The political bickering over how to help farmers suffering from low rice prices does not serve any purpose except exacerbating their hardship.
Without a sincere halt to politicising rice prices, it is the rice farmers -- the very people everyone agrees deserve assistance -- who are destined to suffer the most.
The words from Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha may sound harsh, that eventually Thailand will have to reduce its rice-growing areas while increasing productivity and efficiency to stay profitable, but they are true.
The reality is that rice is a commodity traded in the world market. As other rice-growing countries, namely Vietnam and Cambodia, manage to increase their yields per rai each year and sell rice at markedly lower prices, Thai farmers will have no choice but to stay competitive.
There seems to be no shortage of what people think the country's rice farming sector should be like in the next five to 20 years and what will it take for us to get there. Academic think-tanks and rice researchers agree the future lies in improving the quality of Thai rice while using technology and innovation to increase productivity.
State subsidies may be necessary in the short and medium term as rice farmers try to make the necessary transition but the consensus is there that the help is not sustainable. In the long run, rice farmers must be able to stand on their own feet and earn a profit from their grain by themselves.
Unfortunately, the long-term goals and efforts that should be expended to realise them as quickly and painlessly for all involved as possible are lost in the ongoing political squabbling.
It is sad to see political conflicts that have dogged the country for decades prevailing over rice policies and development as well. Even now that all sides should have joined hands to help rice farmers suffering from low grain prices, jostling for political gain remains the name of the game.
Former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra's initiative to buy rice directly from farmers and resell it to urban consumers at cost is not a bad idea. It is based on the same principle as other attempts to help farmers by providing them free space to sell their produce or creating online channels to link them directly to consumers while circumventing middlemen who may try to unfairly suppress prices.
It must be remembered that for rice farmers any help in releasing their stocks now would be better than a long-term dream. It is thus very sad that instead of inspiring others to help farmers go through short-term hardship, the former premier and her party seem to be more bent on using the attempt as a publicity stunt.
Her latest campaign, organising an event at her home to promote a variety of rice dishes supposedly to boost domestic consumption and by extension push up rice prices, appears too ineffectual to be taken seriously. The truth remains that it is Ms Yingluck's government that launched the massive rice subsidy scheme that not only caused huge financial losses but set unrealistic expectations among rice farmers that the government could bail them out whenever they run into financial constraints.
The current government can use input from rice farmers and researchers as well about its plan to introduce crop substitutes in areas deemed inappropriate for rice farming. Maize, the government's preferred choice for farmers in 35 central provinces instead of rice, is widely viewed as impracticable because the crop would not grow well in areas that used to be paddy fields.
It is clear that solving the immediate problems for rice farmers and ensuring that there is a profitable and sustainable future ahead of them require all sides to cooperate. The politicisation must stop first.