Here are five articles on divorce, from my BusinessWorld column:
- Divorce means freedom. Not really. Nor is it free;
- Divorce is just a bad idea;
- Divorce and the progressive ambition to destroy the family;
- Divorce and its damaging effect on children and society; and
- Divorce is a deadly killer!
Feel free to copy, quote, or share with proper attribution.
31.3.19
Compilation of articles on the SOGI bill, LGBT 'rights', and same sex 'marriage'
For the convenience of those arguing in favor of the family and marriage, here are the articles or papers I've written on the matter so far:
- There is no such thing as SOGI rights, just human rights;
- The SOGI law will hurt business owners, schools, the military;
- House testimony on the SOGI anti-discrimination bill;
- Gay rights and marriage;
- Gay marriage not a human right;
- Still no right to gay marriage;
- Death and the transgender;
- Transgender policy: he or she as they want to be; and
- The continued womanization of men.
Inasmuch as LGBT activists are wont to rely on international law to override Philippine law to advance their agenda, here are my thoughts on international human rights (click here).
Feel free to copy, quote, or share with proper attribution.
- There is no such thing as SOGI rights, just human rights;
- The SOGI law will hurt business owners, schools, the military;
- House testimony on the SOGI anti-discrimination bill;
- Gay rights and marriage;
- Gay marriage not a human right;
- Still no right to gay marriage;
- Death and the transgender;
- Transgender policy: he or she as they want to be; and
- The continued womanization of men.
Inasmuch as LGBT activists are wont to rely on international law to override Philippine law to advance their agenda, here are my thoughts on international human rights (click here).Feel free to copy, quote, or share with proper attribution.
17.4.17
Facebook page
Hi all. Have been very busy lately and unable to update this blog. Hope to be able to do so soon enough.
In the meantime, please do follow me at my public Facebook page here.
In the meantime, please do follow me at my public Facebook page here.
18.11.16
Civics 101
my Trade Tripper column in the 15-16 October 2015 issue of BusinessWorld:
First off, we don’t do kings.
It says so right in the Constitution.
There’s no tribal elder or wise old man. There is no “father of the nation” benignly looking over us helpless children. We are a government of self-rule, embodying our will in a specific constitutional system.
This is what it means when we declare that we are a government of, by, and for the people. The people made government and government exists for the people (not the other way around).
The public servants we appointed (or elected) are servants in a peculiar way: their service is to make or implement rules over us. Their ability to “rule,” however, is not unrestrained, kinglike, or godlike. It is very narrow, timebound and limited.
The last means that public servants cannot exercise powers they do not have. Their powers are restricted to that stated in the Constitution or legislative enactments. That’s also why we broke up the major functions of government to three (and this is the important part) “equal” branches.
We did this so that not one person has greater power over the people. Final say and responsibility is always with the people.
What’s the measure by which pubic servants must comply? Aside from the expressed functions in the Constitution and laws, there’s also the overall standard of the “common good.”
The “common good” is that peculiar phrase found in the Constitution’s preamble. It means the flourishing of each and every human being towards a purpose and within an environment that the members of the society laid out or created by themselves.
How do we know this? Because we recognized each human being as a rational creature; i.e., blessed with an intellect. Also, because we recognize that all human beings are created equal, and imbued with dignity and rights. These are in the Constitution. Being so, a citizen must not be dictated upon and should be trusted to figure out for himself/herself what is good for him/her personally.
There is a further limit to the powers of government and that’s the concept of “subsidiarity.” This simply means that issues and problems that can be handled by the smallest political unit (i.e., the individual) should be handled by that individual; if unable, then the family, then the neighborhood, then the town, then the province; and only if such is unable, should the national government step in.
How do we know this? Because the dignity and rights of every single human being are to be respected in our Constitution; that our Constitution recognizes the family as a “basic autonomous social institution,” and that our Constitution encourages local governments towards “local autonomy.”
In practice, this means that with regard to education, formation of beliefs (including religion and values), health, welfare, employment, housing, commerce, and so on, the main responsibility lies with the parents and the family (specially), then the neighborhood parish, civic organizations, the businessman down the street.
The actual main job of government is to serve and protect the people, which include maintaining peace and order, and securing life, liberty, and property. All others are secondary and only as assistant to the people. This is in the Constitution.
