Farmers defend Yingluck scheme and ask for help

[ianf]

45 minutes ago, kaorop said:

Yeah halloween you go man, make sure every thread you can post in is about blaming the shins for something, never mind what the thread title is ! Oh sorry forgot you already do.

Rice farmers are asking for help, because they are struggling, they referred to YL and that pledging debacle as something that did help them.....which has little to do with the corruption further up the chain...Thats what this topic IS

Read my post about what this scheme was about. I ain't kidding.

[billd766]

7 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

I know you are intelligent enough to know that this is not about corruption. Well unless I am wrong about you. It is about eliminating popular elected officials so that the power and wealth of establishment and military will not be challenged. 

 

TBH I think that Yingluck was one of the rare politicians who was not corrupt, certainly not for herself anyway. I suspect that she was led by her brother who promised to keep her out of trouble by letting others do the dirty work.

 

Perhaps she has been conditioned by her upbringing to support her family through thick and thin but when push comes to shove Thaksin has not kept his side of the bargain.

 

Whilst she is a nice enough person in herself, she was way out of her depth in Thai politics.

 

I have no doubt she will be found guilty on Friday, but if the government has any sense at all (which I doubt at times) they will hit her finances, possibly ban her from politics for life and give her a symbolic suspended sentence.

 

It would be the best option for the government IMHO, but I am only a stupid farang, so what would I know.

[Ricardo]

2 hours ago, kaorop said:

Yeah halloween you go man, make sure every thread you can post in is about blaming the shins for something, never mind what the thread title is ! Oh sorry forgot you already do.

Rice farmers are asking for help, because they are struggling, they referred to YL and that pledging debacle as something that did help them.....which has little to do with the corruption further up the chain...Thats what this topic IS

 

The rice-scheme encouraged people to grow even more rice. Every scrap of land was pressed into service.

 

The rice-scheme encouraged neighbouring countries to smuggle their own rice here, to also claim the ridiculous high pledging-price.

 

The rice-scheme resulted in a massive stock of unsold-rice being left in the warehouses.

 

Which has taken three years to clear, by selling it off bit-by-bit.

 

That has depressed the market-prices during those three years, basic Supply-and-Demand as the farmers have discovered.

 

If that's what you (or they) call  "something that did help them", then I'd really hate to see something that harmed them, and their industry !

 

And the rice-scheme was Thaksin's idea, implemented by his sister and the PTP-led coalition-government.

 

One doesn't need to look very far in this thread, to see something for which the Shins ought to be held responsible.

[Khun Han]

5 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

TBH I think that Yingluck was one of the rare politicians who was not corrupt, certainly not for herself anyway. I suspect that she was led by her brother who promised to keep her out of trouble by letting others do the dirty work.

 

Perhaps she has been conditioned by her upbringing to support her family through thick and thin but when push comes to shove Thaksin has not kept his side of the bargain.

 

Whilst she is a nice enough person in herself, she was way out of her depth in Thai politics.

 

I have no doubt she will be found guilty on Friday, but if the government has any sense at all (which I doubt at times) they will hit her finances, possibly ban her from politics for life and give her a symbolic suspended sentence.

 

It would be the best option for the government IMHO, but I am only a stupid farang, so what would I know.

 

Yingluck could have made a decent prime minister in another Thai politics universe. Abhisit could have made a much better one. Neither stood a chance in this Thai politics universe. Even The General, who arrived at the table severely compromised to start with, has one hand tied behind his back.

[473geo]

I usually end up commenting on these comedic threads

 

Halloween10,000 baht per poor farmer - er right that would be the margin the subsidy created on just one ton of rice - one Ton

Ianf you being a farmer would care to estimate for the benefit of Halloween, how much land a farmer would require to produce one Ton of rice

Also Ianf using your impartial judgement did many farmers have more disposable income during the PTP rice scheme? A simple yes or no will suffice

Those that propose diversity, do you know why rice and rubber are favoured crops? They are on open plains but are not prone to disappearing overnight!! Unlike for example an unguarded pond full of almost matured fish!!

 

Carry on guys you are at least bringing a smile to my face, in these gloomy days where farming profit is scarce

Thank you

[Srikcir]

7 hours ago, Ricardo said:

 

If that's what you (or they) call  "something that did help them"

Getting Bt500 billion in cash subsidies certainly didn't hurt the rice farmers.

