President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in the speech of her life.
Speaker: The Question is, That this House has no Confidence in the present Government.
[pointing to President GMA] Madam President!
President GMA:
Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is of course the right and duty of the loyal Opposition to challenge the position of the Government of the day. It is also their right to test the Confidence of this House in the Government, if they think the circumstances warrant it. I make no complaint about that.
But when our critics’ windy rhetoric has blown away, what are their real reasons for bringing this motion before the House, because there were no alternative policies, only a lot of disjointed, opaque words.
They can’t be complaining about the Philippines’ political standing, for that is deservedly high, not least because of the recently concluded, successful automated elections—the first for this country, and achieved only with the determined support of this Administration. They can’t be complaining about the country’s finances. We are a net creditor to the world in 2009, something which has not happened since the start of the Third Republic. And they can’t be complaining about this Government’s consistent economic policies—whose achievements were demonstrated during the recent financial crisis, when the Philippines became one of the highest-growing countries in Asia while our neighbors suffered through a recession.
The critics’ real reason is the perception of corruption and incompetence that pervades all media coverage over the Administration, a perception which is not based on fact but on opinion, based not on dispassionate analysis but on hateful emotion. It is a perception which is not in contrast to the record of the winning candidates in the last election for President and Vice President: one who has no record to speak of, the other, while in office, has simply stayed too long and earned too much—precious little competence and integrity there.
The real issue to be decided, by Members of this House, is how best to build on the achievements of this decade—how to carry this Government’s policies through to the next—how to prevent the fall of our political leadership unto the lap of a certain television personality.
Mr. Speaker, nine years ago, we rescued the Philippines from the parlous state to which our predecessor had brought it. I remind this House, that under President Estrada, this country had come to such a pass, that the exchange rate had gone to 55 Pesos to the Dollar, interest rates went through the roof, and the hope of Philippines 2000 had been extinguished; where a fragile political environment and a bankrupt government had resulted in the ouster of a corrupt President. The Arroyo Administration has changed all that.
Once again, the Filipino people can turn their hopes to a country that is admired for its economic performance compared to the rest of the world, and to a government that has brought unparalleled prosperity to our citizens at home.
We have done it by improving our infrastructure: increasing farm-to-market roads by 6 times to nearly 18,000 kilometers, building one-and-a-half-times the length of roads built during the three previous Administrations combined, building the roll-on-roll-off nautical highway, and extending electrification from 80.1% to 99.39% of rural barangays.
We’ve done it by investing in education: 100,000 new classrooms built in this Administration, improving classroom-to-students ratio from 1:60 to 1:39 in primary school, and textbook-to-student ratio going up from 1:5 to 1:1 in many subjects in elementary and high school.
And we’ve done it by caring for social development: 11 million beneficiaries of food-for-school program, which offers incentives for young students to stay in school; and 1 million household beneficiaries of the conditional cash transfer program, which provide additional incentives for educating poor children.
Mr. Speaker, our stewardship of the public finances has been better than that of any Government for over fifty years. It has enabled us to repay debt and improve infrastructure, and the resulting success of the entire economy can be talked about for years to come: the doubling of GDP per capita from the year 2000 to 2009, the halving of inflation and foreign debt-to-GDP ratio, and the tripling of Gross International Reserves. There have been fourteen million more jobs since 2000, and PhilHealth membership has been widened from 30 million to nearly 84 million people, or almost the entire population of the Philippines.
That is the record of nine-and-a-half years of the Arroyo Administration, and Arroyo policies. Mr. Speaker, all these are grounds for congratulation, not censure, least of all from the Members of the Opposition, who have no alternative policies.
Mr. Speaker, over the past nine years, this Government has had a clear and unwavering vision of the future of our democracy, and of the Filipino people’s role in it. It is a vision which stems from our own deep-seated attachment to Constitutional democracy, and this Government’s commitment to economic liberty, to enterprise, to competition, and to the free-market economy.
The fact is that, more than any previous Government, we have fought for charter change as the most basic way to enhance our competitiveness compared to other countries, which allow for the free competition of foreign entities with local businesses. For us, part of the purpose of the Constitution is to demolish trade barriers so we can all benefit from trade both within Asia and with the outside world, especially those small businesses which we have assiduously promoted. It wouldn’t help them for our economy to continue to be dominated by Spanish-era conglomerates, headed by Spanish families, linked by a colonial old boys’ network; or for the bureaucracy to be concentrated in the capital city, far removed from the life of the rural peasantry. Our people deserve a country where there’s room for their growing sense of nationhood, and a place to decide their own destiny after a lifetime of deprivation.
Are we then to be censured for standing up for a free and open society through a free and open economy? No, Mr. Speaker, our policies are in tune with the deepest instincts of the Filipino people, and we shall not be censured for what is thoroughly right.
Despite the failure of our initiative, Mr. Speaker, we have never hesitated to fight for development and for the Constitution in other ways, particularly in the area of peace and security. This Government has received no thanks for its imposition of martial law in the aftermath of the event known as the Maguindanao massacre. Yet it was our swift action which enabled the Army and the Marines to arrest the Ampatuan family members responsible for the massacre, and which allowed the Commission on Human Rights to collect evidence without being disturbed by lawless elements.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, our critics have been quicker to point out the definition of civil war and rebellion which should, they said, have guided the imposition of military rule. Yet at the same time they called for the writ of habeas corpus to be suspended and the Ampatuans to be arrested first and then charged later. The only difference between our action and their proposed action was that theirs was not called martial law—it was just martial law in all but name.
Clearly our critics want to prevent a replay of the events of the 1970s, when most of them came of age and and came to political maturity. But such is our forward-looking view of our society, of which 75 percent were born after martial law, that we do not believe it is right to take revenge upon the past by compromising our future. The previous generation might have failed in stopping the institution of a dictatorship, but it does not mean that this generation must fail as well.
Not for us this blind replaying of our past, this jaundiced reading of our history. Ours is a larger vision of our democracy, where Filipinos cooperate more and more closely to the defense of the Constitution.
Should we be censured for our strength, or the critics for their weakness? Surely the vigor of our Constitution has been displayed more vividly by our action than by the second-guessing of our critics. I have no doubt that the people of this country will willingly entrust their security in the future to a strong government that protects them rather than to socialists and academicians who put little faith in our Constitution and ascribe little hope to our Nation.
And we realize our hope, Mr. Speaker, in the conduct of future elections in this country. Since time immemorial, we as a Nation have desired automation for our elections, variously to improve the process of vote-counting and canvassing, and to minimize the incidence of cheating. Many attempts have been made to automate nation-wide elections, but none has succeeded until this year.
Despite the obvious success, a lot of voices, mostly of those who lost, have been raised to question the validity of the results. We have been here before, when the candidate who was leading the official count was also the one who had been leading in the pre-election surveys, in the exit polls, in NAMFREL counts, in the tallies by media organizations, and in the predictions of fortune-tellers. Independent foreign observers also said that while there had been irregularities, they were sufficiently few in number to have affected the results of the elections. Back then, the losing candidate made the same claims of “trending,” a term so completely wanting in intellectual foundation it has never been uttered in polite conversation.
Nobody believed that candidate, who later died an unhappy man, yet the following year someone let out a digital recording of a conversation between me and a Comelec Commissioner, ostensibly proving the existence of cheating. Never mind the evidence of all those surveys and independent observations, never mind that you could have given all the votes of Maguindanao to the losing candidate and he would hardly have made a dent in the one-million-vote lead: the allegation was believed nonetheless.
Twice in my time as President, we have leaned upon the loyalty of soldiers to the chain of command to discipline rouge elements who had staged a coup d’état to overthrow the legitimate government—both in the Oakwood mutiny and in February 2006. Street rallies have also been led and paid for by those who, too cowardly to suffer the heat of the noonday sun in support of their politics, or to share the stench of their people on the ground, perverted the meaning of the people power revolution.
To those who have never had to face such personal and professional terror, may I say to them, that they are faced with a heavy heart, in the knowledge of the manifold dangers, but with tremendous pride in the professionalism and courage of our Armed Forces. But there is something else which one feels as well, Mr. Speaker. That is a sense of this country’s destiny, from nearly a century of history and experience, which ensure that the Filipino will always fight for his Christian, constitutional and democratic way of life.
It is because we in this Administration have never flinched from difficult decisions, that this House, and this country, can have Confidence in this Government today.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Time to rebalance
A special report on America's economy
America’s economy is set to shift away from consumption and debt and towards exports and saving. It will be its biggest transformation in decades, says Greg Ip (interviewed here)
Mar 31st 2010 | From The Economist print edition
STEVE HILTON remembers months of despair after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. Customers rushed to the sales offices of Meritage Homes, the property firm Mr Hilton runs, not to buy houses but to cancel contracts they had already signed. “I thought for a moment the world was coming to an end,” he recalls.
In the following months Mr Hilton stepped up efforts to save his company. He gave up options to buy thousands of lots that the firm had snapped up across Arizona, Florida, Nevada and California during the boom, taking massive losses. He eventually laid off three-quarters of its 2,300 employees. He also had its houses completely redesigned to cut construction cost almost in half: simpler roofs, standardised window sizes, fewer options. Gone were the 12-foot ceilings, sweeping staircases and granite countertops everyone wanted when money was free. Meritage is now catering to the only customers able to get credit: first-time buyers with federally guaranteed loans. It is clawing its way back to health as a leaner, humbler company.
The same could be said for America. Virtually every industry has shed jobs in the past two years, but those that cater mostly to consumers have suffered most. Employment in residential construction and carmaking is down by almost a third, in retailing and banking by 8%. As the economy recovers, some of those jobs will come back, but many of them will not, because this was no ordinary recession. The bubbly asset prices, ever easier credit and cheap oil that fuelled America’s age of consumerism are not about to return.
Instead, America’s economy will undergo one of its biggest transformations in decades. This macroeconomic shift from debt and consumption to saving and exports will bring microeconomic changes too: different lifestyles, and different jobs in different places. This special report will describe that transformation, and explain why it will be tricky.
The crisis and then the recession put an abrupt end to the old economic model. Despite a small rebound recently, house prices have fallen by 29% and share prices by a similar amount since their peak. Households’ wealth has shrunk by $12 trillion, or 18%, since 2007. As a share of disposable income it is back to its level in 1995. And if consumers feel less rich, they are less inclined to spend. Banks are also less willing to lend: they have tightened loan standards, with a push from regulators who now wish they had taken a dimmer view of exotic mortgages and lax lending during the boom.
Consumer debt rose from an average of less than 80% of disposable income 20 years ago to 129% in 2007. If other crises of the past half-century are any guide, America’s consumers will spend the next six or seven years reducing their debt to more manageable levels, reckons the McKinsey Global Institute. This is already changing the composition of economic activity. Consumer spending and housing rose from 70% of GDP in 1991 to 76% in 2005 (see chart 1). By last year it had fallen back to 73%, still high by international standards.
The effect on the economy of deflated assets, tighter credit and costlier energy are already apparent. Fewer people are buying homes, and the ones they buy tend to be smaller and less opulent. In 2008 the median size of a new home shrank for the first time in 13 years. The number of credit cards in circulation has declined by almost a fifth. American Express is pulling back from credit cards and is now telling customers how to use their charge cards (which are paid off in full every month) to control their spending.
