 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Federalism No Panacea By Antonio C. Abaya Written July 26, 2005 For the Standard Today. July 28 issue And neither is the parliamentary system of government, whether of the Westminster type or of the French type. Even with a Westminster-type parliamentary system in place, there is substantial corruption in Japan, Thailand and India. Corruption at tolerable levels - but still corruption - exists even in parliamentary Germany, Italy, France and, no doubt, many other countries. There is also corruption in Russia, South Korea and Taiwan, which have parliamentary systems similar to the French variety: with a strong president elected by a national vote, and a prime minister chosen by the president from among members of parliament, either from his/her own party, or from another, as part of a coalition government. But I have been plugging for a parliamentary system since the time of Cory Aquino for two reasons: a) it can reduce official corruption because the expense for running for a seat in parliament is substantially less than that for running for president, vp or senator; hence the motivation to recoup campaign expenses many times over, through corrupt acts, is not as strong; and b) a good prime minister can stay in office longer than six years, legally and constitutionally, while an incompetent or unfit prime minister can be removed by a simple vote of no-confidence in parliament, without resort to mob rule disguised as people power. There is also more likelihood of continuity of policies under a parliamentary system than under the presidential system where, from our own sad experience, every new president tends to junk the projects and priorities of his/her predecessor in favor of his/her own projects and priorities, which in turn are junked by the next president six years later. Under our presidential system, we have been forever going up Step 1 and Step 2, but have never managed to climb up to Step 3 and beyond, because of the constant change in presidential leadership, which has forced us back to Step 1 and Step 2 again and again. Of course, under President Marcos, we were also a failed state despite his prolonged stay in power. But this was due to a wrong choice in economic strategy: he failed to develop an export-oriented economy for the Philippines which the other authoritarian leaders in East Asia built for their countries during their much-longer-than-six-years hold on power. So we should have shifted to the parliamentary system yesterday. But I have never favored a federal union, and I am not sold on its merits over the unitary state, at least for the Philippines. In the entire world, there are only two countries, besides the Philippines, that have an archipelagic geography, and both of them (Japan and Indonesia) are unitary states. There are practical reasons for this. When Modern Japan was formed during the Meiji Restoration in 1867, there was a felt need for a strong central government. This was in reaction to the feudal conditions in Japan under the Tokugawa shogunate during which regional warlords or daimyos and their samurais constantly waged war on each other, which made Japan weak and vulnerable to the intrusive machinations of foreigners (i.e. Europeans and Americans). Even as late as the 1930s, this regionalism manifested itself in rivalry in the imperial armed forces, with the top echelons of the Army and the Navy becoming the exclusive domains of rival clans whose narrow loyalties went back to feudal times. Without a strong central government and the Emperor as the unifying force, Japan would have fragmented into smaller fiefdoms and would not have developed into the modern industrial state that successfully challenged the might of Russia, the US and the European imperial powers, from 1905 to the present era. In the case of Indonesia, a unitary state with a strong central government was deliberately chosen by Indonesian intellectuals who started to conceptualize the future make-up of their country even during the Dutch occupation. As in Japan, a federal union of semi-independent states in Indonesia would have encouraged separatism, as indeed the weakening of the central government after the fall of Suharto has emboldened separatist movements in Aceh, Manado, Irian Jaya, etc. (Largely Roman Catholic East Timor separated from predominantly Muslim Indonesia during Suharto�s watch, with the active encouragement of the western [i.e. nominally Christian] media.) Federalism is more suitable for countries with large, contiguous land masses � such as Russia, Canada, the US, Brazil, Australia, India, Mexico and Germany � where centrifugal forces have less appeal. Yet even among these examples, there are separatist movements in at least three of them: Canada, Russia and India. Archipelagic countries (Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines) are better off with unitary states. The recent threat of some Filipino mayors and governors, to secede from the Republic if President Arroyo were forcibly removed from power, may be dismissed as harmless political noise, but they may be aberrations of our personalistic culture, in the absence of a nationalistic one. In which case, federalism will just lead to the break-up of the Republic on the whims of regional political bosses.. Aside from geography, there is the matter of history. Nations make the choice between federal or unitary usually at the moment of conception. That was true of the US, Canada and Australia. Modern India could not have been anything but federal because even before the British came, the subcontinent was already a hodgepodge of functioning states under the rule of various kings, princes, maharajahs and nabobs. Similarly, before the advent of the British, what is now Malaysia was already a collection of permanent quasi-states with their own local governments