By Modesto P. Sa-onoy
There were two advertisements that Steven Chan placed in the community papers. Because of their timing, I believe his public statements were triggered by the SRA decision scrapping the “A” sugar allocation. I recall he had argued time and again, in several advertisements for the 100% allocation of Philippine production to the domestic market. But his was a lone voice. I have not read nor heard other planters or millers associations joining him in this advocacy despite the statistics he quoted. In fact, I have not read SRA disputing his data which means his information was solid.
Last week, however, the news claimed that the three major planters’ group, Unified, Confed, and the National Federation of Sugarcane Planters were among the groups that had “earlier” expressed support for a call to terminate the existing seven-percent sugar allocation for the U.S. Another news said that these groups hailed the SRA decision to scrap the “A” sugar allocation and for the conversion of the remaining “A” to “B”.
It now seems Steven Chan is no longer the lone voice; nevertheless, his advocacy for years had paid off. Success has many fathers.
SRA always presented the bases of its decisions by citing its statistics. But Steven Chan’s advertisements indicate that SRA has been manipulating its data to back up its decision, in the present case, the previous allocations for the cheap US market that mostly benefit the traders to the detriment of the planters.
Steven Chan’s first open letter (April 5) was addressed to SRA Administrator Engineer Hermenegildo Serafica and Atty. Rolando Beltran, representative of the millers in the SRA board.
Why was the letter addressed only to these two and not the board? Steven Chan explained that Beltran knows what he was talking about and Serafica is a “constant” supporter of the export programs. This means the US export market since we are not selling sugar to any other.
Chan says that the “belated action” allocating the sugar produced by this month and until the end of the 2020-2021 milling season to the domestic market “is merely a lip service” and “aimed at damage control.” As I noted yesterday, the order came in late in the day as most of the canes had already been harvested. In a sense the SRA Order 1-A is a consuelo de bobo but still many now sing laudate with the “belated” and “damage control” SRA decision. When Steven was fighting for this decision he was “an orphan”. C‘est la vie!
Now comes the game of statistics. Chan says that SRA knew that the “historical consumption records averaged 2.50 million tons a year. Inexplicably despite the production estimate of only 2.19 tons or a deficit of 300,000 short tons your group still insisted on allocating export sugars.”
Of course, common sense tells us that if the country had a “history” of shortfalls for such a long period of five years, there is no credible bases to set aside sugar to sell abroad, in this case, the US. So how does the SRA under the administration of Serafica, and I believe with the consent of the other board members, explain the inexplicable?
Chan exposed the “manipulation” of the way data is presented as cover-up.
He quoted the SRA estimated production (2.19 million tons) and the “estimated raw sugar withdrawals which is only 1.97 million tons.” He called the phrase “raw sugar withdrawals” fiction because the phrase excluded the consumption of imported sugar. Thus Chan pointed out that the phrase was “passed off” as total consumption.
Let’s say it another way. Our sugar production is less than our consumption. Clearly, we know we are not producing enough, there is a shortage. If we do not feel the pinch it is because our consumption includes imported sugar, other sweeteners like HFCS and even smuggled sugar. This is a clear picture of production and consumption.
What SRA did is present the projected production and only “withdrawals” from the mill warehouses which is clearly less. SRA avoided the correct word, “consumption” to create a picture we have more for export.
We continue tomorrow with Steven Chan’s presentation of the “actual records” versus “SRA’s Fiction” as of August 31, 2020.
