Philippine human rights report inaccurate
Olympic torch relay in Southeast Asia, my blog roundup for Global Voices. Have you read this section of the Antonio Zumel Center for Press Freedom?
The Universal Periodic Review is an innovation established by the United Nations to assess the fulfillment of human rights obligations by all U.N. member states. Early this month, the Philippines participated in such a review.
The Philippine government claimed that members of the U.N. Human Rights Council applauded the report of the Philippines. But reviewing the proceedings of the UPR reveals that this boast is not entirely accurate. The official report of the Philippine government is also full of inconsistencies and unfounded assertions. In short the Philippine government lied to convince the international community that it is doing everything to improve the human rights situation in the country.
The Philippine government reported that it held two national consultations to draft the UPR report. But civil society groups are unaware of these meetings. Recommendations of NGOs were also not integrated into the report.
The head of the Philippine delegation to the UPR highlighted the five major points of the Philippine government's current human rights policy:
1) The creation and strengthening of institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights;
2) The improvement of its human rights record, through strengthening institutions, mainstreaming human rights and improving human rights education;
3) The pursuit of good governance, in accordance with the principle of a rights-based approach to development;
4) Human rights advocacy and programs responding to the demands of vulnerable sectors; and
5) Human rights promotion and protection during the current peace processes.
These are motherhood statements. These policies should be compared to the actual achievements of the government. Human rights violations have persisted in the Philippines despite the official pronouncement of President Gloria Arroyo that her government is respecting the rights of the Filipino people.
Reacting to the presentation of the Philippine government, human rights advocates said they were "outraged by the unrepentant and self-delusional claims by the government of its human rights record before the international community." An activist lawmaker described the report as a "self-serving, selective and totally one-sided depiction of the Philippine human rights situation."
The government stressed that the Philippines is one of the first states to have ratified all of the seven core international human rights treaties. This is correct but not enough proof to assert that human rights are promoted and protected in the country. There may be enough laws, administrative orders and programs to prevent human rights abuses but most of these legal instruments are not implemented properly.
During the review process, the Philippine government argued that it has adopted several mechanisms to promote the welfare of street children, women, child soldiers, migrants, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable sectors of Philippine society. But most of these are token measures which are only good on paper.
For example, the rise in the number of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in the Philippines provoked an international backlash in 2006. This forced the government to institute several special bodies to investigate and help reduce human rights violations. But the killings continued and high-ranking soldiers accused of committing the crimes were not prosecuted.
Technically speaking, the government did something to minimize human rights abuses. But it was not a sincere effort. It was only meant to ease international and domestic pressure against the government's repressive policies.
The Philippine government told the local media that its UPR presentation was well-applauded. But activists who attended the UPR session insisted that the applause was initiated and came mostly from the rest of the Filipino bureaucrats who formed part of the Philippine government's 40-member team.
Forty-one delegations from U.N. member countries made statements during the UPR. The Philippine government interpreted the "constructive dialogue" as praise for the Philippine report. A lawmaker who was able to observe the proceedings said, "The government failed to recognize that 16 countries expressed concern on the extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances and, in typical diplomatic language used in the U.N., practically told the Philippines it was not doing enough on the matter."
A journal of the U.N. Human Rights Council provides a fair overview of the reaction of different countries to the Philippine presentation. The journal notes that "Several U.N. bodies were concerned about the lack of appropriate measures to deal with crimes allegedly committed by state security forces and agents and the insecurity surrounding journalists, human rights activists, and the overly vague new Human Security Act."
Additional concerns were articulated with respect to labor rights, pollution, increased food insecurity, housing crises, the abortion prohibition and high maternal mortality ratio, health policy, and discrimination against indigenous peoples.
The Philippine government failed to address the inquiry of the Netherlands about the legislative proposal to criminalize torture. The Holy See did not get a satisfactory answer to its query on whether the abolition of the death penalty would extend to an abolition of torture.
Canada recommended "that awareness-raising measures be instituted in the security forces regarding their obligations to protect the population." Canada made this suggestion after France and Switzerland expressed concern that there had been few convictions regarding the issue of extrajudicial killings.
The Philippine government claimed that its UPR report was comprehensive and transparent. But why were many countries asking for more information, elaboration of details, and additional reports on key human rights issues like torture, poverty-reduction measures and killings? Other delegates were able to recognize that the Philippine government failed to give a balanced picture of the human rights situation in the Philippines.
The U.N. Human Rights Council will issue a final report in June. There is enough time for human rights advocates to lobby and pressure U.N. member states about the urgent need to protect, promote and respect human rights in the Philippines. The Philippine government should be made accountable for abetting human rights abuses against the Filipino people. The Philippine government is unworthy of a seat in the U.N. Human Rights Council.
PS: Galit talaga ako sa hinayupak na Ermita na yan. Sisihin ba naman ang mga bagyo kung bakit di daw tuluy-tuloy ang pag-unlad sa Pilipinas. May office of Ombudsman kaya ginagawa naman daw ang lahat upang sugpuin ang korupsiyon. Tama si Ka Teddy Casino, it is "chutzpah of the highest degree."
