• 
• 
• 

This affected the remaining harvest, which did not get across to the pledging scheme. Furthermore, the amount left traded in the market was not sufficient for private traders to satisfy their customary buyers overseas.

As a consequence, we are losing more and more long-time customers to our competitors in Vietnam. This is not healthy for our rice exports in the long run.

I have tried to raise this matter in the hope that if the prime minister was made aware of the pitfalls of this rice measure, he could then revise what has been introduced by the minister from the coalition party in order to prevent further financial losses and other unwelcome impacts.

However, it was discouraging to hear that the meeting of the Farmers Assistance Programme Committee on April 29, chaired by the prime minister, approved the expansion of the amount of rice for pledging by 1.5 million tonnes at the same high price of Bt11,800 per tonne, as approved for the first lot of 2.5 million tonnes.

As soon as it was announced that the committee intended to propose to the Cabinet meeting for approval to expand the price support programme by 1.5 million tonnes, the market price plunged, as private traders knew that they could later buy rice from government stocks at a lower price. This slowed down their purchases in the market. The more obvious consequence was that the state agency for this scheme would definitely suffer greater financial damages. The increase in the ongoing rice pledging for the second crop from 2.5 million tonnes to 4 million tonnes at a cost higher than market price by at least Bt2,000 per tonne will end up producing a loss of at least Bt8 billion and possibly reaching Bt10 billion or more when the sale of this volume of rice is finally executed.

The question here is, being aware of such a financial loss, why then did the prime minister, as the chairman of the meeting, approve the expansion of the scheme?

What I have written about the rice issue was clear and not too difficult to comprehend. A number of readers confirmed this view. I also double-checked my understanding with respectable economists, rice traders and ex-government officials who are knowledgeable about the rice matter. All of them confirmed the correctness of my understanding as expressed in my previous articles here.

I believe that the prime minister, with a good educational background from a reputable university, would realise the negative consequences of the rice-pledging programme at a price much higher than the going one.

In that case, why did he approve such an expansion? Was there any other factor that forced him to decide to do so? Considering all the economic factors, there was not a single one supporting this decision of his.

Might it be a political factor? Officials involved in this matter have pointed out that there has been pressure from a coalition party to expand the pledging volume, followed by a threat that if this were not approved, a mob of farmers would descend on Government House.

Your Excellency has resolutely handled the recent political protest. However, being a national leader, you need more than courage to fight against your foes. You need the nerve to prevent your colleagues from doing things which are opposed to the national interest and even more courage to stand up against the group of people who are making selfish demands at the expense of the nation.

My article today may frustrate the prime minister. However, if this frustration could somehow help change his mind to reconsider this matter in the Cabinet meeting on May 4, it will be fortunate for the country.

Until next Monday.