The rationale behind it is that if the people abdicate their responsibilities and prefer government stepping in, the latter’s tendency is to want more power: soon, it will be telling people what to eat, work, buy, believe, travel, who to be with. Which requires more government personnel/resources, which demands a bigger budget, hence more taxes. Hence, lesser autonomy for the people: less money in the wallet, less choices, less exercise of free will. Thus, more dependency. And on and on.
People complain about democracy (and the rule of law) because it’s messy and slow. Here’s a shocker: it’s supposed to be messy and slow! The system is designed to protect us from our passing passions and the temptation of quick fixes.
It encourages people to study, debate, and ponder, and eventually come up with a deliberate solution for the common good because of the (wise) assumption that the government does not and cannot know and solve everything.
Our dignity and self-respect demand that we govern and rule ourselves.
When we say Philippines and common good, we’re not only talking of the 100 million living in our country right now. We also mean those that died before us, that fought and built this country they believed in (and its values and culture). We the living have a responsibility that they not die in vain.
The Philippines includes also those yet to be born, deserving to flourish as human beings, and thus our responsibility to bequeath to them a decent country they’d be proud of, to work for (and die for, if necessary) because they know that it stands for something bigger than the merely passing.
This is the Philippines embodied in our Constitution. It was a great idea. Too bad, it hasn’t been implemented.
First off, we don’t do kings.
It says so right in the Constitution.
There’s no tribal elder or wise old man. There is no “father of the nation” benignly looking over us helpless children. We are a government of self-rule, embodying our will in a specific constitutional system.
This is what it means when we declare that we are a government of, by, and for the people. The people made government and government exists for the people (not the other way around).
The public servants we appointed (or elected) are servants in a peculiar way: their service is to make or implement rules over us. Their ability to “rule,” however, is not unrestrained, kinglike, or godlike. It is very narrow, timebound and limited.
The last means that public servants cannot exercise powers they do not have. Their powers are restricted to that stated in the Constitution or legislative enactments. That’s also why we broke up the major functions of government to three (and this is the important part) “equal” branches.
We did this so that not one person has greater power over the people. Final say and responsibility is always with the people.
What’s the measure by which pubic servants must comply? Aside from the expressed functions in the Constitution and laws, there’s also the overall standard of the “common good.”
The “common good” is that peculiar phrase found in the Constitution’s preamble. It means the flourishing of each and every human being towards a purpose and within an environment that the members of the society laid out or created by themselves.
How do we know this? Because we recognized each human being as a rational creature; i.e., blessed with an intellect. Also, because we recognize that all human beings are created equal, and imbued with dignity and rights. These are in the Constitution. Being so, a citizen must not be dictated upon and should be trusted to figure out for himself/herself what is good for him/her personally.
There is a further limit to the powers of government and that’s the concept of “subsidiarity.” This simply means that issues and problems that can be handled by the smallest political unit (i.e., the individual) should be handled by that individual; if unable, then the family, then the neighborhood, then the town, then the province; and only if such is unable, should the national government step in.
How do we know this? Because the dignity and rights of every single human being are to be respected in our Constitution; that our Constitution recognizes the family as a “basic autonomous social institution,” and that our Constitution encourages local governments towards “local autonomy.”
In practice, this means that with regard to education, formation of beliefs (including religion and values), health, welfare, employment, housing, commerce, and so on, the main responsibility lies with the parents and the family (specially), then the neighborhood parish, civic organizations, the businessman down the street.
The actual main job of government is to serve and protect the people, which include maintaining peace and order, and securing life, liberty, and property. All others are secondary and only as assistant to the people. This is in the Constitution.
The rationale behind it is that if the people abdicate their responsibilities and prefer government stepping in, the latter’s tendency is to want more power: soon, it will be telling people what to eat, work, buy, believe, travel, who to be with. Which requires more government personnel/resources, which demands a bigger budget, hence more taxes. Hence, lesser autonomy for the people: less money in the wallet, less choices, less exercise of free will. Thus, more dependency. And on and on.
People complain about democracy (and the rule of law) because it’s messy and slow. Here’s a shocker: it’s supposed to be messy and slow! The system is designed to protect us from our passing passions and the temptation of quick fixes.
