The Philippines: sulking child or mature young woman?

Below is the article by Dr. Benjamin Diokno regarding the loan to IMF made by the BSP. This blog post is The Economizer's response to this article. 

To lend or not to lend?

• 
• 

Details

 

Published on Monday, 25 June 2012 00:00

Written by BENJAMIN DIOKNO

 0 0 0ShareThis27

By A Web design Company

‘Are we better off lending $1-billion to the IMF instead of using the same to help the national government finance its programs against joblessness, poverty, hunger, ignorance, and income inequality?’

That’s not the question. It’s a done deal. Malacanang --or is it Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas? -- has already decided to extend US$1-billion loan to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to support the debt-ridden, 17-nation euro zone. The question is whether that decision is intelligent, an act to impress the credit rating agencies, or simply incorrigible?

Those who favor the decision argue that “as a member of the global community of nations ...it is also in our interest to ensure economic and financial stability across the globe.” That’s Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Governor Tetangco’s argument, and I assume Aquino’s economic team concurs.

The argument is that by being a member of the 188-nation international financial organization, it carries with it the responsibility of sharing the burden of easing the pains of fellow member countries faced with financial difficulties. 

And then there’s the utang-na-loob rationalization for the loan. For near four decade and until 2006, the Philippines was a net borrower from the IMF. Now that the IMF needs help to raise a $430-billion rescue fund, it is our obligation to support the IMF by pledging a significant, not a token, amount. 

Of course, it assumes that the 40 or so years of IMF tutelage was truly helpful rather than distressing. In the past, whenever IMF lent money to the Philippines, the country had to put in place painful adjustment measures as conditions for the loans. Is the Philippines imposing the same harsh conditions on the IMF this time?

Those who are critical of the decision to lend, on the other hand, said the US$1-billion (approximately P43-billion) could be better used to expand the government’s programs to create jobs, alleviate poverty, and reduce hunger. Charity begins at home, they argue.

Some finance guys may ask: Why not use the $1 billion to retire expensive Philippine public debts? That would translate into smaller budget deficits in the future. 

Also, the critics can’t reconcile the decision to lend $1-billion to the IMF with the continuing propensity of the government to borrow money from abroad to fund its various social and economic programs and projects. The government has to borrow from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank to fund its conditional cash transfer program. And it has to borrow money from various multilateral banks and bilateral sources to finance the much needed roads and bridges, airports and seaports projects.

Why lend and borrow at the same time? Looking at the issue from a purely financial standpoint, one might ask: Is the Philippine government getting better return on investment for its $1-billion loan to the IMF than what it is paying in interests for its loans from the World Bank, ADB, and other bilateral sources (China, Japan, and others)? 

Some big, fast-growing countries are contributing large amounts to the IMF’s $430-billion rescue fund. The BRICS --Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa-- countries pledged to loan $75 billion. China will contribute $43 billion, 10% of the total rescue fund. India, Russia, and Brazil will contribute $10 billion each, South Africa will make up for the rest. 

But these countries, except South Africa, ranked among the top 10 countries in the world in terms of foreign exchange reserves. China is top leader with $3.3 trillion, Russia ranked second with $510 million, Brazil ranked sixth with $374 million, and India ranked ninth with $294 million.

The Philippines, by contrast, ranked 26th, with $76.1-billion gross international reserves.

With China’s hefty reserves, its decision to lend IMF $43 billions appears reasonable. It is also consistent with China’s interest: the euro zone is China’s number one export destination. A hobbled, crawling Europe is not in China’s best interest.

On the other hand, other large countries, certainly much bigger than the Philippines in terms of gross international reserves, are not contributing to the rescue fund. How much is the US committing to the IMF rescue fund? The last time I looked it was zero. 

Won’t the weak euro zone be a drag on economic growth in the Philippines? Not so if we believe our own economic managers. But realistically, a weak Europe will sap the growth potential of the US, Asia and the rest of world. A slower global growth would no doubt affect the Philippines, but not in a big way, and especially if its fiscal policy is bolder and more expansionary. 

But assuming that the Philippines is obliged to contribute to the $430-billion IMF rescue fund, here are some other legitimate questions: Is the $1 billion contribution of the Philippine government small, big, or just right? Can we afford it? Don’t we have better use for it? Or are we just trying to impress the credit rating agencies in our quest for the elusive upgrade to investment grade?

I’m sure that the $1-billion won’t come from the national government. There is no provision for it in the 2012 budget. And putting it in the 2013 budget will most certainly face stiff opposition. The 1987 Philippine Constitution is clear: no money may be released from the Treasury without an appropriation made by law. 

Lending $1 billion (P43 billion) to the IMF goes against the grain for the famously austere President Aquino. He knows he faces large and increasing budgets in his remaining four years. The K+12 education program, the universal health care, the conditional cash transfer (CCT) program, the modernization of the armed forces, the rice sufficiency program, and the public infrastructure program have all huge budgetary requirements. Aquino also needs a large sum to give the agrarian reform program one final push.

