Admin_2 Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Thailand slips down to 3rd spot In the year to date, Thailand has fallen to third place among the world's top rice exporting countries, exporting 5.2 million tonnes of rice compared to Vietnam's 5.9 million tonnes and India's 5.6 million tonnes, said Tikhumporn Natvaratat, deputy director-general of the Foreign Trade Department. Exporters have blamed the government's rice pledging scheme for a sharp drop in exports by 47% this year. But Mr Tikhumporn said Thai rice is being sold at higher prices than in the past, earning US$3.5 billion (108 billion baht) for its 5.2 million tonnes, while Vietnam received $4.45 billion and India fetched $2.99 billion. He expects rice exports this year to reach 7.5 million tonnes, down from last year's 10.6 million tonnes. The government has shipped out about 1.3-1.4 million tonnes of rice under government-to-government contracts, with exporters reporting sales of about 3.9 million tonnes as of Oct 18. Despite the decline in volume, Mr Tikhumporn said the country will continue to lead the market because India might experience a slowdown due to delivery problems while Vietnam is facing drought. I love how the gov is still trying to reason why they are number one by saying that their rice is more expensive, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarangFarang Posted October 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Thailand slips down to 3rd spot In the year to date, Thailand has fallen to third place among the world's top rice exporting countries, exporting 5.2 million tonnes of rice compared to Vietnam's 5.9 million tonnes and India's 5.6 million tonnes, said Tikhumporn Natvaratat, deputy director-general of the Foreign Trade Department. Exporters have blamed the government's rice pledging scheme for a sharp drop in exports by 47% this year. But Mr Tikhumporn said Thai rice is being sold at higher prices than in the past, earning US$3.5 billion (108 billion baht) for its 5.2 million tonnes, while Vietnam received $4.45 billion and India fetched $2.99 billion. He expects rice exports this year to reach 7.5 million tonnes, down from last year's 10.6 million tonnes. The government has shipped out about 1.3-1.4 million tonnes of rice under government-to-government contracts, with exporters reporting sales of about 3.9 million tonnes as of Oct 18. Despite the decline in volume, Mr Tikhumporn said the country will continue to lead the market because India might experience a slowdown due to delivery problems while Vietnam is facing drought. I love how the gov is still trying to reason why they are number one by saying that their rice is more expensive, lol. Like, We may not sell a lot of rice but when we find a sucker, we bend them over and drive it home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranM Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Like, We may not sell a lot of rice but when we find a sucker, we bend them over and drive it home. and apart from the fact that Vietnam is selling MORE rice than Thailand and getting a BETTER price for it ... all is good !! now who actually voted for these fuckwits !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarangFarang Posted November 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 A rice deal that never existed in the first placeThe truth is out, that the Commerce Ministry's claim of a 15-million-tonne government-to-government rice deal with China over three years is anything but real. There is a popular Thai saying that goes along these lines: “A dead elephant cannot be covered up by lotus leaves.” This is exactly the situation facing the Commerce Ministry – there is a dead elephant in its front yard and it is trying desperately to cover it up with lotus leaves, or with whatever is handy. In this case, the dead elephant is the controversial rice pledging scheme, which has already filled the country’s warehouses with some 10 million tonnes of unsold milled rice with another 30 million tonnes of paddy from the new harvest season to be bought under the scheme, milled and then stored in wherever empty space is available - such as an aircraft hangar, or in a military base somewhere. The 15 million tonnes of milled rice that the Commerce Ministry earlier claimed to have been sold to China in a government-to-government deal over three years, of five million tonnes annually, under a memorandum of understanding (MoU) hastily approved by the Thai cabinet on Nov 6 turns out to be a complete fantasy. There is no such deal at all, according to the MoU which was actually signed on Wednesday at Government House between Commerce Minister Boonsong Teriyapirom and his Chinese counterpart Chen Deming and witnessed by visiting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. In the MoU there is no mention whatsoever of anything which indicates that China will definitely buy rice from Thailand. There is no mention whatsoever of the amount of rice to be bought by China, or the value of the rice, or the delivery timeframe. The closest thing to a rice deal is the mention in the MoU that both China and Thailand will support their respective governmental and private sectors to push for bilateral rice trade and to secure rice markets. So, where did the 15 million tonnes figure come from in