Four-and-a-half decades ago, Myanmar was the world’s leading rice exporter.
A military coup in 1962 followed by the introduction of socialism swiftly stifled free trade in Myanmar, allowing neighboring Thailand to take the top rice-exporter slot, which it has held ever since.
But populist polices in Thailand’s rice fields are slowly undermining its leading role in the trade.
Thailand is arguably unique in Asia. The country produces more than 18.1 million tonnes of rice per year, of which 9 million tonnes are consumed domestically. The remainder is exported.
“We grow rice for business,” said Chookiat Ophaswongse, president of the 90-year-old Thai Rice Exporters Association. “We’re not like other countries that grow rice because they want to be self-sufficient in food and just export the surplus.”
There are more than 200 members in the association, plus 50 to 60 other exporters who operate freely on the market.
Business has been good. Last year, during the so-called food crisis when India and Vietnam slapped bans on their own rice exports, Thailand shipped more than 9 million tonnes, earning the kingdom 200 billion baht (US$5.6 billion).
Business was especially good for a handful of rice exporters who succeeded in bidding for public rice stocks under the government’s paddy-pledging scheme, which has become a prime player on the Thai rice market over the past eight years.
Under the scheme, the government pays farmers a fixed price for their rice, which is stockpiled in millers’ warehouses and then auctioned off to exporters.
Introduced in 1980, the scheme initially guaranteed farmers rice prices at market levels to allow them to postpone sales to middlemen. Since 2001, after populist politician Thaksin Shinawatra became prime minister, the scheme’s goal was altered to stabilizing rice prices on the local market and boosting farmers’ incomes.
Although admirable in principle, the application of the scheme has proven corruption-prone and advantageous mainly to big exporters and large, prosperous farmers. Furthermore, it has undermined Thailand’s reputation for high-quality rice and skewered the market system.
For instance, this year, because of high prices offered under Thailand’s paddy-pledging system, Thailand’s 100 percent B grade white rice is being priced at US$575 per tonne on the export market, compared with Vietnam’s US$410.
Thailand’s rice exports during the first six months of this year reached 3.7 million tonnes, down 27 percent compared with last year’s shipments, while Vietnam’s rice exports hit 3.4 million tonnes, up 56 percent year-on-year.
Vietnam has kept its prices down partly because it faces tough competition from Pakistan, Cambodia and Myanmar, all of which sell lower-quality rice than Thailand.
That reputation for high-quality rice is being swiftly undermined by the government’s paddy-pledging scheme, which is encouraging Thailand’s neighbors to smuggle their rice into Thailand to benefit from the higher local price.
“Every year, at least 500,000 tons [453,500 tonnes] is coming across the border into Thailand,” Chookiat said. “This is huge.”
It is likely to get even bigger next year when rice is included in the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement, which is to impose low import taxes on the regional rice trade.
“The quality of Thai rice has dropped, partly because of the smuggled rice from neighboring countries and partly because our own farmers don’t care about quality anymore because whatever they grow, they can sell to the government,” Chookiat said.
Past Thai governments did not care because they benefited from kickbacks from a handful of big exporters with political connections and votes from happy farmers, said Nipon Poapongsukorn, president of the Thailand Development Research Institute think tank.
“The paddy-pledging program gives the politicians both votes and money,” Nipon said. “It’s win-win.”
The institute, which estimated the government spends up to 200 billion baht on the paddy-pledging and similar schemes for other crops, has proposed the government switch to an insurance plan that would cover the costs and a small profit margin for farmers, but keeps the government out of the rice trade.
Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva is reportedly considering the change, but it is unlikely his Democrat-led government will be around for long to implement it.
Thailand’s options are few, Nipon said. Either the government must find the will to change its price-support system or bow out to others in the rice race.
“If the dictators went away, Myanmar would become our major competitor within a few years,” he said.
“Sooner or later, we are not going to be the world’s No. 1 rice exporter, but we should maintain our position as the world’s No. 1 exporter of quality rice,” Nipon said. “That’s the direction we should go in.”
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS