UDD: Can academics do better?

News > Local News

Published: 3 Oct 2012 at 16.15
Online news: Local News

Korkaew Pikulthong, a co-leader of the red-shirt United front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) on Wednesday challenged academics at the National Institute of Development Administration (Nida) to come up with a better rice pledging scheme.

He was responding to the move by a group of 146 academics and students at Nida to petition the Constitution Court to call a halt to the scheme, arguing that it violates the constitution which promotes free trade and prohibits the state from competing in business with the private sector.

Mr Korkaew said on Wednesday that he rejected their argument and the court challenge and supported the rice pledging scheme being implemented by the Pheu Thai-led government.

This article is older than 60 days, which we reserve for our premium members only.You can subscribe to our premium member subscription, here.

Forum

Your comments

onlyme
Post : 441
Send message

Discussion 19 : 03 Oct 2012 at 21.1519
Post this to my Facebook
I do believe that one of the suggestions from the 'academics' was to limit the amount of pledged rice to around 25 tons so that smaller farmers would benefit versus the larger conglomerates. There were other suggestions that made sense toward the little guy winning instead of the big guys and at the same time limiting government liabilities so K. Korkaew there at least seems to be more thought toward the real benefit of the real needy. How they then spend the money is up to them and if it is for education or consumption will indeed help the country versus going into a conglomerates shareholders accounts.
Like dislike 8 people liked / 0 people disliked this comment
khunbj
Post : 1,123
Send message

Discussion 18 : 03 Oct 2012 at 20.5918
Post this to my Facebook
bkk farang...have you checked what 5 % is in THB/ton ? around 800THB lmao don't believe what you read, of course they do not now receive 800 THB per ton instead of the 8-9000 THB they received before this scheme .... I saw the no and shook my head and I am still hoping it was just a printing failure else the democrats and academics that mentioned this number really need to go back to school ! And it does not make it more right when commenters use it as an argument because it remains wrong.
Like dislike 2 people liked / 7 people disliked this comment
bern1005
Post : 686
Send message

Discussion 17 : 03 Oct 2012 at 20.3017
Post this to my Facebook
A lot of noise and nonsense from Korkaew BUT one surprising good idea... it would be good the academics will propose a better way of helping small farmers (without damaging the country).
Like dislike 6 people liked / 4 people disliked this comment
bkk-farang
Post : 2,452
Send message

Discussion 16 : 03 Oct 2012 at 20.1616
Post this to my Facebook
@bula #7, you write “The scheme is to help raise the quality of life of rice farmers and encourage them to stay in farming and not get peanut from middlemen etc.”
This is exactly the critical point. If the scheme would actually help the poor farmers then almost all people (also in this forum when I look at the comments) would accept it. The big point from the academics and many other critics is that the scheme helps the middlemen and it helps the politicians through corruption. According to what I read only 5% of the money ends up in the hands of the farmers. Is this what you want? Even for PT supporters and red-shirts I can’t believe that you think 5% from all that money going to the poor farmers is enough. Change the scheme so that the farmers receive at least 80%!
Like dislike 12 people liked / 3 people disliked this comment
jacksprat
Post : 2,556
Send message

Discussion 15 : 03 Oct 2012 at 19.3415
Post this to my Facebook
Can the academics do better? It would be hard for them to do worse.
Like dislike 14 people liked / 4 people disliked this comment
khunbj
Post : 1,123
Send message

Discussion 14 : 03 Oct 2012 at 18.4214
Post this to my Facebook
One of the things that a society should expect is to have academics that dare give their bids on the direction of the society, how to develop from where it is to the next stage, they should write books, do thesis on it but I think it is fair to say that they have failed or let's say not yet delivered.
The Thai society is very conservative and power is gathered in Bangkok, and this is where development goes on. That has to change, focus has to be directed at the part of Thailand where most people live, focus and work should be done to empower the people there, to give them a choice beside from rice farming. The area must be industrialized and proper infrastructure facilitating this must be brought in place as quickly as possible, that is the only way forward. The concentration of power in Bangkok and it's proximity must end.
Like dislike 12 people liked / 7 people disliked this comment
genii
Post : 771
Send message

Discussion 13 : 03 Oct 2012 at 18.3813
Post this to my Facebook
The farmers are happy with this scheme. Rice is Thailands biggest domestic product. Be careful and do not slap the hand that feeds you. Thailand wants to remain the #1 rice exporter in the world and will with happy farmers. If there's corruption then seek it out and clean it up but do not put the farmers deeper in dept.
Like dislike 10 people liked / 6 people disliked this comment
bikeme
Post : 1,154
Send message

Discussion 12 : 03 Oct 2012 at 18.1112
Post this to my Facebook
Korkeaw seems to forget that the oil producing nations banded together to control the prices of oil. One country by itself can not control world market prices.
Like dislike 11 people liked / 7 people disliked this comment
DONHUAN
Post : 365
Send message

Discussion 11 : 03 Oct 2012 at 18.0611
Post this to my Facebook
“Without oil people can survive, but without food, including rice, they would die,” he said. What kind of people would contemplate enriching themselves at the expense of the poor? Artificially inflating the price of our rice, which is a staple food for million of people in Asia, so that our poor farmers can have a better life for themselves will inflict bad “karma” upon the Thai people. And we are supposed to be a Buddhist country with compassion for our fellow human beings.
Grant incentives to improve irrigation, better agriculture techniques on a sustainable basis. Again, new techniques such as integrated rice/fish farming or optimizing farm land with off-season prawn farming can further enrich our farmers. Rice farming should not be the main source of income.
240 billion baht had been expended in the first year and when we extrapolate it to 3 years, this will amount to trillions of Baht. Yet after all this, they are not even sure the scheme will “… fulfilled the set objectives”.
Like dislike 10 people liked / 6 people disliked this comment
spiceman
Post : 3,561
Send message

Discussion 10 : 03 Oct 2012 at 18.0310
Post this to my Facebook
Limited and non-renewable crude oil, which mainly comes from the Middle East, is also known as "Black Gold," as no modern economy can live without, or risk being push back into Stone Age. For rice, there are Thai rice, Vietnamese rice, Indian rice, and even Uncle Ben American rice. So, can people live without Thai rice? You bet, they can and without slight inconvenient whatsoever. Someone needs to teach basic Economics to the Red Shirts, seriously!
Like dislike 20 people liked / 6 people disliked this comment