the first place? Was it made up by the Thai Commerce Ministry to give the impression that it had secured a rice deal with China, to ease the pressure from criticism of the rice pledging scheme, without the knowledge or consent of the Chinese side? The fact is that the MoU approved by the Thai cabinet at the Nov 6 meeting chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung, while Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra was abroad, was just a draft and was not seen by the Chinese. So when they actually saw the document, it had been radically changed. And the real MoU is the one that was signed on Wednesday – the one which does not bind China in any way whatsoever to buy rice from Thailand on a government-to-government deal. Now you can see why the Commerce Ministry was so reluctant to reveal any details about the draft MoU, claiming it was classified. Do they really believe that they can forever hide from the public and the media that there is, in fact, no rice deal at all, even after the MoU was formally signed? I really cannot understand the mindset, or the IQ, of the people in the Commerce Ministry who think they can fool the Thai public all the time with this shallow fantasy. Another warning. Do not confuse this MoU with the rice deal which was inked on the same day, and also witnessed by Chinese Premier Wen, at the Thai Chamber of Commerce. It is a separate deal under which China’s state firm, Cofco, will buy 240,000 tonnes of milled rice worth about 6.24 billion baht from three Thai rice exporters, Asia Golden Rice (120,000 tonnes), Thai Fah (100,000 tonnes) and CP Group (40,000 tonnes). There is talk by government officials that the private sector’s rice deal was due to the government’s efforts to export rice – which is another lie. This is understandable, that the Commerce Ministry is so desperate to dispose of its huge rice stock that it would claim credit for every rice deal, even the one clinched by the private sector. The government, and the Commerce Ministry in particular, is caught in a serious dilemma. It cannot just dump the rice stockpile on the world market at a fire sale price without inviting uproar from the US, which has already raised questions with the World Trade Organisation about the rice pledging scheme, and harsh comment from critics at home. Also, selling off the rice stock at a low price would be an acceptance of the failure of the scheme, and of the brains behind it, and the claim the scheme will actually help boost rice prices in the world market. On the other hand, if the rice stockpiles are left unsold, they risk being eaten up by rice bugs or rot the longer they are kept, and there would still be no more room available to store the new rice, about 30 million tonnes of paddy to be bought with another 300 billion baht of taxpayers’ money at above market prices. The rice pledging scheme is worse than a dead elephant -- and stinks even more, too. But the very worst problem is, when will the Thai public wake up to this destructive scheme and realise that it benefits only a certain party, politicians and crooked businessmen, and not the poor farmers it was supposedly intended to help? http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/322579/a-rice-deal-that-never-exists-in-the-first-place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarangFarang Posted November 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 A rice deal that never existed in the first placeThe truth is out, that the Commerce Ministry's claim of a 15-million-tonne government-to-government rice deal with China over three years is anything but real. There is a popular Thai saying that goes along these lines: “A dead elephant cannot be covered up by lotus leaves.†This is exactly the situation facing the Commerce Ministry – there is a dead elephant in its front yard and it is trying desperately to cover it up with lotus leaves, or with whatever is handy. In this case, the dead elephant is the controversial rice pledging scheme, which has already filled the country’s warehouses with some 10 million tonnes of unsold milled rice with another 30 million tonnes of paddy from the new harvest season to be bought under the scheme, milled and then stored in wherever empty space is available - such as an aircraft hangar, or in a military base somewhere. The 15 million tonnes of milled rice that the Commerce Ministry earlier claimed to have been sold to China in a government-to-government deal over three years, of five million tonnes annually, under a memorandum of understanding (MoU) hastily approved by the Thai cabinet on Nov 6 turns out to be a complete fantasy. There is no such deal at all, according to the MoU which was actually signed on Wednesday at Government House between Commerce Minister Boonsong Teriyapirom and his Chinese counterpart Chen Deming and witnessed by visiting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. In the MoU there is no mention whatsoever of anything which indicates that China will definitely buy rice from Thailand. There is no mention whatsoever of the amount of rice to be bought by China, or the value of the rice, or the delivery timeframe. The closest thing to a rice deal is the mention in the MoU that both China and Thailand will support their respective governmental and private sectors to