The politics and perils of rice-pledging scheme and impact of Yingluck case

[rooster59]

The politics and perils of rice-pledging scheme and impact of Yingluck case

By WICHIT CHAITRONG 
THE SUNDAY NATION

 

Former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra stands amid hundreds of her supporters outside the Supreme Court on July 21, when the final hearing in the negligence case against her took place.

 

THE CASE against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra of alleged negligence in managing her government’s controversial rice-pledging scheme, has raised many questions ahead of a Supreme Court verdict scheduled to be handed down on August 25.

 

That verdict is expected to have impacts on both future economic policies and the political landscape. We examine some of the issues raised by the rice saga.

 

IS THE RICE-PLEDGING SCHEME REALLY BAD? 

 

From an economic point of view, buying large quantities of rice from farmers would offer the wrong incentive, encouraging farmers to grow more rice and reinforce downward price pressure on the crop.

 

Government involvement in the rice trade is prone to poor management and corruption. Politicians and officials do not specialise in the rice trade and they do not care much about public money. In contrast, private rice traders must be very careful, otherwise they could go bankrupt or be cheated by other parties.

 

WHY IS A BAD POLICY SO HARD TO AVOID?

 

Large numbers of people depend on rice farming although the farm sector is much smaller compared with the industry and services sectors. The farm sector is only eight per cent of Thai gross domestic product, but 3.7 million families – about 15 million of the nation’s 68 million people – are dependent on rice farming. Politicians want to serve the demands of their large voter base, so the conditions are ripe for populist policies. 

 

HOW MUCH DID THE PAST RICE POLICY COST AND HOW MUCH CAN WE TOLERATE?

 

The government estimated the cost of the rice-pledging scheme during the Yingluck administration (2011 to 2014) was about Bt500 billion. On the other hand, the Pheu Thai Party argued the cost would have been much lower had the current government properly managed the rice auction. 

 

The previous ruling party also said the financial impact was under control during the implementation of the rice scheme. Yet no one would know the real cost until stockpiled rice is all sold. The party also argued that it had controlled potential damage while helping several million farmers. 

The cost and benefits of the project are debatable.

 

HOW DOES THE FUTURE FARM POLICY EVOLVE?

 

Populist policies may not go away as elected governments would continue to be under high pressure from constituent demand. There would be pressure to help farmers and labourers until they could find higher-income jobs in other sectors. 

 

Close to 40 per cent of Thailand’s total labour pool depends on the farm sector, so populist policies would not go away, said Soraphol Tulayasathien, director of the economic stability analysis division at the Fiscal Policy Office. 

 

Short-term market intervention would be necessary. Insurance against the impact of weather |conditions – natural disasters, |flooding and drought – may be a |partial substitute, but it is unlikely to replace populist policies. 

 

WILL A VERDICT ON YINGLUCK’S CASE EXACERBATE THE POLITICAL DIVISION?

 

Many middle-class people in big cities would continue to voice their opposition to a rice-pledging policy should a newly elected government reintroduce it. But people in rural areas would welcome it. Then the question of who is right and who is wrong could depend on the voter’s vested interest. It would be hard to find a political consensus on the farm issue and the welfare of farmers. 

 

WILL LEGAL ACTION STEMMING FROM THE RICE-PLEDGING SCHEME AFFECT EFFORTS FOR POLITICAL RECONCILIATION? 

 

With the ongoing legal and legislative actions taken in the tenure of a post-coup administration, it is not easy to convince political adversaries that the measures are fair. The cases impact not only politicians who are accused of corruption or negligence but also their political base. Hence, ongoing efforts for political reconciliation might be adversely affected.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30322214

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-07-30

[trogers]

The Lord’s anger burned against Israel and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until the whole generation of those who had done evil in his sight was gone. (Num 32:13)

 

This was the solution employed 3000 years ago to the ancestors of a present country.

 

 

[yellowboat]

2 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Government involvement in the rice trade is prone to poor management and corruption. Politicians and officials do not specialise in the rice trade and they do not care much about public money. In contrast, private rice traders must be very careful, otherwise they could go bankrupt or be cheated by other parties.

Any government involvement in trade is prone to poor management and corruption.

Reliance on government leads to certain and swift failure. 

