Saudi Wants 200,000 Hectares Of PH Ricefield

[monroy]

---

hahahahaha...so with that...mag real estate broker nalang ko and akoang ipa abang sa tanang taga lain nasud ang yuta nga akong natawhan. bahala ni si kesehuda ug kesehudo kung unsaon nila akong yuta.. wahahahahha...... you are gullible!

sabta sa daan dodong ang concept sa contract farming para kasabot ka! para di sad ka ma ingnan ug "gullible" sabot ka? lol!

or better yet, do your research about our rice industry and maybe you will be enlightened! or if not, hopeless case na gyud diay ka...

Go ahead bro do whatever the heck you want. But that's OT.

Back on topic, land belongs to farmers and not to high_heels. So the farmers decide, not high heels. This is simple concept that even kindergarten student understand...

By the way my family owns property and we lease to foreigners, like Koreans. Why? Because it's our property, not yours and the law allows us to lease our property to whoever we want to. Cos its OUR property, not yours... get it? hehehe

[high_heels]

Go ahead bro do whatever the heck you want. But that's OT.

Back on topic, land belongs to farmers and not to high_heels. So the farmers decide, not high heels. This is simple concept that even kindergarten student understand...

what a gullible response!!! and you think the Saudi Investors can go directly to the farmers? lol!!! They will have to face our government first so they can be approved of such huge scale "madness."

[monroy]

what a gullible response!!! and you think the Saudi Investors can go directly to the farmers? lol!!! They will have to face our government first so they can be approved of such huge scale "madness."

Learn to read. I believe the joint venture with the government is needed with respect to the government land to quote: "A Saudi company is interested in leasing up to 200,000 hectares of rain-fed government land and private farms"

The Arabs can negotiate directly with individual farmers, but they probably would prefer the government organize this because of the large number of farmers involved making it too much trouble for them to negotiate individually. But at the end of the day, the farmers decide what to do with what land belongs to them. If they don't think the income is enough, then they wouldn't do it. Why are you so bent on forcing your opinion on land that doesn't belong to you anyway is it because you think you are part-owner of all the land in this country?

You call this madness, but I think it's more crazy to have non-owners dictate to owners what they should do with land they own

[bad_juju]

why would they lease the land why not import rice like what RP is doing..

[monroy]

why would they lease the land why not import rice like what RP is doing..

The Arabs benefit from leasing, that's why they do it but that doesn't mean the deal is bad. Is that the problem you have with it? That foreigners are benefiting from a deal? See both sides can benefit from this, but the people who are in the best position to decide what is best for them or whether they are benefiting enough from a deal, are the owners and the potential tenants themselves. That's why I say leave it to the OWNERS to decide what to do, don't force our opinions on the owners. This is the fairest way...

[high_heels]

Learn to read. I believe the joint venture with the government is needed with respect to the government land to quote: "A Saudi company is interested in leasing up to 200,000 hectares of rain-fed government land and private farms"

The Arabs can negotiate directly with individual farmers, but they probably would prefer the government organize this because of the large number of farmers involved making it too much trouble for them to negotiate individually. But at the end of the day, the farmers decide what to do with what land belongs to them. If they don't think the income is enough, then they wouldn't do it. Why are you so bent on forcing your opinion on land that doesn't belong to you anyway is it because you think you are part-owner of all the land in this country?

You call this madness, but I think it's more crazy to have non-owners dictate to owners what they should do with land they own

you are a hopeless case of a gullible ignorant. i said, back your claims first and ill shut my mouth. because pushing for the same "idiotic" idea of yours is like talking to a wall.

i back track sa akong gipang tubag nimo kaw...hatagi lagi ko ug statistics sa produced yield sa atong farmers from last year (dry and wet season production) para ma compare nato ang advantages sa duha ka choices. aber aber...maayong laki man kaha ka!

As for my last statement for you, yes you! let me copy-paste what i said here before, kay murag kapoy storya sa bongbong. mura ko ug nipatol ug buag di kasabot ani.

