Farmers still need income support, says Kittiratt

[webfact]

Farmers still need income support, says Kittiratt

By THE NATION

 

 

BANGKOK: -- KITTIRATT NA RANONG, former deputy premier and finance minister of the previous Yingluck government, yesterday told a Thammasat University seminar that he should have spent more time explaining the merits of the rice-pledging scheme while in office.

At the seminar, titled “What are the other options if not the rice-pledging scheme?” Kittiratt insisted the rice-pledging scheme was a sound policy aimed at helping low-income farmers and their 15 million family members nationwide.

 

 

Kittiratt was speaking at the event as former premier Yingluck awaits a Supreme Court verdict on Friday about alleged negligence of official duty while overseeing the rice-pledging scheme, which prosecutors charge resulted in corruption and massive financial damage to the state. “If I could go back in time, I would have spent much less time on other works but would have focussed on explaining this [rice-pledging] scheme so as to fight the current political narrative,” he said.

 

According to the former finance minister, Thailand was capable of allocating financial resources to help low-income earners in both urban and rural farm areas. He quipped that the country also had financial resources to buy military hardware such as submarines, as all decisions rested with the ruling leadership.

 

Farmers and their families total 15 million people and account for 23 per cent of Thailand’s overall population, so the government needs to ensure that their livelihoods are improved, Kittiratt said.

 

The Yungluck rice-pledging policy was not the first time that such programmes, including income guarantees and related measures, had targeted farmers, he said. These approaches had been used for the past three decades and were also vulnerable to problems. For example, it was difficult to prove whether farmers actually planted rice fields if they had already successfully registered to get state compensation under an income guarantee programme.

 

He said the Yingluck government therefore turned to the massive rice-pledging scheme, since it required evidence of rice paddies to get state benefits under the programme.

 

Defending the high pledging price, Kittiratt said farmers need to be compensated significantly. Even with the high pledging price for rice offered by the government, farmers’ income was still less than that of people working in urban areas, he said. Under the pledging programme, the government paid about double the market price for rice.

 

 

Kittiratt said the National Economic and Social Development Board had sent a letter to the Yingluck government confirming that farmers’ income had improved because of the rice-pledging scheme. “The scheme was not aimed at benefits for the prime minister, as it was designed as part of the Pheu Thai party’s election campaign. When it was said the state suffered a big financial loss [due to the high pledging price], that could be called an accounting loss. But in terms of public policy, it could be said that the state revenue is just lower than the state expenditure.

 

“In other words, farmers get higher income from the scheme [even though the state had to set a budget to cover the price difference]. The benefit is that farmers have more income so they have purchasing power to boost the economy, and in the end the overall benefits are greater than the subsidy budget,” he said.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30324379

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-08-21

[ezzra]

Been leaving in Thailand for 30 years now and i don't recall a time when the farmers of Thailand didn't want, asked or needed support, and why not? the farmers were

told time and time again that the government is for ever there to bail them out,

so why try hard to be self sustained?.....

[AsianAtHeart]

In 1997, at the time of the economic collapse, many things began to evolve in the Thai economy.  The price of som-tam may have mostly stayed the same, but, unfortunately, while other sectors of the economy began to slowly improve as the baht regained its strength, farmers were left yet further behind, as their income was left largely unimproved while inflationary pressures increased their needs.  In 1997, working all day in the rice fields would earn the laborer 100 baht (about $3): 22 such working days for a month of labor would collect a meager 2200 baht/$66--a woefully inadequate monthly income, even in the rural regions.  Such an income level exacerbates the problems with human trafficking, especially that of families' selling their children, just to have their necessary food.  I personally witnessed the funeral, in northern Thailand, of a 12-year old child who had succumbed to HIV.  The child's mother had died of it earlier.  Women do not generally grow up aspiring to be a great prostitute--it is, for them, a last resort, an act of desperation.  The degree of such desperation apparent in Thai society points to the greater economic problem that drives it.  

