Subsidies should go to poor farmers only

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 07, 2013
Subsidies should go to poor farmers only

No wonder the rubber growers fail to agree with the government on rubber prices, for when it comes to rubber, the government (rightfully) insists that it has no policy of intervening in the market - yet that's precisely what it blatantly has been doing wi

The government says that the two cases are different, alleging that it controls the world rice market – but if so, why have world rice prices dropped since the rice scheme came out, why are our rice silos bulging, and why have we lost our position in the world market? Pinocchio, your nose is growing to the max.
I suggest using principles, not partisanship, to tackle problems, including in agriculture. Our objective should be to aid poor farmers in the long-term. Thus, recipients must be poor, they must be farmers, and main benefits must be long-term. For example, buying rice means that those who grow only enough for their own consumption are left in the cold, and this must be changed. Giving cash helps only in the short-term, and the bulk of funds should be aimed towards long-term benefits, eg, subsidies for adding value to rice/rubber, training for more rewarding occupations, or improving irrigation. This means that the government will have to eat humble pie in many instances, but much better that than throwing good money after bad.
As for the protesters, the authorities should rigorously apply rule of law, respecting minority rights as well as those of the majority. The protesters must be able to put their case before the public and the government, and have the right to be treated in an impartial manner. But protesters have no right to hold their localities to hostage by blocking roads, etc. Yingluck must enable free and innocent passage of all goods and services, using minimum force if necessary, and using cops/troops from the locality involved who know the language and culture. Protesters must be held accountable for their actions, both in court and by being held accountable for an economic damage caused. Thus, for example, while permits for non-violent protests must always be issued providing clear criteria are met, one of those criteria must be bank guarantees to cover possible direct/indirect damage from the protest.
Let’s have principle-based leadership for a change, instead of the partisan mess we’re in.
Best,
Burin Kantabutra