Now to the issue of lease farming, lease farming means the lands are rented from the farmers and technical application of farming is constrained to the methods required by the investors. It also means that during the post harvest season, all harvested rice is owned by this "investors." So with that said, our farmers will have no take and income from the rice itself (from the lease land though, yes they have). Not a single grain of rice will go to our hardworking filipino farmers, therefore it's Saudi who will take advantage of these basmati rice. <----thats the concept of CONTRACT FARMING!

So to my fellow istoryans, kamo nalay sabot kung mas maka ayo ni sa kadaghanan or dili. I'm sure we are smart enough to comprehend and see the big picture here (unlike some other people...).

[monroy]

you are a hopeless case of a gullible ignorant. i said, back your claims first and ill shut my mouth. because pushing for the same "idiotic" idea of yours is like talking to a wall.

i back track sa akong gipang tubag nimo kaw...hatagi lagi ko ug statistics sa produced yield sa atong farmers from last year (dry and wet season production) para ma compare nato ang advantages sa duha ka choices. aber aber...maayong laki man kaha ka!

Shit, don't you get it, it doesn't matter what the advantages you think are what matters is giving the farmers the right to decide, because that's their right. Kasabot ka? Mura man kag bata. Feel free to show these statistics to the farmers, if they decide then that leasing is a bad idea then the choice is up to them not you right? Do you understand that or not? Murag wala ka kasabot nako da... I want the farmers who are the owners to have the choice, not for people like you who want to make the decision for them against their will. Advantages or disadvantages aren't even relevant because its the owners who decide what is advantageous to them or not.

As for my last statement for you, yes you! let me copy-paste what i said here before, kay murag kapoy storya sa bongbong. mura ko ug nipatol ug buag di kasabot ani.

Now to the issue of lease farming, lease farming means the lands are rented from the farmers and technical application of farming is constrained to the methods required by the investors. It also means that during the post harvest season, all harvested rice is owned by this "investors." So with that said, our farmers will have no take and income from the rice itself (from the lease land though, yes they have). Not a single grain of rice will go to our hardworking filipino farmers, therefore it's Saudi who will take advantage of these basmati rice. <----thats the concept of CONTRACT FARMING!

So to my fellow istoryans, kamo nalay sabot kung mas maka ayo ni sa kadaghanan or dili. I'm sure we are smart enough to comprehend and see the big picture here (unlike some other people...).

I'm sure istoryans are smart enough to comprehend basic property rights and that the farmers have the right to decide what is best for them, not an armchair professor with a big mouth and bad attitude like yourself. HA HA HA...

[storya_ta_bai2]

I am 100% against this.

They will rent our land so the arabs can feed their own country?

Why don't we use our own land and feed our own country instead.

This is just wrong in so many angles.

[monroy]

I am 100% against this.

They will rent our land so the arabs can feed their own country?

Why don't we use our own land and feed our own country instead.

This is just wrong in so many angles.

Arabs can feed themselves whether we lease the land or not. The question is who has the right to decide this, and in my opinion it should be the farmers. If they think they can benefit from the rental income, then it doesn't matter if the Arabs get something out of it as well. After all that's the whole point of deal making, for both sides to get something out of the transaction. Also, if we force the farmers not to lease this land that doesn't mean we're going to be able to feed our country. These are two separate issues because the Philippines has enough land. 200,000 hectares sounds like a lot but it's less than 3% of our arable land which stands at 5,300,000 hectares a lot of which isn't even used for farming and just lying idle.

Everyone has an opinion on this, all I'm saying is let the farmers decide because as the owners they have the right to decide what's best for them. It's not fair to put the burden of feeding the country to the farmers, this isn't what they are farming for believe it or not they are farming for the benefit of their family not for you. A country without farms can even feed its own population if they have better means of earning income. Example of this are countries like Singapore which has no farmland but no hunger either... Don't deny income to the farmers if that's what they want.

[nitwit]

seriously? mao na imoha tubag? gullible...

pila ra man kitaon sa pinas kung paabangan niya ang land compared sa kita mo produce ug mo export ana nga rice?

I agree with this, if i was the farmer or the govt id rather export rice than lease the land. Ill make more money and i get to do what i want but still if this happens, lets expect the rice prices to go up.