Related entries:
I see terrorists
defending human rights
Anti-terror law
Human rights and ASEAN
Rural development
For many months now, I have been trying to write something about the need to implement a genuine land reform in the country. Perhaps next month I will be able tackle this very important issue. In the meantime let me share some insights on rural development.....
In 2004 rural population is almost 40 percent of the total population. More than 70 percent of the poor reside in rural areas. 5 out of 10 rural residents are poor. Two-thirds of the population and three-fourths of the poor depend on agriculture.
According to a study conducted in 1999, a typical rural poor family is larger than the average family size (8-9). It is headed by a male, less than 50 years old with little or no schooling. It is engaged simultaneously in 4-5 income-earning activities. It has less access to the formal labor market. Women are either self-employed or unpaid workers.
Factors such as limited public sector investments, weak governance, limited or lack of access to productive resources, high production costs and low wage regime contribute to high rural poverty incidence and low productivity in agriculture.
Rural development is more than just raising incomes of farmers. It encompasses “productivity and competitiveness, equity, poverty reduction, sustainable natural resource management and empowerment.” A partylist lawmaker added that “Rural development is not just about economics; it is also about equity, democratic community participation, access and good governance. These are ingredients to promote sustainable rural development.”
The National Economic Development Authority has admitted that despite growth in agricultural production and rural incomes, these we not enough to improve rural welfare and long-term sustainability. Rural policies must therefore address access to primary health care, education, sanitation, infrastructure, transportation and communication, safe drinking water and electricity. Policies must also cater to the needs of agricultural services in support of “sustainable and productive farming systems and services that facilitate off-farm enterprise development.”
One of the landmark agricultural laws of the country is R.A. 8435 or the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA). The law provides for a “sound agricultural policy to enhance global competitiveness of agricultural sector and small agricultural producers.” Interestingly, one of the aims of AFMA is to promote food security especially in rice and white corn. (Sounds familiar, eh?) It was enacted in 1997 and fully implemented two years later. AFMA expired in 2004 but was extended by Congress till 2015.
AFMA mandated an increased financial inflow for agriculture but this was not achieved. From 1999-2005, total actual budget fell below what was prescribed by law both in terms of new appropriations and obligations. Rural poverty worsened. According to experts, growth in agriculture was due to private investments and good weather, not AFMA.
Maybe this was the reason why Senator Loren Legarda is pushing for increased rural investments as provided by AFMA. But the good senator should also understand why activist peasant groups are actively opposing the law. Aside from being a source of corruption, AFMA was used to further liberalize the country’s agricultural sector which destroyed farming communities and threatened the country’s food security.
Rural agenda
The Department of Agriculture has a five-pillar program (2007-2010) involving irrigation, postharvest/storage facilities, technology development and extension, market access and credit facilitation.
The DA’s priority legislative measures in the 14th Congress are the following: Increased agricultural funding in the 2008 General Appropriations Act, extending the utilization of the ACEF, restructuring the National Food Authority (NFA), Agricultural Credit and Financing System and Magna Carta for Agricultural Workers.
Irrigation will focus on the restoration of existing national and communal irrigation systems. Postharvest/storage facilities will establish refrigeration storage, drying centers, storage warehouses and moveable ice storage facilities. Credit facilitation will expand access to credit through micro-credit financing programs. Technology development and extension will make available appropriate technologies to improve farm/agribusiness productivity. Market access will promote trade facilitation, logistics, market infrastructure and ensure regulatory and product quality standards.
Restructuring of NFA (read: mass lay-offs, downsizing, early retirement for workers) will address the heavy losses incurred by the agency by allowing it to consolidate its power as a government corporation. The NFA is the largest contributor (36 percent) to the Consolidated Public Sector Deficit of the government. According to the DA, restructuring of NFA will create fiscal space, free up resources that can provide more growth-oriented investments or social services while having a more effective and efficient institution in the grains market.
Agricultural Credit and Financing System will amend P.D. 717 to ensure that agriculture and agrarian reform funds are used for rural credit. The Magna Carta for Agricultural Workers will ensure that agriculture programs are carried out by local government units. This will provide a mandatory municipal and city agriculturist and provide various safeguards for agricultural workers to join unions.
To realize these programs, the DA will focus on commodities with greatest growth impacts (cash crops?), spur involvement of the private sector, strengthen coordination among the DA, state universities and local governments, establish one-stop units to facilitate access of clientele to market, technology and investment information and promote the country as a hub for local and foreign investments.
In 2004, the DA promised to develop at least two million hectares of new land. It also vowed to “reduce the cost of wage goods through productivity enhancement, more efficient logistics and improved retailing linkages.”
It seems the DA has drafted several programs to promote agricultural development. There is no dearth of documents which outline the government’s supposed sincerity to boost rural productivity. But why is rural poverty worsening? Why are we importing agricultural products like rice and corn? Why is Philippine agriculture deteriorating?
Corruption is a big problem. The Fertilizer Scam and the Swine Scandal (babuyan na talaga) are good examples of corruption in the agricultural sector. Another reason is the thrust of the government to rely on food imports. The problem is not just limited funds for agriculture but the skewed priorities of the government. Why is government expenditure to develop crops declining while importation thru the NFA is increasing? The government should stop adhering to the agricultural liberalization program which hurts small Filipino farmers. Food sovereignty should be the goal of the government.