Compare to Prayut's cash subsidies, soft loans, loan forgiveness and cancellation of farm repossessions came to about Bt150 billion.

 

[halloween]

2 hours ago, 473geo said:

I usually end up commenting on these comedic threads

 

Halloween10,000 baht per poor farmer - er right that would be the margin the subsidy created on just one ton of rice - one Ton

Ianf you being a farmer would care to estimate for the benefit of Halloween, how much land a farmer would require to produce one Ton of rice

Also Ianf using your impartial judgement did many farmers have more disposable income during the PTP rice scheme? A simple yes or no will suffice

Those that propose diversity, do you know why rice and rubber are favoured crops? They are on open plains but are not prone to disappearing overnight!! Unlike for example an unguarded pond full of almost matured fish!!

 

Carry on guys you are at least bringing a smile to my face, in these gloomy days where farming profit is scarce

Thank you

As usual your muddled thinking, influenced by the increase in cash flow your family experienced, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The figure I used of 15 million poor people, farmers and their dependents, was supplied by Kittirat. These are the people the policy was stated to be helping. How much subsidy did they get on one ton of rice if they ate it themselves? How much did that increase their disposable income?

It was not supposed to help rich farmers, or even those with middle incomes (perhaps with a farang to buy them land) well into double digit rai land holdings. But no-one doubts that it did, though the money that actually reached better off farmers was still a small part of the total cost.

It seems living in the north you have trouble with thieves.  Try buying a dog. Perhaps two, if you can afford the feed bill.

[Ricardo]

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Getting Bt500 billion in cash subsidies certainly didn't hurt the rice farmers.

Compare to Prayut's cash subsidies, soft loans, loan forgiveness and cancellation of farm repossessions came to about Bt150 billion.

 

 

But only if the subsidy actually reached the farmers, and wasn't largely taken by the middle-men or politicians, you'll agree ?

 

And better still if it had reached the smallest/poorest farmers, not just the ones big-enough to qualify for the scheme ?

 

To me, the fact that Prayuth's alternatives cost less (and I accept your figure), means that it cost the taxpayer less, and distorted the market less.  Which matters when the government is running a fiscal-deficit, and has been for a decade or more, and when the farmers are now complaining that market-prices for their rice have been depressed in recent years.

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/thailand/government-budget

 

I said three years ago, that the effects of the then-just-ended rice-scheme would take years to work-through, well now we see that I was right about that.  I take no pleasure in it.  There will still IMO be an effect, due to the long-term reputational-damage to the good name with overseas-consumers of Thai rice, for further years to come. 

 

Perhaps the current government should do a bit of work on quality-assurance and PR amongst consumers  ...  if they can find a way not to simply waste the money, I'm thinking TAT here !

 

 

[Ace of Pop]

We have a saying in the UK (you may have the same in your home country) 
 
"You never see a farmer on a pushbike"  

Never see one here without a Red Plate Toyota every 6 years either.?[emoji481]


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[billd766]

9 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Yingluck could have made a decent prime minister in another Thai politics universe. Abhisit could have made a much better one. Neither stood a chance in this Thai politics universe. Even The General, who arrived at the table severely compromised to start with, has one hand tied behind his back.

 

IMHO Yingluck was way out of her depth even as a politician which she wasn't, let alone as a PM.

 

Again IMHO Abhisit is/was a professional politician. With Abhisit as the Democrat leader and potential PM, I really don't think that they could win the next election even if they were the only party to stand.

 

To stand any chance of a result in the next election they need to dump Abhisit, as he is tainted by 2010, plus the entire Democrat party leadership.

 

Korn Chatikavanij would make a good PM or a great Minister of Finance, but who to replace the rest with I have no idea.

 

Suthep Thaugsuban again IMHO should be blacklisted from politics for the rest of his life, and totally ignored by the Democrats.

[Khun Han]

54 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

IMHO Yingluck was way out of her depth even as a politician which she wasn't, let alone as a PM.

 

Again IMHO Abhisit is/was a professional politician. With Abhisit as the Democrat leader and potential PM, I really don't think that they could win the next election even if they were the only party to stand.

 

To stand any chance of a result in the next election they need to dump Abhisit, as he is tainted by 2010, plus the entire Democrat party leadership.

 

Korn Chatikavanij would make a good PM or a great Minister of Finance, but who to replace the rest with I have no idea.

