Lee Man-hee Writes a Letter regarding Shincheonji Members’ Plasma Donation: “Freeing the World through Our Blood”
To the beloved members of Daegu Church,
you all are working hard. Are you all well? I am Chairman Lee Man-hee.
To the members of Daegu church,
I was delighted upon hearing the news of your intent to actively participate in donating plasma (blood) for the development of the vaccine for the cure of COVID-19. I believe that you are the ones who received the blood of Jesus.
I am very thankful to the government, which took charge of preventing the spread of COVID-19 and providing treatment for it. This is not something our church could resolve.
Our members have received the blood of life of Jesus, the Son of God, and have been freed from sin. Like Jesus, through our blood (plasma) donation, I know that you have gathered your hearts in our collective wish to free all the people of the world from the pains of this disease.
I was touched when I heard that many members of Daegu church expressed their intent to voluntarily donate plasma. Indeed, you are the disciples who received the blood of Jesus. This is the work that needs to be done as citizens of this country and as true believers. It is keeping the command of Jesus of loving your neighbor as yourself (Mt 22:39), and I am thankful that you have gathered your hearts for this good work and in making this decision that is like the light.
Let us all pray in the name of Jesus to exterminate COVID-19 (Refer to Jn14:13-14).
June 27, 2020
Chairman of Shincheonji
‘Knowledge economy’ pushed by agriculture experts; harness ‘intellectual’ capital to boost food security, economic recovery from COVID 19
July 19, 2020
For any questions or interview requests, please contact 09297158669, 09171026734 (Growth Publishing for SEARCA); https://growthfeatures.com/2020/07/19/knowledge-economy-pushed-by-agriculture-experts-harness-intellectual-capital-to-boost-food-security-economic-recovery-from-covid-19/
The government was urged to tap “intellectual capital” of Higher Education Institutions (HEI) to boost food security and economic recovery by fostering a “knowledge economy” amid the COVID 19 crisis.
An eight-point recommendation has been pushed by experts at the Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA) who believe developed countries have put up incentives for a “knowledge economy” (KE).
This is to meet their people’s needs. KE accelerates economic growth objectives.
Top 10 countries in 2008 that have high knowledge economic index (KEI) based on a criteria of the World Bank Institute are Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Norway, Canada, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, and Australia. Philippines ranked 79.
KEI measures the conduciveness of an environment to use knowledge for economic development.
It maximizes use of human capital to enrich productivity and aid in food production and manufacturing and services industries.
“A country like the Philippines needs an adequate cadre of researchers who appreciate the need to shorten the gap between research productivity and its translation to economic development,” according to “Food Security Amid the COVID 19 Pandemic” (FSACP).”
“Various modalities of Academe-Industry-Government interconnectivity models need to be explored.”
The FSACP recommendations are being pushed by Glenn B. Gregorio, SEARCA director, and Rico C. Ancog who is also with the University of the Philippines Los Banos (UPLB).
Their recommendation is for HEI’s human capital to contribute to the development of the following priority areas relevant to four pillars of food security:
1. Food availability— (incomplete list) commercial and industrial farming, organic farming, Big Data system, remote sensing, and artificial intelligence; urban agriculture; integrated pest management; pest and disease control, nutrient-enrichment of food; biotechnology (genetically modified food production);
2. Access to food —Transport and logistics (to bring food from producer to consumers), use of online and internet based solution, automated weather stations (predicting weather for more stable food production);
3. Stability of food supply—financial technologies; agricultural policies and regulations (e.g. a ban on GM food restrains food security); and GM food labelling
4. Utilization of food for nutrition, health and safety—transboundary food quality standards, trade regulation and standards; responsible consumption, food quality and safety, and food technology for health and wellness; bioefficacy and bioavailableit of novel products, and pesticide use and regulations.
To foster this advanced KE economic phase, incentives must be given so that the intellectual capital in HEIs (faculty, researchers) can generate commercialization tools that will meet Filipinos’ imminent needs–food security, in particular, amid the pandemic.
Many agencies considered HEIs are also administered by the government –State Universities and Colleges (SUC). These institutions offer not only college courses but master’s and Ph.D. As part of the academic activities, considered output in HEIs are researches.