Related entries:
Hacienda Luisita
Organic farming
Hunger
Rice crisis and Southeast Asia
See, they are calling me a journalist. Mag-aaply ba ako sa NUJP?
Rice is the staple food in Southeast Asia and in many parts of the world. But it is not just a food that fulfills hunger. Rice has enriched the cultures of many Asian societies.
In Thailand, asking "Have you eaten rice today?' is a way of saying "How are you?" In Vietnam it is proper to say "please eat rice" before every meal, even if the meal does not include rice. In Brunei elders remind the children to finish their meal to the last grain of rice because if not, the rice would cry.
Asians have developed a rice-flavored ice-cream, rice wine, rice cake, and rice paper. There is an annual rice festival in the Philippines. A colonial ruler of Indochina once remarked: "The Vietnamese plant rice, the Cambodians watch it grow and the Lao listen to it grow."
Indeed, rice is a precious commodity in Southeast Asia. It is not surprising that many people in the region are worried over reports that rice is getting more expensive and supplies are dwindling. Southeast Asian governments are assuring their constituents that prices will stabilize soon and there will be no shortages in the local markets.
Thailand is the world's biggest rice exporter. Other Southeast Asian nations like Cambodia, Vietnam and Myanmar are rice exporters too. On the other hand, the Philippines is the world's top rice importer.
The rice price in Indonesia is slightly lower than in the world market. An Indonesian minister asserts that the government would no longer import rice this year because with last year's rice procurement drive, Indonesia now has more than 1 million tons in stock.
In Singapore and Malaysia, consumers are buying all the rice available in the market even if authorities are assuring the public that there are ample stocks of rice in the market.
Rice is a controlled item in Brunei and Malaysia. In Brunei the price of rice has not changed, since the government is subsidizing the price. Malaysia has been giving subsidies to rice farmers for many years now. There is a proposal in Malaysia to abolish subsidies for sugar and cooking oil in order to continue supporting subsidies for staple food items such as rice and flour.
Unfortunately, the Philippine government has been encouraged by the World Bank not to give subsidies to rice farmers since according to the financial lending institution it will be counter productive.
Since the start of the global rice crisis, Cambodia has suspended rice exports as speculators continue to gamble on the increasing demand for the food staple. The government is complaining that the opposition is taking advantage of the rice situation by conducting black propaganda against the ruling party.
Cambodian leader Hun Sen reminds his constituents that the price of rice should have soared in 2000-2001 when there was a major flood in Cambodia; but the price of rice during that time was stable. Hun Sen blames "dishonest people who are instigating rumors" about a rice shortage in the market.
The Philippine government is asking its people to reduce their consumption of rice. Instead of rice, the public is requested to eat more sweet potatoes. In Malaysia the government is asked to give more support to the poultry industry and fruit and vegetable farmers. Health experts explain that reducing consumption of rice is not bad at all since rice and other grains like wheat and corn are actually worse than sugar. One bowl of cooked rice is the caloric equivalent of 10 teaspoons of sugar.
Vietnam has recently imposed a ban on rice exports to help stabilize domestic food prices. Vietnam is currently facing double-digit inflation. Bad weather also damaged part of agricultural crops in northern Vietnam early this year. Rice exports will be restricted until the month of June.
Rice bandits are scaring Thailand's countryside. In the Philippines, rice hoarders are colluding with agricultural officials to jack up rice prices. Observers believe there is no immediate fear of a rice crisis in Myanmar as most of the rice consumed in the country is produced domestically.
The global rice crisis is an opportunity to review the food security programs of Southeast Asian nations. What steps are being taken to mitigate hunger in the region? What are the reform measures which should be implemented to improve agricultural productivity?
Now is also the time to minimize or even abandon the planting of biofuels or agrofuels in Southeast Asia. Rice and food production should be prioritized.
Land conversions should be regulated to ensure availability of rice supplies. There is nothing wrong in building hotels, shopping malls, golf courses and entertainment hubs as long as the food security of nations is not compromised.
There will be an emergency meeting of Southeast Asian Ministers to discuss the rice crisis. The agenda of the caucus should be broadened to include long-term food sustainability in the region.
Related entries:
Rice shortage history
Rice shortage solutions
Hunger in the Philippines
Marcos-Arroyo
Announcement: I started assuming a new role in the Global Voices network. I am now the regional editor of the Southeast Asian region. Thanks Preetam for recruiting me to write for Global Voices. For new readers, I started writing for Global Voices in 2006.
It is common nowadays to compare President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to former President Ferdinand Marcos. The opposition is fond of reminding the public about Arroyo’s marcosian traits to further malign the president. Indeed, the similarities between the two leaders are very striking.
Both are scholastic achievers. They topped the senate race. They were young when they assumed the presidency. They both have controversial spouses. They have children who are active in politics and they have daughters who are known for shying away from the political limelight. They also claimed that they were already rich even before joining the government. Marcos insisted he was the discoverer of some Japanese treasure loot while Arroyo is married to a scion of a very rich family. The Tuason-Arroyos were the landlords of the Marikina-Katipunan hacienda during the Spanish colonial era.