 

For the current Thai leadership who wish to clean up Thailand's morals and image, perhaps a new rice-pledging experiment will be in order.  Let's see if they can succeed in helping the farmers without losing a drop of the cash to middlemen or corruption.  

[wakeupplease]

Subsidies Work in other countries but not here it seems

[Bluespunk]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

KITTIRATT NA RANONG, former deputy premier and finance minister of the previous Yingluck government, yesterday told a Thammasat University seminar that he should have spent more time explaining the merits of the rice-pledging scheme while in office

No, you should have spent more time devising a policy that worked, rather than the economically disastrous debacle of a rice scheme you came up with.

 

Well, someone came up with anyway...

Edited August 21, 2017 by Bluespunk

[halloween]

" Kittiratt insisted the rice-pledging scheme was a sound policy aimed at helping low-income farmers and their 15 million family members nationwide."

 

If he had personally visited every one of those 15 million poor Thais once each year for the 3 years they were in government, and put into their hot little hands B10,000 each time, it would STILL have cost less than the rice pledging.  So how does that equate to "sound policy" rather than a massive scam?

[djayz]

No farmers, no food. 

 

 

[ramrod711]

Ombudsman accepts Kittiratt’s white lie case

 

I'm not saying he's a liar....but

[robblok]

Strangely, the poorest farmers did not qualify and the larger ones made a killing. Does not sound like a good program at all.. and calling it cost free and not putting it in the budget is also a major fail. The fake G2G deals don't make it look good either nor does the imported rice from other countries. The program had major holes in it the world bank told them not to but they went ahead anyway. 

 

This is the same minister who thinks it ok to lie and told the press so when he was caught. Who would believe anything he says.

 

Why not set up cooperations, it seems to work in other countries. Maybe help them get more efficient, becaus other countries have higher yields and lower costs... then something is done wrong. You can't just handing out money without changing anything the only thing you do then is making a system where farmers vote for you because they need the money (guess that was the intention), 

[Ricardo]

For some reason the local rice-millers & fertiliser-sellers & influential-people have always been against letting local farmers set-up their own cooperatives, it would have been great if K.Kittiratt and his friends had found time to change that situation, but they didn't.

 

This was clearly unrelated to who their local-supporters are, the people who deliver the vote, for the 'populist' party.

 

But they've only had the better part of a decade, over the past 17-years, in which to get round to it.  Perhaps they need more time in-power to sort out the situation ?

Edited August 21, 2017 by Ricardo

[Thian]

1 hour ago, djayz said:

No farmers, no food. 

 

 

Can import sir.

[djayz]

24 minutes ago, Thian said:

Can import sir.

With all due respect, but that is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the daftest suggestion I've ever read / heard Thian.

This problem can't be solved by simply importing an entire nation's food supplies. Firstly, this would leave the country completely dependent on and at the mercy of its suppliers. Secondly the average consumer would never be able to afford it resulting in hunger and unrest. 

A solution in which the average farmer earns a decent living from the land but doesn't allow for corruption / abuse is what is needed.

One which doesn't simply hand out money to every Somchai who holds his hand out, but financially rewards farmers who can show that they work hard, are capable and willing to learn and implement new farming techniques, adapt to new situations, etc.

Farmers who receive support in times of hardship should, in my opinion, also repay these benefits in times of bumper crops. 

 

Edited August 21, 2017 by djayz

[SABloke]

At the seminar, titled “What are the other options if not the rice-pledging scheme?”

 

Jeez, I don't know? What about: mechanization, less reliance on "middle men", better education, diversification of crops and the one that never pleases people: realizing that owning 2 rai of rice paddy does not make you a full time farmer and in your "down time" you should be doing some other job for income.

Edited August 21, 2017 by SABloke

[Thian]

15 minutes ago, djayz said:

With all due respect, but that is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the daftest suggestion I've ever read / heard Thian.