Normally, deep recessions are followed by strong recoveries as pent-up demand reasserts itself. In the recent recession GDP shrank by 3.8%, the worst drop since the second world war. In the recovery the economy might therefore be expected to grow by 6-8% and unemployment to fall steadily, as happened after two earlier recessions of comparable depth, in 1973-75 and 1981-82.
No bounce-back
But this particular recession was triggered by a financial crisis that damaged the financial system’s ability to channel savings to productive investment and left consumers and businesses struggling with surplus buildings, equipment and debt accumulated in the boom. Recovery after that kind of crisis is often slow and weak, and indeed some nine months into the upturn GDP has probably grown at an annual rate of less than 4%. Unemployment is well up throughout the country (see map), though it declined slightly in February.
So if America is to avoid the stagnation that afflicted Japan after its bubbles burst, where is the demand going to come from? In the short term the federal government has stepped up its borrowing—to 10% of GDP this year—to counteract the drop in private consumption and investment. Over the next few years this stimulus will be withdrawn. Barack Obama wants the deficit to come down to around 3% of GDP by the middle of this decade, though it is not clear how that will be achieved. Indeed, if the rest of the economy remains moribund, the government may be reluctant to withdraw the stimulus for fear of pushing the economy back into recession.
Tighter credit and lower consumer borrowing are not the only drivers of economic restructuring. A less noticed but significant push comes from higher energy prices. A strengthening dollar and ample supply kept oil cheap for most of the 1990s, feeding America’s addiction to imports. That began to change a few years before the crisis as the dollar fell and emerging markets’ growing appetite put pressure on global production capacity.
A fourfold increase in oil prices since the 1990s has rearranged both consumer and producer incentives. Sport-utility vehicles are losing popularity, policies to boost conservation and renewable energy have become bolder, and producers have found a lot more oil below America’s soil and coastal seabed. Imports of the stuff have dropped by 10% since 2006 and are likely to come down further. When natural-gas prices followed the rise in oil earlier this decade, exploration companies used new methods to get at gas trapped in shale formations from Texas to Pennsylvania. Abundant domestic shale gas should radically reduce America’s gas imports.
America’s economic geography will change too. Cheap petrol and ample credit encouraged millions of Americans to flock to southern states and to distant suburbs (“exurbs”) in search of big houses with lots of land. Now the housing bust has tied them to homes they cannot sell. Population growth in the suburbs has slowed. For the present the rise of knowledge-intensive global industries favours centres rich in infrastructure and specialised skills. Some are traditional urban cores such as New York and some are suburban edge cities that offer jobs along with affordable houses and short commutes.
A burst of productivity could lift incomes and profits. That would enable consumers to repay some of their debt yet continue to spend. The change in the mix of growth should help: productivity in construction remains low, whereas in exports the most productive companies often do best. But the hobbled financial system will make it hard for cash-hungry start-ups to get financing, so innovation will suffer.
The outlook for business investment depends on whether it is for equipment or buildings. Spending on equipment is expected to be fairly strong, having largely avoided excess in the boom period, and indeed in the fourth quarter of 2009 it raced ahead at an annual rate of 19%. In February John Chambers, the boss of Cisco Systems, a maker of networking gear, called it “one of the most robust, positive turnarounds I’ve seen in my career”. Demand for new buildings is far lower: empty shops and offices attest to ample unused capacity. And business investment typically accounts for only 10-12% of GDP, so it will never be a full substitute for consumer spending.
The road to salvation
As consumers rebuild their savings, American firms must increasingly look abroad for sales. They have a lot of ground to make up. Competition from low-wage countries, mostly China, has increasingly taken over the markets of domestic industries such as furniture, clothing or consumer electronics. Yet shifts in the pattern of global growth and the dollar are laying the groundwork for a boom in exports. “There’s a world view that the United States is the consumer of the world and emerging markets are the producer,” says Bruce Kasman, chief economist at JPMorgan Chase. “That has changed.” He reckons that America will account for just 27% of global consumption this year against emerging markets’ 34%, roughly the reverse of their shares eight years ago.
The cheaper dollar will resuscitate some industries in commoditised markets, but the main beneficiaries of the export boom will be companies that are already formidable exporters. These companies reflect America’s strengths in high-end services and highly skilled manufacturing such as medical devices, pharmaceuticals, software and engineering, as well as creative services like film, architecture and advertising. Thanks to cheap digital technology, South Korea and India now knock out the sort of low-budget films that compete with standard American fare. But only Hollywood combines the creativity, expertise and market savvy to make something like “Avatar” which has earned $2.6 billion so far, some 70% of which came from abroad. That adds up to several jumbo jets.
Exports are a classic route to recovery after a crisis. Sweden and Finland in the early 1990s and Thailand, Malaysia and South Korea in the late 1990s bounced back from recession by moving from trade deficit to surplus or expanding their surplus. But given its size and the sickly state of most other rich countries’ economies, America will find it much harder. It has been exporting more to emerging markets than to developed ones for several years, but if other countries, particularly China, do not sufficiently boost domestic demand, “the unwinding of the global imbalances could reverse quite quickly in 2010,” says an IMF staff paper.
America’s current-account deficit, the broadest measure of its trade and payments with the rest of the world, shrank from 6% of GDP in 2006 to 3% last year (see chart 2). Could it come down to zero? It nearly did in 1991 after five years of booming exports. This time the deficit started out a lot larger and the rest of the world is weaker. Still, even stabilisation around 3% would be a blessed relief because it would slow the growth in America’s indebtedness to foreigners.
America’s imbalances were years in the making and will not be undone overnight. But the elements of a rebalanced economy are already visible a 40-minute drive to the south of Mr Hilton’s offices in Scottsdale, Arizona. Around the same time that Mr Hilton was watching sales of his homes dry up, Brian Krzanich, head of global manufacturing at Intel, was finalising plans to spend $3 billion retooling his company’s massive semiconductor factories in nearby Chandler. Mr Krzanich knew perfectly well there was a recession going on. Intel’s sales were down and 3% of the staff at the factories had been laid off. But he also knew that once global demand rebounded, Intel would have to be ready to produce a new generation of cheaper, smaller and more efficient chips. “Unless you think your business is going to shrink for an extended period, like seven years, it always pays to make that investment,” he says. In the last quarter of 2009 Intel, helped by resurgent demand for technology, enjoyed record profit margins, and Mr Krzanich was approving overtime.
Mr Hilton, for his part, runs his company on the assumption that the days of easy money and exuberant consumers are gone for ever. In his office he has a yellowed copy of the Wall Street Journal from September 18th 2008, the week when Lehman failed and American International Group was bailed out. “Worst crisis since the 30s with no end in sight”, reads one headline. “I wish I’d had that article in 2005,” says Mr Hilton. He keeps it around as an antidote any time he is “feeling all happy and slappy”.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
News from the Front
An interesting reading session tonight for The Economizer, as news about Noynoy Aquino's plans for his impending assumption of his country's Presidency, the Vietnamese economy's downward spiral, and what might be termed "inconsistency" in the decisions of the Supreme Court of the Philippines emerged.
***
First, Noynoy Aquino's presidential plans. Perhaps miffed by insinuations regarding his lack of experience and the inexistence of a campaign platform, Senator Benigno Aquino III has spoken -- and spoken loudly. The banner headline in the Philippine Daily Inquirer announced in boldface letters: "Aquino to create group to run after Arroyo ‘crimes’." Not content with announcing that he will cause the impeachment of a still-to-be-appointed Chief Justice, the good Senator now speaks for a future Justice Department in assigning State Prosecutors to future cases against President Arroyo. Just so the Filipino people are clear about what they are voting for:
There are several things wrong about this plan. One, the Senator has not yet been elected President. Granted, candidates have a duty to explain what their platform of government is. But is the next Administration really dedicated to the prosecution and imprisonment of the outgoing Administration? The courage is not in the the former, but in the latter: could the present Cabinet really preside over a peaceful transfer of power given that they know they would be prosecuted by the next Cabinet? That this remains a democracy is no thanks to the election front-runner -- credit is due the anonymous, unsung men and women who, despite having no mention in the media, despite all the threats of prosecution, despite the uncertainty of their future, keep the government functioning.
Two, the Senator's statement is a conclusion that obscures due process and preempts and prejudices the future prosecutors. What if they found no evidence, or found it insubstantial? Would the future President keep firing them until he found someone willing to "find" it otherwise? Such is the regard to which the law is held by our presumptive President.
Finally, what does it say of a President who has nothing to say about energy, agriculture and tax policy except that whatever is wrong is attributable to the evils of the President he replaced? The idea is absurd, too absurd to merit a reply. Except this: such is no platform of government.
***
Second, news about Vietnam, which could affect the Philippine economy. According to The Economist, that country is suffering from "dollar shortage," which is fatal for a country that depends on trade to grow its way out of poverty. (The Philippines relies on domestic demand and the export of people.) This has led the central bank, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV), to devalue the currency -- by 5.4% in November 2009 and 3.4% in February 2010.
The effect is high inflation. Standard Chartered warns that although Vietnam's GDP growth this year will be 6.7%, inflation would be high and trade deficit will widen. Analysts expect inflation will be 8.9% for the whole of 2010, up from 7% in December 2009. This compares with about 4.3% for the Philippines in February 2010.
The higher inflation drives up interest rates, and, coupled with a reduction in liquidity from open market operations by the SBV, crimps lending growth.
What this means is that Vietnamese assets are falling in value, due to the currency devaluation and the increase in interest rates. The end-result is that foreign capital, denominated in foreign currency, cannot bear the mark-to-market losses any longer and leaves the country. The only result from devaluation is more devaluation.
There are lessons here for the Philippines. One is the importance of a stable source of foreign currency. The Philippines is lucky in having so many of its people remitting billions of dollars monthly, so much so that more than 10% of the 2009 GDP is made up of remittances. The other big dollar-earning industry, business process outsourcing (BPO), is not due to luck. These factors -- OFW remittances and BPO earnings -- keep the cost of foreign debt manageable, such that despite the recent upgrade of Indonesia by credit rating agencies, the Philippines' credit spreads remain smaller.
(A note must be said that both OFW and BPO have a social cost that are far removed from high finance. It is counted in terms of broken families and an increase in HIV/AIDS cases.)
The other important lesson is the control of public spending. The recent extension of VAT exemption to senior citizens is an example not of concern for the elderly, but of concern for the elderly vote. If, instead of granting a 32% across-the-board discount for a substantial proportion of the population, the service quality of DSWD, SSS and GSIS and other government bureaucracies and programs had been improved, the poorest of the elderly would have benefited immensely and disproportionately. What happened was that all elderly people -- rich, poor, and other non-earning members of the citizenry -- made gains at the expense of the earning population.
The main proponents of the Expanded Senior Citizens Act are Senators Loren Legarda and Pia Cayetano, who do not need any more "pogi points" or "beauty points," judging from their photographs. The Philippines, however, does not need to follow the example of Greece and add to its budget deficit. A Vietnam must be avoided.
