Charter court ruling sought by senators on rice deals

A group of senators has submitted a petition to the Senate speaker seeking a Constitution Court ruling on whether the government's rice sales under government-to-government (G-to-G) deals required approval from parliament under Section 190 of the charter.

Published: 17/10/2012 at 12:00 AM
Writer: Aekarach Sattaburuth

The petition, signed by 67 senators, was accepted yesterday by Surachai Liangboonlertchai, the first deputy speaker.

Paiboon Nititawan, a senator in the Group of 40, said the G-to-G contracts to sell 7.32 million tonnes of rice worth more than 114 billion baht concerned the country's trade and investment. They might affect economic security by incurring public debt, potentially causing a financial crisis, he added.

The senator said the G-to-G sale contracts might require parliamentary approval under Section 190, because they could affect all citizens of the country.

He also said a Senate committee had inquired about the details of G-to-G rice sales but a deputy director-general of the Department of Foreign Trade had refused to provide the information, insisting the G-to-G deals were confidential.

Mr Paiboon urged greater government transparency.

He warned that the government's rice-pledging scheme could lead to excessive rice stocks being held in storage. Over time, the quality of the warehoused rice could decline, affecting the strong brand image of Thai rice worldwide.

Mr Surachai said he would first verify the documents, including the names of the senators, before forwarding the petition to the Constitution Court.

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva called on the government to change the subsidy method by allocating about 150 billion baht expected to be lost from rice pledging to farmers directly so that state money would actually reach them.

"I'm not being sarcastic. It's based on economic principles. With direct allocation of the money, many more farmers would reap benefits and the money would not be split up into the hands of traders and millers," he said.

Democrat MP Warong Detwikrom complained yesterday that farmers received only 10,500-11,000 baht per tonne from pledging their rice, not the 15,000 baht per tonne claimed by the government.

He also said that farmers were complaining about delayed payments under the pledging scheme.

The opposition MP added that Thailand has exported only 5 million tonnes of rice so far this year. He said the country exported 9 million tonnes of rice during the same period last year, meaning exports had plunged by 44%.

Meanwhile, Pol Maj Gen Jakthip Holasutsakul, deputy commissioner of Region 3 Provincial Police, said police have charged the management of Tanyarungroengchai Rice Mill Co with fraud after more than 10,000 tonnes of pledged rice worth over 200 million baht disappeared from its rice mill in Muang district of Nakhon Ratchasima.

Police also found the names of 460 farmers had been used illegally to seek money from the rice-pledging scheme in Nong Ki district of Buri Ram province.

Share your thoughts

Discussion 1 : 18/10/2012 at 10:27 PM: soltair 10 - PTP is heavily subsidizing rice at the cost of the taxpayer. The Dems subsidized fuel at the cost of the taxpayer. They are both the same - but the Dems are only against the policy because Thaksin thought of it, not because subsidies can negatively distort the market. The Dems are even criticizing PTP for reducing fuel subsidies! Neither the leaders, opposition, nor voters understand economics 101 - the farmers aren't being 'hoodwinked'.
Discussion 2 : 17/10/2012 at 12:28 PM: johninbkk 7, For once I agree with you, a better strategy would be teaching and explaining the farmers how they are hoodwinked. They also have to be able to explain how their plan, if implemented, ensures the bulk of the money arrives at the low income people.
Discussion 3 : 17/10/2012 at 12:13 PM: D7 Bula - perhaps your "handout" would end up back with the millers and suppliers, BUT the farmers would have had a choice and would have ended up with the needed fertilizer or reduced their previous debts. The with rice scheme, the money goes straight to the millers and the farmers reep no benefit at all. D8 JiB - putting it to a vote in Parliament will, as you mentioned, go the way of the PTP. But it will also open it up to possible open debate prior to the vote and force some more disclosure. The problem with the PTP's administration is too much secrecy, Democracy is government by the people for the people, and the people have a right to know what is being done in their name.
Discussion 4 : 17/10/2012 at 10:51 AM: This program is a train wreck .Why doesn't the government actually empower farmers with land reform or teach them new growing techniques or hob training ? Would that be too much help ? Not enough like a handout ?The poor arent beggars you can string along .
Discussion 5 : 17/10/2012 at 10:30 AM: Waste of time. PTP controls ~60% of parliament, so any parliamentary vote will go their way. As the overwhelming number of farmers like the rice scheme, any attempt to stop it could result in losing votes at the next election. I'm very much against the rice scheme, but the Dems are choosing a losing strategy.
Discussion 6 : 17/10/2012 at 07:34 AM: "I'm not being sarcastic. It's based on economic principles. With direct allocation of the money, many more farmers would reap benefits and the money would not be split up into the hands of traders and millers," [Abhisit] said. This is the crux of it 150 billion baht wasted, the 1 million farming families need to understand that they are being diddled out of about 100 billion, since they seem to only be getting a third of the excess pledge.
Discussion 7 : 17/10/2012 at 07:34 AM: I think it is not a bad idea to involve the CC in deciding which areas of expertise they have. While CC should be expert in the constitutional matters, the government should be agile in a dynamic domestic and global matter that affects the well-being of Thai's growth, progress and prosperity. Matter like transparency is subjective and can be brought up to debate or discuss in Parliament. They are already laws dealing with corruption and abused of power. Law that affected the agility of a government in dealing with negative local and international matters should be reviewed in parliament by law makers.
Discussion 8 : 17/10/2012 at 07:27 AM: Quote Paiboon Nititawan, a senator in the Group of 40, said the G-to-G contracts to sell 7.32 million tonnes of rice worth more than 114 billion baht concerned the country's trade and investment. He also said a Senate committee had inquired about the details of G-to-G rice sales but a deputy director-general of the Department of Foreign Trade had refused to provide the information, insisting the G-to-G deals were confidential. Mr Paiboon urged greater government transparency. When the government is refusing to give details to the senate who have or should have the power to demand accountantcy and transparency then something stinks and it isn't pla rah.
Discussion 9 : 17/10/2012 at 05:44 AM: "He also said a Senate committee had inquired about the details of G-to-G rice sales but a deputy director-general of the Department of Foreign Trade had refused to provide the information, insisting the G-to-G deals were confidential." G = "Government!" Confidential?!? Absurd!!!
Discussion 10 : 17/10/2012 at 05:11 AM: Any new Govt programs involving spending the taxpayers' money have to be approved by both Houses of Congress over here in the US. I didn't know that wasn't the case in Thailand, which should explain all these strange "irregularities," we are witnessing.
Discussion 11 : 17/10/2012 at 04:29 AM: It looks like another white lie! It should be conducted in transparent manner in trading from G to G partners.

Share your thoughts

More From Bangkokpost.com