Since it is not the national government that is funding the $1-billion loan to the IMF, then it must be the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. But I’m sure BSP, on its own account, does not have that kind of money. BSP was a big loser in recent years -- in 2011, BSP lost P33.7 billion, and in 2010, another P59.0 billion. Even now, BSP is asking the national government for a sizable fund infusion.

As managers of public funds, present and future, our national leaders have to face the Filipino people and answer this difficult question: Are we better off lending $1-billion to the IMF instead of using the same to help the national government finance its programs against joblessness, poverty, hunger, ignorance, and income inequality?

***

Benjamin Diokno is professor of Economics at the School of Economics, University of the Philippines (Diliman). He was formerly secretary of budget and management in the Estrada Cabinet and undersecretary for budget operations in the Aquino 1 administration.

Dr. Diokno's article is pasted in full because The Economizer believes in giving the opposing side the full chance to advance his arguments, and to allow greater time to develop a response. After all, a truncated opposition will lead only to a stunted government. 


To begin, let us summarize the arguments. Dr. Diokno is saying: 

1. Because, when borrowing from the IMF in the past, the Philippines had to follow strict "structural adjustments" that reduced domestic spending and further eroded the government's ability to spend on education, health and anti-poverty programs, the Philippines should impose the same harsh conditions now;
2. Instead of lending $1 billion to the IMF, the BSP should have used to money for anti-poor programs within the Philippines ("charity begins at home"); an alternative is to use to money to retire Philippine government debt; 
3. Lending to the IMF does not sit well with the Philippines' availment of loans from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank for infrastructure projects and for the US$400-million Conditional Cash Transfer Program; 
4. The Philippines' Gross International Reserves (GIR) are not as big as those of the other IMF contributors, and that the US is not even contributing; 
5. The weak euro-zone will not be a big drag on the Philippines anyway, "especially if [the country's] fiscal policy is bolder and more expansionary"; 
6. We are "just trying to impress the credit rating agencies in our quest for the elusive upgrade to investment grade" rating; 
7. The BSP is losing money and is "even now ... asking the national government for a sizable fund infusion" that the loan simply makes no sense. 

As we can see, Dr. Diokno puts forward seven arguments for not lending to the IMF -- and we seriously doubt if anyone else can raise another argument. If there are this many reasons not to lend, surely therefore we should NOT lend?


It turns out that this attack by sheer numbers suffers from the same defect that doomed all such attempts throughout history. Namely, you can always fight numbers with quality, and win most of the time. 


For it turns out that the GIR may not be used for any purpose other than to address imbalances in foreign payments and receipts. According to the BSP's SPEI glossary: 

Gross International Reserves (GIR) are foreign assets that are readily available to and controlled by the BSP for direct financing of payments imbalances and for managing the magnitude of such imbalances. GIR consists of holdings of gold, special drawing rights (SDR), foreign investments, and foreign exchange, including Reserve Position in the Fund (RPF). These assets are valued mark-to- market.

Nothing in this definition suggests that the Reserves may be used to fund government projects, or for any domestic purpose. Therefore, the suggestions that the $1 billion should have been used instead to retire Philippine government debt, or to pay for government anti-poverty programs, or to fund infrastructure projects, or to conduct an expansionary fiscal policy, or to pay for the operations and make whole the BSP's financial position, are -- to put it simply -- illegal. 


Therefore, in one fell swoop, Arguments 2, 3, 5, and 7 are refuted: that's four out of seven arguments.


The glossary definition stands to reason. The reserves are held in foreign assets, to be used to buttress the capital account at times of current account deficits. The Philippines, not being an exporting country, needs much of these reserves and capital account surpluses to service imports, especially of oil, rice, and many basic commodities. These reserves, already in foreign assets, will be used for foreign payments as needed, not domestic projects as creatively designed by our elected politicians. 


If we wish to use the foreign reserves for domestic purposes, the central bank will in effect transfer money from abroad, selling dollars, buying pesos, and spending those pesos in some way. This is not a simple reallocation of money supply -- this is an introduction of new money supply. Without a corresponding increase in productivity, or an increase in production of goods and services, the only way for the economy to respond is through higher prices. Therefore, if the critics want to get their hands on the reserve money, they had better prepare for inflation. 


The fact is that it is the BSP's responsibility to fight inflation, not the critics'. This explains its institutional caution. If critics like Dr. Diokno want the power to spend the money, without the responsibility for its consequences ... well, aren't we glad they are not in the Monetary Board? 


What the BSP is doing is reallocating its portfolio of reserves, from US dollar cash to an interest-bearing IMF contribution. In these times of crises, the 10-year US Treasury yield is 1.69% at last count; how much less is the return for holding US dollar cash? Given such obvious realities, the reallocation is not a stroke of genius -- it is simply a rational action. 


Which is more than what can be said for the critics' paroxysms. 


Argument 1 advocates revenge, but here there is no need for the critics to be concerned, as harsh conditions are already being imposed on Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland and Portugal -- we can see the public reaction through street riots. 