It encourages people to study, debate, and ponder, and eventually come up with a deliberate solution for the common good because of the (wise) assumption that the government does not and cannot know and solve everything.
Our dignity and self-respect demand that we govern and rule ourselves.
When we say Philippines and common good, we’re not only talking of the 100 million living in our country right now. We also mean those that died before us, that fought and built this country they believed in (and its values and culture). We the living have a responsibility that they not die in vain.
The Philippines includes also those yet to be born, deserving to flourish as human beings, and thus our responsibility to bequeath to them a decent country they’d be proud of, to work for (and die for, if necessary) because they know that it stands for something bigger than the merely passing.
This is the Philippines embodied in our Constitution. It was a great idea. Too bad, it hasn’t been implemented.
28.10.16
Why federalism? Why indeed.
my Trade Tripper column in the 8-9 October 2016 issue of BusinessWorld:
A phrase we need to remember: “one cannot have one’s cake and eat it too.” Taken literally, that saying (like “more or less”) actually makes no sense. After all, why have a cake if in the end you can’t eat it? But what it really means is that you can’t have an existing cake if you’ve already eaten it. In short: you can’t have it both ways. You can’t have it all.
Something to keep in mind whenever we speak of federalism.
Normally, federal forms of government are what we think of when we see the United States (with a land area of 9.8 million square kilometers), Brazil (8.5 million sq. km.), Australia (7.7 million sq. km.), Canada (10 million sq. km.), and Mexico (2 million sq. km).
A far cry from the Philippines 300,000 sq. km.
Of course, there is Germany (357,021 sq. km.) or even Austria (84,000 sq. km). But one can always find an exception for anything. Such as Indonesia, which has 1.9 million sq. km. and yet retains a unitary government.
There is also, however, history and culture. Particularly the United States, which had a vibrant “13 colonies” already existing, with years of experience in constitutional government, before they were assembled as the US.
The point is: through the years, despite deeply specific varying local traditions and quirks, there was already a strong preexisting common set of values and beliefs that unified those federal countries as a whole.
Unless, therefore, one has a level of comfort regarding the strength of that unity, then, as the Institute for Development and Electoral Assistance puts it (see Federalism, 2015), federalism offers disadvantages. It can “exacerbate existing differences, sometimes leading to deeper conflicts or state failure.” Also, “federalism is a complicated, often legalistic, form of government, which can be expensive and can hinder the coherent development and application of policies.”
There is also the misconception about federalism being merely a division of governmental functions: essentially one layer but of two levels. Not true. That’s what we have right now with the present Constitution and the Local Government Code. It can be mostly top-down or bottom-up depending on how Congress formulates implementing legislation.
Federalism actually creates two layers of government. Or to be more precise: two parallel authorities each equally exercising power over the citizenry.
Each “State” (i.e., province or region) is left to its own devices to generate income and must provide all the basic governmental services. It has the capacity to make its own laws, as well as judicial and law enforcement. Business permit or driver’s license requirements, for example, would be different in Makati from Davao. Any legal document could only be recognized by the issuing “State” unless reciprocity arrangements are made with other “States.”
The national (or, to use US terminology, the “federal”) government then focuses on foreign affairs and national defense. It necessarily has its own set of laws cutting across the different “States” and must generate its own income.
By right, citizens are free to leave poorly managed “States” and transfer to those providing a better way of life: lower business taxes and less government regulation, as well as better health care or education. Incidentally, the national (or Federal) government cannot logically be obliged to help failing States.
Frankly, that would be good for reasons of subsidiarity and to have a free market competition going on between the different local government units (LGUs), as well as to rid some provinces of their dependency on the Internal Revenue Allocation.
Otherwise, what is the point of creating a federal form of government?
But if the issues really just boil down to funds control and capability to have a faster government response, then we don’t need to amend the Constitution nor shift to federalism for that.
Except for military, police, and judicial services, the rest (i.e., welfare, health, education, tourism, infrastructure) can constitutionally be made the prime responsibility of the LGUs. Hence, Article X: “The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure.” Furthermore, each LGU “shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes,” which “shall accrue exclusively” to the LGU.
Furthermore, proceeds from the utilization of natural resources within an LGU’s area can be legislated such that “equitable share” (Article X.7) from the income thereof means 100% goes to the LGU, in turn logically justifying IRA share (i.e., “just share,” Article X.6) in the remaining national fund to “zero.”