This problem can't be solved by simply importing an entire nation's food supplies. Firstly, this would leave the country completely dependent on and at the mercy of its suppliers. Secondly the average consumer would never be able to afford it resulting in hunger and unrest. 

A solution in which the average farmer earns a decent living from the land but doesn't allow for corruption / abuse is what is needed.

One which doesn't simply hand out money to every Somchai who holds his hand out, but financially rewards farmers who can show that they work hard, are capable and willing to learn and implement new farming techniques, adapt to new situations, etc.

Farmers who receive support in times of hardship should, in my opinion, also repay these benefits in times of bumper crops. 

 

If the rice is cheaper in neighbouring countries than better buy it there and stop growing rice...there's plenty of other crops to grow or things to do to make money.

 

Thai will never be able to afford rice from their neighbours? Why not? If they are farmers and can't even buy rice from India what farmers are they? Maybe they better stop farming in that case and go working in a factory or so.

 

Another way is to start big farms and use real serious machinery. I don't see that happen though unless mr CP does it.

[maewang99]

someone thinks they are a good person, helping others.

but when you do this kind of thing, i.e. the rice project... the recipients begin to expect it to come to their rescue again and again....

so now you have made the problem much much worse....

and that is why my motto is, in Pasa Thai "paw peeang".. Self Sufficiency is the only "good" answer, with emphasis on the Self part. 

and that that motto extends to include some very very basic and very very important....

more important than money.

it includes not JUST being ABLE to read books... which is the most social and "good" thing that a human can do.... but to actually read books... lots of them... on all kinds of topics.... including so that you realize that helping the farmers might just kill them instead.

but your "education" system pisses on IP and books with jokes and copying stuff instead of discussing and sharing things....

get your XXXX together Thailand before it is way way too late.

stop handing out money and fix your biggest social contract.. the one that says you can have lifetime benefits and a pretty good salary by being an "ajarn" for the national government... instead of being just like all the other Thai as to your health coverage.... and an "ajarn" to the STUDENTS who are the future and present of your country... and includes especially in the Thai public system.. these farmers you are pretending to yourself that you are so worried about.. but actually are NOT.

and you know it. we all know it.

 




  



 

Edited August 21, 2017 by maewang99

[seajae]

the scam never included the poorest farmers as they did not own enough land nor grow enough rice to be part of it, this was one of the big problems. Then you have all the rice coming in from other countries, the missing rice, the rotten rice, the increase in prices for leasing land, fertilizer etc, overall it was simply badly run and organized. As someone mentioned it would have been better to simply give the farmers money instead, would have cut out most of the corrupt practices involved and save the govt a lot of money. While subsidies can help they have to be managed and set up correctly, upgrading the way farmers work their land would be a huge help, having machinery made available to those that cant afford their own through regional co-ops run by the farmers to stop any corrupt practices, its the corruption that ruins everything in Thailand, removing it would help a lot. The govt needs to put people in the fields helping farmers improve, they need to regulate the leasing prices, the costs of fertilizers etc to bring down overheads as well as push better farming practices and different crops so the farmers can start to make their own money, if the farmers do this they should receive govt subsidies to assist them, it all boils down to farmers helping themselves with govt backing

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Why not set up cooperations, it seems to work in other countries.

Or not.

In the case of Japan's nationwide organization of farm cooperatives (simply called "JA") seemed to have been a major factor in blocking agricultural reform for decades. One of the causes was JA's "one person, one vote" tradition that caused organizational dysfunction and impeding the development of corporate-style farming. As of 2005, there were about 77% part-time farmers vs 23% full-time farmers. http://www.tokyofoundation.org/en/articles/2008/the-agricultural-cooperatives-and-farming-reform-in-japan-1

So there may be good and faulty foreign models. 

The Thai government needs to examine foreign successful agricultural programs and how they might be applied to Thailand to improve sustainability for its agricultural farmers. But the necessary parameters might conflict with Thai governance, traditions and culture (the so-called "Thainess") that might be difficult if not improbable to implement.