Argument 4 reminds us of our elementary school days, when the values of sharing and good manners were taught to us by our teachers, parents and classmates. If those United States don't contribute -- should we follow bad example or good? Certainly, we will earn more interest if we follow the good example, which is in turn a good example of enjoying the fruits of righteousness here on earth.


Argument 6 talks about a ratings upgrade. The way The Economizer thinks about it is: if they give it to us, let us accept it. But if we think we can purchase an upgrade for $1 billion, we -- especially the critics -- not really thinking. 


Which brings us to our final point. It is worth remembering the time when Dr. Diokno was in government, as Budget Secretary of President Estrada. It was 1999, and the country was suffering from the Asian financial crisis brought about by heavy foreign borrowing and foreign-exchange mismanagement. The IMF stepped in, imposing the "harsh conditions" on borrowers like the Philippines, who learned the lesson never again to borrow dollars unhedged. 


We cannot help feeling that the slapdash way the article was written, the lack of a clear outline, and the hesitancy of conviction that it displays, point to a personal reason for opposing the IMF loan. The sense is that the IMF last time forced us to do things against our will; we should not reward it now with our hard-earned money. What emerges then, is the image of a child, forced by his mother to play with a kid he didn't like, and now seeing his mother give that kid some of his own lunch money. 


If you find yourself in that position, would you sulk in the corner? Or would you choose to grow up instead?

Judgment and government

As of today, in light of the tragedy visited upon Cagayan de Oro, it is churlish and in bad taste to make a comment or statement about politics. Also as of today, it is rather late for such a comment or statement. Millions of words have been spoken and tons of ink have been spilt over the case of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and about the impeachment case against Chief Justice Renato Corona. It does service to nobody to speak or write or spill some more. 


Be that as it may, in these last few days before the Christmas holidays, I feel that I owe it to myself and to my beloved daughter, Giana, to say something about a matter that has convulsed and captured the imagination of an entire people. In the future, she might ask me, "What did you think about this, Daddy?" And what would I say? That I had forgotten? 


No, I have not forgotten. It is an issue -- for the two cases really spring from the same agitation -- that will shape the way we view and treat politics and government. Is politics a tool to advance the greater good, or is it just another way to play blood sport?


To answer that question, I will cite the Facebook comment I received from Mr. Jun Neri (Emilio Neri, Jr.), who is the chief economist at the Bank of the Philippine Islands and my former seatmate at the Treasury of the said Bank. I had written the following about the issue: 

If Prof. Monsod; Senators, Angara, Arroyo, Enrile, Santiago; commentator Amando Doronila; journalist/broadcaster Rigoberto Tiglao; and Father Bernas are all saying that this lynch-mob mentality is wrong, isn't it time for the mob to take the opposing view seriously? Could these legal and intellectual luminaries really all be wrong and biased at the same time? Could Noynoy Aquino really be smarter than all of them?

Sir Jun (we called him that) made the following comment (the only comment ever made): 

Not to take any sides... I wonder what comments these people will make if the lady in veterans hospital was allowed to leave the country immediately and managed to get away scott free

Being a great fan of Sir Jun's, believing that his analysis of economic news and data are among the most incisive you will get, and liking him personally and never forgetting his singing talent and soothing crooner's voice, I only replied that that would be an interesting development. I did not want to pursue the matter any further and in public. 


But the thought nagged me and continued to nibble at my mind, so to speak. What if GMA did not come back? What if she continued to find excuses to stay away? What if ... ? 


I'd like to think that the purpose of public discussion is to raise the level of debate and to provide deep and lasting insight into the subject. It is not merely to make fun of and cast aspersions at other people. Therefore, from this little question -- what if? -- I'd like to unroll the thread of my thoughts and thereby share it with my family and my future self. 


Because, dear self, I happen to believe that judicial decisions -- or any decision that claims to derive from the "rule of law" -- are not and should not be based on subjective appreciation. 


For that is all it is. Why won't you let her leave, when she does not have a case in court yet? Because I do not think ... I do not feel ... she will return. Not now, when she is sick and cannot walk; not now, when all of her children and grandchildren will be left in the Philippines within a month of Christmas; not now, when she is still a Member of Congress for the 2nd District of Pampanga, constitutionally and very publicly accountable to the people of that District. No, not even then. 


I know this because ... well, because that is how I know her. She does not come back. I even know she has applied for asylum in the Dominican Republic -- but please don't ask me where the place is. 


If this is how our government works -- operating under the guidance of "ah basta!" -- then perhaps the Leftist agitators, eternally noisy under any circumstances, are right to demand anarchy after all. If we can call this state of things "government", what might "chaos" look like? 


The other side will counter that this wholesale destruction of rules and legal procedure is the only way to obtain justice in our country. But if this is the only way -- if we must ravage the rule of law in order to uphold it, if we need to twist our history in order to remain faithful to it, if we should lose our dignity in order to win it -- then please, count me out. Because what becomes of us as a people, without the law, without our history, without your dignity? 