***
Finally, a worrisome trend at the Supreme Court, pointed out by Dr. Winnie Monsod. It appears that an earlier decision stopping the sale of the assets of the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) to a Malaysian consortium is about to be reversed by a "second" motion for reconsideration (MR). That sale transaction, amounting to billions of pesos, is a curious case because only the assets will be transferred to the Malaysian entity, but the Government of the Philippines retains the liabilities.It is disadvantageous to the Government (and the Filipino people), yet it is about to be given a blessing by the Court through an arguably illegal method.
It is a good thing that Chief Justice Puno has abandoned his quest to spearhead "moral" politics in the country. People in glass houses should not throw stones.
***
First, Noynoy Aquino's presidential plans. Perhaps miffed by insinuations regarding his lack of experience and the inexistence of a campaign platform, Senator Benigno Aquino III has spoken -- and spoken loudly. The banner headline in the Philippine Daily Inquirer announced in boldface letters: "Aquino to create group to run after Arroyo ‘crimes’." Not content with announcing that he will cause the impeachment of a still-to-be-appointed Chief Justice, the good Senator now speaks for a future Justice Department in assigning State Prosecutors to future cases against President Arroyo. Just so the Filipino people are clear about what they are voting for:
There are several things wrong about this plan. One, the Senator has not yet been elected President. Granted, candidates have a duty to explain what their platform of government is. But is the next Administration really dedicated to the prosecution and imprisonment of the outgoing Administration? The courage is not in the the former, but in the latter: could the present Cabinet really preside over a peaceful transfer of power given that they know they would be prosecuted by the next Cabinet? That this remains a democracy is no thanks to the election front-runner -- credit is due the anonymous, unsung men and women who, despite having no mention in the media, despite all the threats of prosecution, despite the uncertainty of their future, keep the government functioning.
Two, the Senator's statement is a conclusion that obscures due process and preempts and prejudices the future prosecutors. What if they found no evidence, or found it insubstantial? Would the future President keep firing them until he found someone willing to "find" it otherwise? Such is the regard to which the law is held by our presumptive President.
Finally, what does it say of a President who has nothing to say about energy, agriculture and tax policy except that whatever is wrong is attributable to the evils of the President he replaced? The idea is absurd, too absurd to merit a reply. Except this: such is no platform of government.
***
Second, news about Vietnam, which could affect the Philippine economy. According to The Economist, that country is suffering from "dollar shortage," which is fatal for a country that depends on trade to grow its way out of poverty. (The Philippines relies on domestic demand and the export of people.) This has led the central bank, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV), to devalue the currency -- by 5.4% in November 2009 and 3.4% in February 2010.
The effect is high inflation. Standard Chartered warns that although Vietnam's GDP growth this year will be 6.7%, inflation would be high and trade deficit will widen. Analysts expect inflation will be 8.9% for the whole of 2010, up from 7% in December 2009. This compares with about 4.3% for the Philippines in February 2010.
The higher inflation drives up interest rates, and, coupled with a reduction in liquidity from open market operations by the SBV, crimps lending growth.
What this means is that Vietnamese assets are falling in value, due to the currency devaluation and the increase in interest rates. The end-result is that foreign capital, denominated in foreign currency, cannot bear the mark-to-market losses any longer and leaves the country. The only result from devaluation is more devaluation.
There are lessons here for the Philippines. One is the importance of a stable source of foreign currency. The Philippines is lucky in having so many of its people remitting billions of dollars monthly, so much so that more than 10% of the 2009 GDP is made up of remittances. The other big dollar-earning industry, business process outsourcing (BPO), is not due to luck. These factors -- OFW remittances and BPO earnings -- keep the cost of foreign debt manageable, such that despite the recent upgrade of Indonesia by credit rating agencies, the Philippines' credit spreads remain smaller.
(A note must be said that both OFW and BPO have a social cost that are far removed from high finance. It is counted in terms of broken families and an increase in HIV/AIDS cases.)
The other important lesson is the control of public spending. The recent extension of VAT exemption to senior citizens is an example not of concern for the elderly, but of concern for the elderly vote. If, instead of granting a 32% across-the-board discount for a substantial proportion of the population, the service quality of DSWD, SSS and GSIS and other government bureaucracies and programs had been improved, the poorest of the elderly would have benefited immensely and disproportionately. What happened was that all elderly people -- rich, poor, and other non-earning members of the citizenry -- made gains at the expense of the earning population.
The main proponents of the Expanded Senior Citizens Act are Senators Loren Legarda and Pia Cayetano, who do not need any more "pogi points" or "beauty points," judging from their photographs. The Philippines, however, does not need to follow the example of Greece and add to its budget deficit. A Vietnam must be avoided.
***
Finally, a worrisome trend at the Supreme Court, pointed out by Dr. Winnie Monsod. It appears that an earlier decision stopping the sale of the assets of the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) to a Malaysian consortium is about to be reversed by a "second" motion for reconsideration (MR). That sale transaction, amounting to billions of pesos, is a curious case because only the assets will be transferred to the Malaysian entity, but the Government of the Philippines retains the liabilities.It is disadvantageous to the Government (and the Filipino people), yet it is about to be given a blessing by the Court through an arguably illegal method.
It is a good thing that Chief Justice Puno has abandoned his quest to spearhead "moral" politics in the country. People in glass houses should not throw stones.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Why Marxist-Communist party-listers should be exterminated
BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT MAN'S PURPOSE IN LIFE IS ONLY TO PRODUCE FOOD AND OTHER BASIC NEEDS.
This is Marxism as explained by R.F. Baum:
****
Commonly called historical materialism and as such given respectful attention by his apologists, it is also sometimes called the economic interpretation of history.
That last locution, however, may suggest what Marx never intended and what sort or sect of Marxists takes seriously, namely, that Marx’s is only one interpretation of history and that others are admissible. Marx advanced his interpretation as the only true one, and it is the only one that his admirers find worthy of discussion. It follows with fair coherence from his specification of man as a self-created producer of his means of subsistence. We can summarize it this way:
The means of production, i.e., the implements and techniques of production, in use at any period require for their maximum exploitation a particular social structure. Because man is foremost and essentially a producer of his means of subsistence, maximum exploitation occurs and the required social structure arises. At the same time, a superstructure of political and legal institutions, morality, and religion also arises to protect and sanctify the social structure. Thus, as Marx put it in his Paris Manuscripts, “religion, the family, the State, law, morality, science, art, etc., are only particular forms of production.” The whole edifice then endures without serious challenge until more efficient means of production appear. The existing social structure cramps and fetters these new means, preventing their full exploitation, whereupon, with general popular support, the community or class possessing them overthrows the social structure and its spiritual superstructure and makes itself pre-eminent. With that, a new social structure and spiritual superstructure arise. Thus, history has been a series of social revolutions triggered by improvements in the means of production.
Our summary continues:
With the rise of modern industry and private ownership of the means of production, those means and the social structure have once more come into conflict or “contradiction”. Capitalist industry has so magnified production that it can abundantly satisfy all men’s economic needs, yet by lowering wages, capitalism so impoverishes the proletarians who could be its customers and on whose labour it depends [that] the means of production are not fully exploited and proletarians’ very survival is threatened. Moreover, by concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands—“one capitalist kills many,” we read in Capital’s first volume—capitalism is eliminating small capitalists and independent tradesmen and thereby preparing an unmediated class conflict that will be more violent than any in the past. The outcome is inevitable: increasing numbers of desperate proletarians will overthrow capitalist society and install a “dictatorship of the proletariat” in which class distinction will vanish. Having brought under its control an economic system that threatened to control it, a mankind transfigured by revolutionary action will move through socialism, which rewards individuals according to their social contribution, to a purely voluntary communism based on the rule of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Thus, the economic system will become the necessary base of a “realm of freedom” in which man achieves full humanity.
As Darwin made a struggle for existence decided by natural selection the prime mover of a biological process moving toward biological perfection, so Marx made economic effort the prime mover of an historical process moving toward social perfection. . . .
Where Darwin implicitly denied the existence of a free or self-determining mind, Marx denied it explicitly. And that explicit denial, like Darwin’s implicit one, incorporates a rebound against itself, a self-cancellation, that makes Marx’s own thought as irrational or involuntary as any capitalist’s or untaught proletarian’s. If thought only rationalizes economic or class interest, must not Marx’s do the same? Of course it must. In all logic, Marx placed truth or objectivity beyond the reach of any human.
“So much for logic!” the reply may come from Marxist catechumens viewing logic as a bourgeois pseudo-science. “Was Marx right or wrong about man’s thinking?”
Marx was wrong. His mind-denying conception of human thought as a reflex of the mode of production or of class interest stands in blatant contradiction to obvious realities:
First, ideas in individual human heads always precede their objectification in the means of production or in societies or classes conscious of themselves as such. Henry Ford thought of the assembly line before he built it, and Marx laboured all his life to implant his own ideas in proletarians to make them a community conscious of itself as such. An idea comes first; the influence of its objectification comes later.
Second, men in historical periods marked by hugely different modes of production often share the same ideas; though often under other names Platonists and Sophists exist today as they did in ancient Greece. Likewise, men in different classes often share the same ideas, while men in the same class differ fundamentally. Still other men change their ideas without changing their class, or, perforce, the period in which they live. Ideas do not simply reflect historical periods’ means of production or individuals’ class membership. Contradictions of that supposed rule meet us everywhere. Under scrutiny, Marx’s irrationalist conception of human thought dissolves. Quite obvious considerations reveal, at the heart of a doctrine that in tirelessly revised interpretations gained a tight hold on countless intellectuals, an astonishing indifference not only to logic but to the plainest sort of fact. . . .
The mind-relaxing comprehensiveness of Marx’s doctrine, coupled with a promise of harmony and plenty delivered by an apparently hard-headed student of social realities, has carried many an uncritical mind along to warm agreement. To critical minds, however, the objections to it seem as numerous as they are overwhelming. Only the following will be mentioned here:
Man’s “self-creation” is simply unintelligible. Man owes his being to causes other than himself—and this powerfully suggests that the same or equally unknown causes will do much to shape his future.
That man’s production of his means of subsistence suffices to specify him cannot be believed on the strength of Marx’s bald assertion. . . .
Events in every age have falsified the notion that the cause of social and political change is change in the means of production. All the cataclysmic social, political and spiritual upheavals involved in the sequence Old Kingdom—Middle Kingdom—New Empire swept over ancient Egypt, enthroning kings and gods, while the Egyptians continued to cultivate the Nile Valley by means inherited from long-dead ancestors. No change in the means of production comes close to accounting for the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity, nor, later, for the break-up of Mediaeval Christendom and the rise of nation-states. Nor for the fall of the Weimar Republic and the rise of Hitler. One might go on for pages. One should also mention Max Weber’s total reversal of Marx’s “materialism.” Weber presented a formidable case for thinking that religious change, specifically Protestantism, accounted for modern industry itself.