If LGUs think that’s extreme, then to push for federalism truly becomes nonsensical.
It’s like asking for more power sans the responsibility.
Put another way: if local governments really are eager to make it on their own, without imperial Manila breathing down their necks, the same can all be done through congressional legislative action, without amending the Constitution or changing our unitary form of government.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
A phrase we need to remember: “one cannot have one’s cake and eat it too.” Taken literally, that saying (like “more or less”) actually makes no sense. After all, why have a cake if in the end you can’t eat it? But what it really means is that you can’t have an existing cake if you’ve already eaten it. In short: you can’t have it both ways. You can’t have it all.
Something to keep in mind whenever we speak of federalism.
Normally, federal forms of government are what we think of when we see the United States (with a land area of 9.8 million square kilometers), Brazil (8.5 million sq. km.), Australia (7.7 million sq. km.), Canada (10 million sq. km.), and Mexico (2 million sq. km).
A far cry from the Philippines 300,000 sq. km.
Of course, there is Germany (357,021 sq. km.) or even Austria (84,000 sq. km). But one can always find an exception for anything. Such as Indonesia, which has 1.9 million sq. km. and yet retains a unitary government.
There is also, however, history and culture. Particularly the United States, which had a vibrant “13 colonies” already existing, with years of experience in constitutional government, before they were assembled as the US.
The point is: through the years, despite deeply specific varying local traditions and quirks, there was already a strong preexisting common set of values and beliefs that unified those federal countries as a whole.
Unless, therefore, one has a level of comfort regarding the strength of that unity, then, as the Institute for Development and Electoral Assistance puts it (see Federalism, 2015), federalism offers disadvantages. It can “exacerbate existing differences, sometimes leading to deeper conflicts or state failure.” Also, “federalism is a complicated, often legalistic, form of government, which can be expensive and can hinder the coherent development and application of policies.”
There is also the misconception about federalism being merely a division of governmental functions: essentially one layer but of two levels. Not true. That’s what we have right now with the present Constitution and the Local Government Code. It can be mostly top-down or bottom-up depending on how Congress formulates implementing legislation.
Federalism actually creates two layers of government. Or to be more precise: two parallel authorities each equally exercising power over the citizenry.
Each “State” (i.e., province or region) is left to its own devices to generate income and must provide all the basic governmental services. It has the capacity to make its own laws, as well as judicial and law enforcement. Business permit or driver’s license requirements, for example, would be different in Makati from Davao. Any legal document could only be recognized by the issuing “State” unless reciprocity arrangements are made with other “States.”
The national (or, to use US terminology, the “federal”) government then focuses on foreign affairs and national defense. It necessarily has its own set of laws cutting across the different “States” and must generate its own income.
By right, citizens are free to leave poorly managed “States” and transfer to those providing a better way of life: lower business taxes and less government regulation, as well as better health care or education. Incidentally, the national (or Federal) government cannot logically be obliged to help failing States.
Frankly, that would be good for reasons of subsidiarity and to have a free market competition going on between the different local government units (LGUs), as well as to rid some provinces of their dependency on the Internal Revenue Allocation.
Otherwise, what is the point of creating a federal form of government?
But if the issues really just boil down to funds control and capability to have a faster government response, then we don’t need to amend the Constitution nor shift to federalism for that.
Except for military, police, and judicial services, the rest (i.e., welfare, health, education, tourism, infrastructure) can constitutionally be made the prime responsibility of the LGUs. Hence, Article X: “The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure.” Furthermore, each LGU “shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes,” which “shall accrue exclusively” to the LGU.
Furthermore, proceeds from the utilization of natural resources within an LGU’s area can be legislated such that “equitable share” (Article X.7) from the income thereof means 100% goes to the LGU, in turn logically justifying IRA share (i.e., “just share,” Article X.6) in the remaining national fund to “zero.”
If LGUs think that’s extreme, then to push for federalism truly becomes nonsensical.
It’s like asking for more power sans the responsibility.