under local sovereigns, making a federal union the logical choice at independence. The indigenous settlements that the Spaniards encountered in our islands in the 16th century had not yet developed sufficiently to the level of quasi-states, except possibly in western Mindanao, hence the political development of Spanish Philippines followed the path most familiar to the Spaniards: a unitary polity with a strong central government. It should also be kept in mind that the Philippine Republic that was born out of the Revolution of 1896 established a unitary state, not a federal union. And that when these islands came under American colonial rule after 1898, the Americans preserved the unitary polity and did nothing to move it towards a federal union, even though their own historical experience was solidly based on the bedrock of federalism. Due respect should be given to the wisdom of the Philippine revolutionaries of 1896 and the American colonial administrators after 1898, who must have pondered the choice between unitary and federal, and chose the former, perhaps swayed by arguments based on geography and history similar to mine above. Changing from unitary to federal 109 years after 1896 (or 59 years after 1946) does not make any practical sense, especially since neither geography nor history favors such a change. It will just create additional layers of bureaucrats and politicians, and will just entrench family dynasties more solidly in the provinces, protected as they will be by the almost predictable argument that �Imperial Manila should not meddle in our politics.� Federalism in the Philippines will strengthen feudalism. This is not to say that the present arrangement is ideal. Certainly a political system that elected, in the 1990s, three senators (Arroyo, Honasan, Tatad) from Bicol but not a single one from the Muslim area, is scandalously skewed. But that can be corrected within the framework of a unitary state, without having to adopt a centrifugal federal union. Those who think that federalism is a panacea to our problems are na�ve and are clutching at straws. More than 180 years after they won their independence from Spain and Portugal, respectively, federal Mexico and federal Brazil � with whom we share an Iberian socio-economic-cultural legacy � do not constitute the most inspiring role models for Filipinos or anyone else in the common struggle against poverty, corruption, crime and social inequality. So, 180 years from now, a federal Philippines would likely still be struggling with these same problems. And there is no logic in the argument of Newsbreak magazine in a recent special issue promoting federalism � financed, curiously, by the Swiss ambassador � that the three countries favored most by Filipino emigrants (the US, Canada, Australia) are all federal unions and, ergo, the Philippines should also adopt federalism. The biggest single reason why these three countries are favored by Filipino emigrants is the shared use of the English language, which makes assimilation so much easier than if one were to migrate to, say, Finland or Slovakia. Federalism has nothing to do with it. A more balanced criterion for gauging the relative merits of the federal and unitary forms of government would be the United Nations human development index or the table of per capita incomes worldwide. Every year, the eleven countries that almost always top both lists, even if the rankings change, are the five Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Iceland), three predominantly Anglo-Saxon countries (Australia, New Zealand, Canada), plus Singapore, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Of the eleven, eight are unitary states, and only three are federal unions (Australia, Canada, Switzerland). But all eleven use the parliamentary system of government. ***** Reactions to [email protected] or fax 824-7642. Other articles in www.tapatt.org. |
| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Federalism No Panacea� Dear Tony, The country can have the best model of parliamentary form of government that fits the geography of the country but the problem lies in the people themselves. The country has never been blessed with true leaders. The current leaders lead in enriching themselves and they are heavily addicted to stay in power more than to serve. As I have said in the past, the country should source the man to lead the country from the industrialized world. The country's current inventory of local leaders are seconds or rejects if not rotten! Dr. Nestor Baylan,[email protected] New York City, July 28, 2005 MY REPLY. The Philippines would be the laughing stock of the world. It would be the only non-colony that would admit that it cannot govern itself and must import its leaders from other countries. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Very good reading of history and government. And might I add, we need leaders imbued with a keen sense of how history will judge them and who will lead by example like Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore and the late Park Chung Hee of South Korea. Tom and Ruth De Guzman, [email protected] July 29, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, That is a good analyses of federalism, but please define your kind of federalism. I mean the organizational structure. Rodel Ramos, [email protected] July 29, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Thank you Mr. Abaya, for the very interesting and well written piece, so concise and well studied arguments on federalism and the parliamentary system vis a vis the unitary. Surely, this will open the eyes of many, particularly the politicians, who are essentially fence sitters and go with the tide because they do not know any better. Well done. Cesar M. de los Reyes, [email protected] July 29, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, Read you