Now, such researches must not be done just for academic exercise. But these should reach out to the needs of society— produce food, solve hunger and malnutrition, help farmers develop into profitable entrepreneurs.
While agriculture HEIs in the Philippines have long been established, these institutions need to partner with the government that provides policies and funding for initiatives in technologies.
And their partnership should be with the private sector which has know-how in sustaining economic activities through business and commercial tools.
Agricultural researches should have a “reorientation as seen from business perspective
to afford systemic change of the agriculture sector,” said Gregorio and Ancog.
These are among their eight-point recommendations under an Academe-Industry-Government (AIG) collaborative setup:
1. Provide incentives so HEIs’ human capital will stimulate generation of more revenue-producing economic activities. The incentives are to be given based on “profit” and four other P’s – people, partnerships, patents, and product.
2. Re-orient HEIs’ human capital so that they will generate tools in commercialization used in businesses. These are patents in technology (for instance, food and medicine products) and other intellectual property assets (utility model, trademarks—for instance, consumer health, cosmetics, and nutrition products).
HEI human capital’s reorientation must also include expertise on technology transfer systems (business models) and technology business incubation (starting new businesses).
These incentives empower them to partner with venture capitalists, financiers, investors and investment houses that offer IPOs or initial public offerings, and startups/entrepreneurs so their technology will be sold to consumers or end users.
3. Provide HEIs’ human capital with all they need – grants, financial assistance, conducive policies for them to legally partner with private companies, the industry, and all enterprise stakeholders.
These partnerships should enable them to tap the entire “supply chain” – from production of goods and services, packaging, storage, distribution, logistics, marketing, and retailing to end consumers.
4. Provide HEI human capital all they need to produce innovative and technologically advanced goods and services. Such production of innovative goods usually come from teams and partnerships of multi-discipline experts. Such partnerships should be encouraged.
“(We should) provide the enabling environment for faculty members and researchers to be encouraged in mutual-learning and co-learning through the establishment of multi-and interdisciplinary research laboratories, centers, and institutes,” said Gregorio and Ancog.
KEI of the World Bank Institute is based on 4 pillars:
1. a regime that provides incentives for the use of knowledge and in enhancing entrepreneurship;
2. an educated/skilled population that uses knowledge;
3. an innovation system of “firms, research centers, universities, consultants that tap a stock of knowledge to meet people’s needs and create technology;” and
4. use of information and communication technology to share and process information.
KE, also called “post-industrial economy” and related to “information” and “digital” economy, is a migration from the agrarian age and manufacturing (industrial) and service phases of economic development. It taps not just the basic factors of production—labor, capital, land—but largely human intellectual capital.
These are Gregorio-Ancog’s other suggested initiatives that should be under the Academe-Industry-Government collaborative projects:
1. Resource sharing both in human and financial capital to facilitate strengthened linkage between basic and applied researches with the industry needs.
2. Designing and implementing digital agriculture infrastructure and open-systems innovation systems across the agricultural supply chains.
“For universities and research organizations managing scientific journals, investment towards real-time online publications or advanced online publication is a must to be relevant in this time where researchers need to publish their research results as early as possible and make it readily accessible to all.”
KE evolved from the tenets of economists particularly Harvard Business School’s Michael Porter who believed that competitive advantage lies in continual innovation arising from technical knowledge. Usually referred to here are knowledge in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) and relevant multi-disciplines practised by biotechnologists, chemists, biologists, among others.
Models of knowledge economies prevail in “Silicon Valley in California; aerospace and automotive engineering in Munich, Germany; Biotechnology in Hyderabad, India; electronics and digital media in Seoul South Korea; and petrochemical and energy industry in Brazil,” according to Sanna Ojanpera and co-authors of the “Engagement in the Knowledge Economy: Regional Patterns of Content Creation with a Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa.”
