Quite interestingly, before the committee made the shameful decision, the ministry, which is under the supervision of the Chart Thai Party, had quietly launched a publicity campaign apparently aimed at winning public support and, more importantly, to lend credibility to its project. An advertorial placed by the ministry appears in today's edition of Khao Sod newspaper and a few other dailies. It explains what a silo is, its purpose and how many types there are. In conclusion, it says a silo serves as a first step in building the bargaining power of farmers, preventing them from exploitation by rice traders or millers, and enabling farmers to dictate their own paddy prices "without having their destiny dictated by other people".

Like most advertisements which tend to overstate the merits of the products being presented, the ministry's advertorial is misleading. One may wonder why the powers-that-be in the ministry had to go to the extent of buying newspaper space to try to "sell" its project to the people as if it were a consumer product.

Silos of various sizes and rice barns have been in operation across the country for decades, providing more than sufficient facilities to store rice and paddy. Ask any farmer whether the existence of such facilities has ever contributed to an increase in his bargaining power, and the likely answer is "no". Farmers know from experience that rice prices are, in most cases, dictated by traders or millers and also by market forces. Heavily indebted to the Bank of Agriculture and Agricultural Co-operatives and loan sharks, most farmers are forced to sell their crops in return for badly needed quick cash. Besides, keeping their crops will mean additional storage costs if they are to be stored in a silo.

The Agriculture Ministry's contention that farmers will be able to dictate rice prices merely because of the existence of silos is laughable. It is incomprehensible that the Rice Policy Committee, headed by Deputy Prime Minister Supachai Panitchpakdi, did not object to the project. Obviously, there is something terribly wrong with the wisdom, conscience and judgment of the committee members.

A rice expert and senator-elect, Chermsak Pinthong, earlier warned that the government would run a high risk of losing money if it decided to go into the silo business. He argued that there were already more than enough rice storage facilities. Besides, he also doubted the efficiency of officials of the Marketing Organisation for Farmers to manage the silos. Several other economists have also voiced their reservations against the project on grounds of unsound economic feasibility. With the next general election expected to be held at the end of this year, the Chart Thai Party which supervises the Agriculture Ministry may feel the urge to push through the project to solicit support from farmers at any cost. This is fine, so long as the party digs into its own pockets to realise its dream. The point is, the taxpayers will ultimately have to shoulder the burden. And 11.6 billion baht is not chicken feed, especially at a time when many people are still struggling to make ends meet.

By giving its approval to such a wasteful project, even with the condition that the ministry itself must secure the financing needed to implement the project, the Rice Policy Committee has done the country a great disservice. It does not deserve our trust and confidence. And if our members of cabinet have any conscience, it should not be difficult for them to decide how to deal with the project: consign it to the scrap heap where it belongs.