"The law should be given a chance to grow and prove its worth."
"The law should be given a chance to grow and prove its worth."
The media have been reporting that some sectors of Philippine society are unhappy with the terms and implementation of the Rice Tariffication Law and that some farmers and congressional groups are preparing the repeal of arguably the most significant piece of rice industry-specific legislation in the post-war era. The law was passed by the 17th Congress in its last year.
The dissatisfaction being felt about the Rice Tariffication Act reminds me of the popular 1970s song “I Beg Your Pardon.” The first two lines of that lilting song were “I beg your pardon, I didn’t promise you a rose garden.” Obviously, the person at the receiving end of those words expected more from the other person than the latter had intended to give.
If the groups that are unhappy with the terms and the implementational provisions of the Rice Tariffication Act are feeling that way, it is because they thought that the new law—in the words of the 1970s song—promised them a rose garden. They are wrong. The Act did not promise anyone a rose garden.
The objective of the Rice Tariffication Act is made up of two parts. The first part was to shift the activity of bringing foreign capital from the public sector to the private sector. The second part, an offshoot of the first, was to generate government revenues with which to provide government financial assistance to the Philippine rice industry. That, no more and no less, is the garden that the Act promised to the Filipino people.
There are numerous things that the Rice Tariffication Act did not—repeat, not—promise the Filipino people. For one thing, it did not promise that farmgate and retail prices would fall or rise to certain levels; those are the results of the importing and selling decisions of traders operating in a free rice market. For another, the Act did not promise that Filipino rice farmers overnight would become competitive with the farmers of the countries from which rice imports come; this country’s rice farmers are capable, with sustained and dedicated government assistance, of being competitive with the farmers of the countries that are the Philippines’ rice suppliers. And the Act certainly did not promise that prices in the retail market would always be sufficiently remunerative for this country’s rice farmers and, at the same time, affordable for its rice consumers.
The Rice Tariffication Act (1) replaced the quota mechanism, prohibited by WTO (The World Trade Organization) that previously had been allowed in order to ease the eventual shift to a tariff system and, (2) as already stated, transferred rice import activity from the government to the private sector. That is all that Congress intended to achieve with the Act.
The trouble with the critics of the Rice Tariffication Act—and the reason why they are badmouthing it—is that many people in this country, including legislators and merchants, have become so used to import controls, quotas, subsidies, limits and other unsound regulatory concepts that they are uncomfortable with the notions of market competition and operational efficiency. At the first sign of difficulty or discomfort, they give up and run to Mama Government.
The Rice Tariffication Act is still in its infancy. It should be given a chance to grow and prove its worth.