Forced to ‘comp-lie’

In the poem “Marmion” written by Sir Walter Scott, we have been gifted with a phrase that portrays the circumstance that befalls people who act with dishonesty and guile and are ultimately exposed by their lack of integrity. The phrase goes: “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”

The phrase was probably meant for those who are new in deception, beginners in the art of misrepresentation and lies, thus the resulting complications. But as we have witnessed in recent times and current controversies, even those experienced in the double talk of governance and politics often find their foot in the mouth when they try to “comp-lie.”

I refer to the current pot of discontent surrounding the decision of the PBBM government to impose price ceilings through EO 39 for two types of rice: P41 for regular milled rice and P45 for well milled rice. To act swiftly and decisively, the PBBM administration rolled out the executive order, instructed government instrumentalities to enforce and strictly monitor the price of rice and go after violators.

The show of political will and swift action would have been impressive except for the fact that the government had to take two steps back for every step forward. The politically motivated price control might have been favorable to consumers initially, but the PR score did not last long and resulted in unexpected backlash.

Within 48 hours of announcing price control, retailers, traders and even farmers’ organizations were asking why were they not consulted. That was followed by accusations that the decision was not backed by proper consultation, research and data. To their credit, certain officials of the Department of Agriculture readily “took a bullet,” defending and claiming that the executive order and the solution was well researched and not rushed.

If so, why are legitimate rice retailers losing an estimated daily average of P7,000 on the price difference between cost and mandated price ceiling? Why is the government suddenly promising P15,000 as subsidies to those affected by EO 39? After capping rice prices, taxpayers now need to subsidize rice vendors! That is a costly mistake if I ever saw one.

If price ceilings were the answer, how come consumers are complaining about the quality of regular milled rice now priced at P41 per kilo? In recent market situation reports, consumers complained that the P41/kilo rice smelled like old rice, was discolored and the worst comment was the rice was more fit for dog food. Are vendors switching, mixing or downgrading the stock sold at P41/kilo? Where are the DTI monitors when we need them?

Ironically, some housewives expressed willingness to pay for higher priced rice that was fit for human consumption. Speaking of ironies, the most ironic in this rice “comp-lie” mess is that the government is offering retailers P15,000 subsidies. Farmers are the worst hit by the rice price control as farm gate prices of palay have been pushed down by P3 per kilo to reduce the cost of traders. Why not subsidize the farmers with the P15,000 instead?

It would be interesting to learn the timeline and process from the beginning when Malacañang or President Bongbong Marcos asked for comments and suggestions on how best to address rice inflation. I assume the first to be asked was the DA, then the Bureau of Customs and then the Department of Trade and Industry.

First question would be: When did the “thorough research or study begin officially?” Can someone present the dated memo?

Anyone who has observed, interviewed or interrogated bureaucrats of the DA can be justified in saying that the DA would have difficulties collecting data on the status of rice in the country because that, according to experts, stopped when the NFA lost its regulatory mandate over rice. Yes, there is the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics and the Philippine Statistics Authority, but they are both underfunded and understaffed, so getting accurate information is like a jail term, you’ll need six months to two years gathering information.

I doubt if the DTI for its part could also get vital and accurate information on its own unless it is provided to them by all stakeholders. But there’s the rub – the news is full of retailers, traders and farmers groups saying no one asked for information, much less their opinion.

If the price ceiling was truly researched properly, the government might have done a proper audit or inventory of all warehouses for rice. The DILG, PNP and BIR could easily pinpoint them while the Bureau of Customs could have collated recent bulk importations of rice in order to know the real numbers. This is all important because it would substantiate claims of a “cartel,” “hoarding” and price manipulation!

If the DTI really had the time and made the effort to research the market situation, they could have determined and made a price and supply matrix. But from the looks of it, the DTI simply nodded in approval or support of the President’s wishes as an act of institutional compliance.

All this needed research, investigation and data would have shown the government whose tail to chase – traders occupying warehouses or retailers jacking up prices unjustly. More importantly, the DTI could have provided or suggested to the President more sensible price points that stakeholders considered realistic.

In our interview of Raul Montemayor, the national manager of the Federation of Free Farmers Cooperatives, he suggested prices that were P3 higher – P43 to P48 which effectively compensates for the P3 per kilo of palay that farmers are now losing on the ground.

Unfortunately, this too will be darkest before the light, given how one undersecretary of finance named Cielo Magno has been terminated/made to resign for not toeing the line or supporting the price ceiling solution or perhaps for “not suffering fools gladly.” Unfortunately, there are many of them in our midst.

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]