 

Suthep Thaugsuban again IMHO should be blacklisted from politics for the rest of his life, and totally ignored by the Democrats.

 

To be a good leader in any walk of life, one doesn't need all the skills of the particular walk one chooses. That's what advisors and specialist experts are for. A good leader is someone with clear vision, an ability to look at the overall picture. In that respect, both Yingluck and Abhisit were at least as good as most of Thailand's other modern-day leaders. Having a bit of charm/charisma also helps.

 

I agree that both are now soiled goods.

 

Korn is a clever man and a good guy. Not sure he'll ever make leader though.

[billd766]

1 minute ago, Khun Han said:

 

To be a good leader in any walk of life, one doesn't need all the skills of the particular walk one chooses. That's what advisors and specialist experts are for. A good leader is someone with clear vision, an ability to look at the overall picture. In that respect, both Yingluck and Abhisit were at least as good as most of Thailand's other modern-day leaders. Having a bit of charm/charisma also helps.

 

I agree that both are now soiled goods.

 

Korn is a clever man and a good guy. Not sure he'll ever make leader though.

 

quote "That's what advisors and specialist experts are for. A good leader is someone with clear vision, an ability to look at the overall picture."

 

Sadly Yingluck's advisors and experts were chosen by Thaksin, which could be why she is where she is now.

 

As for Abhisit, he had Suthep. There is nothing that can be (politely) said about that.

[Khun Han]

1 minute ago, billd766 said:

 

quote "That's what advisors and specialist experts are for. A good leader is someone with clear vision, an ability to look at the overall picture."

 

Sadly Yingluck's advisors and experts were chosen by Thaksin, which could be why she is where she is now.

 

As for Abhisit, he had Suthep. There is nothing that can be (politely) said about that.

 

You've hit both nails squarely on the head Bill .

[473geo]

19 hours ago, halloween said:

As usual your muddled thinking, influenced by the increase in cash flow your family experienced, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The figure I used of 15 million poor people, farmers and their dependents, was supplied by Kittirat. These are the people the policy was stated to be helping. How much subsidy did they get on one ton of rice if they ate it themselves? How much did that increase their disposable income?

It was not supposed to help rich farmers, or even those with middle incomes (perhaps with a farang to buy them land) well into double digit rai land holdings. But no-one doubts that it did, though the money that actually reached better off farmers was still a small part of the total cost.

It seems living in the north you have trouble with thieves.  Try buying a dog. Perhaps two, if you can afford the feed bill.

I think this is one of your poorer responses, just waffle with no real substance...... unlike the rice scheme!

[Srikcir]

On 8/23/2017 at 6:44 AM, halloween said:

It was not supposed to help rich farmers, or even those with middle incomes (perhaps with a farang to buy them land) well into double digit rai land holdings.

By what evidence do you have that Yingluck's rice pledge program was intended NOT to help rich and middle-income farmers? The program was based solely on the amount of rice pledged that seems to be equality-based. In fact politically, it may be smart to "help" rich and middle-income farmers who can more likely provide financial support for election campaigns!

 

On the other hand, the rice farming cash subsidies provided by the Abhisit and Prayut regimes were/are farm size-based. The larger the farm, the larger the subsidy albeit limitation on land size. With these cash subsidies NO rice need to be produced! Subsidies are also paid in effect for idle or alternate crop fields.

 

But I have been critical of all regimes creating a "hodge-podge" of specific-timed crop subsidies to improve farmer's sustainability - most of which seem to fall short according to the small farmers. When instead there should be a national agricultural welfare program with graduated assistance based on operational annual income (EBIT) from farming.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Srikcir
grammar

[halloween]

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

By what evidence do you have that Yingluck's rice pledge program was intended NOT to help rich and middle-income farmers? The program was based solely on the amount of rice pledged that seems to be equality-based. In fact politically, it may be smart to "help" rich and middle-income farmers who can more likely provide financial support for election campaigns!

 

On the other hand, the rice farming cash subsidies provided by the Abhisit and Prayut regimes were/are farm size-based. The larger the farm, the larger the subsidy albeit limitation on land size. With these cash subsidies NO rice need to be produced! Subsidies are also paid in effect for idle or alternate crop fields.