This blog has written earlier, without real thought to its possible significance, that Noynoy Aquino's sense of his place in history will overcome all other considerations -- including the long-term welfare of his countrymen. I think that that nightmare is coming true. He is the son of a martyr and an icon of democracy, and the brother of the personification of the right to free expression. More important than doing actual work, is to be seen to be working to uphold his parents' legacy -- peaceful revolution -- the rule of law be damned. 


Let me return to the question that launched this post. How should we view government -- is it a tool to advance the greater good, or simply another way to play blood sport? I think that we must ask of ourselves a bigger challenge: to make sure our government makes a difference. 


I understand that for those who have never tasted success in school, in sports, in a career, or in a vocation, the temptation is nigh irresistible to just chuck it all to an evil world that does not treat fairly those of limited ability. But faith and common sense tell us that, despite our differing circumstances, we are meant for things greater than those we find around us. 


The government, as we find it, leaves a lot to be desired. Let us work, then, not to make it worse, but to make it better.

Not-happy Holidays

In the pre-dawn darkness of Saturday, 17 December 2011, the residents of Cagayan de Oro City, including my relatives, were disturbed in their sleep by the raging torrents borne by Typhoon Sendong. They awoke to find the water rushing towards their doorsteps, forcing them to swim outside and cling to tree branches and then, when the water became high enough, stand on their rooftops. There was no time to look back, no time to think, no time to save. 


My aunt's family lost everything -- their belongings, and the memories that they used to trigger. It was doubly tragic, because they had based their livelihood in their house -- the grocery store built by my uncle's retirement proceeds, the passenger van, the multicab used to deliver the grocery, the family car. All are gone, washed away literally in the darkness. 


It is triply tragic, that this happened one week before Christmas. The time to celebrate has been eclipsed by a time to commiserate -- the time to rejoice has been pierced by a time to cry -- the time to give gifts has been sundered by a time to make donations.


I am making this short post only to remind myself, from time to time, to offer a little prayer, that all those who lost a lot of things, may not lose their life. It is normal for human beings like us to attribute more value to the things that we lose than those that we saved. In times of such calamity, it is easier to grieve for the lost car, the lost house, than to rejoice in the saved lives of our children and spouses and cousins and aunts. It is easier to take solace in the past that, having floated away in the deluge, can never be retrieved; than to joyfully await the coming of a future that, given what has happened, can only be better than this. 


That is why my prayer is not that they may not lose their mortal, passing, earthly lives. It is that they may not lose their life -- the kind of life that put hope in a better future, that ascribed faith to a tireless and loving Providence, that thought of things bigger than those we can see and hear and touch and feel -- a life that flowed from the indomitable, unquenchable spirit of human renewal. 

It is from the best in us that flows the worst in us

I spoke these words last night, during our get-together session with high school friends. I wanted to write it down just so I wouldn't forget, but always remember.


The bad things usually are the flip side of the good things. This is obvious, but until you think about it, it wouldn't occur to you. Marco was asking Clarence about his (Marco's) habit of drinking Coke. Last night, he ordered Coke zero -- not just one, not two, but four cans. He said this is his only vice: drinking two bottles of 2-litre Coke zero per day, every day. Clarence (M.D., UP School of Medicine; 3rd-year resident, general surgery, PGH) said, yea, it's okay, nothing will happen to you.


But later I asked him, is it really okay to drink that much Coke zero every day. He replied, in those quantities, there will be effects. Maybe not now, but someday, those will come, we just don't know what exactly.


I said, it's always in your "hilig", it is always where you dedicate your life, where it meets the end. For instance, if you like driving, chances are you will die of a road accident. If you like drinking Coke, chances are your future diseases can be traced to drinking Coke.


But I my teacher in moral philosophy, Dr. Ramon C. Reyes, already mentioned this in class a long time ago. I want to talk about a related concept that I was able to articulate last night in the course of the conversation.


Everybody was thinking aloud their thoughts about the reason why the Philippines is so very poor and lags the rest of its neighbors in terms of economic development. They said several things, but I have mostly forgotten about them, mostly because I was concentrating on my own reason.


I said that this is the flip side of the what is the best in Filipinos. Alone among the peoples of the world, Filipinos insist on taking care of their families, wherever they are, and however distant the relationship. They take care of grand-nephews, of 3rd cousins or 4th cousins related only by marriage or clan or barangay, and think about their family constantly. In short, if you are a Filipino and you have relatives of whatever degree of consanguinity or affinity, you will never be short of help.


I said, the flip side of this is that people do not think of anybody else when making a decision. Will it affect my family? If yes, then I will do it, if not, then I will not. But as to the rest of the community? No matter.


This is the price we have to pay for being loving to our families. There is no thought to the collective good of the larger community, only the self-interest of those related by blood or marriage.


Like the Resurrection, which was made possible only by the Passion and Death, our loving concern for our families is made possible only by our malign neglect of everyone else.


It is from the best in us that flows the worst in us.