column regarding your opposition to the federal system. I agree with you wholeheartedly and I hope our friends will realize that distinction you made. But Greece is also an archipelagic state and has a parliament. Best wishes, Tonypet Araneta, [email protected] July 29, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Thanks, Mr.ACA...You continue to inform in an educated way......yr Tinine Bautista, [email protected] July 29, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Thanks, Tony, for an enlightening piece on Federalism. Sen. Pimentel came to Australia a few years back pushing the idea of Federalism as the only solution to the problems in the Philippines. I agree with you about the effect of Federalism to factionalism. I wonder if there is a lesson we can get from the short period of time Marcos instituted the Parliamentary form of government with Prime Minister Cesar E.A. Virata?: Renato Perdon, [email protected] Sydney Australia, July 29, 2005 MY REPLY. Federalism is a totally different issue from parliamentarianism. I have seen ex-Prime Minister Virata on TV rejecting the federal form of government. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww FM Burial in Libingan Dear Mr Abaya, I am indeed very disappointed to read the news about the possible FM burial at Libingan ng mga Bayani. In my opinion, this is an insult to thousands of FM�s human rights and political victims, and a serious distortion of our recent history. FM simply doesn�t deserve a place in our national heroes� cemetery. We are still suffering from his greed for power and money more than 19 years after he was kicked out of Malacanang. Generations yet unborn are also his victims. There is, perhaps, another equally important reason. The Marcoses would like the Filipino people and the rest of the world to believe that they keep FM�s �remains� in a refrigerated crypt in Batac, Ilocos Norte. They are fooling us even after FM�s death. Do we want to bury a wax replica in our national heroes� cemetery? The Marcoses and the whole world will be laughing at us. I remember during the height of the controversy that some doctors at UP-PGH proposed to x-ray FM�s �remains� to settle if the body was expertly crafted wax replica or not. Did Imelda agree? Of course not! They are masters of deception. The Chinese preserved remains of their noble people for over 2000 years including the internal organs and contents of the stomach. But not in a refrigerated crypt. I cannot believe that decaying process is very kind even to a dictator. Ernie C.Ignacio, [email protected] July 29, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony: No, I haven't received your article 'Truth and Justice'. * If you get a chance, write us a piece on the bright side of Philippine politics. I'd like to read about what you see on the other side. But I understand where you're coming from, and I follow your columns religiously. To me, you and Jaime DyLiaco have been the brightest minds to come out of the Ateneo in my generation. Believe it or not, you continue to be a great influence in my life. Jimmy Pimentel, [email protected] Sydney, Australia, July 29, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I have to agree and disagree with you � 1. The parliamentary system will not work in reducing the cost of winning an election unless election spending limits are imposed and strictly enforced. Otherwise the same dynasties, and self-interested politicians we have in Congress today will just spend their way into parliamentary seats. The spending limit should cover party subsidies, government subsidies, personal expenses AND contributions by supporters. The limit must be kept as low as possible to allow candidates who are truly competent, but not wealthy, to succeed. 2. I do not think that history is a good enough basis for maintaining the unitary government style of the Philippines. History repeats itself � and most often than not for the worse. Maybe it is time for a change � a change which can bring true government and public service closer to the people. Believe me, here in the provinces (I have lived in Cebu since 1993 and travel Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao for business), the national government is almost irrelevant and even a monkey on our backs. The National Government is hardly felt except when it is a burden. Of course Federalism is not so simple. It will have to deal and respond to the huge disparities between rich and poor provinces. I suspect that federalism will favor the richer provinces unless of course rich and poor provinces are joined under one federal government. This is easier said than done and implemented. Once again on the historical argument: What has a unitary government achieved for most provinces south of Luzon? In reality, not much at all. 3. Federalism and Geography: the fractured nature of the Philippine islands may actually favor a federal form of government. The argument you use can work both ways. The difficulty posed by the fractured geography of our country does not favor a centralized government. It is physically impossible. Sure there is technology to bridge communication across the peninsula, but the reality is that true governance needs more than good telephone lines. It needs direct and close contact with the governed. 