Rice a Political Commodity . . .

By Robert T. Rivera

"There is a strong relationship between rice and politics because of its "importance as a staple food and calories source of the majority of the population, especially in the low income groups, as well as a source of employment and income to a wide range of people that comprise the demand and supply chain." Ponciano Intal, Jr. and Marissa C. Garcia concluded in the discussion paper series number 2005-13 they presented before the Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

The result of the study disclose that "the price of rice has been a significant determinant in election results since the 1950s, with the exception of 1998, where despite stable prices, the candidates from the incumbent administration failed to win the presidential election.  In addition, reliance by Philippine Government primarily on rice instruments to achieve its rice objectives and to protect farmer and consumer  interests has not resulted in any substantial improvements in rice production."

X  x  x . . . findings of Intal, Jr. and Garcia's study hold true until today.  There has been a relentless clamor in the past to disband the National Food Authority and let the price of rice be dictated by the market's law of supply and demand.  For the government to abdicate its police power to regulate rice importation, however, is risky.  By hoarding their rice stocks, unscrupulous rice traders can control the price of rice to create artificial shortage.  Thus, they can gain control to both local and imported rice stock to dictate its market price.  A peso increase for every kilo of rice can be translated to millions considering that more than half or all Filipinos eat rice as a staple food.

Different programs were adopted by the government subsidizing expenditures in almost all aspect of rice production in the hope of attaining rice sufficiency.  From providing credit, fertilizer, equipment, post harvest facilities, to land reform and others, government subsidy is there.   Yet, it would seem that the people's aspiration to free the farmers from the bondage of the soil is an impossible dream.  This only means that there is something wrong with the programs and policies adopted by the government to address the issue.  Does change in its approach to solve the problem should be made if it wanted to free the farmers from the bondage of the soil and ensure food security of our people?