Newsbreak's reportage

A few weeks ago, on mall stroll with the family, I was struck by the cover design of a book entitled: “The Seven Deadly Deals: Can Aquino Fix Arroyo’s Legacy of Costly and Messy Projects?” First, it was all designer gloom: red patina on black-and-white pictures of infrastructure projects, surrounding a grainy, black-and-white image of Aquino and Arroyo shaking hands during the turnover and inauguration ceremonies on June 30, 2010. Next, the fact that it was about the Arroyo increased the chances that it contains a lot of materials that The Economizer can write passionately about. Finally, the name of the editor was displayed prominently on the cover: Roel Landingin of Newsbreak. It always helps to learn what is in the enemy’s mind. 


I did not necessarily have 300 pesos to spare, but I found those pesos somehow, and proceeded to buy the thing along with other family stuff. And then I read this little book, totalling just 118 pages (including references) but mysteriously starting with page 9, in about 2 days. 


What it contains is a detailed and, from a layman’s point of view, an excellent report of the state of major infrastructure projects of which a significant portion was built or implemented or worked on during the term of President Gloria Arroyo. These projects are: 


1. North Luzon Railway
2. NAIA Terminal 3
3. Metro Rail Transit 3
4. Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway
5. Mt. Diwalwal


There are only five, you ask? The other “infrastructure projects” are the Quedancor, which was not in the business of infrastructure and was not a project, and defence procurement, which is not part of infrastructure and is not strictly a project. But apart from the fact that they are not really “infrastructure projects”, the detailed reportage is a tribute to the hard work of Newsbreak journalists, and the natural inquisitiveness and curiosity (or tendency to gossip) of the Filipino people. 


The detailed work is supposed to be enabled and supplemented by the “independence” of Newsbreak journalists. Here is the Newsbreak website on the proclamation: 

Newsbreak was born in a time of change—the first issue of what would become a fortnightly magazine came out on January 24, 2001, shortly after Edsa 2, when the Philippines was steeped in stories on people power.

Founded by senior journalists, who believe in honest, independent, and spunky reportage, we have since become a must-read for everyone who needs a better understanding of Philippine events. We have been providing readers in-depth stories, investigative reports, incisive analyses, as well as insider stuff that give a ringside view of the workings of people, politics, and power.

Thus spake Newsbreak. Unfortunately, the words “honest, independent and spunky” do not include “unbiased” and “objective”, two words that would not come to mind upon reading the book. Because other than detailed reportage, nothing in the stories, as told by Newsbreak, indicates that the “cost” and “mess” can be laid at the foot of President Arroyo. Let us count the ways: 


1. North Luzon Railway


Newsbreak’s beef is that North Luzon Railway is behind schedule and over budget, and the book has traced the cause of the budget buster to a reduction in the commitment of China National Machinery and Engineering Corp. “[S]ome $500 million worth of costs in terms of locomotives, train cards, stations and other items will no longer be shouldered by the Chinese firm but by private companies and Northrail itself,” says the book on page 24, citing a NEDA report. 


In addition, the contract price has increased to $1.3 billion, from $1.18 billion originally. But because the $500 million will no longer be shouldered by China, Newsbreak adds the figure to the total project cost, bringing it to $1.8 billion. 


All of these changes are contained in a supplemental agreement signed in 2009, and Newsbreak’s central point is that this is an Arroyo failure because she agreed to and personally approved these changes in a Cabinet meeting. This is Newsbreak’s case. 


But let us look at the wider picture. China funds the project, meaning that it loaned $900 million to the Philippine government. China requires that only Chinese firms may build the railway which is, after all, funded by China. China changes its mind, saying it will no longer pay for certain things, will only build up to here. Arroyo, with hands tied by the prior commitment to China, signs up. 


I think that Newsbreak’s complaint should be laid at China’s feet. One can say volumes about the issue, but it all boils down to this: if you agree to a Chinese-funded project, you are hostage to China. Cultivating an economic relationship with China is risky, as Newsbreak has found. The most that you can do is mitigate the pain.


2. NAIA Terminal 3 


Arroyo’s error in this matter is that she filed an expropriation case against PIATCO, potentially costing the government $400 million, “[a]gainst the advice of Solicitor General Alfredo Benipayo” (p. 40). 


But context always helps. The cancellation of PIATCO’s contract in 2002 brought two lawsuits against the government. “Fraport filed a case with the World Bank’s International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in Washington, while PIATCO submitted a request for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Singapore” (p. 36). 


This means two things: 


          a. The government is exercising its rights within the borders of the Philippines to use the legal system to recover property that is entirely its own. In international forums, the Philippine government is the defendant; domestic courts must not be deprived of their say.


          b. More important, it hastens things. Filing the expropriation case gave an incentive to PIATCO to stop further action against the government in opening the terminal. Anyway, the expropriation case can be withdrawn by the initiating party, the Office of the Solicitor General. Given the favourable rulings in the international forums, the withdrawal can be done more easily.


Therefore, when all is said and done, President Arroyo was only doing what she could to move things along. It is not a failure of leadership; it is an exercise of leadership. That is the lesson that Aquino could learn very well indeed. 


3. Metro Rail Transit 3


Newsbreak’s reklamo is that Arroyo failed to raise ticket prices, in a crass, populist move. But if she had raised prices, would Newsbreak have praised the action? Or would it have declared it as another failure, a move that does not help the poor at all?