[halloween]

2 hours ago, trogers said:

The Lord’s anger burned against Israel and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until the whole generation of those who had done evil in his sight was gone. (Num 32:13)

 

This was the solution employed 3000 years ago to the ancestors of a present country.

 

 

And he gave the oil to the Arabs. That's just plain nasty.

[mfd101]

The article is amusingly well-written: so delicately put to avoid annoying those it is obviously criticizing.

[robblok]

I can understand the middle class not liking it.. they are the ones paying for it. That is the problem your taking money from one side to give it to the other. Problem is there are more poor so the middle class is screwed and will be drained of money to support popular policies. 

 

I can understand that they want to see change and a good program that will help instead of just pouring money in a system that does not work. Low prices.. give a high price for rice.. result more rice is produced and price drops even more.. Especially now with other countries being able to out produce Thailand in cost and quantity.  Its a failing system and only when the middle class would be totally bled dry would it collapse. But because the rice farmers are such a huge voting block the middle class would never be able to stop it. Meanwhile the Shins would take their cut.. the rich would get richer.. the middle class would suffer and in the end it all blows up.

 

A system where people are re schooled and other crops promoted, cooperation founded, small farmers would unite and get advantages of scale would work far better. But farmers are unwilling to change.. easier to have your hands out and be set in your old ways.

 

Again, not against a subsidy to help solve a problem and change things but a wrong system where you reward planting of more rice in an already bad market is just unsustainable.. anyone telling you different is crazy. 

 

Now the PTP .. she cost could have been less if stocks were better managed.. sure blame someone for a problem you caused.. a problem you did not want to hear about and was not there.. fake G2G deals.. the person chairing the rice program never ever showing up.. (no wonder negligence charges)

 

 

[worgeordie]

Paying 50% more than the World price for a commodity.......what could go wrong,

and it did.the godown owners did very well out of the chaos.

regards worgeordie

[seajae]

it is a hard one, while what the ptp govt did was wrong, some form of subsidy needs to be there but not simply handing over cash, especially seeing the rice scam did not help the poorest farmers. Other countries have shown that with proper consultation and organizing the farmers can do better but they need to advance their thinking and how they go about farming. The govt also needs to control the costs of leasing land, fertilizers etc so that the middle men dont simply get rich at the expense of the poor, also getting the poor to live within their means would help a lot as well. Co-ops would be a big help here, it would enable many the ability to use better methods but again it would require them to be willing to change, no easy answers  but something needs to be done and the freebies stopped

[mfd101]

" ... getting the poor to live within their means would help a lot ... ". Right, so um from near starvation to total starvation?

Edited July 30, 2017 by mfd101

[halloween]

12 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

" ... getting the poor to live within their means would help a lot ... ". Right, so um from near starvation to total starvation?

It could also mean "get a haircut and get a real job" so that you earn enough to satisfy your needts.

[Russbert]

This article asks who is right and who is wrong about rice policies - farmers or the urban middle class. People always vote for self interest that is why there is tremendous support for Thailands extremely generous civil servant healthcare by the urban middle class. Democracy decides who is right and who is wrong.

[trogers]

4 hours ago, halloween said:

And he gave the oil to the Arabs. That's just plain nasty.

 

3 hours ago, robblok said:

A system where people are re schooled and other crops promoted, cooperation founded, small farmers would unite and get advantages of scale would work far better. But farmers are unwilling to change.. easier to have your hands out and be set in your old ways.

 

God created man, and understand the nature of man. That's why the oil was given to the Arabs, and we have seen the result of that gift.

 

Handouts only corrupt the spirit, not improve. Necessity is the mother of invention.

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, seajae said:

it is a hard one, while what the ptp govt did was wrong, some form of subsidy needs to be there but not simply handing over cash, especially seeing the rice scam did not help the poorest farmers. Other countries have shown that with proper consultation and organizing the farmers can do better but they need to advance their thinking and how they go about farming. The govt also needs to control the costs of leasing land, fertilizers etc so that the middle men dont simply get rich at the expense of the poor, also getting the poor to live within their means would help a lot as well. Co-ops would be a big help here, it would enable many the ability to use better methods but again it would require them to be willing to change, no easy answers  but something needs to be done and the freebies stopped

 

Good points.