Can we not yet call it obvious that in constructing his “materialist” theory of history, Marx hugely exaggerated the causal power of economic means and interests? Change in the means of production simply cannot carry the historical burden that Marx placed upon it. Other and perhaps more powerful forces manifest themselves in history’s abundance of wars and creeds, social orders and revolutions, laws, arts and sciences. The failure of historical materialism to square with historical fact directs attention to the conception of human thought that gives that doctrine its coherence and plausibility. Here we encounter what seems [to be] Marx’s most enduring legacy.
Marx’s conception of human thought bears witness to the influence of the French Enlightenment, whose naturalistic bent Marx pressed to Promethean atheism. Such luminaries of the Enlightenment as Helvetius, Condillac, Holbach, and Lamettrie, the last of whom pronounced man a machine, seem to have sensed in any idea of a free or circumstance-transcending mind more than a trace of the religion that in man’s mind had found the image of a transcendent Creator. Enlightenment thought tended in the opposite direction, and Marx, insisting that the “thought process itself is a natural process,” followed that direction all the way.
Since the deterministic consequence is profoundly anti-humanist and logically fallacious, Marx’s admirers often try to absolve Marx and Marxism of it. They commonly base this effort on a statement several times made by Marx, that man makes his own history, They ignore Marx’s conception of man as a creature specified and motivated by his urge to produce his means of subsistence. The man who in Marx’s scheme of things made his own history possessed no more freedom of thought and action than a beaver instinctively building dams or a squirrel instinctively building nuts.
SOURCE:
Baum, R. F. Doctors of Modernity: Darwin, Marx and Freud. Peru, Illinois: Sherwood, Sugden & Co.,1988.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Front-line Vets
The article below is from The Economist newspaper. The Economizer's comments follow below after the mark (***).
American forces in the Philippines:
Drawing lessons from a rare success
American forces in the Philippines:
Drawing lessons from a rare success
Jan 28th 2010 | JOLO | From The Economist print edition
A force of up to 600 American soldiers, many of them counter-insurgency specialists, has been training elite Filipino troops to fight militant groups ever since [2002]. American gadgets, tactics and intelligence seem to be helping. Fifteen of the 24 names on a Philippine most-wanted poster have been crossed out, either captured or killed. Foreign troops are forbidden to fight, so combat duties fall to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). The Americans keep busy with aid projects designed to woo locals in areas thick with militants. These days, there are fewer of them. The AFP estimates that Abu Sayyaf, a group notorious for bombings and beheadings, has fewer than 400 fighters on Jolo and Basilan islands. General Benjamin Dolorfino of the AFP boasts the group can no longer stage attacks on Mindanao itself.
American military thinkers wonder if there are lessons for other parts of the world where al-Qaeda lurks. With a modest outlay here, the Pentagon has dealt a blow to Islamist radicals and sharpened the skills of an ally. American troops are overstretched, expensive and make attractive targets for jihadists, so it makes sense to train other forces to fight where they can.
America, however, is unlikely to find other partners as perfect as the AFP, which is modelled on America’s armed forces. Filipino officers speak English, know and admire America, once the colonial power, and can bond with their comrades over beer and karaoke. Try that in Yemen.
Critics gripe that the AFP has been slow to finish off Abu Sayyaf because it wants American military aid to continue. That may be true. But a greater distraction from the campaign in Mindanao is the persistence of another, far broader insurgency. Ask a Filipino officer which group poses the gravest security threat and the answer is probably the communist New People’s Army, which has been fighting across much of the Philippines since 1969. America has not only to train its ally but also to convince it that jihadists are the real foe.
********
COMMENT:
Soldiers live and die by bravery, but surely this is bolder: first, The Economist patronizes the Filipino soldiers, then accuses their leadership of betrayal, and then tries to impose a pro-American strategy upon them.
Let's try to answer these points one by one. On the first point, that Filipinos are the Americans' little brown buddies, the condescending attitude of this British newspaper does not merit a reply; let's leave it at that.
On the second point, that the AFP are deliberately sabotaging their own security just to keep the Americans longer, The Economist does not adduce a shred of evidence in support of its bald assertion. Instead, it offers snide remarks aplenty. The fact is that the AFP have been fighting the Abu Sayyaf since the 1990s: why would they want the fight to continue? Just to keep themselves busy? This unprincipled speculation does not even have courtesy to follow logic.
And finally, the New People's Army IS the biggest threat to Philippine security. It is motivated by Marxism and Maoism, two ideas from the 19th and 20th centuries that have been proven to be nothing more than a misapprehension of reality and an offense against civilization. In the 21st century, its members have descended from Marx’s intellectual pretension to extortion of every kind of business, from multinationals to the small sari-sari store all over the archipelago, unlike the Muslim insurgency and the Abu Sayyaf banditry which are confined to southern Mindanao. In terms of geography and economics, which indeed is the bigger threat? That which runs up and down the country and directly harms the livelihood of ordinary Filpinos? Or one that is confined to a corner of Mindanao and a minority religion?
To the Americans, the answer is clear: they are here because of the link between al-Qaeda and the Muslim insurgents. It is in their national interest to pursue the al-Qaeda and its associates wherever in the world they may be operating. But is it also in the Philippines’ national interest for the AFP to drop everything and just follow the Gringos around?
The Philippines has not only to enlighten their ally but also to convince her that jihadists are America’s real foe . . . and that the extortionist, communist, terrorist NPA is the Filipinos’ real enemy.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The Chief Injustice
"Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety."
-Article VII, Section 15
1987 Constitution of the Philippines
"The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation."
- Article VIII, Section 9
1987 Constitution of the Philippines
"Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof."
Article VIII, Section 4 (1)
1987 Constitution of the Philippines
**********
The vacancy in the post of Chief Justice during an election period and during the transition to a new President is a cause for concern. In a country of "50,000 heat-seeking lawyers," in the phrase favored by the late Max Soliven, it is also a rich source of advertising revenue for the media. The print media, especially, have been blessed by the advertisements of several special-interest lawyers' groups expressing their views in open letters to public officials, which are not published for free.
The Economizer feel a great sadness at havng missed reading the article by Fr. Bernas on the subject, which appears to decide the matter once and for all. Settling for the second-best, let us allow Senator Franklin Drilon to speak his mind, as he has, in The Economizer's mind, the clearest non-legalese thought on the subject.
************
From The Philippine Star, January 15, 2010
"Former Senate president Franklin Drilon rejected yesterday the proposal of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile that President Arroyo pick the next chief justice from among the 14 associate justices of the Supreme Court as a violation of the Constitution.
"In a text message to The STAR, Drilon said the Constitution provides that the SC is comprised of a chief justice and 14 associate justices.
" 'Thus the members of the SC are one chief justice and 14 associate justices,' he said.
"Drilon said the Constitution states that SC members shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council.
'Clearly, the appointment of a chief justice requires the recommendation of the nominees by the JBC,' he said.
"Drilon told The STAR in San Fernando City, La Union Mrs. Arroyo does not have to make a 'midnight appointment' for the replacement of Chief Justice Reynato Puno because there is a process of succession in case of vacancy in office of the chief justice.
" 'Under Section 12 of the Judiciary Act, in case of vacancy in the office of the chief justice, the most senior associate justice will act as chief justice,' he said.
" 'There is absolutely no basis for the fear that (Malacañang) is trying to raise in public that it is dangerous in case there is vacancy in the office of the chief justice.'
"Drilon said that the law of succession, where the most senior associate justice will assume as chief justice, was applied in 1992 when Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan resigned to run for vice president.
" 'When Fernan resigned as chief justice to run as vice president, immediately thereafter, the most senior associate justice Andres Narvasa became acting (chief justice),' he said.
" 'It took a few weeks before he (Narvasa) became a regular chief justice.'
"Drilon said the Constitution bans Mrs. Arroyo from appointing a chief justice two months before her term ends on June 30.
" 'She cannot appoint starting May 1, 2010 and she cannot appoint after May 17, when Puno retires, because that is prohibited under the Constitution and she cannot also ignore or bypass the JBC,' he said."
**********
The Economizer feel a great sadness at havng missed reading the article by Fr. Bernas on the subject, which appears to decide the matter once and for all. Settling for the second-best, let us allow Senator Franklin Drilon to speak his mind, as he has, in The Economizer's mind, the clearest non-legalese thought on the subject.
************
From The Philippine Star, January 15, 2010
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=540903
"Former Senate president Franklin Drilon rejected yesterday the proposal of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile that President Arroyo pick the next chief justice from among the 14 associate justices of the Supreme Court as a violation of the Constitution.
"In a text message to The STAR, Drilon said the Constitution provides that the SC is comprised of a chief justice and 14 associate justices.
" 'Thus the members of the SC are one chief justice and 14 associate justices,' he said.
"Drilon said the Constitution states that SC members shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council.
'Clearly, the appointment of a chief justice requires the recommendation of the nominees by the JBC,' he said.
"Drilon told The STAR in San Fernando City, La Union Mrs. Arroyo does not have to make a 'midnight appointment' for the replacement of Chief Justice Reynato Puno because there is a process of succession in case of vacancy in office of the chief justice.
" 'Under Section 12 of the Judiciary Act, in case of vacancy in the office of the chief justice, the most senior associate justice will act as chief justice,' he said.
" 'There is absolutely no basis for the fear that (Malacañang) is trying to raise in public that it is dangerous in case there is vacancy in the office of the chief justice.'
"Drilon said that the law of succession, where the most senior associate justice will assume as chief justice, was applied in 1992 when Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan resigned to run for vice president.
" 'When Fernan resigned as chief justice to run as vice president, immediately thereafter, the most senior associate justice Andres Narvasa became acting (chief justice),' he said.
" 'It took a few weeks before he (Narvasa) became a regular chief justice.'
"Drilon said the Constitution bans Mrs. Arroyo from appointing a chief justice two months before her term ends on June 30.
" 'She cannot appoint starting May 1, 2010 and she cannot appoint after May 17, when Puno retires, because that is prohibited under the Constitution and she cannot also ignore or bypass the JBC,' he said."
**********
In summary, the issue boils down to two points. First, the Constitution will be followed whether people like it or not, and the JBC must make the nominations. As the Constitutional provisions above state, the President may not make appointments, not just executive appointments, during the prescribed period. These include Members of the Supreme Court, which include the Chief Justice. Second, there is a law of succession to be followed, and the law is clear: it is the most senior Associate Justice that will succeed the Chief Justice. Thus we are agreed: no Presidential appointments from March until June, including that for the post of Chief Justice.
Does this make for a lame-duck Presidency? Yes. That is why, in the same Philippine Star article, the late Press Secretary Cerge Remonde explains what the fuss is all about:
**********
"Remonde said allegations that Mrs. Arroyo intends to name a new chief justice to prolong her stay in power were malicious and far-fetched.
" 'The President does not want to prolong her stay in power beyond what is prescribed by law and that is too much,” he said.
" 'The President just wanted to assert her right and her responsibility under the law in maintaining the stand of appointing the chief justice of the SC the moment the vacancy occurs.”