Unlike their predecessors, Marcos and Arroyo managed to get reelected. But they were accused of rigging the election results. They have very low public trust ratings.
Marcos and Arroyo undermined the independence of Congress. They neutralized the Church. They pampered the loyal generals. Marcos envisioned a New Society while Arroyo promised to build a Strong Republic. Marcos co-opted the Supreme Court Justices. Arroyo seems poised to accomplish this too.
Marcos was hounded by a sex scandal when an audio recording which featured him and American actress Dovie Beams was released to the public. Arroyo is alleged to be the frequent caller of an elections officer whose phone conversations were illegally recorded during the 2004 polls.
Marcos was the epitome of a corrupt head of state. He was accused of plundering the nation’s wealth. He owned secret bank accounts and real estate properties in different parts of the world. Arroyo is perceived to be as corrupt as Marcos. Her family is accused of being involved in numerous scandal-ridden contracts. Marcos and Arroyo have business friends who bagged money-making government projects.
Marcos and Arroyo inflamed the communist and moro insurgencies in the country. Human rights violations became rampant during their long rule. Rally dispersals were frequent. Critical journalists were harassed and censored. Political dissenters were detained. Marcos declared Martial Law while Arroyo proclaimed a State of National Emergency. Marcos was THE dictator while Arroyo is the “tin pot” dictator.
They both endorsed a labor-export policy which permanently altered the notion of a traditional Filipino family. They both became dependent on foreign borrowing to sustain the economy. Marcos disallowed the gathering of unemployment figures to deodorize the country’s economic data. Arroyo persuaded the Labor department to redefine unemployment to artificially reduce the number of unemployed persons in the country. Marcos and Arroyo claimed the national economy was improving but only few believed them. In fact, poverty worsened during their watch.
Marcos and Arroyo have weak foreign policies (read: puppets). Marcos sabotaged the Philippine claim to Sabah when the Jabidah Massacre was exposed. Did Arroyo commit treason when she allowed the Chinese government to explore the Kalayaan Island Group?
Marcos replaced the Constitution, appointed himself as Prime Minister and extended his stay in office. Can Arroyo repeat this infamous feat?
This is the usual narrative in highlighting the similarities of the two unpopular and strong-willed leaders. But recently, not a few media commentators have been advancing a revised version of history. They argue that during the early 1980s, the anti-Marcos political groups were too engrossed in the narrow goal of removing Marcos. This, according to them, prevented the public from appreciating the nationalist economic program of Marcos.
Their theory is interesting. Marcos was alleged to have declared independence from American financial institutions during the late 1970s. They said Marcos planned to develop an agro-industrial economy by reviving the country’s basic industries. Marcos wanted to replicate the economic strategies of neighboring Asian countries. But big western banks, in collusion with the old elite of the Philippines, conspired to unseat Marcos to restore the old reliable ruling order.
This theory is gaining ground especially if we note how Marcos’ successor miserably failed to implement a national industrialization strategy to improve the Philippine economy. Instead, the economic prescriptions of IMF-World Bank were blindly accepted. Marcos fans remind us that at least Marcos established power plants, highways, bridges and several infrastructures which benefited the countryside. What did Cory accomplish? Flyovers and 8-hour daily power interruptions?
This is an obvious attempt to resurrect the image of Marcos. The same line of thinking is adopted to manufacture Arroyo’s legacy to the country. They said Arroyo tried to assert a more independent Philippines by strengthening the country’s ties with China. This obviously angered the United States which triggered attempts to weaken the Arroyo presidency. Arroyo fans are proud of the super regions, new highways, airports, and the economic stimulus program. They said Arroyo is right to embark on an ambitious project to make the Philippines a first world nation in the next ten years. They remind us that at least Arroyo has a grand vision for the Philippines. What has the opposition accomplished so far?
The underlying message of this “tasteless defence” of Marcos and Arroyo is this: “True, Marcos and Arroyo committed human rights violations and imposed authoritarian policies, but we should not forget that they did good things like building convention centers and RoRo.”
To borrow some words from European philosopher Slavoj Zizek, comparing the martial law horrors to building roads is a displaced way of praising the human rights violations of Marcos. This is an even stronger defence of Marcos (and Arroyo) albeit in the form of criticism. This is a secret endorsement for the “obscene disavowed underside” (repressive measures, dictatorship) of the Public Law.
Thus, using again the arguments of Zizek, the real message runs this way: “True, Marcos and Arroyo did good things like committing human rights violations and imposing authoritarian policies, but we should not forget that they also did nasty things like building convention centers and RoRo.”
Behind the popular contempt against Marcos and Arroyo is a silent middle-class admiration for these two leaders. After all, Marcos (and Arroyo) embodies the qualifications of an ideal leader of the ruling establishment: educated, refined, conservative in outlook, charismatic and ruthless.
Related entries:
Marcos-Japan
Gloria-Cory
Conjugal dictators
Solutions to the rice crisis
Goodbye dial-up! Finally, I'm using a broadband connection. Check out the new pictures in my webshots album: click here and here.
