 

As a matter of academic interest the 2016 budget deficit of 390 billion baht rose 56% over the 2015 budget deficit; that was bad enough.Now with this unaccounted for expenditure of a 59 billion it means a deficit blow out by comparison 2015 to 2016 of a 199 billion baht (from 250 billion to 449 billion) or an increase of 80% over 2015. Basket case looming on the distant horizon?

 

Next years budget is going to make interesting reading.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Brer Fox

[trogers]

2 minutes ago, Brer Fox said:

That's just blown PM Prayut's 2016 budget clean out of the water.

 

A 59 billion baht rice subsidy expenditure was not accounted for in the that budget and this represents a 15% increase in the current account deficit. How is he going to weave his financial magic and get that back into the kitty to buy his war game toys like submarines and tanks?

 

As a matter of academic interest the 2016 budget deficit of 390 billion baht rose 56% over the 2015 budget deficit; that was bad enough.Now with this unaccounted for expenditure of a 59 billion it means a deficit blow out by comparison 2015 to 2016 of a 199 billion baht (from 250 billion to 449 billion) or an increase of 80% over 2015. Basket case looming on the distant horizon?

 

Next years budget is going to make interesting reading.

 

A self-financing scheme?

[Brer Fox]

1 minute ago, trogers said:

 

A self-financing scheme?

Presumably you mean PM Prayut will be refunding the money to general revenue sometime in the future? Or do you mean Yingluck's money will partly offset his budget excesses.

[trogers]

6 minutes ago, Brer Fox said:

Presumably you mean PM Prayut will be refunding the money to general revenue sometime in the future? Or do you mean Yingluck's money will partly offset his budget excesses.

 

I don't know. But if Yingluck's scheme was self-financing, this would too, being only a tenth the amount spent.

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, Thailand said:

I guess the main difference is that one has been fined and prosecuted and the other one is likely to go down the same road sometime in the future.

 

Strange guess you make really. The main difference, apart from the scale of the cost, is that one is a government subsidy whereas the other was a self financing scheme - only turns out it wasn't and no one knows the exact amount it cost or where the money actually went because it was negligently managed, allegedly, and no financial and management accounts were seemingly kept.

 

[Srikcir]

3 hours ago, Brer Fox said:

the 2016 budget

Just a minor note that the current budget is for Fiscal Year 2017 that begins October 1, 2016 and ends September 31, 2017. That means that the current Prayut-appointed NLA will also formulate the FY 2018 budget based on Prayut's Cabinet submittal prior to the next elected government.

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, Brer Fox said:

That's just blown PM Prayut's 2016 budget clean out of the water.

 

A 59 billion baht rice subsidy expenditure was not accounted for in the that budget and this represents a 15% increase in the current account deficit. How is he going to weave his financial magic and get that back into the kitty to buy his war game toys like submarines and tanks?

 

As a matter of academic interest the 2016 budget deficit of 390 billion baht rose 56% over the 2015 budget deficit; that was bad enough.Now with this unaccounted for expenditure of a 59 billion it means a deficit blow out by comparison 2015 to 2016 of a 199 billion baht (from 250 billion to 449 billion) or an increase of 80% over 2015. Basket case looming on the distant horizon?

 

Next years budget is going to make interesting reading.

 

Indeed. But better to have it in the budget rather than pretend it's self-financing and keep the accounts and all details closely guarded state secrets.

 

Let's hope no one comes up with the idea of borrowing 2.2 trillion baht and wanting to keep it a matter just for the executive to decide how its spent.

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, Thechook said:

Similar, lucky prayuth has granted himself a full amnesty.

 

Nope. One's a subsidy. One wasn't. 

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, sharecropper said:

People are so stupid. Here's the difference:

 

One is Ours and one was Theirs.

 

Yours jackbootingly...

 

Pray tell how the self financing PTP scheme wasn't negligently managed?

 

 

[tigermoth]

I am sick and tired of all these accusations against, in the main, against the last government. To date there is not one shred of proof. I assume the national quirk of guilty until presumed innocent in this country is what drives all these accusations. This also includes Thaksins accusers. I am no supporter of these people but have been raised in countries where absolute proof has to be shown before a person is accused and if it is not then the accuser had better look out. Same thing happening to the two Myammar lads in the South.