**********
This, then, is the real issue. This is why we hear about this very boring topic in the news. Critics are foaming at the mouth saying that Malacanang is afraid of the next Chief Justice being appointed by a hostile President, while Malacanang denies the allegation. This is all: never mind the Constitutional provisions, which are unequivocal -- what matters is that President Arroyo cease becoming President as soon as possible. This is the view that fills the airwaves as talking heads "debate" the issue to death.
But this President is not known to surrender any of her prerogatives under the law. Let the critics fulminate, but the President will be President until the end of her term. The President just wants to assert her right[s] -- and woe to him who tries to stop her.
Such as . . . a certain president-in-waiting. Let Noynoy Aquino speak:
“If (Mrs. Arroyo) insists on violating the Constitution, it is important for us who are aspiring to lead the country under a new administration to let the public and (Mrs. Arroyo) know where our sentiments lie on such a critical question, if only to force (Mrs. Arroyo) to be faithful to our fundamental law.”
Translation: I, who will be the next President, will not accept your choice of Chief Justice, and by saying so, I am trying to force you to hand me your appointive powers already today.
Here, Senator Aquino is being arrogant, but at least he is basing his position on a Supreme Court precedent, Aytona vs. Castillo (1963). In that case the Supreme Court noted that making midnight appointments serves to frustrate the policy direction of the next administration and therefore must be prohibited. In response, The Economizer quotes Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino (priests, it seems, are trying their best to comment on politics, while politicians are doing their damndest to comment on morals, especially on the renewable marriage contract -- but that is for another article).
**********
While it makes sense to defer the appointment of policy-implementers until the policy-maker himself assumes office, that the workings of an independent branch of government are impaired because the appointment of a Chief Justice must await the commencement of the term of a new President is a proposition that does not commend itself to reasonable support and juridical acceptance.
**********
Meaning, that the policies of a new President have little to do with an independent judiciary. Either the judiciary is independent and the President cannot interfere with its decisions despite his or her appointments, or it is not independent and is subject to Presidential influence. It cannot be both.
Is Senator Aquino afraid that his policies will be thwarted by an Arroyo-appointed Chief Justice, even if he is just one Justice out of 15? The question there is, What policies?
Does this make for a lame-duck Presidency? Yes. That is why, in the same Philippine Star article, the late Press Secretary Cerge Remonde explains what the fuss is all about:
**********
"Remonde said allegations that Mrs. Arroyo intends to name a new chief justice to prolong her stay in power were malicious and far-fetched.
" 'The President does not want to prolong her stay in power beyond what is prescribed by law and that is too much,” he said.
" 'The President just wanted to assert her right and her responsibility under the law in maintaining the stand of appointing the chief justice of the SC the moment the vacancy occurs.”
**********
This, then, is the real issue. This is why we hear about this very boring topic in the news. Critics are foaming at the mouth saying that Malacanang is afraid of the next Chief Justice being appointed by a hostile President, while Malacanang denies the allegation. This is all: never mind the Constitutional provisions, which are unequivocal -- what matters is that President Arroyo cease becoming President as soon as possible. This is the view that fills the airwaves as talking heads "debate" the issue to death.
But this President is not known to surrender any of her prerogatives under the law. Let the critics fulminate, but the President will be President until the end of her term. The President just wants to assert her right[s] -- and woe to him who tries to stop her.
Such as . . . a certain president-in-waiting. Let Noynoy Aquino speak:
“If (Mrs. Arroyo) insists on violating the Constitution, it is important for us who are aspiring to lead the country under a new administration to let the public and (Mrs. Arroyo) know where our sentiments lie on such a critical question, if only to force (Mrs. Arroyo) to be faithful to our fundamental law.”
Translation: I, who will be the next President, will not accept your choice of Chief Justice, and by saying so, I am trying to force you to hand me your appointive powers already today.
Here, Senator Aquino is being arrogant, but at least he is basing his position on a Supreme Court precedent, Aytona vs. Castillo (1963). In that case the Supreme Court noted that making midnight appointments serves to frustrate the policy direction of the next administration and therefore must be prohibited. In response, The Economizer quotes Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino (priests, it seems, are trying their best to comment on politics, while politicians are doing their damndest to comment on morals, especially on the renewable marriage contract -- but that is for another article).
**********
From Manila Standard Today
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideOpinion.htm?f=2010/january/12/ranhilioaquino.isx&d=2010/january/12
**********
Meaning, that the policies of a new President have little to do with an independent judiciary. Either the judiciary is independent and the President cannot interfere with its decisions despite his or her appointments, or it is not independent and is subject to Presidential influence. It cannot be both.
Is Senator Aquino afraid that his policies will be thwarted by an Arroyo-appointed Chief Justice, even if he is just one Justice out of 15? The question there is, What policies?
To Help Haiti, End Foreign Aid
Source: The Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052748704541004575010860014031260.html
TO HELP HAITI, END FOREIGN AID
It's been a week since Port-au-Prince was destroyed by an earthquake. In the days ahead, Haitians will undergo another trauma as rescue efforts struggle, and often fail, to keep pace with unfolding emergencies. After that—and most disastrously of all—will be the arrival of the soldiers of do-goodness, each with his brilliant plan to save Haitians from themselves.
"Haiti needs a new version of the Marshall Plan—now," writes Andres Oppenheimer in the Miami Herald, by way of complaining that the hundreds of millions currently being pledged are miserly. Economist Jeffrey Sachs proposes to spend between $10 and $15 billion dollars on a five-year development program. "The obvious way for Washington to cover this new funding," he writes, "is by introducing special taxes on Wall Street bonuses." In a New York Times op-ed, former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush profess to want to help Haiti "become its best." Some job they did of that when they were actually in office.
All this works to salve the consciences of people whose dimly benign intention is to "do something." It's a potential bonanza for the misery professionals of aid agencies and NGOs. And it allows the Jeff Sachses of the world to preen as latter-day saints.
For actual Haitians, however, just about every conceivable aid scheme beyond immediate humanitarian relief will lead to more poverty, more corruption and less institutional capacity. It will benefit the well-connected at the expense of the truly needy, divert resources from where they are needed most, and crowd out local enterprise. And it will foster the very culture of dependence the country so desperately needs to break.
How do I know this? It helps to read a 2006 report from the National Academy of Public Administration, usefully titled "Why Foreign Aid to Haiti Failed." The report summarizes a mass of documents from various aid agencies describing their lengthy records of non-accomplishment in the country.
Here, for example, is the World Bank—now about to throw another $100 million at Haiti—on what it achieved in the country between 1986 and 2002: "The outcome of World Bank assistance programs is rated unsatisfactory (if not highly so), the institutional development impact, negligible, and the sustainability of the few benefits that have accrued, unlikely."
Why was that? The Bank noted that "Haiti has dysfunctional budgetary, financial or procurement systems, making financial and aid management impossible." It observed that "the government did not exhibit ownership by taking the initiative for formulating and implementing [its] assistance program." Tellingly, it also acknowledged the "total mismatch between levels of foreign aid and government capacity to absorb it," another way of saying that the more foreign donors spent on Haiti, the more the funds went astray.
But this still fails to get at the real problem of aid to Haiti, which has less to do with Haiti than it does with the effects of aid itself. "The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape," James Shikwati, a Kenyan economist, told Der Spiegel in 2005. "For God's sake, please just stop."
Take something as seemingly straightforward as food aid. "At some point," Mr. Shikwati explains, "this corn ends up in the harbor of Mombasa. A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unscrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign. Another portion of the shipment ends up on the black market where the corn is dumped at extremely low prices. Local farmers may as well put down their hoes right away; no one can compete with the U.N.'s World Food Program."
Mr. Sachs has blasted these arguments as "shockingly misguided." Then again, Mr. Shikwati and others like Kenya's John Githongo and Zambia's Dambisa Moyo have had the benefit of seeing first hand how the aid industry wrecked their countries. That the industry typically does so in connivance with the same local governments that have led their people to ruin only serves to help keep those elites in power.
A better approach recognizes the real humanity of Haitians by treating them—once the immediate tasks of rescue are over—as people capable of making responsible choices. Haiti has some of the weakest property protections in the world, and some of the most burdensome business regulations. In 2007, it received 10 times as much in aid ($701 million) as it did in foreign investment.
Reversing those figures is a task for Haitians alone, which the world can help by desisting from trying to kill them with kindness. Anything short of that and the hell that has now been visited on this sad country will come to seem like merely its first circle.
Write to bstephens@wsj.com
The Wall Street Journal's view of the Cheaper Medicines Act
Source: The Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004575012210915754250.html * OPINION ASIA * JANUARY 20, 2010, 12:32 P.M. ET
MANILA'S DOSE OF ECONOMIC POPULISM
Price controls on drugs and other bad election-season ideas.
The Philippines' Congress has been agitating for a second round of price controls on drugs, which would follow close on the heels on an initial round of price controls that just went into effect in August. Here we go again.
The department of health issued a letter on January 6 with a "request" for drug companies to submit lists of drugs whose prices they would be willing to cut by 50%. The last time they issued such a "request," the result was a mandatory price cut of 50% for five branded drugs, and "voluntary" cuts for a further 16 drugs. Undersecretary of Health Alexandra Padilla has said that this second round could include even more drugs than the first round.
These controls are legal under the 2008 "Cheaper Medicines Act," but that doesn't make them good policy. The Department of Health writes in its January 6 letter that its request for price cuts is part of efforts "to improve access to essential medicines especially for the poor." But it has not presented any evidence that proves the current price controls have improved access for the poor. (The Department of Health did not return multiple telephone calls requesting comment.)
Health impact aside, what is certain is that price controls send a strong signal to all pharmaceutical companies about the desirability of doing business in the Philippines. The first round of price cuts dug into drug profits—not only for the makers of the 21 drugs affected, but also for generics manufacturers, who had to lower their prices to stay competitive. Hospitals and pharmacies saw profit margins wither as well—hardly encouraging for anyone who's thinking of investing in the health-care industry.
Unfortunately drugs are not the only sector suffering from the government's populist enthusiasm. Price limits were put in place for oil in October following two devastating typhoons, and lifted only once it became clear that the controls were drying up supply. Earlier this month the government also threatened to impose price controls on cement.
Congressmen may be hoping to score populist points with voters come May, but these moves fly in the face of the policies that have made the Philippines prosper over the last several decades. The last time price controls were widely used was during the reign of Ferdinand Marcos, who was overthrown in 1986. Many voters are old enough to remember how that turned out—with shortages of rice and unemployment at times near 25%.
Pharmaceutical sales are a $2.5 billion-a-year industry in the Philippines, and arbitrarily punishing drug companies only sets a bad precedent for other industries. If Congressmen really wanted to improve health care, they could cut taxes on medicines (currently at 12%), allocate resources toward keeping fake drugs out of the market, or develop the fledgling insurance industry. Populist shenanigans only risk making things worse.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Ouch
“Gutted Charter”
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Editorial, p. A14
No one had any doubts that President Macapagal-Arroyo would pat herself on the back for imposing martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus. And it comes as no surprise that she keeps padding the reasons for imposing martial law (the latest being to protect witnesses, although Gilbert Teodoro, Jr., if lawyer Harry Roque is to be believed, has had the four survivors of the Maguindanao Massacre under his wing, without benefit of martial law since officially, anyway, he is out of government). But one assertion of the President was particularly revealing. “Our critics drag their feet and took their time grandstanding when the situation demanded decisive action, yet we must act quickly to secure the peace and ensure justice,” she declared.
