Defence of rice scheme leaves questions unanswered
Play
Re: "Academics exchange salvos: Let the real debate begin", Thai Talk, November 29.
I have respect for the academics on both sides of this rice-pledging argument. However, there are two questions Professor Nidhi Iewsriwongse must answer to the public for the sake of clarity:
First, Nidhi claimed that the financial losses from the government’s rice pledging project in the past year should be between Bt50 billion to Bt100 billion, and that they should be considered insignificant.
On the other hand, we have Thailand Development Research Institute academics Nibhon Purpongsakorn and Ammar Siamwalla countering Nidhi’s claim. They say the costs would be no less than Bt173 billion – or much higher. They also support their claims with detailed and categorised numbers.
The question is: While the government is still reluctant to give specific numbers on the costs of this project, where did Nidhi get his numbers to be so audacious in his claim? We the people would like to see them too. In any economic argument, numbers and graphics to support your ideas are essential.
Second, Nidhi claimed that while Thailand’s farmers account for 40 per cent of its population, in developed countries the number has come down to only 4-8 per cent; and Thailand is heading along that trend. I support this claim of his: in the US, the number is less than 3 per cent.
However, since the number of farmers is falling everywhere anyway, why shouldn’t we use a trillion baht or so – which this rice pledging scheme is going to cost during the government’s four-year term – on education reform instead? Wouldn’t that be the better way to spend the money?
To sum up, Nidhi must not duck from this gauntlet thrown at him by the two TDRI academics. I also would like to see Nidhi’s argument to be more academic than political, as was the last one.
Vint Chavala
Lamphun