According to the government, there is no shortage of rice in the country. Rice production is up and rice imports are meeting local demand. The rice harvest season will also start soon. But the government admits that the price of rice has gone up and most likely it will continue to go higher.
Senator Edgardo Angara confirms that the rice supply is stable. He adds that the rice crisis in the Philippines is artificial. He blames rice hoarders and smugglers for distorting rice inventories. He insists that the Philippines is experiencing a rice distribution crisis.
What is the government doing to address the problems of the rice industry? Is there a plan to punish the protectors of the rice cartel? What steps are being taken to ensure food self-sufficiency?
Recently, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo convened a food summit wherein she outlined her plan to improve the agriculture sector. Six assistance packages for agriculture were launched under the program of "FIELDS" -- F for fertilizer, I for irrigation and infrastructure, E for extension and education, L for loans and insurance, D for dryers and other post-harvest facilities, and S for seeds.
The government promised to build farm-to-market roads, ferry ports, and airports for agricultural cargo. Rice and corn processing centers will be developed. Funds will be released to promote organic fertilizer and hybrid seeds. The agricultural credit program will be enhanced. Rice subsidies are to be given to poor farmers. Arroyo is asking Congress to enact a law making farm land acceptable as loan collateral.
Since billions of pesos are allotted for the emergency agricultural program, Arroyo has vowed to appoint a deputy Ombudsman at the Department of Agriculture to watch over its transactions. Hopefully, this will minimize corruption in the bureaucracy.
Earlier, the government had proposed the reduction of tariffs to ease prices of agricultural products, especially rice. A Cabinet member is appealing to the public to reduce consumption of rice or to replace rice with other root crops. Restaurants are asked to serve a half-cup of rice to their customers. The private sector is enjoined to practice corporate farming or to ensure that employees are given rice subsidies through planting of rice by the country's biggest corporations.
Public universities are told to open their gymnasiums so they can be used as rice warehouses. Agricultural colleges are encouraged to increase farm demonstration laboratories to bolster the administration's food security and stability program.
The military was ordered to make military trucks and aerial logistics available for the delivery and distribution of rice around the country. Police forces were mobilized to guard against rice smuggling. The government cancelled the licenses of rice traders to weed out unscrupulous merchants. Agricultural officials are conducting spot inspections of rice warehouses to monitor the rice supply in the country.
President Arroyo reported that she has succeeded in persuading Vietnam and other countries from Southeast Asia to continue exporting rice to the Philippines.
Is the government doing enough to avert a full-blown rice and food crisis? Many people are not satisfied with the proposed action plan of the government. Senators are looking for a master plan which will comprehensively tackle the modernization of Philippine agriculture.
Many people believe the government failed to act quickly when Thailand and Vietnam restricted rice exports to the Philippines a few years ago. What was done to raise rice production in the Philippines? What support programs were implemented to boost productivity of Filipino farmers? The government-sponsored food summit was a belated effort of the government to compensate for its initial failure to draft a sustainable agricultural program.
Accusing the people of wasteful consumption of rice is unfair. The Senate president was right when he asserted, "There is nothing wrong with our eating habits, but there is with the government's spending priorities." Another lawmaker also argued, "The problem is not wasteful consumption but inadequate consumption. How can you waste rice when there is no rice to waste in the first place?"
Opposition parties are proposing the immediate release of local calamity funds for farmers. They also suggest that local governments should establish a food security early warning mechanism to ensure targeted distribution of rice.
The opposition believes that reactivation of peace talks with rebels will allow the unimpeded cultivation, planting, tending and harvesting of crops in conflict areas. Finally, creation of special investigative and prosecutorial teams is proposed to run after hoarders and corrupt elements in the agriculture department.
The government's proposed solutions to the rice and food crisis can be described as palliative. They do not address the root of the problem. The government continues to endorse rice importation and agricultural liberalization despite its failure to revive Philippine agriculture.
In fact, peasant groups explain that the country's growing dependence on rice imports is the reason behind the worsening rice crisis. A senator notes that rice importation "symbolizes the government's neglect of the local agriculture sector." An NGO adds, "Rice importation has not resulted in lowered rice prices, but worsened the bankruptcy of farmers and even placed the country in greater food insecurity."
Peasant groups want the government to increase local procurement of rice instead of relying on imports. The government, not rice traders, should buy more rice and other agricultural products from farmers. This will improve farmers' income while preventing greedy merchants from exploiting poor farmers.
Land-use conversions of rice lands should be stopped. Food crops should be prioritized over cash crops and biofuel crops. The bloated funding for debt and war spending should be realigned to food production. The rice cartel should be dismantled. Rice smugglers should be charged with economic sabotage.
Finally, the rice crisis today is an opportunity to review the land reform programs of the government in the past four decades. Landlessness remains a fundamental problem in Philippine society. Agricultural production is still backward. Perhaps it is time to implement a genuine agrarian reform. A sound agricultural system will propel the Philippine economy. At the same time, it will ensure that all Filipinos have access to food at all times.
Related entries:
Rice shortage
Hunger
Land reform
Blog habits
There are bloggers who are satisfied in re-publishing articles written by other persons. This is not my style. As much as possible, I post original articles which I want to share to the world.