[adhd]

and still rice is 30+ baht / kg in the supermarkets

 

the farmer gets 5

 

yes, better sell directly to consumers if possible

 

 

[trogers]

11 minutes ago, adhd said:

and still rice is 30+ baht / kg in the supermarkets

 

the farmer gets 5

 

yes, better sell directly to consumers if possible

 

 

 

Consumers should gather collectively (eg. resident committees) and arrange personnel and transport to do bulk purchase from farms.

[yellowboat]

The junta is not obliged to keep records as they are above the law, so how is one going to tell if they are preforming in the best interests of the farmers and the consumers ?  Like others have mentioned; farmers getting close to the consumers will be far more equitable.

[Eric Loh]

"the previous government set much higher levels for its price pledges, offering more than Bt20,000 per tonne for Hom Mali rice and Bt15,000 per tonne for white rice, compared to the Bt13,000 and Bt10,500 per tonne pledged by the Prayut administration".

 

This I think is a very poor comparison. The percentage of the pledge price above market price is a better way to compare. Yingluck's pledge price was reported at 50% above market price for Hom Mali. Prayut's pledge price is B13,000 and the market price is B5,000 per ton. That is certainly more than 50%. In fact it is 60+%.

 

"So far, the Prayut government has endorsed combined spending of Bt53.9 billion in taxpayers’ money to shore up domestic rice paddy prices via rice-pledging and low-interest loan schemes."

 

In another major news media, it was reported that the government spending will be 127B not including the 20B set aside for the other rice types. That is 147B in a short few weeks and rising. Yingluck's scheme cost the government 536B in two years. If the rice prices do not rise in next few months, we can expect the subsidy amount will rise dramatically. 

 

Just need to put the facts right.

[DuiDui48]

5 hours ago, Brer Fox said:

That's just blown PM Prayut's 2016 budget clean out of the water.

 

A 59 billion baht rice subsidy expenditure was not accounted for in the that budget and this represents a 15% increase in the current account deficit. How is he going to weave his financial magic and get that back into the kitty to buy his war game toys like submarines and tanks?

 

As a matter of academic interest the 2016 budget deficit of 390 billion baht rose 56% over the 2015 budget deficit; that was bad enough.Now with this unaccounted for expenditure of a 59 billion it means a deficit blow out by comparison 2015 to 2016 of a 199 billion baht (from 250 billion to 449 billion) or an increase of 80% over 2015. Basket case looming on the distant horizon?

 

Next years budget is going to make interesting reading.

Problem solved read this...and THIS...http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/1998/august/what-caused-east-asia-financial-crisis/

 

Edited November 9, 2016 by DuiDui48

[robblok]

A difference that shows that YL did not want to help the small farmers is that there was no limit for the rice.. while now the upper limit is 10 rai so helping small poor farmers instead of big ones.. that actually says it all.

 

Plus YL financed it off books kept it out of the central budget and said it would not cost anything.. but cost 500-700 billion. I would say that is quite a big difference.. one is transparant telling people what it cost..other keeps it off the records insisting it did not cost anything and ending up with 700 billion debt. 

[billd766]

22 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

"the previous government set much higher levels for its price pledges, offering more than Bt20,000 per tonne for Hom Mali rice and Bt15,000 per tonne for white rice, compared to the Bt13,000 and Bt10,500 per tonne pledged by the Prayut administration".

 

This I think is a very poor comparison. The percentage of the pledge price above market price is a better way to compare. Yingluck's pledge price was reported at 50% above market price for Hom Mali. Prayut's pledge price is B13,000 and the market price is B5,000 per ton. That is certainly more than 50%. In fact it is 60+%.

 

"So far, the Prayut government has endorsed combined spending of Bt53.9 billion in taxpayers’ money to shore up domestic rice paddy prices via rice-pledging and low-interest loan schemes."