 

But I have been critical of all regimes creating a "hodge-podge" of specific-timed crop subsidies to improve farmer's sustainability - most of which seem to fall short according to the small farmers. When instead there should be a national agricultural welfare program with graduated assistance based on operational annual income (EBIT) from farming.

What evidence? Innumerable campaign speeches by Yingluk et al alleging that the pledging scheme was to help the 'poorest' farmers. Later this was modified to 'poor' farmers, and in her defence both terms were dropped, probably because it is obvious it did no such thing.

 

A policy to estimated to cost a huge amount of state money could be politically acceptable if it was to help the poor/poorest. Giving state funds to the well off and wealthy to buy their votes and elicit campaign contributions is not, and many would consider it corrupt.

 

The limitation on farm size is the key factor, why belittle it? Do you think there are wealthy farmers working a few rai?

 

You could give farmers the shirt off your back and they would still moan it's not enough. They bury farmers two feet down so they can still stick their hand out.

[Srikcir]

2 minutes ago, halloween said:

What evidence? Innumerable campaign speeches by Yingluk et al alleging that the pledging scheme was to help the 'poorest' farmers.

Doesn't answer my question of your evidence that the program was not intended to help rich and middle-income farmers. Certainly, Yingluck was focused on the poorest farmers. But your supposition is that her program deliberately intended to also benefit other farmers: "It was not supposed to help rich farmers, or even those with middle income..." To say otherwise suggests Yingluck was a victim of serendipity. That would not be a fault or crime.

Maybe you meant the program had an unintended consequence that it helped other framers than the poorest. That's possible as an oversight as her focus was on the poorest farmers. It's also possible she considered the spinoff benefits to the minority rich and middle-income farmers to be the political "price" paid to benefit the majority poorest farmers. I've not heard of rich and middle-income rice farmers protesting receipt of rice subsidies that they didn't deserve nor demanding that the government take their subsidies back.

 

[OJAS]

On 8/23/2017 at 0:17 PM, billd766 said:

Suthep Thaugsuban again IMHO should be blacklisted from politics for the rest of his life, and totally ignored by the Democrats.

Yep, I would personally compare his disruptive actions to those of that arch-Remoaner, Gina Miller, back in our home country, Bill.

 

As for Abhisit, he needs to take a leaf out of the book of his old Eton pal, David Cameron, and disappear into total obscurity, I think.

[halloween]

23 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Doesn't answer my question of your evidence that the program was not intended to help rich and middle-income farmers. Certainly, Yingluck was focused on the poorest farmers. But your supposition is that her program deliberately intended to also benefit other farmers: "It was not supposed to help rich farmers, or even those with middle income..." To say otherwise suggests Yingluck was a victim of serendipity. That would not be a fault or crime.

Maybe you meant the program had an unintended consequence that it helped other framers than the poorest. That's possible as an oversight as her focus was on the poorest farmers. It's also possible she considered the spinoff benefits to the minority rich and middle-income farmers to be the political "price" paid to benefit the majority poorest farmers. I've not heard of rich and middle-income rice farmers protesting receipt of rice subsidies that they didn't deserve nor demanding that the government take their subsidies back.

 

Perhaps I should have been more specific and said 'stated intention'. But payment to the well off can hardly be called an 'unintended consequence' when no farm size or income level limitations were set. That, and the lack of rent and fertilizer price freeze makes the policy look like something drawn up on a beer coaster after a long drinking session - stupid, inept and full of wishful thinking.

[LannaGuy]

23 hours ago, halloween said:

What evidence? Innumerable campaign speeches by Yingluk et al alleging that the pledging scheme was to help the 'poorest' farmers. Later this was modified to 'poor' farmers, and in her defence both terms were dropped, probably because it is obvious it did no such thing.

 

A policy to estimated to cost a huge amount of state money could be politically acceptable if it was to help the poor/poorest. Giving state funds to the well off and wealthy to buy their votes and elicit campaign contributions is not, and many would consider it corrupt.

 

The limitation on farm size is the key factor, why belittle it? Do you think there are wealthy farmers working a few rai?

 

You could give farmers the shirt off your back and they would still moan it's not enough. They bury farmers two feet down so they can still stick their hand out.

No corruption here, just more baseless defamation,  move along   

[halloween]

12 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

No corruption here, just more baseless defamation,  move along   

You want corruption, why was Siam Indiga given an agency behind closed doors to sell G2G rice to Indonesia? The company was run by Apichart, an associate of Thaksin already given preferential treatment, whose earlier company President Agri went bust owing the commerce dept B6 billion. Where is the due diligence? In fact, why was an agent needed at all in a G2G deal?

That deal paid SI B900 million, of the B3.3 billion the government lost on it. Does that sound like corrupt to you?

[LannaGuy]

1 minute ago, halloween said:

You want corruption, why was Siam Indiga given an agency behind closed doors to sell G2G rice to Indonesia? The company was run by Apichart, an associate of Thaksin already given preferential treatment, whose earlier company President Agri went bust owing the commerce dept B6 billion. Where is the due diligence? In fact, why was an agent needed at all in a G2G deal?

That deal paid SI B900 million, of the B3.3 billion the government lost on it. Does that sound like corrupt to you?

I'd have to go very deep into the detail and not succumb to being an 'expert' like yourself. Any corruption should be reported and dealt with by the Police - and it wasn't. You're just a hater.

[halloween]

3 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

I'd have to go very deep into the detail and not succumb to being an 'expert' like yourself. Any corruption should be reported and dealt with by the Police - and it wasn't. You're just a hater.

Actually it was an article in the Nation in 2012. That the matter wasn't investigated is a good comment on the Thai democracy, or its lack of it.

 

Yes, I hate corruption. It comes with morality.

[LannaGuy]

3 minutes ago, halloween said:

Actually it was an article in the Nation in 2012. That the matter wasn't investigated is a good comment on the Thai democracy, or its lack of it.

 

Yes, I hate corruption. It comes with morality.

I hate corruption too but you also hate Yingluck and it has made you venomous. You will come back and say "I dont hate Yingluck I hate corruption' but that is diversion and untrue. No point in any more ping pong on this. 

[halloween]

18 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

I hate corruption too but you also hate Yingluck and it has made you venomous. You will come back and say "I dont hate Yingluck I hate corruption' but that is diversion and untrue. No point in any more ping pong on this. 

Perhaps you should read today's BP analysis of the rice scam. 4 experts and a farmer's rep, the experts pointing out what a disaster it was, and the farmer's rep making stupid little statements of absolutely zero credibility. Much like you.

Edited August 25, 2017 by halloween

[mike324]

11 minutes ago, halloween said:

Perhaps you should read today's BP analysis of the rice scam. 3 experts and a farmer's rep, the experts pointing out what a disaster it was, and the farmer's rep making stupid little statements of absolutely zero credibility. Much like you.

can't blame LannaGuy, he has been a long time Yingluck supporter, we all have our own bias

[mike324]

32 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

I'd have to go very deep into the detail and not succumb to being an 'expert' like yourself. Any corruption should be reported and dealt with by the Police - and it wasn't. You're just a hater.

calling out someone a hater when they are just requoting a news article ... not sure who is more of a hater

[binjalin]

5 minutes ago, mike324 said:

calling out someone a hater when they are just requoting a news article ... not sure who is more of a hater

The article is about farmers defending the ex-MP and Mr Bearboxer has a history of posts that reveal his view which is, I must say, very right wing. Everyone is entitled to their view but extremes, on either side, should not be welcomed.

 

[halloween]

24 minutes ago, binjalin said:

The article is about farmers defending the ex-MP and Mr Bearboxer has a history of posts that reveal his view which is, I must say, very right wing. Everyone is entitled to their view but extremes, on either side, should not be welcomed.

 

Amongst your other inaccuracies, you must be looking at the either the wrong article or ignoring 90% of the content (I suspect the latter).

An ex-DPM, Yingluk's finance minister (not at all complimentary), a TDRI fellow, and Thai Rice Exporters Association honorary president, and a farmer's association rep, all crapping on the scam from great height except the farmer deep in denial (why not, he got his).

[binjalin]

9 minutes ago, halloween said:

Amongst your other inaccuracies, you must be looking at the either the wrong article or ignoring 90% of the content (I suspect the latter).

An ex-DPM, Yingluk's finance minister (not at all complimentary), a TDRI fellow, and Thai Rice Exporters Association honorary president, and a farmer's association rep, all crapping on the scam from great height except the farmer deep in denial (why not, he got his).

The scheme failed due to price shifts. The intention was honorable. A scam indicates the PM made graft and that has not been shown nor proven anywhere. This has kilos to run and run.