In this blog, there are few url links in the content page. Usually, I include url links at the beginning or end of an article. Too many url links disturb the flow of reading. I want readers to finish reading the whole article first before encouraging them to read related topics. In the preface of the bestseller Revolt of the Masses, Teodoro Agoncillo explained that he preferred endnotes over footnotes so that readers will not be distracted while reading the book. Somehow, I am guided by this thinking.
In this blog, there are few links, widgets in the sidebar. When I was a newbie blogger, I was always looking for something to “decorate” my blog with numerous widgets and blog applications. Later, I realized this was very trivial. Content is more important. If your articles are interesting, original or relevant, people will notice your blog (“If you build it, they will come,” hehe).
I am satisfied with the traffic generated by my blog. Although in 2004 and 2005, I was anxious to increase the number of readers of my blog. I was always bloghopping to encourage bloggers to visit my blog. I was posting blog articles in friendster bulletin.
Now I am no longer much interested in promoting my blog in social networking sites, message boards and e-groups. This blog generates modest hits but most of my readers have read my articles in other popular sites: Yehey (a leading Philippine-based web portal), Global Voices (one of the most visited blogs in the world) and UPI-Asia.
In this blog, there are few pictures. I maintain a separate online photo album. I know readers today are more visual; they need pictures so that they will understand the issues better. But this is not my priority. I want to emphasize again: content is more important. I want my readers to spend some time in this blog to learn new topics and to be familiar with my insights. My goal is not to entertain.
I am not a liveblogging practitioner. I admire livebloggers. We need these disciplined, innovative, and fast bloggers. These bloggers improve citizen journalism. But I am an advocate of slow blogging. I am a slow blogger. I do not often discuss headline-grabbing events or scandals. I wait for some days or weeks before I tackle these issues. I wait in order to gather more facts and to ascertain the arguments of different writers.
Besides, reacting to current national issues is not simply limited to blogging. Direct political intervention should be prioritized. And this is my primary concern. First and last, I am an activist.
I have also learned to recognize that others are more competent and comfortable in writing instant commentaries and sort of press release statements. My preferred task then is to highlight the issues which were overlooked and which I believe should be further discussed in public. My interest is to write about topics which are often ignored by mainstream media.
For example, everybody was commenting about the active student support for Jun Lozada. My tack was to explain why students are suddenly mobilizing support for Lozada and why the latter was perceived as the ideal witness by the middle class. Instead of echoing the press statements of mass organizations, I decided to write about the history of the rice shortage in the country.
Slow blogging has numerous benefits. There is no pressure to write about hot topics. There is no demand to immediately upload government documents, transcripts and interviews. And it gives me the time to research about topics which I really want to highlight.
I have a list of topics which I intend to tackle one by one in my blog. This list is updated continuously. Right now, there are more than 20 issues which are yet to be written and uploaded in my blog. Sometimes it takes a few months before I am able to discuss a listed topic in this blog. For example, I thought of writing my blog habits as early as October of last year.
I rarely reply in the comment section of this blog. Usually, I answer my readers through email. I started moderating comments because of spam. There is another reason why I am not too keen to answer my readers in the blog. I cannot make everybody agree with my opinion. I cannot succeed all the time in making everybody understand my viewpoint, or call it worldview. There is always a counter-argument for every argument. I cannot impose my version of truth on others. And sometimes I do not want to engage sillyheads and arrogant commentators in cyberspace.
Let me quote some writers to illustrate further the problematic. Asked to comment about people reading him as disguised Marxist, anti-Marxist, new conservative, nihilist, anarchist, etc., Michel Foucault replied in this way:
“I’m amused by the diversity of the ways I’ve been judged and classified. Something tells me that by now a more or less approximate place should have been found for me, after so many efforts in such various directions; and since I obviously can’t suspect the competence of the people who are getting muddled up in their divergent judgments, since it isn’t possible to challenge their inattention or their prejudices, I have to be convinced that their inability to situate me has something to do with me.”
Or as David Harvey interepreted Derrida:
“Writers create texts or use words on the basis of all other texts and words they have encountered, while readers deal with them in the same way. Cultural life is then viewed as a series of texts intersecting with other texts, producing more texts. This intertextual weaving has a life of its own. Whatever we write conveys meanings we do not or could not possibly intend, and our words cannot say what we mean.”
Writer Michael Luntley adds some points:
“No matter how much evidence we amass in support of a claim, no matter how convincing the reasons to which we appeal, there is still a gap between all that and a demonstration of the truth of the knowledge claimed...Let’s capture this sense of the lack of foundations for knowledge by saying: there is no mechanical recipe for knowledge.”
Philosopher Slavoj Zizer offers an advice:
“In ordinary language, the truth is never fully established; there is ‘another side’ to every point; every statement can be negated; undecidability is all-encompassing – this eternal vacillation is interpreted only by the intervention of some quilting point. According to Lacan, psychoanalytic discourse aims at breaking this vicious cycle of all-pervasive argumentation...”
PS: Gee, I sounded too postmodernish in the latter part of this article. Well, it’s the weekend. And I’m bored. I want to indulge in some language games and postmodernist claptrap. Let me assure you that I remain (to borrow some words from Dodong) an unrepentant mongista, este maoista.
