Easy on the talkies

When President Bongbong Marcos decided to speak on the alleged privatization plans of government for NAIA, he did right to correct a misimpression. The only thing being talked about was the possibility of entering into a management contract with some operators from the US who claimed that they could increase the number of take-offs/landings in NAIA by 10 more per hour.

It should have ended there. But it didn’t. From there, the talks about NAIA has now revolved around unsolicited offers and the possibility of calling in bids for a management contract to run NAIA on the basis that the government is not going to put out money, equipment, etc. In the course of his media engagement, PBBM emphasized that the NAIA was not up for sale and airports should never be in the hands of the private sector.

I wonder if the President, his management staff, the DOTr has taken the time to check on the expertise and background of the group who made the claim of increased take-offs and landings by 10 per hour. What is their track record, what airlines do they manage and is it really such a sweet deal that they are making?

Alongside the background check, did the President consult with his team at the DOTr and NAIA, both of which are led by veteran airline executives, if the additional 10 movements per hour is possible, what prevents the local authorities from achieving the same and what will it take to achieve such on our own?

As far as my suggestion to go “easy on the talkies,” as innocent as the President’s statements may have been, the first thing that came to my mind is what would the reaction be of air traffic controllers and the rest of the highly skilled airport personnel who have served many years at the NAIA. As history has shown us, more often than not, seniority and term of service gets thrown out the window or is “nickel and dimed” when corporations get taken over.

Given how few and highly specialized these experts are, the last thing we should be doing is to spook them. It’s bad enough that working at the NAIA instead of abroad is already a major financial sacrifice, it does not help if government and the President rattle the bushes while day-dreaming. I was also slightly alarmed when the President said airports should not be in the hands of the private sector.

When PBBM vetoed the proposed bill creating the Bulacan Economic zone to be located at the future San Miguel Bulacan Airport, the business community and the media reacted with great concern that PBBM might be “anti-business.” The last thing we want is a miscommunication or misreading of the presidential view and intent. I assume the President was referring to any government airport being bought and owned by folks in the private sector. But nonetheless, best to go easy on the talkies because now we’re wondering where is the corrected bill for the Bulacan Economic Zone? If other provinces have it, sana all, Mr. President.

*      *      *

Continuing with our articles and reports on anti-farmer/anti-agriculture policies and fund raisers in various LGUs, I was told by several chicken men, both sabungeros and free-range chicken growers, that they too have been targeted by barangays and municipal governments for LGU fund raising.

The practice is called “ulo-ulo” or per head charge for every chicken, whether it’s a game fowl or free range. The same thing was also told to us by backyard hog raisers who are required to pay the “ulo-ulo” fee before applying for a barangay permit and a municipal permit. It’s a charge that has no service rendered before or after payment, regardless of whether you sell or just like to raise them.

This is a common complaint of livestock raisers and viajeros who have to pay the ulo-ulo fee, allegedly for inspection and sanitation. I have watched these checkpoints often enough to tell you that they do not conduct what qualifies as a sanitary inspection; the inspectors would not know a disease if it stared them in the face, except perhaps if several chickens or pigs were thrashing about to die inside a truck.

The truth is some areas don’t want to deal with the reporting and the paperwork if a suspected delivery is contaminated. If in doubt they simply refuse entry to the truck and its content. They don’t report their suspicion because they would be liable for not detaining the vehicle and cargo, and not instituting the steps for confiscation and destruction of the infected livestock.

Aside from not knowing what to look for or refusing to report what they know, the other complaints about checkpoints involve “sanitation and disinfection charges.” People pay the fees, stop at checkpoints along the highway, present the receipts and are then waived on. A lady I know actually asked what about the disinfection spray? Sorry Ma’am, we only have water for washing and spraying.

Let’s all pray that Secretary Benhur Abalos will dedicate some of his time to address these many anti-farmer/anti-agriculture practices among LGUs.

*      *      *

During the recent World Gamefowl Expo, sabungeros and breeders from all over the country bad mouthed the Bureau of Animal Industry or BAI. Everyone who had a farm or was just a backyard enthusiast hated BAI for instituting COST generating requirements such as farm registration, business permits, laboratory tests of location, facilities and livestock allegedly to control avian influenza. But according to the farm owners, the usual source of AI are poultry, duck and turkey farms and not gamefowl farms because they have high levels of vaccinations and safeguards.

In reality, the BAI makes money from all the paperwork and requirements, but at the expense of backyard raisers who can’t qualify because they are hobbyists, not businesses or commercial operators. BAI is working against their clients, not for their clients.