What is particularly grating is that this project lands on this list. It was during the Arroyo Administration, as reported in the book, that government banks LBP and DBP took over the MRT Corp. This eliminated the risk that foreign or private creditors would demand a full price on their MRT bond holdings, and stabilized the situation by allowing the government to explore its options without pressure.

None of this is a credit to President Arroyo in an “independent” report by Newsbreak. 


4. Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway


Even Newsbreak could not disguise the fact that this highway is being used already by motorists, has been privatized fully, and is being managed by mutually supporting private and public organizations. The only reason this lands on the failure list is that Newsbreak needs to fill out the number 7 on the list.


5. Mt. Diwalwal


Arroyo’s actions in this matter are described thus (p. 98): 

In 2003, Arroyo created the Task Force Diwalwal to address the environmental, social, and peace and order problems in the reservation area. The task force was tasked to formulate policies that will normalize the situation in the area. She also established the Natural Resources Development Corp. (now the Philippine Mining Development Corp. or PMDC) that was tasked to develop Diwalwal’s mining potential. It managed to carry out an exploration program to determine the remaining reserves in the two major gold veins and other ore bodies.

Because this action is so difficult to label as a failure, Newsbreak instead links this with the NBN-ZTE scandal (p. 99):

It did not help that the Arroyo administration was found in late 2008 to have signed a memorandum of understanding with ZTE, the Chinese telecommunications equipment maker that also figured in the $239-million national broadband network project bribery scandal, on developing Diwalwal. Although the MOU was not executory, it added to the distrust of the PMDC and the Arroyo government among small-scale miners and local officials in Diwalwal.

I think that these tendentious writings speak for themselves. Against the insinuation regarding ZTE, the action to create a Task Force totally fades away into “failure.”


Thus spake Newsbreak.

A Take on the "Filipino people"

I have just started my new job in a new organization, and on my first day (yesterday), I was suddenly and unexpectedly invited for a welcome interview with the head of my division, a Japanese national.


I have good memories of working (even for just a few days) with Japanese people in another division, and I was interested in hearing what this gentleman had to say to me. He was, I hazard a guess, a few years beyond middle age, but was very clean in dress that his white shirt positively glowed in the afternoon sun. With not a strand of grey-black hair out of place, he looked the part of a high-ranking executive.


It turns out that he simply wanted to welcome me to his division, and told me that he had not really "had a chance to read" my file so he was curious about my background. What was my name, he asked.


I said "[my name]".


"What a unique name," he said. "Is that ... ?" he trailed off.


I said, "Oh, it was just something my parents picked up in the newspaper."


"But both your parents are Filipino?"


"Yes," I said.


"Ah," or something to that effect, he replied.


And then, as I mentioned above, he was curious about my personal background.


So I told him I was born and raised and studied in the Philippines, worked for 7 years in the Bank of the Philippine Islands and then was for more than a year a temporary "consultant" in some projects in this very same organization (in other divisions and departments).


Then he congratulated me on my new job, and said I would be able to find a lot of opportunities to advance in this organization to which his division belonged. There were opportunities for promotion, but he really emphasized the seminars and training that I will be able to take part in.


Then he said, "[This organization] is a really generous employer [he laughed]. I worked for a few years in other places, but it's not the same. I think it is really generous, especially for the Filipino people." He smiled kindly.


I was struck by that comment, but I overcame it for a moment to say that the opportunities were in fact a big reason why I pursued a job in this organization.


He thanked me and I thanked him for his time and then we parted.


This post really is about the way he chose his words: "the Filipino people". I don't begrudge him the impression he holds of the nation. It is still a struggling, immature polity and a struggling, poor society, which could use a lot of help offered by the civilized and advanced Japanese. 


But like the wife who is told by a loving husband that she is "fat", or the husband called "loser" by his wife, it is jolting to hear it said out loud. We need to face our problems, but our problems seem to hold more urgency if they were hurled at us by those who have long assured us of their affection.

Noynoy Aquino and his place in history

There has been much media coverage of the second State of the Nation Address (SONA) of President Benigno Aquino of the Philippines. Some might say too much, but I won't: a SONA is a newsworthy event, and many of us would be the worse off without such coverage. 


For instance, with such coverage, we can see how long the speech is, that there is really no realistic hope of summarizing it in reasonable time. One needs to spend an entire day, and considering that the speech was not precisely titillating, that would be a day badly spent. 


But let me just contribute my two-cents' worth on this news event. Nobody can fail to observe that every word that comes out of Noynoy's mouth is a bad word about his predecessor as President. But I wager that most of his hearers do not sufficiently apprehend how much this distinguishes him from President Arroyo. Having been abused and oppressed by political leaders for most of the last century, Filipinos no longer hope that a new President can bring about change, and cynically maintain that this President is the same as the last one, and the one before that. The sentiment is understandable, but it is also wrong. 