[halloween]

1 hour ago, djayz said:

With all due respect, but that is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the daftest suggestion I've ever read / heard Thian.

This problem can't be solved by simply importing an entire nation's food supplies. Firstly, this would leave the country completely dependent on and at the mercy of its suppliers. Secondly the average consumer would never be able to afford it resulting in hunger and unrest. 

A solution in which the average farmer earns a decent living from the land but doesn't allow for corruption / abuse is what is needed.

One which doesn't simply hand out money to every Somchai who holds his hand out, but financially rewards farmers who can show that they work hard, are capable and willing to learn and implement new farming techniques, adapt to new situations, etc.

Farmers who receive support in times of hardship should, in my opinion, also repay these benefits in times of bumper crops. 

 

Perhaps you should compare it to your own simplistic statement. Now try "Half as many farmers working twice as efficiently equals no nett loss." A bit more complicated, but it far better expressed what you were trying to say.

[anon4637435435]

BS! Need real farmers not just lazy criminal lay abouts. The successful farmers dont need assistance. All the farmers in our area steal everything and are always at council meetings to ask for freebies. They get little things here and there. Keeps them busy but for real. Too many are scum. Wish it werent true but im living on a farm in a farming comunity and its all i see.

[djayz]

2 hours ago, Thian said:

If the rice is cheaper in neighbouring countries than better buy it there and stop growing rice...there's plenty of other crops to grow or things to do to make money.

 

Thai will never be able to afford rice from their neighbours? Why not? If they are farmers and can't even buy rice from India what farmers are they? Maybe they better stop farming in that case and go working in a factory or so.

 

Another way is to start big farms and use real serious machinery. I don't see that happen though unless mr CP does it.

The ONLY people who benefit from owning big farms are the big farm owners. On those farms labour is paid a pittance to make somebody else wealthy. 

Numerous small hold farms give employment to entire families, generates (should generate) a livelihood for countless people and feeds millions. 

If it were left up to people like you, there'd be a handfull of businesses owned by a few wealthy families and an entire nation of people working in factories for minimum wages struggling to survive. They'd all live in drab housing estates/condominium blocks and wouldn't own a pot to p*ss in. 

 

[halloween]

2 hours ago, djayz said:

The ONLY people who benefit from owning big farms are the big farm owners. On those farms labour is paid a pittance to make somebody else wealthy. 

Numerous small hold farms give employment to entire families, generates (should generate) a livelihood for countless people and feeds millions. 

If it were left up to people like you, there'd be a handfull of businesses owned by a few wealthy families and an entire nation of people working in factories for minimum wages struggling to survive. They'd all live in drab housing estates/condominium blocks and wouldn't own a pot to p*ss in. 

 

So if subsistence farming is so great, why do they still need handouts? If your income isn't as much as you want, you're better off (and so is everybody else) if you change jobs, rather than asking those who work more efficiently to support you.

Edited August 21, 2017 by halloween

[Thian]

2 hours ago, djayz said:

The ONLY people who benefit from owning big farms are the big farm owners. On those farms labour is paid a pittance to make somebody else wealthy. 

Numerous small hold farms give employment to entire families, generates (should generate) a livelihood for countless people and feeds millions. 

If it were left up to people like you, there'd be a handfull of businesses owned by a few wealthy families and an entire nation of people working in factories for minimum wages struggling to survive. They'd all live in drab housing estates/condominium blocks and wouldn't own a pot to p*ss in. 

 

Small farmers need income support because they can't make enough money growing rice. So other Thai have to pay tax to support these farmers. You call that fair?

 

They better produce computers or so like the richer Asian countries do and buy the rice from their neighbours. So the neighbours can start large ricefarms with machinery.

[Srikcir]

30 minutes ago, halloween said:

So if subsistence farming is so great, why do they still need handouts?

Simple. Because Thai farmers get them when they pressure the government. Maybe not to the extent that they expect, but there is no discipline to be learned.