By the way, I’m using dial-up for my internet connection. And one reason why I decided to write about my blog habits is because I will soon ditch the dial-up in favor of a broadband connection. Since April 1, I started assuming a bigger role in the Global Voices network. I need a fast internet connection.
Related entries:
Ambeth Ocampo
Aguinaldo-Imelda
Blogismo
Blog works
Cybercampaign
Fastfood is good for our hearts
Three fastfood outlets have just opened inside the compound of the Philippine Heart Center in Quezon City. Streamers announcing the opening of these popular food stores were placed at the gate of the hospital. This sends a subtle though dangerous message to the public that eating burgers, fries and softdrinks is good for our hearts.
What a good marketing strategy for the fastfood companies. How irresponsible of hospital officials to allow these stores to open within the Heart Center. Is the Heart Center now endorsing foods which are rich in cholesterol, fatty acid and salt?
Of all public hospitals, the Heart Center should be the most aggressive in promoting a balanced diet among consumers. How could it teach the public to take good care of their hearts when it just allowed fastfood outlets, which are not offering healthy meals, to open inside its premises?
The selling of burgers, fries and softdrinks in front of the Heart Center is like opening a lotto outlet in a church or the selling of cigarettes in the Lung Center. Maybe the Heart Center officials did not intend to instruct the public to eat junk foods but they indirectly promoted these unhealthy meals when they allowed fastfood stores to operate inside the Heart Center. This is not public service.
I believe the Heart Center was forced to lease out a portion of its property since it lacks resources for its operations. Public hospitals and the health sector are not receiving enough subsidies from the national government. Public hospitals are forced to charge higher fees or to commercialize their assets in order to continue giving quality service to poor patients.
The government should increase the funds of the health sector. Lawmakers should allot more of their pork barrel to public hospitals. Another way to generate more resources for social services is to eliminate corruption in government. If contracts are not overpriced and projects are efficiently implemented, there will be more money available for the needs of our hospitals.
The food crisis today is not limited to rising prices and lack of supply. It is also about the quality of food we are eating. Public hospitals should be a reliable partner of government in educating the public about the role of proper diet in maintaining a healthy and productive lifestyle. Sadly, the Heart Center interpreted this duty by indirectly encouraging the public to eat burgers, fries, and softdrinks.
Practical nurses
An article which was published in a major daily two weeks ago mentioned the opposition of the Philippine Nurses Association to the “Practical Nurses” course offering of the Commission on Higher Education. The nursing group wants the higher education body to remove the new program because “it was misleading students into thinking it would qualify them for work in hospitals abroad.”
According to Ched, the “Practical Nursing” program is part of the “ladderized education scheme that aims to bridge the gap between vocational-technical training and a college degree.”
Maybe the nursing group has other reasons why it is opposing the new program. Ched should address these criticisms. But the idea of training and producing practical nurses is commendable. Whether initiated by Ched or other organizations, the country needs to train more practical nurses who have clear grasp of the health needs of our people, especially those living in the barrios.
The country is already suffering from the mass exodus of Filipino doctors, nurses and other health workers. Hospitals are closing down due to lack of qualified health personnel. Urban poor and peasant communities are deprived of basic health services.
We need creative programs to solve the shortage of health workers in the country. We need practical nurses who can deal with the common health problems of Filipinos. We need health workers who are motivated by a genuine concern to serve the dying and the sick.
Recently, the World Bank reported that poor sanitation is costing the Philippines about $1.4 billion in economic losses. More Filipino children are afflicted with acute lower respiratory infection, malaria, as well as increased mortality from other childhood diseases. The Philippines also ranked eighth among 22 countries with high incidence of Tuberculosis says the World Health Organization.
This is another reason why we should give more priority in training practical nurses who can assist the government in educating the people about proper sanitation and other instructions for healthy living.
Unfortunately, nursing schools, whether Ched-administered or privately-owned, are more concerned in training nurses who can pass the standards required by big local hospitals and foreign employers. It seems nursing education has failed to inspire the students about the need to prioritize the health needs of the poor. Higher education in general has been reduced as a technical requirement to clinch employment abroad.
The notion of mass producing practical nurses is not bad at all. Whether they will be called nursing assistants or second rate nurses does not matter as long as they are determined to work in poor communities and help in addressing the health needs of Filipinos.
And why stop with practical nurses? Let’s also produce practical doctors. These are hard and interesting times. Doctors are studying again to become nurses. We need new doctors. We need practical health workers. If we fail to act swiftly, the other more dangerous alternative is to accredit the faith healers as the new health workers of the country.
Related entries:
Burgers, fries, coke, politics
Books for coke
Jollibee kid
Ban junk food
Exporting nurses
Labor export
The doctor is out
Roots of the rice shortage
Below is an updated version of an article which I wrote a year ago....
The price of rice is skyrocketing all over the world. This trend will continue until the end of the year, and it is causing panic in many Asian countries, including the Philippines.
Why is rice getting more expensive? The rice supply is decreasing. Floods in many Asian countries have affected the rice output in the region. Rice exporting nations like Thailand and Vietnam have also reduced their exports to prioritize their local needs. On the other hand, demand for rice has been increasing, especially in India and China.