push for bilateral rice trade and to secure rice markets. So, where did the 15 million tonnes figure come from in the first place? Was it made up by the Thai Commerce Ministry to give the impression that it had secured a rice deal with China, to ease the pressure from criticism of the rice pledging scheme, without the knowledge or consent of the Chinese side? The fact is that the MoU approved by the Thai cabinet at the Nov 6 meeting chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung, while Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra was abroad, was just a draft and was not seen by the Chinese. So when they actually saw the document, it had been radically changed. And the real MoU is the one that was signed on Wednesday – the one which does not bind China in any way whatsoever to buy rice from Thailand on a government-to-government deal. Now you can see why the Commerce Ministry was so reluctant to reveal any details about the draft MoU, claiming it was classified. Do they really believe that they can forever hide from the public and the media that there is, in fact, no rice deal at all, even after the MoU was formally signed? I really cannot understand the mindset, or the IQ, of the people in the Commerce Ministry who think they can fool the Thai public all the time with this shallow fantasy. Another warning. Do not confuse this MoU with the rice deal which was inked on the same day, and also witnessed by Chinese Premier Wen, at the Thai Chamber of Commerce. It is a separate deal under which China’s state firm, Cofco, will buy 240,000 tonnes of milled rice worth about 6.24 billion baht from three Thai rice exporters, Asia Golden Rice (120,000 tonnes), Thai Fah (100,000 tonnes) and CP Group (40,000 tonnes). There is talk by government officials that the private sector’s rice deal was due to the government’s efforts to export rice – which is another lie. This is understandable, that the Commerce Ministry is so desperate to dispose of its huge rice stock that it would claim credit for every rice deal, even the one clinched by the private sector. The government, and the Commerce Ministry in particular, is caught in a serious dilemma. It cannot just dump the rice stockpile on the world market at a fire sale price without inviting uproar from the US, which has already raised questions with the World Trade Organisation about the rice pledging scheme, and harsh comment from critics at home. Also, selling off the rice stock at a low price would be an acceptance of the failure of the scheme, and of the brains behind it, and the claim the scheme will actually help boost rice prices in the world market. On the other hand, if the rice stockpiles are left unsold, they risk being eaten up by rice bugs or rot the longer they are kept, and there would still be no more room available to store the new rice, about 30 million tonnes of paddy to be bought with another 300 billion baht of taxpayers’ money at above market prices. The rice pledging scheme is worse than a dead elephant -- and stinks even more, too. But the very worst problem is, when will the Thai public wake up to this destructive scheme and realise that it benefits only a certain party, politicians and crooked businessmen, and not the poor farmers it was supposedly intended to help? http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/322579/a-rice-deal-that-never-exists-in-the-first-place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranM Posted November 23, 2012 Report Share Posted November 23, 2012 The rice pledging scheme is worse than a dead elephant -- and stinks even more, too. But the very worst problem is, when will the Thai public wake up to this destructive scheme and realise that it benefits only a certain party, politicians and crooked businessmen, and not the poor farmers it was supposedly intended to help? i'm shocked ... who'd a *******-thought it !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarangFarang Posted November 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2012 i'm shocked ... who'd a fucking-thought it !!! The most depressing part in all of this is that you can see this coming a mile away. Every economist who looked at this did a spit-take. Basically, PT took the country's future and placed it on 23 Red. If their number hits they all get rich and look like heros and don't have to worry about keeping office for another 10 years. If it fails, they all get rich and they can claim if Thaksin was back here this wouldn't have happened. Win-win, as they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaunitz Posted November 23, 2012 Report Share Posted November 23, 2012 I'm a bit confused and if my assumptions are true, I will be shocked. Hasn't China learned from the failure of its "Great Jump Forward" where millions of peasants died of hunger because they were forced to produce steel (or something they thought would be steel but turned out to be full crap)? China used to be the biggest rice producer of the world and now, it needs imports? Sad enough! I see the benefit of a rice (or whatever basic food industry) subsidy as long as it is to the benefit of the producing population, but for export, and then even with huge losses? I am not an economist at all but I am sure I could do better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarangFarang Posted November 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2012 I'm a bit confused and if my assumptions are true, I will be shocked. Hasn't China learned from the failure of its "Great Jump Forward" where millions of peasants died of hunger because they were forced to produce steel (or something they thought would be steel but turned out to be full crap)? China used to be the biggest rice producer of the world and now, it needs imports? Sad enough!I see the benefit of a rice (or whatever basic food industry) subsidy as long as it is to the benefit of the producing population, but for export, and then even with huge losses? I am not an economist at all but I am sure I could do better! Anybody can do better, that's the problem. The rice scheme made no fiscal or economic sense unless the price of rice stayed high. I think the knuckleheads who thought of this figured that if Thailand pulled their rice from the world supply that it would drive up prices and they would make some serious bank by buying low from the farmers (but still above market rates), creating an artificial shortage by witholding their rice, and then dump the rice on the market at the higher rates. But those idiots didn't factor in that rice is a crop that can be grown in many parts of the world. For as much fretting the Thais do about the fact that they have the best rice, most people don't care and will buy whatever fills their bellies. This should have been evident after the last rice shortage a few years back. But, I guess if you don't ever read about what happens outside of Thailand you can fool yourself into believing that the world will just roll over and take it. And that's exactly what has happened. After the last rice shortage other countries went into full production mode and have started growing rice like crazy so they don't get caught again. When Thailand pulled their rice from the world supply Vietnam, India, etc all stepped in and sold their rice. And people don't seem to care if it's not official Thai Jasmine rice. It's rice and it serves the purpose of feeding people which is all they care about. Now the Thai government is sitting on millions of tonnes of rice it can't get rid of after having paid over top-dollar for it and they don't want to admit they painted themselves into a corner. Unfortunately, it won't be the morons who came up with the scheme that will suffer. It'll be, as always, the farmers and people who can least afford to take the hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranM Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 Unfortunately, it won't be the morons who came up with the scheme that will suffer. It'll be, as always, the farmers and people who can least afford to take the hit. true ... but the farmers and poor in thailand will still sell their votes to these morons ... so who r really the morons ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarangFarang Posted November 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 true ... but the farmers and poor in thailand will still sell their votes to these morons ... so who r really the morons ?? Tis true. There's always that point where you feel bad for what's happening and then you remember that the reason that it's happening is because people are letting it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranM Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Tis true. There's always that point where you feel bad for what's happening and then you remember that the reason that it's happening is because people are letting it happen. it's depressing sometimes ... but then i think ... **** it, it's their country, i'm gonna have another beer !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaunitz Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 it's depressing sometimes ... but then i think ... **** it, it's their country, i'm gonna have another beer !! Generally correct. But the outcome will affect all Thais, including my wife and therefore up to a certain degree also me. That IS worrying a bit, at least! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarangFarang Posted November 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Generally correct. But the outcome will affect all Thais, including my wife and therefore up to a certain degree also me. That IS worrying a bit, at least! LOL. I love the way you can turn it around and make it about you :-) Person 1: Well, thank god. It could have been worse.Person 2: How? Person 1: It could have impacted me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiAnt Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 I think we're all losing sight of the real issue here, which is what are we going to call ourselves? I'm leaning towards Thailandfrienders with A Thought - TWATs, or Gross negligence Isn't That nice - GITs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiAnt Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 I agree with "Generally correct." (I'm actually going to try and use that in context.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaunitz Posted December 26, 2012 Report Share Posted December 26, 2012 LOL. I love the way you can turn it around and make it about you :-) Basically not my style but necessary at times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now