 

In another major news media, it was reported that the government spending will be 127B not including the 20B set aside for the other rice types. That is 147B in a short few weeks and rising. Yingluck's scheme cost the government 536B in two years. If the rice prices do not rise in next few months, we can expect the subsidy amount will rise dramatically. 

 

Just need to put the facts right.

 

 

Sure you can compare the difference in the prices paid above the market price.

 

Can you please tell us what the market price of white rice and Hom Mali rice was when the PTP introduced their scheme?

 

That would give a much fairer comparison.

[Eric Loh]

26 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

 

Sure you can compare the difference in the prices paid above the market price.

 

Can you please tell us what the market price of white rice and Hom Mali rice was when the PTP introduced their scheme?

 

That would give a much fairer comparison.

 

http://www.ke-rice.com/index.php?lay=show&ac=article&Id=538972594&Ntype=4

 

Found this link on paddy rice price in 2012. Then paddy rice was betwen 7,000 - 7,500B and the pledge price was 15,000B. 50% is about right.

 

Still looking for Hom Mali price. Will link when found.

[Eric Loh]

Opps, paddy price actually 7,500-7,800 B. Even closer to the 50% mark.

[jesimps]

7 hours ago, trogers said:

 

I don't know. But if Yingluck's scheme was self-financing, this would too, being only a tenth the amount spent.

Fanboy logic is managing to keep me amused this lunchtime. Do you really believe the guff you spout? 

 

[jesimps]

4 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Nope. One's a subsidy. One wasn't. 

But no mention of the amnesty, although always quick to slate the PTP amnesty proposal.

 

[trogers]

16 minutes ago, jesimps said:

Fanboy logic is managing to keep me amused this lunchtime. Do you really believe the guff you spout? 

 

 

You seem to believe this guff, or else you would explain how one is self-financing while the tenth amount is not...

[Eric Loh]

2 hours ago, trogers said:

 

You seem to believe this guff, or else you would explain how one is self-financing while the tenth amount is not...

 

You seem to know a lot about how the rice is finance. Please explain the difference.

 

Yingluck scheme involves BAAC paying the pledged prices to the farmers and the pledged rice will be kept at storage barns. Not withstanding that this hoarding to improve prices is flawed; the rice will be sold eventually and money paid back to BAAC. Therefore it is term revolving credit. 

 

Prayut's scheme also involves the BAAC to pay the farmers a higher pledged prices, cost for harvesting and storage cost. The pledged rice be stored for 5 months and will be sold hopefully at a higher price to be pay back to BAAC.  

 

Looks the same to me - a revolving credit facility. 

[robblok]

34 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

 

You seem to know a lot about how the rice is finance. Please explain the difference.

 

Yingluck scheme involves BAAC paying the pledged prices to the farmers and the pledged rice will be kept at storage barns. Not withstanding that this hoarding to improve prices is flawed; the rice will be sold eventually and money paid back to BAAC. Therefore it is term revolving credit. 

 

Prayut's scheme also involves the BAAC to pay the farmers a higher pledged prices, cost for harvesting and storage cost. The pledged rice be stored for 5 months and will be sold hopefully at a higher price to be pay back to BAAC.  

 

Looks the same to me - a revolving credit facility. 

But is not.. YL said it was not costing anything Prayut being honest tells us what it cost and puts it in the general budget. YL kept it off books as self financing and left us with an extra cosxt of 500-700 billion (that was never taken into the budget)

 

Then we got the thing that YL said there is no limit for big farmers (Rich ones) while prayut says only 10 rai will be supported clearly showing that he is helping the poor farmers instead of helping the rich big landowners. (or course if a limit was set the fake G2G deal would not be possible because the reselling of the rice in the program would not be possible and her top ministers would not been able to be as corrupt as they were)

[billd766]

6 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

 

http://www.ke-rice.com/index.php?lay=show&ac=article&Id=538972594&Ntype=4

 

Found this link on paddy rice price in 2012. Then paddy rice was betwen 7,000 - 7,500B and the pledge price was 15,000B. 50% is about right.

 

Still looking for Hom Mali price. Will link when found.

 

Thank you for your good efforts.