4. I see one of the main problems with our political system (not the political form but the manner in which it is used) is one of accountability � or lack of it. Our politicians get away with murder. And what does anyone do about it? Nothing or little at all, because all efforts to achieve justice or accountability are thwarted in favor of the corrupt and the unjust. Money talks. Crime pays. In this respect, we can be considered one of the most backward countries in the world. We have regressed � like Africa. Keep the columns going!! I really enjoy your thinking and your writing style. Dondi Joseph, [email protected] Cebu City, July 29, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Did we ever think that reason behind their choice of Parliamentary form of government is to legitimize their "corruption in government " since, as you have mentioned, corruption exists even today in every country with this form / type of government and knowing this, it will be their "excuse" to use this very explanation when corruption is found to be existing still in the Philippines with this new form of government? Just asking..... Jose Genato, [email protected] July 29, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, Very impressive arguments for a unitary form. These are issues which must be accessed by the whole thinking population. Problem is the lack of interest due to lack of media/communications of the ordinary Pinoys. I myself would like to read more of your observations to improve the whole environment, political, cultural, economic. How about some of our more resourceful leaders, businessmen and politicians alike, to envision and conceptualize economic zones ala PEZA which will be developed Singapore or HongKong to be populated by those who wish to have a more favorable, business, living environment within our archipelago, but not included in the toxic overload of the Metro Cities? Sort of insulated but not isolated. We have still a lot of uninhibited islands all over. We may develop a couple in the Visayas, and one near Mindanao, like Palawan to bea miniSsingapore: orderly, great infra, inhabited by dues-paying individuals and corporations who wish to spend a little more for more services, but with transparency and accountability as primordial requirements. Years ago, Enrique Zobel wrote in Business Day the idea of making Mactan Island as HongKong: simplified flat tax, great infra, trustworthy policemen, with lots of freedom to choose where hard work, competitiveness, and trustworthiness are the bases of success. Why not? Jun Magsaysay Jr., [email protected] Philippine Senate, July 29, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I have a skin ailment. Doctor Cusi de Venecia sends me to the kidney surgeon so he can extract my healthy organ. That is the meaning of all these constitutional "reforms". Ross Tipon, [email protected] Baguio City, July 29, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi, just want to clarify one thing. East Timor was never a territory of Indonesia. In the past, it was a Portuguese colony and the Indonesians under the Dutch. The Indonesians annexed East Timor in 1972 under the pretext of containing communism within their sphere, with the full support and blessing of then State Secretary Kissinger and President Nixon... That's all, keep your opinions coming! VINZ, [email protected] July 30, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Thank you for this article. I had initial disagreements with your points, but nevertheless found them interesting, and worthy of further thought. I have forwarded the article to friends. Rene Valdes, [email protected] Baguio City, July 30, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Thanks Tony, Kindly note my questions's below. Abrazos, Jaime Calero Sydney, Australia, July 30, 2005 I have been plugging for a parliamentary system since the time of Cory Aquino for two reasons: a) it can reduce official corruption because the expense for running for a seat in parliament is substantially less than that for running for president, vp or senator; hence the motivation to recoup campaign expenses many times over, through corrupt acts, is not as strong; and *Are you therefore of the belief that (only) official corruption is the cost of running for President, VP, Senator or Congressman, Governors, Mayors, Councilors? b) a good prime minister can stay in office longer than six years, legally and constitutionally, while an incompetent or unfit prime minister can be removed by a simple vote of no-confidence in parliament, without resort to mob rule disguised as people power. *Are you aware that in Parliment the party in power normally the one that is able to decide on the issue on whether to change their Prime Minister or not. There is also more likelihood of continuity of policies under a parliamentary system than under the presidential system where, from our own sad experience, every new president tends to junk the projects and priorities of his/her predecessor in favor of his/her own projects and priorities, which in turn are junked by the next president six years later. *Does it not also happen under a parliamentary system when the party in power is change, so do their policie's? Under our presidential system, we have been forever going up Step 1 and Step 2, but have never managed to climb up to Step 3 and beyond, because of the constant change in presidential leadership, which has forced us back to Step 1 and Step 2 again and again. * GMA claims it is like in the Communist system - 2 steps forward one step back. Would you say that there any guaranty this will not also happens in the parliamentarysystem? Of course, under President Marcos, we were also a failed state despite his prolonged stay in power. But this was due to a wrong choice in economic strategy: *It would be just as easy to say that (hindsight) does not guaranty that things would have been any different than what actually transpired. Even as late as the 1930s, this regionalism manifested itself in rivalry in the imperial armed forces, with the top echelons of the Army and the Navy becoming the exclusive domains of rival clans whose narrow loyalties went back to feudal times. *You might recall that in 1941 It was the rivalry between the US Army and the US Navy that prevailed during the 'Pearl Harbor' disater. MY REPLY. Frankly, it is not conducive to a healthy exchange of ideas to have the questions couched in poor spelling, wrong punctuation, bad grammar, and, what�s this? different type sizes within several complete sentences. I feel that you�re just jerking me off or at least showing disrespect towards me. Surely you can do better than this, Jaime. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, I do agree that Federalism is no panacea for the Philippines. It is just a temporary remedy for the inevitable. To my mind, historical and economic facts point toward the inevitability of independence, specially for Mindanao. Mindanao independence was once purely a concern of our Muslim brothers. However, many Christians are now entertaining, if not embracing, the idea. They have seen how the Philippines has been mismanaged, on one hand, and how Muslim countries like Malaysia have progressed, on the other hand. Christians now realize that, like Malaysia, Mindanao can become a pluralistic society of Muslims and other religious and ethnic groups. There is a growing realization that, whether they like it or not, they share common aspirations with their Muslim brothers because Mindanao is their home. And they have witnessed how the central government ruthlessly exploited Mindanao. In half a century, Mindanao was of stripped natural resources which were barely touched, even by the foreign colonizers, for 400 years. So rapacious was the central government that Mindanao barely has anything to show for it, except denuded forests. They have also seen how nothing has been done to promote indigenous cultures, languages and religions, including their own Cebuano, Boholano, Ilonggo or Ilocano heritage. They have seen that the central government in Manila only coined slogans like "Nationalism" or "Patriotism" for its own selfish ends. Manila never had genuine concern for Maranaos, Tausugs, or even Cebuanos and Karay-a's. There never was a serious attempt to advance their ethnic traditions or languages. The central government only wanted to subjugate in order to exploit. In Spanish, there is a saying: "Amor con amor se paga". The succeeding generations of homegrown Mindanaons will not be as sentimentally attached to the rest of the country. They will think first of what is best for themselves, their region, and their future. There will be little love for Manila. History and economics weigh heavily in favor of Mindanao independence, making its occurrence inevitable. Even though Gloria Arroyo's spin doctors are making a travesty of this noble aspiration by implying that such an event will only materialize if she is ousted, Mindanao independence makes too much sense to be trivialized by political gimmickry. Some Mindanao leaders may allow themselves to be used by a beleaguered President for selfish and myopic reasons, but most Mindanaons know that this issue is far bigger and more important than any one person. It defines themselves and their future. Please allow me to explain as briefly and as candidly as possible: A) History - 1. The concept of the Philippines as a state is a colonial creation. The Philippines, under its present borders, never existed in pre-colonial times. Visayans had their own language and culture, apart from Luzon. Mindanao was more closely linked, culturally and linguistically, to Borneo and her southern neighbors. Most of them, perhaps, were not developed to the level of quasi-states, but they did have their own separate identities. The borders of the Philippine archipelago were created by the Spanish colonizers. Taiwan and Palau could well have been included within the Philippine borders, had they not been ceded or sold by Spain to other colonial powers. This goes to show that the Philippines we know today is a patchwork of different islands and ethnic groups brought together by the conveniences and exigencies of our foreign colonizers. As such, it is an artificial state lumped together by external forces. Beca use there is no inherent bonding between the major ethnic groups, there will be an increasing tendency towards partition or self-determination. Japan may be a model for an archipelagic unitary government. But in Japan, ethnic bonds exist because they were always a pure race. Even today, despite the influx of foreign job-seekers, Japan remains 99% ethnically Japanese. The case of Indonesia is different. That is why they have, and will continue to experience, ethnic conflict. 2. The name "Philippines" is an insult. It brands the country as the legacy of a colonial monarch. It suggests vassalage and obeisance. No wonder that Muslims, who were never subjugated by the colonizers, find the appellations "Filipino" or "Pilipino" degrading. 3. The excessive centralization of power and wealth in Manila is a colonial legacy. Spanish colonizers, lacking funds and manpower, found it more convenient to rule the archipelago from a central seat of power. The islands were left to fend for themselves with token support, battling marauders and disease, while still remitting produce and tribute to the central government. This concept was continued by the Americans and, upon independence, appropriated by Manila's elite. External colonization was replaced by internal colonization. It was not the wisdom of the Philippine revolutionaries of 1896 that gave rise to the idea of a unitary Philippines, it was the greed of the political and business leaders in Manila. Mindanao suffered the most from this historical injustice. Landless peasants from Luzon and Visayas were dispatched to Mindanao to take land from the natives. Political supporters were granted vast logging concessions, indiscriminately cutting down huge forest reserves. Multinationals set up large plantations in the island, paying their taxes and duties to the central government. Even today, Mindanao is seen by the central government as a convenient source of food, raw materials, export dollars and duties. At the same time, it is a captive market for Manila's