Put another way: if local governments really are eager to make it on their own, without imperial Manila breathing down their necks, the same can all be done through congressional legislative action, without amending the Constitution or changing our unitary form of government.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Rice is what we make of it
my Trade Tripper column in this 1-2 October 2016 issue of BusinessWorld:
If there is ever a product that most profoundly shaped Philippine politics, economic policy, and international trade, rice (along with sugar) would have to be it. Yet most policy initiatives dealing with rice are sadly defensive. Such, despite the fact, that most Filipinos implicitly profess heavy emotional investment in that little grain.
The Philippine Rice Research Institute, for one, considers “zero rice importation or self-sufficiency has always been the elusive goal of Philippine agriculture policies regardless of political dispensation. Any inferior goal is unpatriotic and criticized as a failure of the government and the nation as a whole.”
Strong stuff.
Pons Intal and Marissa Garcia (in a 2005 PIDS study) discussed the magnitude of rice’s political clout in this way: “the price of rice has been a significant determinant in election results since the 1950s.” That includes the Martial Law years. A possible exception is Estrada’s 1998 popular runaway election.
The problem is basic: we only have around 4.7 million hectares of land suitable for rice. Compare that with 7.8, 10.8, and 13.8 million hectares of Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia respectively. Those millions of hectares are irrigated well and fully by natural large river systems.
The Philippines does not have an equivalent inherent irrigation source and the man-made ones are poorly maintained. Ironically, the modern rice breeds we use (same with Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia) for greater yields and to survive require heavy amounts of water. Unfortunately, our incoming water flow is almost appallingly nil compared to the aforementioned three countries.
Thus, rice yields are at 5.75 tons per hectare (t/ha)., 3.1 t/ha., and 5.13 t/ha. for Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia, respectively. The Philippines does have a respectable 4 t/ha. but for an area less than half of its competitors.
Add the fact that Vietnam (land area of 332,698 sq. km.) has a population of roughly 92 million. Thailand 513,120 sq. km., for a 67 million population. Indonesia 1,904,569 sq. km., for a 255 million population.
The Philippines (area 300,000 sq. km.) needs to feed a population of 100 plus million. Rice consumption, incidentally, means not only as food but also as seed, animal feed, or other non-food uses.
The population increase also relates to the need to convert arable land for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes.
And yet, to add to the fundamental disadvantages that the Philippines has regarding rice production, is the inability of the rice industry to accept and adjust to the same: “farmer interest in rice farming has diminished through the years due to the increasing cost of rice cultivation brought about by the rising opportunity cost of labor and land and the availability of lower priced imported rice, which further dampened incentives for rice production.” Then, also “the lack of proper maintenance of irrigation facilities has meant the deterioration of these systems and the reduction in the effective life of these investments and area coverage.” (Intal and Garcia)
The issue of rice protection has cropped up (pun intended) as a decision is being made to lift WTO quantitative restrictions. When that happens, cursing and gnashing of teeth will be predictably heaped on the WTO, the multilateral trade system, globalization, and the free market.
But then: while protected industries welcome quantitative restrictions or high tariffs, the un-talked about logical unwelcome offshoot is smuggling.
So, despite the Philippines being among the world’s top importers of rice, we still had a rice smuggling problem amounting to almost 50,000 metric tons weekly (as reported by The Diplomat in 2014).
The problem is not the WTO nor smuggling; it’s the inability to feed the huge demand. An inability existing even before the Republic was born.
We’ve practically been a net importer of rice since the 1870s. Except for a small window in the early 1970s, we’ve never achieved rice self-sufficiency. And our insistence in becoming so only resulted in rice prices amongst the most expensive in Asia. Place that within the context of a poverty rate of around 25%.
The Foundation for Economic Freedom’s position calling for the removal of the quantitative restrictions is, I think, the right one: it will “lower rice prices, reduction in hunger, and lower inflation”. In the end, the poor benefits.
And food security should be better defined as managing our food stocks rather than insisting on production self-sufficiency.
Finally, we need to explore other options aside from mere restrictions, importation, and greater budgetary outlay.
One way of thinking about it: do we view local rice production as a means of feeding our citizenry or can it be shifted for cultural, social, tourism, and heritage purposes?
In short, retain the lands most suited for rice, employ willing and able farmers, yet without the pressure of rice production as the source of staple for the whole country.
By reframing rice’s importance, not necessarily now but thinking long term, we can then limit and put focus regarding people, land, money, and effort (including training and regulation) to a rice production that is doable and reasonable.