The Philippines is one of the top importers of rice in the world. Rice is a politically sensitive commodity in this country. It is not surprising that reports of a rice shortage have energized political debate and public concern regarding the economic policies of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
If the global supply of rice is dwindling, what is being done to increase local production? In the first place, why is the Philippines, which is predominantly an agricultural nation, importing rice from other countries?
An article entitled "Food Security and Rice" by Dr. Onofre Corpuz provides some historical background on the rice shortage in the Philippines. The article mentions the policies of the government which have weakened the local rice industry.
According to Corpuz, the annual shortages in rice production should not be described as "crises." The Philippines has been importing rice since the 1870s -- this is more than 130 years. He blames government planning on food security for the shortages in rice production.
When Spain decided to open Philippine ports in 1835, it allowed its colony to trade non-rice products to other countries. There was a high demand for cane sugar, molasses, indigo, abaca, tobacco and coffee. Rice farmers began to plant these food items, and by 1870 there was already a rice shortage in the country. The Philippines began importing rice from Indochina. During the 1890s, the Philippines was importing 45,000 tons of rice annually.
Corpuz also mentioned the following reasons for the rice shortage during the Spanish era:
1. A primitive rice culture, from land preparation to harvesting;
2. A feudal system since the Spanish conquest. Families who owned small plots did not enjoy property rights;
3. A religious culture that meant 100-120 days of "enforced idleness," since work was banned during Sundays, town feasts and church holidays; and
4. Farmers or sharecroppers in haciendas (plantations) tilled small parcels of land yielding low output, thus preventing any savings. The farmers were always in debt, and the Spanish government had no assistance program for them.
After the Revolution of 1896 and the subsequent Philippine-American War, rice production was very low. Many lands had been idled. The population of carabao – water buffaloes that helped till the land -- was reduced. And many agricultural workers died during the war.
The U.S. civilian government instituted economic measures to cope with the low rice ouput. It fixed prices, bought foreign rice and undertook the distribution of rice down to the barrio, or district, level. From 1901-36, the colonial government bought 335.5 million pesos worth of rice.
Corpuz summed up the official policy of the U.S. government on agriculture: Producing the export crops offered better returns than producing the country's rice requirements domestically; therefore, the export crop sector must be promoted, and, in the event of rice shortages, foreign rice was to be imported at as cheap prices as possible.
This led to the cultivation of more land for producing sugar, abaca and coconut -- which produced raw materials needed by U.S. industries. These products were allowed to enter the U.S. market without quota and duty-free.
The colonial regime neglected to provide rice farmers with technological programs to increase rice yields. U.S. officials collaborated with local landlords in denying the right of small farmers to obtain property rights to their lands.
In 1931 Philippine Agriculture Secretary Rafael Alunan reported that Indochina nations produced 2,200 kilos of rice per hectare, while the Philippines produced only 1,225 kilos. He also claimed that the Philippines was behind Java by 30 years in terms of scientific and technological support for agriculture.
Corpuz could not understand the low priority given to rice farmers despite the fact that during this period, "the rice sector was the largest sector in the Philippine economy in terms of value of product, labor force engaged and number of families dependent on the sector for their livelihood, and hectarage covered."
Corpuz wrote that the policies of price controls and rice imports were done to keep rice prices low "for the benefit of salaried government employees and the service population of Manila, and to keep the food costs of labor in the export agriculture and domestic manufacturing sectors low."
This brief history of the rice sector can shed light on the numerous periods of agrarian unrest in the country. It can also correct the wrong notion that the Philippines was a rice exporting nation or that it has been teaching other Asians how to increase rice productivity.
The article can help explain the rice and food shortages that the Philippines are experiencing today. Something is wrong with an economic policy that prioritizes the planting of cash crops to be exported to other countries over the planting of food crops needed by the people who are suffering from hunger.
Instead of increasing local rice production, the government is dependent on imported rice. Since joining the World Trade Organization in 1995, the Philippines has become Asia's top rice importer with average annual imports of over 1 million metric tons.
Rice lands are also disappearing because of land conversion. The government today, like the Spanish and American colonial governments of the past, has been persuading farmers to plant cash crops and other export products. Big landlords are also converting farmland into golf courses, residential villages, and agro-industrial parks to apply for exemption from the land distribution program of the government.
The rice problem is made worse by rice smuggling. Unscrupulous rice traders collude with politicians and agricultural officials in hoarding rice supplies. This creates an artificial crisis which jacks up the price of rice. Corruption is also to be blamed. In the 2004 elections, President Arroyo distributed millions in fertilizer funds to her loyal supporters. The money could have been used to improve rice productivity.
Rice is the staple food of Filipinos. Remove it from the tables and there will be mass unrest. Blaming the weather and the limited global supply to explain the rice shortage is not enough. The government has to abandon its agricultural liberalization program and its overdependence on rice imports. The government must adopt emergency measures to increase the rice output of farmers. The time has come to implement a genuine agrarian reform.
Related entries:
Worsening hunger
Land reform
Organic farm
Hacienda Luisita