This statement ignores two basic things. The first is that she is the President, with specific duties and powers no one else gets to wield. And the public was not convinced of the decisiveness of the President with regard to apprehending and ensuring the punishment of the perpetrators of the massacre.
It did not help that one of her own spokespersons went out of her way to say soothing things about the Ampatuans—and got only a mild slap on the wrist for it, by way of Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita who said the statement shouldn’t be construed as representing the President’s—or the Administration’s—views. The Secretaries of the Interior and of Defense also seemed, briefly, at odds with the President’s martial law judgment call.
The second is that the President is boldly accusing her critics of grandstanding in Congress. But it was her allies who did most of the grandstanding: Makati Rep. Teddy-boy Locsin and Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago didn’t interpellate, they lawyered for and against martial law since the Administration resource persons seemed incapable of making the arguments on their own. Her critics, for the most part, asked precisely the sort of questions Congress was supposed to be asking during a martial law situation.
The Constitution is a document born of the times in which it was written, and that was the post-dictatorship era, with its broad public consensus that our institutions shouldn’t be caught napping, or worse, end up cravenly accepting, any aggressive presidential encroachments on the constitutional territory of other branches of government. For this reason, it explicitly ordered the Congress (if not in session) to convene within 24 hours of a martial law declaration, and imposed a 48-hour deadline for the President to submit a report.
When the time came for the Constitution’s provisions to be tested, glaringly absent was Congress sharing the Charter’s sense of urgency, with Speaker Prospero Nograles taking the lead in turning the Constitution on its head by insisting that he saw no need to convene at all, since his colleagues intended to support the declaration anyway. Noteworthy was his saying so even without a ritual nod to whatever justifications the President might propound. The ruling coalition had made up its mind even before the shallow report was submitted by Ermita in the name of the President.
A Congress imbued with a sense of urgency would have formed two panels, composed of its best and brightest, to subject the President’s representatives to a thorough but organized barrage of questions, leading to two legislators summarizing the arguments pro and con prior to taking a vote. This time, the appropriate questions were all asked within the first day of the joint session, and by the second day, Congress was armed with enough information to conduct an informed vote on whether to revoke the twin declarations of martial law and the suspension of the writ.
Worst of all, Congress adjourned its joint session with an admission that the President, by lifting martial law, had singlehandedly rendered the Constitution’s martial law safeguards ineffectual. The Administration majority lacked even the force of its conviction to render a vote for the record.
This sad state of affairs doesn’t leave the Constitution in a shambles. It gutted its principles. The form was slovenly followed while the substance was blithely ignored.
“The Last Taboo”
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Sunday, December 6. 2009
Editorial, p. A10
The last taboo of the newly restored democracy the Filipino people put in place in 1986 was broken Friday evening when President Macapagal-Arroyo signed a proclamation placing Maguindanao—except for MILF camps—under martial law. Previous presidents had considered themselves bound by a broad, post-Marcos consensus: the exercise of utmost discretion in wielding certain constitutional powers—like the power to declare martial law. For this reason, even in the face of coup attempts, President Cory Aquino conscientiously asked for emergency powers from Congress instead of arrogating them unto herself.
***
The Executive Departments’ justifications range from the contradictory (a province caught up in a total breakdown of government tantamount to a rebellion, or on the verge of rebellion, said Justice Agnes Devanadera in Saturday’s press conference) to the disingenuous (government needed to undertake warrantless arrests, which sidesteps the question of why a state of emergency fortified by the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus wasn’t enough. The President has declared the writ’s suspension and martial law; Marcos allowed at least a year to pass between the former and the latter.)
_______________________________
There are few things in life more hurtful than being accused of weakness by your opponent in boxing (or any other contact sport). Of the entire speech by the President, delivered in front of public schoolteachers in Quezon City, the Inquirer has chosen to emphasize the words, “drag[ging] their feet,” and “grandstanding.” It is easy to infer from the tone of the speech what Mrs. Arroyo was hinting at: “Weak, weak, weak!” she taunted her critics. Given that the editorial staff were living and working in the safety (though not the comfort) of Metro Manila, 500 miles north of the erupting chaos in Maguindanao, the taunt must have stung. “Ouch.”
Let us outline the ideas, such as they are, put forth in the December 16 opinion above.
1. The President possesses broad and unique powers even in ordinary times. But she utterly failed to use the ordinary powers of her office to bring justice to the massacre victims. That failure should not have given her an excuse to resort to constitutional powers that are to be used only in extraordinary times.
2. It was not the critics who were “grandstanding” in Congress. It was the President’s allies who were grandstanding. The “critics, for the most part, asked precisely the sort of questions Congress was supposed to be asking during a martial law situation.”
3. The President’s lifting of martial law “singlehandedly rendered the Constitution’s martial law safeguards ineffectual.”
4. The letter of the Constitution’s martial law provisions was observed, but the spirit was not. “The form was slovenly followed while the substance was blithely ignored.”
Let us discuss these points one by one, and offer answer to the critics’ objections as best we can.
1. In the December 16 editorial, the “ordinary powers” spoken of are not enumerated. To make the editorial position clearer, let us refer to the earlier piece written the day after martial law was proclaimed, quoted in part above. In it, the editors were less equivocal in what they wanted: “a state of emergency fortified by the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus . . .” This is the most substantial exposition of the critics’ desire, the meat of their position, so to speak. They want the President to act, to bring hell to the Ampatuans and their supporters and to put an end to their ability to wage violence, and to use every means to achieve these objectives; EXCEPT that she may not call it “martial law.”
Let us record a related objection, quoted here again to avoid any confusion, which will lead us to the heart of the controversy: “[t]he President has declared the writ’s suspension and martial law; Marcos allowed at least a year to pass between the former and the latter.” This, however, only gives us a clue—two clues, in fact—about the intellectual and emotional force of the criticism of the martial law proclamation. First, there is a big difference between the motives of Marcos and the motives of PGMA in declaring martial law, and second, the Marcosian comparison makes clear that the critics’ real aim is to replay 1972 again, only with a different ending this time.
Why did the President in 2009 declare martial law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus at the same time? To carry out warrantless arrests, as even the critics accept. But the fact that the two actions were initiated simultaneously reflects the limited purpose of the martial law declaration, which is to bring justice to the murder victims and to reverse a failed security policy in central Mindanao. The effects of the simultaneous actions were that the military gained legal control over the Maguindanao police and the Maguindanao local government (what martial law meant), and then proceeded to arrest without warrant those suspected of involvement in the massacre and to efficiently collect evidence needed by the investigators (what the suspension of the writ allowed). Even the chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, Leila de Lima, usually on the opposite emotional side of the present Administration, signaled her appreciation of the benefits of martial law in a television interview.
So martial rule significantly improved the ability of the national government to assert its authority over the warlord-ruled province, and enhanced the efficiency of the massacre investigation. These were the very purposes of the martial law declaration, and the arrest of dozens of Ampatuan supporters, including the incumbent ARMM Governor who is an Ampatuan son, has vindicated the soundness of the declaration. Of course, in perfect hindsight the critics can say that such arrests could have been achieved without martial law.
Maybe, but apparently, not without suspending the habeas writ. A “state of emergency fortified by the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus” would have been immeasurably better, the Inquirer says. But what would have been the difference? The difference was in name, and in name only. As we have seen in its effects as described above, martial law had a limited purpose. But the critics do not see the effects unfolding before their very eyes; they see what is behind the unfolding. They see the sinister hand of the President, protecting her allies the Ampatuans by charging them with rebellion instead of murder. They see the President’s mind, plotting to remain in office by extending martial law over the entire country and warrantlessly arresting all who oppose her. They see a stage-managed act of barbarism—the ambush and murder of public figures—forming the ostensible basis of a malevolent power-grab. They see, in short, Ferdinand Marcos.
The memory of the dictator remains green in the minds of those who lived through his time, and no assurance by a written Constitution can erase the trauma of the experience—not even the passage of time or the changing of personalities. So raw was the association with the term “martial law” that Cory Aquino could not bring herself to declare it, despite the seven coups d’état that nearly pushed her Administration and the nation’s newly won democracy over the edge. For men and women of a certain age, the political and economic repression that they suffered under the Marcosian martial law has formed psychological scars that may never heal but only grow fresher as the years pass. Their determination that it should never be so again informs their view of martial law, against which the assaults of logic can only end in failure. “Martial law has been defanged,” says an authority no less than Marcos’s Justice Minister Juan Ponce Enrile, but his surviving victims have known him to cry wolf.
This psychological, intellectual and emotional disorder gives coherence—if it may be called such—to the critics’ otherwise irrational position. Suspending the habeas writ and declaring a state of emergency is preferable to suspending the habeas writ and declaring martial law, acting with every means at the government’s disposal but not making an “overkill,” asserting that the arrest and impoverishment of the Ampatuans and their supporters is a way of “saving” them and of keeping them from divulging election-cheating secrets—all these contradictory positions find their theoretical underpinning in the emotional battering that a responsible generation suffered under the dictatorship.
To this, the younger generation that did not live through those dangerous years must offer a consistent response, and in every way they are helped by a government that is determined to bring Philippine history forward and is not swayed by the raw emotion and unsettled scores of yesteryear.
2. Let us be clear: the President said “grandstanding;” she did not say, “grandstanding in Congress.” The distinction is critical, for the latter is simply an attempt to deflect the force of the President’s rebuttal from its real target—those in the media—to her allies in Congress.
For what does one call the Inquirer’s call to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and declare a state of emergency but not to declare martial law? Is it a principled stand on issues, or simply a grand stand to sensationalize? What can one say of the position that there must be debate, but that it must end in the revocation of Proclamation 1959? Is that the Inquirer’s definition of democracy? And what about the position that the President was not decisive enough because she let the Ampatuans go free during the first week that followed the massacre, but that she was being too decisive by arresting them during the second week (martial law was declared about 13 days after the massacre)? Did the critics imply that the Ampatuans should not have been arrested because it was already the second week?
Given the critics’ irrational arguments it is polite of the President to take them seriously and answer their objections in a full speech. In The Economizer's opinion, such idiocy deserves no reply at all.
3. The Constitution safeguards the democratic political system not just by requiring the submission of reports and the commencement of debates in a joint session of Congress, which can be superficial (there is no disputing that the Executive Secretary’s report and the debate in the joint session were farcical), but more crucially by stipulating that the Bill of Rights and the civilian courts should remain in operation even in areas where martial law is declared. During the entire time that martial law was in effect in Maguindanao, charges were filed (in civilian courts) within 36 hours against those arrested under martial law powers, in accordance with the Constitution, and the civil courts were not deprived of their authority or jurisdiction. A judicious reading of newspapers including the Inquirer shows no reports of military trials anywhere.
