“(W)hile there were no real rules when the campaign had not yet began, starting yesterday, the Commission on Elections began counting. ”
by Ducky Paredes
The formal campaign for national posts started yesterday; and, for me, it is a good thing that there is a statistical tie at the top. Surely, in the 90-day campaign period, many of those who are now far from the top will be moving up. A campaign where one candidate had such a huge lead that he would not have to involve himself in the deadly in-fighting would not be as interesting as one where almost anyone can win.
Part of the reason for this is that, while there were no real rules when the campaign had not yet began, starting yesterday, the Commission on Elections began counting.
National candidates are now limited to only 120 minutes of airtime on television and 180 minutes on radio for the entire campaign period. Local candidates are limited to an hour of television airtime and an hour and a half of radio airtime. Yet, of course, there are the ads, posters, billboards and what-nots that will come from the presidential candidate’s “friends.”
Of course, almost everyone will be buying up more TV seconds and radio minutes than 120 and 180 minutes during the campaign. In fact, many of the candidates have already bought more minutes in the pre-campaign period, than they are now allowed in the proper campaign period.
As for the amount of money that they can spend, in Resolution 8758, the Comelec tells us that those running for president and vice-president are authorized to spend only P10 for every voter. Political parties, on the other hand, may only spend P5 for every voter.
This means that their expenses are limited to only P15 per voter. With 46 million registered voters, the outer limit to election spending would be P690 million. But, clearly the top five candidates will be spending much more than this amount in their campaigns. In the pre-campaign period, many have spent much more than this amount.
Candidates for senators down to city/municipal councilors with political parties are allowed to spend P3 per voter. The parties are allowed P5 expense for each voter.
Independent candidates for positions other than president and vice president are allowed to spend P5 per voter.
* * *
We have a reaction to the column on Mulong Neri’s conclusion that our economy is not yet in recession although more and more people are now poorer than before. Manuel Q. Bondad writes:
“I wish to contribute to your column. Am in the farm in San Luis, Batangas and it took a while to retrieve the files on rice. All the figures cited are duly supported. On a personal note, worked as Investment Officer of a commercial bank (FEBTC’S Trust and Investments Division, Corporate Research and Credit Analysis Department). Now retired and into farming. Graduated 1968, BS Economics.
“On the issue of raising food production, our domestic rice output on average has continually increased since the days of Mr. Arturo Tanco, Chief architect of the Green Revolution. The records show! In my opinion, the propensity to excessive rice importation has diluted and overshadowed the performance of the Filipino rice farmer. Prior to 1995, the import volume was less than 150,000 MT a year, rose to 1 million and breached the 2 million mark the last five years.
“Why the propensity to import? The culprit must be the rice per capita consumption, a benchmark used by the NFA in projecting rice importation, about 128 kilos/per Filipino/year, and including provision for food processing, feeds, and seeds is placed by the government at 144 kilos. Why the dramatic increase the past few years? To justify mega rice importation of the lowest rice export grade? The marked increase in the number of households going hungry, contradicts a “bloated” per capita on rice, staple for millions. Statistics may lie too.
“How can we raise rural income and productivity when all roads lead to the Metros? RP’s rural population based on FAO-UN Year 2007 figures represents 36% of total population from 46% in 1995.Thailand and Vietnam to cite a few at 67% and 73% respectively, from 79% in 1995.Rice consumption is higher in the barrios than in cities, and from where is NFA’s increased per capita coming from? Was it validated? Our labor force is bulging with an avalanche of workers eager to join the workforce in the cities.
“On hunger, the number of undernourished compatriots was reduced by 700,000,from 2004-2006 level of 13.4 million, but Myanmar bested us with a 4 million reduction from 12.2 million, while Vietnam and Thailand with lower population, with 2.6 million and 1.7 million fewer hungry.
“Will rice prices of imported rice be higher and why? In December 2008, NFA paid $549.50 per MT, C&F basis, the European Union(EU) was billed less than U.S$400 per MT, C&F too. Earlier in June 2008 we paid $940 per MT, the EU settled for $600!” — Manuel Q Bondad
* * *
Hopefully, the next President will not have a stake in rice importation and will earn nothing no matter how many tons the country buys. Maybe, then, we will not be as glad to see the need to import more and more rice for our country’s needs. While I may seem to be unfair not having any real proof of any shenanigans, the fact that we are buying our rice at $150 to $ 340 more than Europe buys its rice supply from the same sources is definitely an anomaly that can be explained only when someone is making money on our purchases while Europe is buying its rice at more honest prices.
# # # #
hvp 02.10.10
Post a Comment