No Rice Crisis

April 24, 2008  --  Got something to say?
Print This Post Print This Post

Greg B. MacabentaGreg B. Macabenta
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has reassured the Filipino people that there is no rice crisis. Ergo, there is none. After all, would Arroyo lie to us?
Would executive secretary Eduardo Ermita lie to us?
The Department of Agriculture admits that “the per kilo price of rice has gone up by P3 compared to a year ago and will double or even triple this year.” But, Ermita, being more credible than the average Pinoy, assures us that “rising prices do not necessarily mean a supply problem as other factors like production and marketing costs affect prices.”
In other words, there is “no supply problem” and, therefore, no rice crisis. Perhaps, an affordability crisis?
Vietnam and India, from which the Philippines has been importing rice, has placed a ban on rice exports, because their production is expected to be short and available stocks will be needed internally. In other words, these two major rice-producing countries are expecting a supply crisis. But if Ermita insists that there is no supply problem, he must be telling the truth. Hasn’t he always done so?
But, even assuming that there could be an impending shortage, Arroyo has already ordered that rice production be boosted. Ordered, mind you. And she has also approved the release of P1.5 billion to back up this effort. Thus, a problem of rice production, which the Philippines has been unable to solve for decades, which explains our dependence on imports, will now be SOLVED by order of the president.
Therefore, there will be no rice crisis.
Meanwhile, in view of the non-existing rice crisis (which has already resulted in rationing), Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap has a plan that is awesome in its simplicity and brilliance: Filipinos should eat less rice. That should cover the shortfall.
Never mind that rice is a staple of the Pinoy’s diet. Never mind that, many times, rice and salt are about the only meal they have - forget about the fish or meat or vegetables for ulam (viand). Yap believes that consuming less rice is the answer.
Admittedly, Yap makes an interesting point, and his logic is concurred in by one columnist who wrote, “If we ate only three-fourths (75 percent) of our usual rice intake, that would mean a 25-percent reduction on the country’s rice consumption.”
The arithmetic is unerring. Note that, by this columnist’s calculations, consuming only 75 percent means savings of 25 percent, not just 20 percent or 15 percent.
The economic principle is also infallible: If you do not consume, you save. That logic can be extended further: What you do not have, you do not consume, and therefore, you save. Result: no shortage.
The possibilities are awesome: if Filipinos were to stop eating rice altogether, that would result in savings of 100 percent!!! And no more dependence on rice.
In fact, one could go the whole hog in applying this economic principle:
If Filipinos were to completely STOP EATING, there would be no food crisis.
Actually, thousands (maybe millions) of Filipinos are helping solve the food crisis in the country by no longer eating three meals a day - and sometimes, not eating a meal the whole day at all. Malacañang should give them a medal for civic consciousness.
But wait, there’s a flaw in the arithmetic of Yap and the columnist. You see, if only the poor were to consume only three fourths of their usual rice intake but the rich were to continue eating ten times what normal, decent people ought to eat, the savings would no longer be 25 percent -right?
But isn’t that the harsh fact in this country? The rich consume the country’s resources beyond what they actually need and expect the poor to be the ones to tighten their belts.
When business is bad, the take-home of wage earners is cut. But executives continue to earn huge packages and perks. When the national budget is inadequate, appropriations for food production, education, health, social welfare and infrastructure are reduced, but expenses on overseas junkets of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, her cabinet members and congress lapdogs and their wives, as well as the dole-outs to the bishops, mayors and governors are maintained and even increased - not to mention price mark-ups on government projects and foreign loans.
It would be interesting to see how Yap’s arithmetic could apply to the way the Arroyo government is run.
For instance, if stealing and overpricing were reduced by 50 percent, wouldn’t that give the government 50 percent more revenues to spend on social services? How about reducing graft and corruption by 100 percent?
Wouldn’t it follow that there would be a lot more money in the national treasury to spend on the people?
The arithmetic could also apply to the Catholic church, which, as we all know, is said to be concerned about the welfare of the poor.
The arithmetic would go this way: If runaway population growth were to be reduced, there would be fewer people to feed and, therefore, less would go hungry.
Note that the Church is not against population control per se, but the methods prescribed. The Church insists that abstinence is the only acceptable method.
This is the same solution to the population crisis that Yap offers for the non-existent rice crisis. No sex equals no babies equals no population problem. No eating of rice equals no rice crisis.
In truth, we Pinoys eat too much rice. We should be eating more of the other essential food items. If only the masses could afford them.
But maybe that’s academic. After all, Arroyo reassures us that there is no rice crisis. And hasn’t she always told us the truth?
(gregmacabenta@hotmail.com)

Share This
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

Posted by News Team | Filed Under Street Talk 

Comments

Got something to say?





Authentic Diecast Model Cars
Close
E-mail It