Yingluck’s rice scheme hit with Accounting, Financial, Food Quality Standards; But Pest Control Standard?

rice serving bowl in a Thai restaurant in Stut...

rice serving bowl in a Thai restaurant in Stuttgart, Germany (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Critics of Yingluck’s rice subsidy scheme, is scraping up every and anything under the sun, to trash this policy of hers.

The latest, is a battle in trying to calculate the loss of the rice scheme, and a war over accounting standard has erupted. Overall, supporter of the Yingluck’s scheme says the subsidy program is not over and books closed yet so that calculating the loss at this point makes no sense, but the scheme critics, insists, that a loss can already be calculated, with the battle-line between the two sides now have deteriorated to a argument about accounting standard about how to value goods stock, with the hate Yingluck Bangkok Post opinion piece saying, “Buy high, sell cheap, means loss” when every side accepts there is a loss, but the question is what level.

Then on Social Network, those that support Yingluck says, but the money that was pumped into the rice farmers hands, from the subsidy, has actually went circulating in the economy generating a money multiplier of about 3 to 5 times, so actually, the rice scheme impact on the economy overall, is a net gain. That argument, at even at one of Thailand’s most popular web-board, on this, caused a big argument, about financial standard, as how to calculate a government’s program, overall, costs and benefit to the economy.

Then for months now, there has been an argument in Thailand, about the quality of Thai rice in the warehouses, with critics saying it is poor quality, not actual proof of course. So, believe it or not, now there is an argument going about how to define quality, so another argument on food quality standard, with the argument that can only be made sense of, with the insane people of Thailand, like a journalist saying, “Eat certain brand of Thai rice and die in five minutes.”

Thai Intel suspects, that sooner or later, the argument, in trying to trash Yingluck’s rice scheme, will be about pest control standard as well, as some have reported that pest is a problem at the warehouses storing the rice. Then maybe sooner or later, an argument over the packaging quality standard of Thai rice. Then perhaps later also an argument over rice cooker standard. Then perhaps an argument over rice eating method standard.

But one thing nobody is arguing about, is that the Thai Rice farmers and Farmers Association of Thailand, today, said they will support Yingluck in the next general election. I guess the Thai rice farmers turns out to have made up their minds who is the good guys and who is the bad guys, without having to argue about it much. Meanwhile, global press like Reuters and Bloomberg are screaming “Evil Yingluck Vote Buying” mentioning nothing of the west’s various “Farm Bill” like in USA, only 2% of the population are farmers, but the farm Bill there is some US$20 to 30 billion. Then Eurozone various farm bill? How did the London HQ Reuters ever missed that? (Source: Several Thai press)


5 thoughts on “Yingluck’s rice scheme hit with Accounting, Financial, Food Quality Standards; But Pest Control Standard?

  1. Though i haven’t much heard much about it, but i can at least say that Quality Rice (Was it long grain rice?? i don’t remember) was an export competency commodity for Thailand against other Asian counterparts in the past. But now, i hear that other nations like India (especially) is significantly overtaking Thailand in this matter… Why do you think this actually happened? and do you think rice subsidy will help stakeholders influenced by this change?

    • It is hard for people like u know what is really going on, because the likes of Reuters and Bloomberg and most of the global press is against Yingluck’s rice subsidy. But check deeper, and u will see that Thailand is still the number 1 rice exporter globally, on “value” but no-longer on volume. This information, is about 99% censored by all press, Thai or global. I support the policy, because Yingluck is a force of democratization of Thailand and the farmers vote is important to win the election, meaning, the rice scheme helped democracy developed in Thailand. On liberal economics, Thai rice farmers are poor & taken advantaged of for decades so I welcome how they can benefit from it. I am also a staunch nationalist and concern about the cost and loss, but as an economist, I see the money multiplier effect, from the subsidy, benefiting the economy, overall, more than the cost and loss.

  2. It is very true that we exceptionally depend on pro-Western media or the mass media in retrieving international news and reviews. It takes a direct connection with a daring individual as yourself in order to retrieve the info that potentially contradicts the mass-media consensus.

    Technically, in regards to Thailand and other ASEAN nations, we mostly depend on Asia News Net (AAN) for the info. AAN highlights news regarding the concern of rice-pledging scheme over the limited budget of Thai government. However, i couldn’t find articles relating to the Multiplier effect of the policy.

    Thanks for discussing the potential positive side of the policy.. 🙂

    Courtesy: prienceshrestha.wordpress.com

    • Money multiplier is a fact of economics, please search Wikipedia for the general meaning of the concept. On this in Thailand, there have been little news from the mainstream press, local of global, as it is censored out. But the talk of money multiplier as related to the rice scheme, is all over the social network, citing even Thailand’s finance minister Kittirat talking about it. Kittirat basically said, with the slow global economy, the rice scheme is also designed not only to help the farmers, but the Thai economy weather the slowdown by focusing on internal engine of growth and that the money multiplier effect is about 3 to 4 times, money pumped into the economy. On social network, there is an argument on this, some say only 2 times, other said 5 times.

      • Sounds interesting.. And, i have heard about multiplier effects during my investment and economics lectures. I believe i should have incorporated it in my past articles for a different issue. This knowledge should help me acknowledge your logic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s