 

I wonder if there's another reality which needs to be faced as the world becomes more and more industrialized, we have globalization,  and industrialized forms of employment generally provide more income and a better quality of life (if education provides them with the knowledge and skills for the other forms of employment).

 

The majority of farmers in Thailand have very little land or lease land (often from nasty landlords) plus the majority of farmers are poor to very poor, plus more and more of their kids leave for better employment opportunities, often away from home.

 

Seems to me that the poor to very poor farmers  (in fact quite large numbers) will remain poor for as long as they continue to be small scale farmers.

 

I strongly support compassion and help where needed but can the state prop up the poor farmers forever? No.

 

Add the fact that immoral ruthless politicians take strong advantage of this exact situation and don't want to see it change into an overall scenario where poor folks gain the ability to move to other employment and a better quality of life.

 

On the other hand nobody should ever force the farmers to change, and of course some will fall prey to the political nasties.

 

There must be a workable win-win answer but it seems nobody is really focused on developing a substantive overall win-win alternative.

[halloween]

24 minutes ago, Russbert said:

This article asks who is right and who is wrong about rice policies - farmers or the urban middle class. People always vote for self interest that is why there is tremendous support for Thailands extremely generous civil servant healthcare by the urban middle class. Democracy decides who is right and who is wrong.

"Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time." - E. B. White

[Russbert]

4 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

Good points.

 

I wonder if there's another reality which needs to be faced as the world becomes more and more industrialized, we have globalization,  and industrialized forms of employment generally provide more income and a better quality of life (if education provides them with the knowledge and skills for the other forms of employment).

 

The majority of farmers in Thailand have very little land or lease land (often from nasty landlords) plus the majority of farmers are poor to very poor, plus more and more of their kids leave for better employment opportunities, often away from home.

 

Seems to me that the poor to very poor farmers  (in fact quite large numbers) will remain poor for as long as they continue to be small scale farmers.

 

I strongly support compassion and help where needed but can the state prop up the poor farmers forever? No.

 

Add the fact that immoral ruthless politicians take strong advantage of this exact situation and don't want to see it change into an overall scenario where poor folks gain the ability to move to other employment and a better quality of life.

 

On the other hand nobody should ever force the farmers to change, and of course some will fall prey to the political nasties.

 

There must be a workable win-win answer but it seems nobody is really focused on developing a substantive overall win-win alternative.

Vilification of politicians moves you further from a solution than towards it. If it's not politicians spearheading reforms, then who? 

[scorecard]

1 minute ago, Russbert said:

Vilification of politicians moves you further from a solution than towards it. If it's not politicians spearheading reforms, then who? 

"If it's not politicians spearheading reforms, then who? 

 

Reinforces my point!

[halloween]

Just now, Russbert said:

Vilification of politicians moves you further from a solution than towards it. If it's not politicians spearheading reforms, then who? 

Ummm, the military? Can you tell me of of ANY reforms initiated by Thai politicians, that didn't directly benefit thai politicians?

[Russbert]

1 minute ago, halloween said:

"Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time." - E. B. White

Works better than everything else. The top 10 ranked countries to live in all have what in common? Democracy. Of the top 10 worst countries to live in - 7 are non democracies.

 

What's your preferred system?

[scorecard]

16 minutes ago, Russbert said:

Works better than everything else. The top 10 ranked countries to live in all have what in common? Democracy. Of the top 10 worst countries to live in - 7 are non democracies.

 

What's your preferred system?

 

My preferred system is a healthy specific and agreed mix of democracy and socialism. 

 

However it needs people who are sincere, capable, honest, ethical and totally respect the rules!

Edited July 30, 2017 by scorecard

[AGareth2]

4 minutes ago, Russbert said:

What's your preferred system?

Theocracy

a Caliphate

[Russbert]

3 minutes ago, halloween said:

Ummm, the military? Can you tell me of of ANY reforms initiated by Thai politicians, that didn't directly benefit thai politicians?

Universal Health Care.

OTOP

School decentralisation

Microcredit

 

Can you give a list of reforms the military have done in three years that you are proud of?

[halloween]

9 minutes ago, Russbert said:

Works better than everything else. The top 10 ranked countries to live in all have what in common? Democracy. Of the top 10 worst countries to live in - 7 are non democracies.

 

What's your preferred system?