If there is ever a product that most profoundly shaped Philippine politics, economic policy, and international trade, rice (along with sugar) would have to be it. Yet most policy initiatives dealing with rice are sadly defensive. Such, despite the fact, that most Filipinos implicitly profess heavy emotional investment in that little grain.
The Philippine Rice Research Institute, for one, considers “zero rice importation or self-sufficiency has always been the elusive goal of Philippine agriculture policies regardless of political dispensation. Any inferior goal is unpatriotic and criticized as a failure of the government and the nation as a whole.”
Strong stuff.
Pons Intal and Marissa Garcia (in a 2005 PIDS study) discussed the magnitude of rice’s political clout in this way: “the price of rice has been a significant determinant in election results since the 1950s.” That includes the Martial Law years. A possible exception is Estrada’s 1998 popular runaway election.
The problem is basic: we only have around 4.7 million hectares of land suitable for rice. Compare that with 7.8, 10.8, and 13.8 million hectares of Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia respectively. Those millions of hectares are irrigated well and fully by natural large river systems.
The Philippines does not have an equivalent inherent irrigation source and the man-made ones are poorly maintained. Ironically, the modern rice breeds we use (same with Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia) for greater yields and to survive require heavy amounts of water. Unfortunately, our incoming water flow is almost appallingly nil compared to the aforementioned three countries.
Thus, rice yields are at 5.75 tons per hectare (t/ha)., 3.1 t/ha., and 5.13 t/ha. for Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia, respectively. The Philippines does have a respectable 4 t/ha. but for an area less than half of its competitors.
Add the fact that Vietnam (land area of 332,698 sq. km.) has a population of roughly 92 million. Thailand 513,120 sq. km., for a 67 million population. Indonesia 1,904,569 sq. km., for a 255 million population.
The Philippines (area 300,000 sq. km.) needs to feed a population of 100 plus million. Rice consumption, incidentally, means not only as food but also as seed, animal feed, or other non-food uses.
The population increase also relates to the need to convert arable land for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes.
And yet, to add to the fundamental disadvantages that the Philippines has regarding rice production, is the inability of the rice industry to accept and adjust to the same: “farmer interest in rice farming has diminished through the years due to the increasing cost of rice cultivation brought about by the rising opportunity cost of labor and land and the availability of lower priced imported rice, which further dampened incentives for rice production.” Then, also “the lack of proper maintenance of irrigation facilities has meant the deterioration of these systems and the reduction in the effective life of these investments and area coverage.” (Intal and Garcia)
The issue of rice protection has cropped up (pun intended) as a decision is being made to lift WTO quantitative restrictions. When that happens, cursing and gnashing of teeth will be predictably heaped on the WTO, the multilateral trade system, globalization, and the free market.
But then: while protected industries welcome quantitative restrictions or high tariffs, the un-talked about logical unwelcome offshoot is smuggling.
So, despite the Philippines being among the world’s top importers of rice, we still had a rice smuggling problem amounting to almost 50,000 metric tons weekly (as reported by The Diplomat in 2014).
The problem is not the WTO nor smuggling; it’s the inability to feed the huge demand. An inability existing even before the Republic was born.
We’ve practically been a net importer of rice since the 1870s. Except for a small window in the early 1970s, we’ve never achieved rice self-sufficiency. And our insistence in becoming so only resulted in rice prices amongst the most expensive in Asia. Place that within the context of a poverty rate of around 25%.
The Foundation for Economic Freedom’s position calling for the removal of the quantitative restrictions is, I think, the right one: it will “lower rice prices, reduction in hunger, and lower inflation”. In the end, the poor benefits.
And food security should be better defined as managing our food stocks rather than insisting on production self-sufficiency.
Finally, we need to explore other options aside from mere restrictions, importation, and greater budgetary outlay.
One way of thinking about it: do we view local rice production as a means of feeding our citizenry or can it be shifted for cultural, social, tourism, and heritage purposes?
In short, retain the lands most suited for rice, employ willing and able farmers, yet without the pressure of rice production as the source of staple for the whole country.
By reframing rice’s importance, not necessarily now but thinking long term, we can then limit and put focus regarding people, land, money, and effort (including training and regulation) to a rice production that is doable and reasonable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)