This is a triumph of our democratic 1987 Constitution, flawed though this Constitution is. As usual this point failed to grab the same headlines as did the matter of the “constitutionality” of Proclamation 1959, for the newspapers do not sell on good news. But there it is, and it cannot be ignored.
Our democracy also triumphs in a stronger, more lasting way. The same reading of newspapers fails to elicit anything but the most glowing review of the military’s conduct. Gen. Raymundo Ferrer commanded the respect of friends and foes alike, and the media fell all over themselves proclaiming that the sinister Gloria Arroyo would never have this man of integrity, the chief administrator of martial law, as her tool of oppression. But the very same newspapers perfectly failed to understand the military’s significance. By behaving well, by simply refusing to commit abuses, the military upheld the Constitution’s desire that the civilian courts be given ultimate jurisdiction of any dispute in areas where martial law is in effect. By simply doing their job, the military achieved the purpose for which martial law was declared, namely, that evidence be collected without interference and arrests be made with the minimum of resistance. By behaving as they did, the soldiers ensured that their rule was one that upheld democracy.
Saying that the lifting of martial law was a nefarious attempt to circumvent the Constitution, is simply a misreading of the same Constitution and a disrespectful misapprehension of the upstanding comportment of the military throughout the whole episode. Critics deserve only military discipline.
4. The “spirit” of the Constitution is determined that democracy must remain in force even while martial law is in effect. That is why the Bill of Rights continues to be observed in Maguindanao, that is why civilian courts do not cease to operate, that is why the Congress continues to be in session even if the President placed the entire country under martial law, that is why the civilian President retains control of the military during martial law. Should martial law, a Constitutional power given to the President, never have been declared? Only those who revel in their prejudices can say that the substance of a Constitutional provision is given effect only if it is not used at all.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Editorial, p. A14
No one had any doubts that President Macapagal-Arroyo would pat herself on the back for imposing martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus. And it comes as no surprise that she keeps padding the reasons for imposing martial law (the latest being to protect witnesses, although Gilbert Teodoro, Jr., if lawyer Harry Roque is to be believed, has had the four survivors of the Maguindanao Massacre under his wing, without benefit of martial law since officially, anyway, he is out of government). But one assertion of the President was particularly revealing. “Our critics drag their feet and took their time grandstanding when the situation demanded decisive action, yet we must act quickly to secure the peace and ensure justice,” she declared.
This statement ignores two basic things. The first is that she is the President, with specific duties and powers no one else gets to wield. And the public was not convinced of the decisiveness of the President with regard to apprehending and ensuring the punishment of the perpetrators of the massacre.
It did not help that one of her own spokespersons went out of her way to say soothing things about the Ampatuans—and got only a mild slap on the wrist for it, by way of Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita who said the statement shouldn’t be construed as representing the President’s—or the Administration’s—views. The Secretaries of the Interior and of Defense also seemed, briefly, at odds with the President’s martial law judgment call.
The second is that the President is boldly accusing her critics of grandstanding in Congress. But it was her allies who did most of the grandstanding: Makati Rep. Teddy-boy Locsin and Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago didn’t interpellate, they lawyered for and against martial law since the Administration resource persons seemed incapable of making the arguments on their own. Her critics, for the most part, asked precisely the sort of questions Congress was supposed to be asking during a martial law situation.
The Constitution is a document born of the times in which it was written, and that was the post-dictatorship era, with its broad public consensus that our institutions shouldn’t be caught napping, or worse, end up cravenly accepting, any aggressive presidential encroachments on the constitutional territory of other branches of government. For this reason, it explicitly ordered the Congress (if not in session) to convene within 24 hours of a martial law declaration, and imposed a 48-hour deadline for the President to submit a report.
When the time came for the Constitution’s provisions to be tested, glaringly absent was Congress sharing the Charter’s sense of urgency, with Speaker Prospero Nograles taking the lead in turning the Constitution on its head by insisting that he saw no need to convene at all, since his colleagues intended to support the declaration anyway. Noteworthy was his saying so even without a ritual nod to whatever justifications the President might propound. The ruling coalition had made up its mind even before the shallow report was submitted by Ermita in the name of the President.
A Congress imbued with a sense of urgency would have formed two panels, composed of its best and brightest, to subject the President’s representatives to a thorough but organized barrage of questions, leading to two legislators summarizing the arguments pro and con prior to taking a vote. This time, the appropriate questions were all asked within the first day of the joint session, and by the second day, Congress was armed with enough information to conduct an informed vote on whether to revoke the twin declarations of martial law and the suspension of the writ.
Worst of all, Congress adjourned its joint session with an admission that the President, by lifting martial law, had singlehandedly rendered the Constitution’s martial law safeguards ineffectual. The Administration majority lacked even the force of its conviction to render a vote for the record.
This sad state of affairs doesn’t leave the Constitution in a shambles. It gutted its principles. The form was slovenly followed while the substance was blithely ignored.
“The Last Taboo”
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Sunday, December 6. 2009
Editorial, p. A10
The last taboo of the newly restored democracy the Filipino people put in place in 1986 was broken Friday evening when President Macapagal-Arroyo signed a proclamation placing Maguindanao—except for MILF camps—under martial law. Previous presidents had considered themselves bound by a broad, post-Marcos consensus: the exercise of utmost discretion in wielding certain constitutional powers—like the power to declare martial law. For this reason, even in the face of coup attempts, President Cory Aquino conscientiously asked for emergency powers from Congress instead of arrogating them unto herself.
***
The Executive Departments’ justifications range from the contradictory (a province caught up in a total breakdown of government tantamount to a rebellion, or on the verge of rebellion, said Justice Agnes Devanadera in Saturday’s press conference) to the disingenuous (government needed to undertake warrantless arrests, which sidesteps the question of why a state of emergency fortified by the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus wasn’t enough. The President has declared the writ’s suspension and martial law; Marcos allowed at least a year to pass between the former and the latter.)
_______________________________
There are few things in life more hurtful than being accused of weakness by your opponent in boxing (or any other contact sport). Of the entire speech by the President, delivered in front of public schoolteachers in Quezon City, the Inquirer has chosen to emphasize the words, “drag[ging] their feet,” and “grandstanding.” It is easy to infer from the tone of the speech what Mrs. Arroyo was hinting at: “Weak, weak, weak!” she taunted her critics. Given that the editorial staff were living and working in the safety (though not the comfort) of Metro Manila, 500 miles north of the erupting chaos in Maguindanao, the taunt must have stung. “Ouch.”
Let us outline the ideas, such as they are, put forth in the December 16 opinion above.
1. The President possesses broad and unique powers even in ordinary times. But she utterly failed to use the ordinary powers of her office to bring justice to the massacre victims. That failure should not have given her an excuse to resort to constitutional powers that are to be used only in extraordinary times.
2. It was not the critics who were “grandstanding” in Congress. It was the President’s allies who were grandstanding. The “critics, for the most part, asked precisely the sort of questions Congress was supposed to be asking during a martial law situation.”
3. The President’s lifting of martial law “singlehandedly rendered the Constitution’s martial law safeguards ineffectual.”
4. The letter of the Constitution’s martial law provisions was observed, but the spirit was not. “The form was slovenly followed while the substance was blithely ignored.”
Let us discuss these points one by one, and offer answer to the critics’ objections as best we can.
1. In the December 16 editorial, the “ordinary powers” spoken of are not enumerated. To make the editorial position clearer, let us refer to the earlier piece written the day after martial law was proclaimed, quoted in part above. In it, the editors were less equivocal in what they wanted: “a state of emergency fortified by the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus . . .” This is the most substantial exposition of the critics’ desire, the meat of their position, so to speak. They want the President to act, to bring hell to the Ampatuans and their supporters and to put an end to their ability to wage violence, and to use every means to achieve these objectives; EXCEPT that she may not call it “martial law.”
Let us record a related objection, quoted here again to avoid any confusion, which will lead us to the heart of the controversy: “[t]he President has declared the writ’s suspension and martial law; Marcos allowed at least a year to pass between the former and the latter.” This, however, only gives us a clue—two clues, in fact—about the intellectual and emotional force of the criticism of the martial law proclamation. First, there is a big difference between the motives of Marcos and the motives of PGMA in declaring martial law, and second, the Marcosian comparison makes clear that the critics’ real aim is to replay 1972 again, only with a different ending this time.
Why did the President in 2009 declare martial law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus at the same time? To carry out warrantless arrests, as even the critics accept. But the fact that the two actions were initiated simultaneously reflects the limited purpose of the martial law declaration, which is to bring justice to the murder victims and to reverse a failed security policy in central Mindanao. The effects of the simultaneous actions were that the military gained legal control over the Maguindanao police and the Maguindanao local government (what martial law meant), and then proceeded to arrest without warrant those suspected of involvement in the massacre and to efficiently collect evidence needed by the investigators (what the suspension of the writ allowed). Even the chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, Leila de Lima, usually on the opposite emotional side of the present Administration, signaled her appreciation of the benefits of martial law in a television interview.
So martial rule significantly improved the ability of the national government to assert its authority over the warlord-ruled province, and enhanced the efficiency of the massacre investigation. These were the very purposes of the martial law declaration, and the arrest of dozens of Ampatuan supporters, including the incumbent ARMM Governor who is an Ampatuan son, has vindicated the soundness of the declaration. Of course, in perfect hindsight the critics can say that such arrests could have been achieved without martial law.
Maybe, but apparently, not without suspending the habeas writ. A “state of emergency fortified by the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus” would have been immeasurably better, the Inquirer says. But what would have been the difference? The difference was in name, and in name only. As we have seen in its effects as described above, martial law had a limited purpose. But the critics do not see the effects unfolding before their very eyes; they see what is behind the unfolding. They see the sinister hand of the President, protecting her allies the Ampatuans by charging them with rebellion instead of murder. They see the President’s mind, plotting to remain in office by extending martial law over the entire country and warrantlessly arresting all who oppose her. They see a stage-managed act of barbarism—the ambush and murder of public figures—forming the ostensible basis of a malevolent power-grab. They see, in short, Ferdinand Marcos.
The memory of the dictator remains green in the minds of those who lived through his time, and no assurance by a written Constitution can erase the trauma of the experience—not even the passage of time or the changing of personalities. So raw was the association with the term “martial law” that Cory Aquino could not bring herself to declare it, despite the seven coups d’état that nearly pushed her Administration and the nation’s newly won democracy over the edge. For men and women of a certain age, the political and economic repression that they suffered under the Marcosian martial law has formed psychological scars that may never heal but only grow fresher as the years pass. Their determination that it should never be so again informs their view of martial law, against which the assaults of logic can only end in failure. “Martial law has been defanged,” says an authority no less than Marcos’s Justice Minister Juan Ponce Enrile, but his surviving victims have known him to cry wolf.
This psychological, intellectual and emotional disorder gives coherence—if it may be called such—to the critics’ otherwise irrational position. Suspending the habeas writ and declaring a state of emergency is preferable to suspending the habeas writ and declaring martial law, acting with every means at the government’s disposal but not making an “overkill,” asserting that the arrest and impoverishment of the Ampatuans and their supporters is a way of “saving” them and of keeping them from divulging election-cheating secrets—all these contradictory positions find their theoretical underpinning in the emotional battering that a responsible generation suffered under the dictatorship.
