Happily, Mar Roxas Carries The Burden Of Agriculture

MANILA: Raissa Robles I believe does not believe in Mar Roxas, to say the least, but I thank her for the photograph above (raissarobles.com dated 2014). Thank you Raissa for the photo – it's a perfect image with which I wish to say, "Mar Roxas has been happily carrying the burden of agriculture since at least August 2014."

But before that, let me quote Raissa on a positive as well as a negative note:

On the face of it, Mar Roxas has the intellectual credentials to run a complex government in the 21st century. He is Wharton-educated. He was once an investment banker who put together successful deals...

But let's face it. Mar Roxas is not exciting. The majority who are poor cannot relate to him, perhaps because he lacks a believable narrative for them.

Thank you Raissa for saying Mar Roxas has the intellectual credentials to be President!

Mar Roxas is not exciting. No Raissa, he isn't. He isn't grandstanding. He isn't lying through his teeth. He doesn't womanize. He doesn't kiss girls who will or against their will. He doesn't have secret bank accounts that he keeps denying. To catch more attention, he is not planning to curse Pope Francis by saying something like, "Pope, putang-ina ka, tumahimik ka na!" ("Pope, your mother's a fucker, shut up!"). Boring.

To resolve the criminality of this country, Mar Roxas will not deal with any Devious Death Squad (DDS). Hmm, DDS – crime against crime doesn’t pay. Not being Mayor of Davao City, he has not slept with the enemy either, the CPP/NPA. As President, Roxas will not sleep with the enemy.

Mar Roxas knows that criminality in the Philippines cannot be eradicated in 6 months, a grandstanding promise by Dirty Harry. What Mar Roxas knows is that it must be an anti-crime campaign, long-term. Against crime, when he was Secretary of Interior & Local Government, these were institutionalized: (1) use of data science to determine crime prone areas, (2) an e-blotter system, (3) CCTVs in areas of high volume pedestrian traffic, and (4) grant of at least one patrol jeep to each of the 1490 municipalities in the country (marroxas.com). You cannot fight criminality alone, and within 6 months eradicate it, even if you were the President.

But more than that, Mar Roxas knows the importance of agriculture. I'm a UP Los Baños graduate, so I'm expected to give agriculture the top priority; but not Solita Monsod, and she unexpectedly says, "Agriculture (is) a must issue in 2016 presidential election" (06 February 2016, Get Real, opinion.inquirer.net). An economist, Solita must know something that you don't!

Agriculture in fact was one of the main topics in the first presidential debate, held in Cagayan de Oro City. Solita says of the subject:

Low agricultural productivity in great part leads to our first problem:  Poverty in the Philippines is a rural – and agricultural – phenomenon.  About 70 percent of the poor are in rural areas, and about 66 percent of our poor are in agriculture. So if we want to solve our poverty problem, we have to concentrate on agriculture.

Mar Roxas has thought of agriculture more than any of the other presidential candidates. Why do I say that? For instance, nobody else has been saying, as he has, that "he will push for the bonding of farmers to turn them into competitive agriculture production forces" (Aaron B Recuenco, 02 November 2015, "Mar Roxas on agriculture," mb.com.ph). He was thinking ahead, a candidate with a head. He was thinking economies of scale.

What about land tenure? Recuenco says, "Roxas said the present setup of merely distributing the lands for farmers proved to be not that effective in helping farmers to earn well even for their respective families." Roxas himself says, as Recuenco quotes him:

(Unoganized), farmers are like businessmen who are left on their own to till their lands and earn from them. So in times of disaster like the recent typhoon "Lando," all that they have invested for their crops would just vanish which further aggravate their situation.

So the farmers, Roxas notes, "eventually get stuck in the cycle of debt which is worse than company bankruptcy."

The doctor has to diagnose the disease before he prescribes a cure or treatment. Mar Roxas knows his agriculture like the other 4 presidential candidates don't.

Agriculture is not only planting rice. Or corn, or banana. At the forum held by the Makati Business Club-Management Association of the Philippines, Perry Pe asked Roxas, "What is your view, and if you become President, would you support the country joining the TPP program?" (Cocoy Dayao, 30 March 2016,  web.facebook.com). The TPP is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement signed in Auckland, New Zealand by 12 Pacific Rim countries on 04 February 2016: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States and Vietnam (Wikipedia). In his reply, Mar Roxas said, "For TPP, as it stands right now, no, I would not be in favor of it because it will kill our agriculture sector."

Is that predicted demise greatly exaggerated? Not if you look at Philippine agriculture as it is right now: The government does not subsidize it; there is no export subsidy – we don't buy from our farmers "to enable them to stay alive," Roxas says. I say, "Actually, our farmers are barely alive." I am right now the Vice Chair of a multi-purpose cooperative with farmers as members, and I have been to many places in La Union and Pangasinan as a consultant for the Department of Agrarian Reform, so I have seen firsthand how the farmers behave and cope. So I do not wonder that, as Solita Monsod has pointed out, 66% of our poor are in agriculture.

More on the Asean comparison in agriculture. Roxas points out:

What's the difference between Vietnam and us? Vietnam is a one unitary landed country with (the) Mekong River Delta as (its irrigated) field. (The) Philippines is an archipelago. We have to build our irrigation. So their rice is infinitely cheaper to produce than our rice.

You cannot compete if you are not cheaper.

So I think what (we) need to do is we don't look at these things as ends in themselves. Trade agreements for our country should be access to markets, should be opportunities. If we don't find opportunity, if we do not find access, why go to it and just have the negatives? Because they intend to sell to us. I mean to be part of trade agreement TPP, the other countries intend to sell to us. We must (be) very clear what we intend to sell to them and is it viable?

We don't have access; we have yet to find opportunities. As of now, products of Filipino farmers are not that viable and Philippine agriculture is certainly not competitive.

We need leadership in agriculture more than we have had. Mar Roxas for President!