For Noynoy Aquino is not the same as Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is not the same as Joseph Estrada, and Joseph Estrada is not the same as Fidel Ramos, who was probably almost the same as Cory Aquino, but who was most certainly not the same as Ferdinand Marcos. Each of these presidents brought a different style to his or her administration, with the possible exception of Ramos. These styles distinguished each presidency, a truth that continues into the second Aquino Administration. 


Since it is only one year into office, people say it is too early to tell, but I hazard a crystal ball. Whereas Mrs. Arroyo used fiscal discipline and acute political acumen to achieve economic growth, Aquino relies on personal reputation to generate a welcome environment for private investment. Through a long and windy address, that is a theme that comes up again and again: I am a better person than my predecessor, and I run a cleaner operation, and for that, people here and abroad will trust the country with their investments. 


It is a thought-provoking gamble, and I bet Noynoy was not the one who thought of it first. No thought to markets, tax policies and spending programs can outweigh the personal preferences and personal character of the man at the top in the policies of this government. To a large extent, that is true of every Administration, but this one is unique in making it so personal -- you cannot trust other presidents the same way as you can trust me, and that is enough. Trust me, your invetment will be in good hands. Trust me, schoolchildren will be better educated because the education budget will actually be spent in educating them, not lining the pockets of bureaucrats and elected officials. Trust me, agricultural output will rise because I will make sure that irrigation will be improved. Trust me, highways and ports and airports will be built, warships will be ordered and delivered, because I am an honest man who will work to make sure that the budgets will be spent the way they should be. Trust me, government will work better because I will make sure the procurement process is cleaned up and there will be no corruption. Trust me. 


Will that be enough to lift the country out of poverty? To many people, a relentless focus on material wealth defeats the purpose of wealth generation, which is supposed to engender happiness in individuals. It is crass and narrow-minded. And it is not beyond the deductive capacities of the man on the street to realize that the son of a hero and of a democracy icon will not care to be judged in terms of wealth generation, but in terms of his place in history, of how far that place is from that of his father and mother. 


Which is probably why the second Aquino Administration will be dangerous for the Philippine economy. There is now a justified feeling that the substance of economic questions take second place to the affirmation of the President's personal character. For how can Noynoy aspire to the greatness of his parents, when, confronted with a question of economic benefit versus personal satisfaction, he will always choose economic benefit? Will his parents' legacy be served by that choice? 


It will not, and the fact that Filipinos' interests might -- just might -- be, constitutes the resounding rebuke to Noynoy's adherence to the "straight and righteous path". Trust him, but can you trust his sense of history? 

Statistics on Government employment

The conflict between the political Left and the political Right, played out over the various media, mainly revolves around the size of the government. Specifically, the Left argues that in an era of high unemployment and slow economic growth, the government should spend more and take on more activities in order to lift aggregate demand and increase economic growth. The Right argues that, far from being energized, now is the time for the government to step back and let the private sector do its job of increasing investment, and thereby, employment. 


This post has nothing to do with resolving this conflict. 


Instead, it has something to do with the nagging conflict inside TheEconomizer's guts. One of the Left's main evidence for saying that Barack Obama should spend more government money and do more to electrify the economy is that government employment -- authors continually state "at all levels of government," meaning state, local and federal -- has fallen year-on-year starting in March 2011. This is not the record -- no, nobody can claim that it is -- of a man who is determined to expand the state apparatus to ensnare individual lives. 


But TheEconomizer could not sleep. Really? Aren't they supposed to count only Federal employment, as it is the one most directly influenced by the Left's Deliverer? So TheEconomizer has spent considerable time and talent culling data from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics and has come up with the table at the end of this post. (I mistakenly pasted it before finishing the post, and I can't undo it any more. So forgive the inconvenient reference to the Table.) 


It turns out that the change has only recently happened. Year-on-year March 2011 up to June 2011, but none of the other months show a decline. ALL of the months in 2009 (Obama assumed office in January 2009), 2010 and January and February 2011 all posted increases in Federal employment. 


At a stroke, TheEconomizer's gut feel is vindicated. There is nothing to the allegations of lower government employment in the time of Obama. 


But this is not all there is, yet. What should be done is to compare the change and level of Federal-government employment with those of total private-sector employment in the relevant periods, in order to see if a more robust relationship can be observed. Also, there is something to the view that state and local government employment should be looked at also, because these entities receive considerable Federal aid, and in any case respond to policy directions at the Federal level. 


Alas, TheEconomizer has run out of time. Such delimitations will have to wait a few more days or weeks, but as of the moment, the main point of this blog post should be reiterated: Federal-government employment has increased, not decreased, in 26 out of 30 months of the Obama presidency. THAT is the record of this statist, ideological President. 

British phone-hacking scandal: a lesson in crisis management

Dear readers,

Today I will indulge myself and write about what I have been watching and observing the past days ... and months and years. I am talking about David Cameron and politics as crisis management.

As you know, the past two weeks in Britain have been dominated by news of illegal phone-hacking activities allegedly being perpetrated by journalists and executives at the tabloid News of the World (NoTW). This concerns the Prime Minister because the former editor of the newspaper, Andy Coulson, was employed by David Cameron starting in 2007 when he was still Leader of the Opposition, until January this year when Mr. Coulson resigned from his post as Director of Communications at No. 10 Downing Street.