[YetAnother]

the whole appointment process is destined to get marginal or less-qualified people in the appointed jobs

[djayz]

1 hour ago, Thian said:

Small farmers need income support because they can't make enough money growing rice. So other Thai have to pay tax to support these farmers. You call that fair?

 

They better produce computers or so like the richer Asian countries do and buy the rice from their neighbours. So the neighbours can start large ricefarms with machinery.

It's not about being "fair", it's about providing financial support for, according to the article, 23% of the population. The aim was to improve their lives and provide them with more income, which they could then spend (i.e. put back into the economy). 

What happens when the neighbouring countries also decide to change from growing rice to producing computers like their richer Asian counterparts? Who's going to grow the rice then? Where will the food come from? Somebody has to grow it. 

 

Personally I don't believe in handouts, but a system which rewards farmers for being productive, efficient and sufficient can't be bad. Help them in times of hardship and tax them in times of bumper crops. 

[khunken]

15 minutes ago, djayz said:

It's not about being "fair", it's about providing financial support for, according to the article, 23% of the population. The aim was to improve their lives and provide them with more income, which they could then spend (i.e. put back into the economy). 

What happens when the neighbouring countries also decide to change from growing rice to producing computers like their richer Asian counterparts? Who's going to grow the rice then? Where will the food come from? Somebody has to grow it. 

 

Personally I don't believe in handouts, but a system which rewards farmers for being productive, efficient and sufficient can't be bad. Help them in times of hardship and tax them in times of bumper crops. 

The rice scheme didn't reward farmers for being productive, efficient & sufficient. In fact the scheme rewarded them partially for voting for the 'correct' party and partially for not producing rice as productively or efficiently as their neighbours.

 

You've also got the help system upside-down. The hardship occurs when too much in the way of bumper crops are produced worldwide, leading to over supply & low prices. Much better prices occur when the supply is below demand.

 

I do agree with you that a 'mean' price should be set and subsidies allocated when the price is lower & tax imposed when the price is higher (similar to Thailand's oil fund). One drawback is that subsidised rice cannot be sold on world markets, except as G-to-G sales.

[digger70]

Why would Farmers need support? they have been asked/begged /told to  plant other crops so they can make money all year round.No excuse for the Lazy sods who want only plant Rice and Scream for Government assistance.

[MyFriend You]

All this talk about riuce schemes, handouts, corruption, farmers needing help is giving me a headache......maybe they should go back to the sixties and grow opium poppy flowers.......

[xtrnuno41]

Always the same suppress the hard workers and rich "people" should get richer.

By power have monopoly and suppress more.

i believe i red some time in Thaivisa forum, a rice farmer gets 5000 bath/ ton rice !!?? 5 bath/kg !!

WHy you should grow rice then? 

I pay here 2 euro for a kg of rice, so where is the money in between? yup governments, buyers, sellers but sure not the farmer.

Thai government probably think its ok, as winners? Why not change, with help of aggriculture students  to another crops?

Money in the pocket for buyers of rice and sellers, government.

I kow, those people do it for many years, as there fathers did. They are stuck and their daughters are in Pattaya.

As Louis Armstrong sang, what a wonderfull world, o yeaaaaaahhhh

[cooked]

15 hours ago, Thian said:

If the rice is cheaper in neighbouring countries than better buy it there and stop growing rice...there's plenty of other crops to grow or things to do to make money.

 

Thai will never be able to afford rice from their neighbours? Why not? If they are farmers and can't even buy rice from India what farmers are they? Maybe they better stop farming in that case and go working in a factory or so.

 

Another way is to start big farms and use real serious machinery. I don't see that happen though unless mr CP does it.

So let's see now.. we seem to have an armchair agriculturist here. I suggest you move to Isaan and explain to the stupid farmers why they've been doing it wrong all these years, generations. What revolutionary new crop do you suggest for a soil that is waterlogged during the growing season and hard as concrete for the rest?