The Yingluck Shinawatra administration's rice-pledging scheme has received virtually universal condemnation from Thailand's intellectual cognoscenti, ranging from university professors to leading figures in prominent think tanks.
Predictably, the Democrat Party is actually driving this anti-rice pledging bandwagon and to their credit have made such a convincing case against this scheme that anyone claiming to have a brain larger than the ape creatures of the Indus simply has to submit themselves to their logic and reason.
Well, I happen to hate bandwagons and this one is no exception. So I'm not hopping on, at least not until we give this rice-pledging scheme due process and its day in the court of public opinion.
So let's address some of the criticisms that I commonly hear directed at this pledging scheme.
The Democrat Party in parliamentary debates and various pundits in the print media frequently claim the scheme has gone bust and that it is consistently making a loss.
But how many subsidy schemes do you know which make money? Yes, subsidies run losses. It's stating the glaringly obvious, like the Pope is Catholic. So let's ignore ridiculous political point-scoring by politicians because I find their narrative on this issue rather annoying.
Before we go any further we need to define a "subsidy", because that's essentially what the rice scheme is.
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: "A subsidy is a measure that keeps prices for consumers below market levels, or keeps prices for producers above market levels, or that reduces costs for both producers and consumers by giving direct or indirect support."
But my question is why all the attention and venom directed specifically at the rice scheme? After all, subsidies for agricultural produce are rife in other countries.
The United States for all its rhetoric on free markets is probably the most guilty when it comes to distorting free market forces for agricultural produce like wheat, corn, soya beans, rice and cotton, which have received the lion's share of subsidies since the 1930s.
According to the Cato institute, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) distributes between US$10-30 billion (310-930 billion baht) in cash subsidies to farmers and owners of farmland a year. Moreover, in addition to cash, the USDA also provides subsidised crop insurance, marketing support and extensive agricultural market research for farm businesses. These indirect subsidies and services cost taxpayers about $5 billion each year, putting total farm support at a whopping $15-35 billion annually.
It doesn't end there. The European Union, through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), has an annual budget of 50 million euros (2 billion baht) in which 70% is spent directly on income support for farmers, an additional 20% is spent on rural development measures and the remaining 10% is spent on market support measures.
So to put things in perspective here, agricultural subsidies are nothing new. We didn't invent them nor are we the biggest proponents of them. In fact, other countries subsidise all sorts of farm produce while in Thailand it is mainly rice farmers who are the beneficiaries of such schemes.
Another common complaint about the rice-pledging scheme concerns the size of the losses incurred. There are certain groups of people here who agree our farmers require and deserve assistance. However, they are concerned the rice scheme has become such a black hole that Thailand's economy won't be able to shoulder the financial burden.
The Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI) and many other academics have estimated that if the government continues to sell its remaining stock of pledged paddy at current prices, we could be looking at a total loss of 500-700 billion baht.
This is indeed an extremely large figure and we should be concerned.
I certainly wouldn't encourage fiscal irresponsibility, but the discourse about the scheme so far has been rather one-sided.
After all, the USDA spent $22 billion on farm subsidies in 2012 while in South Korea, Switzerland and Norway, more than 60% of all farmers' income is derived from some form of government subsidy.
In 2009, Japan spent an astonishing S$46.5 billion on subsidies for its farmers. So in terms of the dollar amount or even the proportion spent on farm subsidies it seems (at least according to some figures) Thailand is not at the head of the pack when it comes to the size of such schemes.
Rampant corruption is also cited by the opponents of the rice scheme. But is this really a legitimate case for singling out the programme when it's screamingly obvious to everybody in Thailand that our crooked politicians have their clammy hands on every project and take their cut in every scheme implemented?
I break out in hysterical laughter every time I see politicians accusing each other of corruption. Who do they think they're fooling?
Sadly, corruption here penetrates all levels of government and no political party is immune. That's why our politicians can't be trusted and a healthy dose of scepticism is necessary if we are interested in discovering the truth.
So what is the truth regarding the rice pledging scheme? I'm not sure yet, but I'm trying to ask some questions which might make it clearer.
For example, why do developed countries like the US subsidise their farmers when only 2% of Americans are directly involved in farming? In this country, as many as 60% of the population earn a living from farming but they are among the most neglected and economically disenfranchised groups in the country.
And why is the risk not commensurate with reward when it comes to farming?
I've also noticed the discrepancy when it comes to language.
Why is it that subsidies for rice farmers are called a "subsidy" but subsidies for big industry and other sectors like banking are called an "incentive" or "promotion" or other fancy names?
For example, isn't exempting capital gains for profits made from buying and selling stocks on the Stock Exchange of Thailand a form of subsidy?
And does this subsidy benefit the farmers breaking their backs in the paddy fields? Hardly, but I've never seen them jumping up and down and making a huge fuss about it.
Isn't the Board of Investment (BOI) a form of subsidising? I'm sure if we had someone clever calculate how much these two subsidies cost taxpayers annually, it would be a significant amount of money.
Anyway, I'm not a bleeding heart liberal but I think during the various discussions I've heard on the rice scheme that many of us come out as being rather heartless, as if we lack empathy for our fellow Thais who till the fields and put food on our table.
Our farmers need our help. I think most people will agree with that. Let's have an honest discussion that puts things in perspective and come up with policies that can help make the lives of our farmers more bearable, so once again we can put a smile back on all those grumpy faces.
Songkran Grachangnetara is an entrepreneur. He graduated from the London School of Economics and Columbia University. He can be reached at Twitter: @SongkranTalk.