Farmers diligently apply fertilizers and pesticides in the sprawling paddy fields of Chai Nat province. (File photo)
In a fervent discussion on Thursday, key coalition parties Bhumjaithai and Pheu Thai, along with the opposition Democrat party, expressed strong objections to a recently approved 30-billion-baht fertilizer subsidy program by the cabinet. This program, aimed at aiding 4.68 million rice farmers, has sparked considerable controversy and calls for revision.
The issue was highlighted by Korrawee Prissananantakul, a committed Bhumjaithai MP from Ang Thong, during the House meeting. Mr. Korrawee expressed that, although the subsidy initiative aims to alleviate farmers’ expenses, a significant number of agriculturists in Ang Thong are against the scheme’s co-payment requirement.
“There are hidden difficulties and disadvantages,” he emphasized. “These farmers have urged me to relay their concerns to the government and request a revision of the program. Ideally, they wish for the reintroduction of the earlier subsidy model, which provided them with 1,000 baht per rai.”
Under the new subsidy plan, farmers could receive a maximum of 500 baht per rai, capping at 10,000 baht per individual. However, they are mandated to pay half the cost upfront. “If the government genuinely intends to assist, it should abandon this co-payment system and revert to the 1,000 baht per rai scheme,” Mr. Korrawee asserted.
In a similar vein, Thinnaphon Sitharet, a Pheu Thai MP from Kalasin, shared that farmers in his province are equally apprehensive about the program due to a lack of immediate funds for upfront fertilizer payments. “Kalasin farmers implore the government to revert to the previous subsidy model, ensuring they receive a full 1,000 baht per rai to purchase necessary fertilizers,” Mr. Sitharet conveyed.
Adding to the chorus of dissent, Sanong Thep-aksonnarong, another voice from Bhumjaithai representing Buri Ram, warned that the updated subsidy scheme could drive farmers into debt, compelling them to seek loans to cover upfront costs. Conversely, Winai Phattharaprasit, a Bhumjaithai MP from Phitchit, revealed he had received a formal complaint from rice farmers in Wang Sai Phun district. This group strongly opposes the co-payment scheme and advocates for the previous 1,000 baht per-rai subsidy plan.
Mr. Phattharaprasit promised to forward their petition to the cabinet, demanding a reconsideration of the new subsidy strategy.
Concerns regarding the potential for corruption were also raised by Saksit Khaothong, a Democrat MP from Songkhla. He noted, “The likelihood of corruption rises with the involvement of middlemen handling the program. The previous scheme, which directly transferred funds to farmers, was much more transparent.”
Addressing these escalating concerns, Agriculture and Cooperatives Minister Capt Thamanat Prompow has instructed the permanent secretary for agriculture and cooperatives to expedite discussions with ministry executives. The goal is to promptly determine the fate of this contentious subsidy scheme and ensure the best outcomes for the nation’s hardworking farmers.
Why is the government making it harder for us to get the fertilizers we need? The co-payment system isn’t practical at all.
The intention behind the co-payment might be to encourage more responsible usage and to deter wastage. However, the practicality of it needs to be reconsidered, especially for those who can’t afford the upfront costs.
It’s not just about responsibility. Many farmers are already struggling with debt. This new scheme seems to push them further into financial hardship.
This policy will only lead to more corruption. Middlemen are going to take advantage of us.
I wonder why they didn’t keep the old system that worked well? What changed?
The old system was more transparent and direct. The new policy feels like a step backward.
Transparency is crucial, but perhaps the new policy aims to balance the budget better? Direct payments can sometimes get politically exploitative.
This new system is driving my family deeper into debt. Banks won’t give us loans easily for this.
I think returning to the 1,000 baht per rai scheme makes more sense. Less complicated for everyone involved.
Maybe farmers should explore alternative farming methods that require fewer fertilizers?
That’s easier said than done! Traditional farms have been using these methods for generations. Change isn’t that simple.
While alternative methods can be beneficial, transitioning needs proper support and education, which isn’t currently offered.
How about we also discuss the environmental impact of these subsidies? Overuse of fertilizers is an issue.
Environmental impacts are important, but first and foremost we need to ensure farmers’ livelihoods. This co-payment doesn’t help.
Does anyone have data on how effective the old subsidy system was versus the proposed one?
Data might be skewed. What works on paper doesn’t always translate well in the fields.
Many farmers in my area are reluctant to trust any new scheme after previous disappointments.
Absolutely! We’ve been promised a lot, but often the reality is far different.
The government is likely pressured by a tight budget, but sacrificing support for farmers isn’t a sustainable solution.
The proposed changes feel rushed without proper consultation with the farmers who are directly affected.
This scheme seems to prioritize financial stability over social welfare. Farmers are bearing the brunt.
Isn’t it time we looked at the root causes of farmers’ financial struggles instead of temporary subsidies?
Indeed, a more sustainable approach that addresses root issues would be more beneficial in the long run.
Can the government ensure that the subsidies reach the actual farmers and not intermediaries?
Ensuring direct payments to farmers would definitely reduce corruption and misuse.
Many families here are hoping the government will reconsider. We’re getting desperate.
I share your sentiment. Hopefully, with enough voices raised, they’ll pay attention.
If they can enforce this policy without middlemen’s interference, maybe it could work?
Middlemen always find ways to exploit these kinds of programs. Farmers need direct, transparent help.
What about community-led buying groups to pool resources? It could reduce the burden on individual farmers.
That’s a great idea! Collective bargaining could indeed help mitigate upfront payment issues.
At the end of the day, if farmers aren’t supported adequately, the whole nation suffers. Food security is at risk.
This government needs to listen more. Policies without field consultation are recipes for failure.
True. Many decisions seem to be made with limited understanding of ground realities.
Is there a possibility for a hybrid approach where the best aspects of both old and new schemes are combined?
A hybrid approach could potentially balance fiscal responsibility and farmers’ needs, but it requires careful planning.
Farmers should protest these changes. We’ve been quiet for too long!
Let’s hope the discussions with ministry executives lead to a fair solution for the farmers.