To this, the younger generation that did not live through those dangerous years must offer a consistent response, and in every way they are helped by a government that is determined to bring Philippine history forward and is not swayed by the raw emotion and unsettled scores of yesteryear.
2. Let us be clear: the President said “grandstanding;” she did not say, “grandstanding in Congress.” The distinction is critical, for the latter is simply an attempt to deflect the force of the President’s rebuttal from its real target—those in the media—to her allies in Congress.
For what does one call the Inquirer’s call to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and declare a state of emergency but not to declare martial law? Is it a principled stand on issues, or simply a grand stand to sensationalize? What can one say of the position that there must be debate, but that it must end in the revocation of Proclamation 1959? Is that the Inquirer’s definition of democracy? And what about the position that the President was not decisive enough because she let the Ampatuans go free during the first week that followed the massacre, but that she was being too decisive by arresting them during the second week (martial law was declared about 13 days after the massacre)? Did the critics imply that the Ampatuans should not have been arrested because it was already the second week?
Given the critics’ irrational arguments it is polite of the President to take them seriously and answer their objections in a full speech. In The Economizer's opinion, such idiocy deserves no reply at all.
3. The Constitution safeguards the democratic political system not just by requiring the submission of reports and the commencement of debates in a joint session of Congress, which can be superficial (there is no disputing that the Executive Secretary’s report and the debate in the joint session were farcical), but more crucially by stipulating that the Bill of Rights and the civilian courts should remain in operation even in areas where martial law is declared. During the entire time that martial law was in effect in Maguindanao, charges were filed (in civilian courts) within 36 hours against those arrested under martial law powers, in accordance with the Constitution, and the civil courts were not deprived of their authority or jurisdiction. A judicious reading of newspapers including the Inquirer shows no reports of military trials anywhere.
This is a triumph of our democratic 1987 Constitution, flawed though this Constitution is. As usual this point failed to grab the same headlines as did the matter of the “constitutionality” of Proclamation 1959, for the newspapers do not sell on good news. But there it is, and it cannot be ignored.
Our democracy also triumphs in a stronger, more lasting way. The same reading of newspapers fails to elicit anything but the most glowing review of the military’s conduct. Gen. Raymundo Ferrer commanded the respect of friends and foes alike, and the media fell all over themselves proclaiming that the sinister Gloria Arroyo would never have this man of integrity, the chief administrator of martial law, as her tool of oppression. But the very same newspapers perfectly failed to understand the military’s significance. By behaving well, by simply refusing to commit abuses, the military upheld the Constitution’s desire that the civilian courts be given ultimate jurisdiction of any dispute in areas where martial law is in effect. By simply doing their job, the military achieved the purpose for which martial law was declared, namely, that evidence be collected without interference and arrests be made with the minimum of resistance. By behaving as they did, the soldiers ensured that their rule was one that upheld democracy.
Saying that the lifting of martial law was a nefarious attempt to circumvent the Constitution, is simply a misreading of the same Constitution and a disrespectful misapprehension of the upstanding comportment of the military throughout the whole episode. Critics deserve only military discipline.
4. The “spirit” of the Constitution is determined that democracy must remain in force even while martial law is in effect. That is why the Bill of Rights continues to be observed in Maguindanao, that is why civilian courts do not cease to operate, that is why the Congress continues to be in session even if the President placed the entire country under martial law, that is why the civilian President retains control of the military during martial law. Should martial law, a Constitutional power given to the President, never have been declared? Only those who revel in their prejudices can say that the substance of a Constitutional provision is given effect only if it is not used at all.
Sound Bite
"People of Pampanga will decide if GMA deserves seat in House"
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Letters to the Editor, p. A16
Before leaving for Australia, former President Fidel V. Ramos told reporters at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) that President Macapagal-Arroyo’s resignation would be fair to other candidates running for the second congressional district of Pampanga. He added, she is also diminishing the stature of the Office of the President. (INQUIRER, 12/3/09)
Under Republic Act 9006 (Fair Elections Act), the President is no longer required to resign if he or she aspires for another post, as decided by the Supreme Court.
There is nothing wrong if she runs for Congress after serving as President. It’s the people of Pampanga who will decide. In the United States, the sixth President, John Quincy Adams, ran for the House of Representatives in 1830 and won in subsequent reelections, serving for 17 years as a congressman from Massachusetts. He suffered a stroke in the House and died in the Speaker’s room on February 23, 1848.
Also, Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Abraham Lincoln after Lincoln’s assassination but failed to win election as President in his own right in 1868, was elected to the US Senate in 1874.
ELIGIO M. PASTORIN
Rositaville Subdivision
Concepcion I, Marikina City
_____________________________________
A lot of people have impugned the motives of President Arroyo in running for the Congress, and have declared that in doing so she has:
1. Demeaned the Office of the President (brought it low) because the congressman has a lower rank than the President;
2. Betrayed her lust for power because once in the House she will lead the fight for charter change to become prime minister of a parliamentary government; and
3. Revealed her shamelessness and cowardice as she attempts to gain immunity from lawsuits, which will surely be hurled against her once she leaves the Presidency.
This column, on the other hand, would like to point out some obvious facts that the benumbed mental faculties of Arroyo critics have failed to perceive:
1. The idealistic critics, for idealistic they mostly are, should have realized that the Presidency and congressional representation are both avenues for public service; they just accrue different levels of honor, and impose different degrees of responsibilities, on the officeholder. Exchanging one for the other should not matter to the idealist who truly and honestly wants to render public service and nothing more. Therefore, to become a congressman after becoming President is simply another version of retiring: giving up the higher honor in exchange for lighter responsibilities, while still remaining in public service. (Public service is here thought of in theoretical, honest terms, as opposed to a mere venue of corruption.)
What alternative are the critics proposing? None, if they are to be listened to. But let us infer from the “profession” that former President Fidel Ramos has adopted after leaving Malacañang, that of a professional speaker, that this is the activity they want Mrs. Arroyo to pursue. There is no doubt that being an elder statesman on the lecture circuit generates financial security for the statesman, while he supports his favorite causes on the side.
Is there honor in it? Yes. But is there service? Yes, to his favorite charities. By analogy, in becoming congressman, President Arroyo has chosen to serve only a particular constituency. Should that be counted a disservice or a non-service simply because she will only be congressman of one particular constituency? No, definitely not. But is there honor in being a congressman?
Alas, while the critics are mostly idealistic, they are uniformly cynical. The elective offices to them are nothing but avenues of avarice, appointive positions nothing but the powers of patronage politics. They mostly are, mind you. But the critics’ position on the issue reflects the cynicism from which emanate all their other positions, pronouncements and proclamations on the Administration’s policies, be they political, economic, or social. In their view, politics is always and everywhere a force for evil, and by remaining in politics Gloria must be evil. There is no honor in being a congressman because . . . how could there be honor in being a congressman?
And to that, there is no replying.
2. In contrast to the first issue, this one is less theoretical and occupies a lower intellectual plane. It is the President of the Philippines that controls the congressmen’s budget—the current President. As congressman PGMA will only be one of many petitioning Malancañang for help to her district. Congressmen will not take orders from a fellow member of Congress. If, as President, Mrs. Arroyo failed to convince the Congress to convene as a constituent assembly, what chance has she got as just one more congressman? And if the occupant of Malacañang turned out to be hostile to her, as the every pre-election survey indicates? The possibilities are endless, but at least they follow logic. The critics’ allegation doesn’t.
1. Demeaned the Office of the President (brought it low) because the congressman has a lower rank than the President;
2. Betrayed her lust for power because once in the House she will lead the fight for charter change to become prime minister of a parliamentary government; and
3. Revealed her shamelessness and cowardice as she attempts to gain immunity from lawsuits, which will surely be hurled against her once she leaves the Presidency.
This column, on the other hand, would like to point out some obvious facts that the benumbed mental faculties of Arroyo critics have failed to perceive:
1. The idealistic critics, for idealistic they mostly are, should have realized that the Presidency and congressional representation are both avenues for public service; they just accrue different levels of honor, and impose different degrees of responsibilities, on the officeholder. Exchanging one for the other should not matter to the idealist who truly and honestly wants to render public service and nothing more. Therefore, to become a congressman after becoming President is simply another version of retiring: giving up the higher honor in exchange for lighter responsibilities, while still remaining in public service. (Public service is here thought of in theoretical, honest terms, as opposed to a mere venue of corruption.)
What alternative are the critics proposing? None, if they are to be listened to. But let us infer from the “profession” that former President Fidel Ramos has adopted after leaving Malacañang, that of a professional speaker, that this is the activity they want Mrs. Arroyo to pursue. There is no doubt that being an elder statesman on the lecture circuit generates financial security for the statesman, while he supports his favorite causes on the side.
Is there honor in it? Yes. But is there service? Yes, to his favorite charities. By analogy, in becoming congressman, President Arroyo has chosen to serve only a particular constituency. Should that be counted a disservice or a non-service simply because she will only be congressman of one particular constituency? No, definitely not. But is there honor in being a congressman?
Alas, while the critics are mostly idealistic, they are uniformly cynical. The elective offices to them are nothing but avenues of avarice, appointive positions nothing but the powers of patronage politics. They mostly are, mind you. But the critics’ position on the issue reflects the cynicism from which emanate all their other positions, pronouncements and proclamations on the Administration’s policies, be they political, economic, or social. In their view, politics is always and everywhere a force for evil, and by remaining in politics Gloria must be evil. There is no honor in being a congressman because . . . how could there be honor in being a congressman?
And to that, there is no replying.
2. In contrast to the first issue, this one is less theoretical and occupies a lower intellectual plane. It is the President of the Philippines that controls the congressmen’s budget—the current President. As congressman PGMA will only be one of many petitioning Malancañang for help to her district. Congressmen will not take orders from a fellow member of Congress. If, as President, Mrs. Arroyo failed to convince the Congress to convene as a constituent assembly, what chance has she got as just one more congressman? And if the occupant of Malacañang turned out to be hostile to her, as the every pre-election survey indicates? The possibilities are endless, but at least they follow logic. The critics’ allegation doesn’t.
3. Congressmen do not have immunity from suit. Period.
These rebuttals have only offered answers to critics’ objections. But who is really to decide the rightness or wrongness of Mrs. Arroyo’s running for the Congress? Not the professional “concerned citizens” of the media who have monopoly over airtime. Has the letter published above found a counterpart among Inquirer articles? Have the talking heads of radio and television ever invited anyone from the second district of Pampanga to speak for or against Mrs. Arroyo’s running? That their lips have been sealed speaks volumes: only the fear that the people of the second district actually want Mrs. Arroyo to become their congressman, the fear that this desire be revealed to the rest of the country, has led the hostile media to censor the opinion of the people of the second district of Pampanga.
The media have in fact arrogated unto themselves the right to choose who should be the congressional representative of a very real group of people. As the media are supposed to be the guardians—the loudest, if not the most efficient, guardians—of democracy, it is heartening to get a hint of what they think of the democratic project. Let the ballots count, not the sound bite!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)