“The need to ensure that research efforts would have significant societal impacts is a philosophy that must be widely upheld. Barious modalities of Academe-Industry-Government interconnectivity models need to be explored so it can be customized to their specific needs,” said Gregorio and Ancog. End
1. PHOTO: Key Priority Areas for ‘Knowledge Economy’ Enhancement in Agriculture
2. “Food Security Amid the Covid 19 Pandemic…”
Ph govt strong import policy displaced Filipino farmers’ potential broiler sales of whopping P37 billion, P14.086 billion feed, and P3.38 billion jobs loss
July 16, 2020
For any questions or interview requests, please contact 09297158669, 09171026734 (Growth Publishing for PCAFI); https://growthfeatures.com/2020/07/16/ph-govt-strong-import-policy-displaced-filipino-farmers-potential-broiler-sales-of-whopping-p37-billion-p14-086-billion-feed-and-p3-38-billion-jobs-loss/
The Philippine government’s strong import policy has displaced Filipino farmers’ potential broiler sales of a whopping P37 billion for eight years, P14.086 billion in broiler feed, P15.18 billion in “ihaw ihaw” sales, P4.2 billion in logistics, P8 billion in dressing plant operations, and P3.38 billion in jobs loss.
In an open letter desperate for public support, the United Broilers and Raisers Association (UBRA) and the Philippine Chamber of Agriculture and Food Inc. (PCAFI) said they have been compelled to present evidence-based quantifiable data amid recent Department of Agriculture (DA) response to its pleadings against imports.
“We are saddened that on May 28, 2020, the DA through the Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI), the agency responsible for our sector, seems to be complacent about our industry’s plight. In a meeting with PCAF, they said that the volume of imports is smaller than the volume of production,” said Lawyer Jose M. Elias Inciong, UBRA president.
Also signatories to the letter are PCAFI President Danilo V. Fausto and a growing number of nearly 50 other private agriculture association leaders. PCAF stands for Philippine Council of Agriculture and Fisheries, a public-private group hosted by DA.
“The message being sent is that we do not have a problem. The stakeholders believe the opposite is true.”
Sacrificed jobs are huge as “imported meats come as finished products, so it skips the local production chain which generates a lot of businesses and labor.”
These are the import volume in chicken meat and broiler equivalent: 45.77 million kilos, 2008; 67.26 million kilos, 2009; 101.96 million kilos, 2010; 234.74 million kilos, 2016; 244.104 million, 2017; 288.2 million kilos, 2018; 338.12 million kilos, 2019; and 144.78 million kilos, 2020 (January to April).
Lost sales from broiler production is broken down into P21.78 billion, feed sales; P7.8 billion, day old chick; P2.88 billion, dressing plant at P10 per head; P2.034 billion, veterinary products; P1.58 billion, salaries; P612.6 million electricity; P308 million, LPG (brooding).
Here are feed components of lost domestic sales from broiler operation: P7.139 billion, corn: P4.284 billion, soya; P1.2 billion, feed additives; P813.76 million, coconut oil; P327.68 million, rice bran; P200 million, feed bags; P94.79 million, molasses; and P16 million, trucking.
Lost domestic sales for corn, P7.139 billion affecting 106,661 Filipino families. Reduced number of hectares of corn land is equivalent to 138,659.
Other authorities, mainly DA officials themselves, continue to question UBRA’s claim on the significance of import volume in order to obliterate the Filipino poultry sector.
“But even if you divide the total by half, the remaining amount is substantial enough to weaken the industry—along with the thousands of families depending on it especially during these times that we are facing the greatest problem our generation has to face.”
Lost income from sales of ihaw ihaw stalls is accounted for by isaw, P5.75 billion; chicken feet or adidas, P2.88 billion; head and neck, P4.31 billion; and betamax or dugo, P2.88 billion.
Reduced dressing operations of 287.61 million heads totaled to a loss of P2.88 billion and by product, P5.18 billion.
Logistics revenue lost consists of hauling, P2.847 billion; delivery, P806.74 million; egg vans to hatchery, P302.75 million; and chick vans, P71.9 million.
Jobs lost represents broiler flock size of 302.742 million affecting 50,458 flockman and 12,109 supervisors with salaries of P1.447 billion for fllockman and P1.583 billion for supervisor.
Another UBRA-PCAFI petition as sanctioned by Republic Act 8435 or the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) is a data system that will enable stakeholders to make informed decisions. End
ATTACHMENT : The UBRA PCAFI letter, please check this link for attachment https://growthfeatures.com/2020/07/16/ph-govt-strong-import-policy-displaced-filipino-farmers-potential-broiler-sales-of-whopping-p37-billion-p14-086-billion-feed-and-p3-38-billion-jobs-