I don't mind democracy, I'm just not silly enough to think that every action supported by a majority of the people is the right decision. Along with the 4 you suggested, why don't we add the rice scam, one child one tablet, etc.

The junta reform I am most proud of is politician accountability. Every member of the PTP criminal conspiracy brought to trial brings more cheers. I just wish they'd get to the UDD a bit faster.

[scorecard]

12 minutes ago, Russbert said:

Universal Health Care.

OTOP

School decentralisation

Microcredit

 

Can you give a list of reforms the military have done in three years that you are proud of?

 

You claim OTOP to be a universal success?

 

School de-centralization?

 

Seems we have a new player (or an old player with new name) quickly twisting the thread to another subject to generate focus on the military.

 

This was a good thread.

 

Bye.

[Russbert]

Just now, halloween said:

I don't mind democracy, I'm just not silly enough to think that every action supported by a majority of the people is the right decision. Along with the 4 you suggested, why don't we add the rice scam, one child one tablet, etc.

The junta reform I am most proud of is politician accountability. Every member of the PTP criminal conspiracy brought to trial brings more cheers. I just wish they'd get to the UDD a bit faster.

The junta aren't the slightest bit interested in politicians being held accountable or do you believe there is nothing Suthep should be charged with? The junta are only interested in trying to hobble the reds to prevent them winning the next election (for what it's worth I think they are only driving more people into the red camp - time will tell). Anyway, you appear to be far to caught up with the reds than to be able to give an impartial assessment of anything related to Thai politics.

 

 

[Russbert]

4 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

You claim OTOP to be a universal success?

 

School de-centralization?

 

Seems we have a new player (or an old player with new name) quickly twisting the thread to another subject to generate focus on the military.

 

This was a good thread.

 

Bye.

I only answered a question. 

Bye.

[seajae]

1 hour ago, mfd101 said:

" ... getting the poor to live within their means would help a lot ... ". Right, so um from near starvation to total starvation?

when you see them drinking & with the latest iphones etc you soon get the meaning, if they cant afford food etc they cant afford iphones. I grew up in the 50's, dad died and there was no help, we owned bugger all but we all did menial work for next to nothing to help the family survive. We didnt have new anything, we ate poor meals and we didnt try to live above what we had, we walked everywhere as well, seems thais dont think like that and want things they cant afford. My mum worked in a reception centre on a saturday nights, she would bring home what was left on the tables etc and sunday was the best day of the week for us because we actually got to eat something nice even if they were scraps, we survived and all of us have done pretty good with out lives since. Living within your means does not mean starving, it means no wasting money things you cannot afford, phones, alcohol etc 

Edited July 30, 2017 by seajae

[Eric Loh]

7 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

You claim OTOP to be a universal success?

 

School de-centralization?

 

Seems we have a new player (or an old player with new name) quickly twisting the thread to another subject to generate focus on the military.

 

This was a good thread.

 

Bye.

Why answer a question with a question unless you have nothing intelligent to contribute. Bye.

[halloween]

10 minutes ago, Russbert said:

The junta aren't the slightest bit interested in politicians being held accountable or do you believe there is nothing Suthep should be charged with? The junta are only interested in trying to hobble the reds to prevent them winning the next election (for what it's worth I think they are only driving more people into the red camp - time will tell). Anyway, you appear to be far to caught up with the reds than to be able to give an impartial assessment of anything related to Thai politics.

 

 

Oh right, they were completely innocent and the charges against them are politically motivated harassment. Except the evidence of criminality is plain and obvious.

Not that bias affects your impartial judgement, right?

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, halloween said:

Oh right, they were completely innocent and the charges against them are politically motivated harassment. Except the evidence of criminality is plain and obvious.

Not that bias affects your impartial judgement, right?

He is probably one of those other posters.. been a lot of new ones that come and go.. always then the Shin money is threatened do these people pop up trying to influence opinion... i wonder why.

[473geo]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

He is probably one of those other posters.. been a lot of new ones that come and go.. always then the Shin money is threatened do these people pop up trying to influence opinion... i wonder why.

You mean akin to those who heavily criticise previous flooding but are notably struck dumb when 19 provinces are underwater

People are not usually slow to recognise imbalance, excepting a few regulars on this thread who consistently deliver it