Specifically in this post, I would like to talk about the Prime Minister's performance at the Dispatch Box, versus that of the current Leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband, during the debate on the public's confidence in the media and the Metropolitan Police, on 20 July 2011.

At the outset, I would like to tell you that my all-time political and public-affairs and statecraft hero(ine) is Margaret Thatcher. No one, it seems, can equal the combination of charm and forcefulness with which she led Government and dominated politics, not only in her own country but also the entire world, and in the process, changed the political imagination itself.

None can equal that achievement, but it seems that David Cameron is three-quarters of the way. His performance in the Commons is not as masterly as Thatcher's in her last major speech after she resigned as Prime Minister on 22 November 1990, but I suppose no one can really expect to equal that. Rather, he performed in such a way that brought out his strength and emphasized his basic honesty and decency, which was reassuring to a public that was getting exhausted and cynical about the whole scandal. In contrast, Ed Miliband could not shake off the impression that he was engaging in political point-scoring, something that Mr. Cameron ingeniously pointed out during his opening statement.

What matters in politics is the impression of competence and leadership, not so much the actuality of those. What transpired at the Despatch Box was that Ed Miliband, by being unable to convey that same impression, left the field open for Mr. Cameron to take. But it is not just by default that Mr. Cameron projects the image of being the only plausible Prime Minister for a few more years. I have already mentioned transparency and decency, but his basic intelligence also shines through in a quantity that manages to overwhelm the meagre supply in the Miliband brain. Only someone who can think on his feet is able to say, "I can assure the house that I have not met Mrs. Brooks in a slumber party, and I have not seen her in her pyjamas."

Which broke the mood, and for good. This is a scandal that teaches many lessons to everyone, but for this political observer, it teaches above all, that in a crisis, it helps to be transparent, decent and intelligent, and to show convincingly that you are all three.

NAMFREL and The Legend of FPJ's Contrabida

Greetings, Dear Readers! 


I have been missing in action for almost a year, but today I start making up for lost time. 


News reports have flooded in that the venerable election watchdog NAMFREL is supporting the conduct of an inquiry into allegations of cheating during the 2004 Philippine presidential elections. Granted this has nothing to do with TheEconomizer's avowed interests of economics or finance, it nonetheless resides in a lingering intuition in TheEconomizer's heart. 


And so here it is. 


If all of this engenders in you a sense of deja vu, it is because "calls" like this have been heard before, notably during the height of the Hello Garci scandal in 2005. But what really grates is the ventriloquism of NAMFREL and the Legend of FPJ. 


Back in 2004, the Secretary General of NAMFREL, Guillermo ("Bill") Luz, proclaimed in front of TV cameras that COMELEC tally sheets showing that Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was leading her opponent, Fernando Poe Jr. (FPJ), in the presdiential race, were not materially different from the results of the NAMFREL Quick Count and other NAMFREL tallies. At the least, the differences were not material enough to affect the outcome, which was a win by GMA. Indeed, in the Terminal Report of NAMFREL released on the 5th of June, 2004, GMA was leading by almost 700,000 votes (the final COMELEC tally showed that GMA had won by 1.1 million votes). 


Fast forward two years later, after the Hello Garci scandal had changed everybody's perception of GMA from a technocrat to a trapo, the very same Guillermo Luz told ABS-CBN news that he could no longer vouch for the legitimacy of the 2004 election results because certain other information and data might not have been disclosed by the COMELEC to NAMFREL and the general public. In effect, Mr. Luz was attempting to distance NAMFREL from the election results and the GMA presidency. And, it seems, from NAMFREL's own Quick Count. 


This is not the place to discuss the merits or demerits of flip-flopping, or indeed, the merits or demerits of NAMFREL being stripped of its electoral-watchdog status by the COMELEC during the 2010 national elections in favor of the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV). However, this is the place to question the attempt by NAMFREL to gain credibility by surrendering it. 


In 2004, NAMFREL declared that GMA had won, based on its own count. If two years later it could not support that proclamation, because of data it MIGHT not have, then that is NAMFREL's problem. Indeed, the only thing that can be said to describe this behavior is that it follows the Legend of FPJ's contrabida. 


One hopes the plot is still familiar. This powerful local warlord, at whose command the local populace shakes in terror, tortures some poor farmer, who turns out to be the father of the woman who tugs at FPJ's heart. After much gunfire and more rapid-fire punching, the warlord is reduced to begging FPJ for his life, saying he did not really touch the woman's father, it was his predecessor wot won it. 


Which brings us back to NAMFREL. Bill Luz now runs the Ayala Foundation as Executive Director, to which TheEconomizer can attest personally, having seen him in the lobby of the BPI Bldg, at whose 10th Floor that Foundation holds office. In July 2011, the current secretary general of NAMFREL declares in a grammatically and verbally venturesome manner NAMFREL's support for an inquiry. Perhaps then he can blame his predecessor for blessing GMA's win back in 2004.