factories and business enterprises. This one-sided relationship is reinforced by the fact that no serious effort was made to advance the different ethnic cultures, languages and religions. There has never been any respect for regional identities and aspirations. Colonialism was supposed to be an anachronism. But it exists in modern-day Philippines via an over-centralized structure of government which concentrates power, wealth and privilege on only one region. This unjust and discredited system is what makes secession so appealing. B) Economics - 1. Years of corruption and mismanagement have brought the Philippines into severe economic distress. It is saddled with a tremendous debt burden that barely enables government to keep operating. It can only survive if it keeps on borrowing, sinking further into debt. It is a vicious cycle at best, spinning uncontrollably towards disaster. When the central government is unable to satisfy the most basic demands of the regions, dissatisfaction turns into mutiny. This is beginning to happen. It can only deteriorate further. Economic fall-out will lead to disintegration. Not even the once-mighty Soviet Union could prevent itself from breaking up after its resources were strained by the cold war. In the end, the economy will cause the collapse of the Philippines as we know it. 2. Regions like Mindanao are self-sufficient, with economically sound fundamentals. Food is not a problem and agricultural exports can provide much-needed dollars. Resources for energy and power are available. Mindanao will not only survive by seceding from the central government, it will flourish. This will be an incentive for Mindanao to break away. 3. Mindanao needs to conserve and maximize her resources. After her forests were denuded, with nothing to show for it, measures like the Mining Act threaten to deplete mineral resources, with little compensation and environmental safeguards. While investments in mining are necessary, adequate compensation and environmental prerequisites must be first addressed. Laws like the Mining Act again reveal the rapacious nature of the central government. 4. Secession is a way out of bondage to the national debt. Mindanao will not have to totally repudiate debt, but it can demand for a fair accounting of its share. Mindanao's debt load will surely be disproportionately smaller than the rest of the country's. After all, Mindanao had nothing to do with white elephants like the mothballed nuclear plant and the behest loans of Presidential cronies. Liberation from debt is, by itself, enough impetus for Mindanaons to demand independence. This will free their children and grandchildren from being indentured to poverty. There will be hope instead of despair. In trying to be brief, I cite only a few compelling reasons why Mindanao will someday achieve independence. These reasons are based on sober reflection of facts, the past and the present. There is a historic basis and an economic basis to logically conclude that Mindanao will be much better off if it breaks away from the Philippine Republic. The Left, most notably the National Democratic Front, will denounce my assessment. But they have another agenda, which has nothing to do with hope and upliftment, and everything to do with imposing a foreign ideology which will not flourish in an independent, prosperous Mindanao. The Right, especially the neo-colonialists from Manila, will deplore the loss of a convenient milking cow that a subservient Mindanao represents. However, to the average Mindanaon, the question now is no longer, "Can we afford to be independent?" but, "Can we afford not to be independent?". Thank you for your time. Erineo Cabahug, [email protected] Bronx, NewYork, July 31, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Fourth Most Powerful Woman? How can Forbes Magazine recognize Gloria Arroyo as one of the most powerful women in the world when in the very first paragraph of its article, " Arroyo, 58, is now fighting to hold on to her job...over a series of scandals and her attempts to fix Manila's weak finances are falling apart..." belie this? So was the last portion where it quoted Hong Kong based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy in its description of the Philippines under Gloria Arroyo as " the second most corrupt country in Asia." Although I looked at the article as a rebuke rather than a praise, the nincompoops in the government being as they are, brain dead or in the words of Manila Archbishop Rosales as "no real thinkers", gloated over this recognition on their master, the virago. The Forbes reporter whose sources could have been pro Arroyo was not forthcoming with regards to the economy and the outcome of the election where it could have included the expose' of the prestigious WSJ ( Wall Street Journal ) on the rigging or as some would term it "doctoring" of the Philippine economic data by this illegitimate government under Gloria Arroyo who brags of her doctoral degree in economics. This is the economics professor who has to be taught that you cannot borrow beyond your capacity to pay. The Filipinos are suffering because the income being generated by the government is just going to the payments of the interests from the massive loans incurred under Gloria Arroyo resulting in the failure to deliver basic services to the people. Narciso Limsiaco Ner, [email protected] August 02, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Sir: Your view that the Philippines needs a unitary form of government would be valid if power, commerce and trade, banking, media, culture and education would be more widely dispersed. What we have is an inordinate amount of power and wealth centralized in one place. In the U.S.A., New York is the financial capital. L.A. and Chicago are the industrial centers. Trade and shipping are dispersed between L.A., Seattle, New York and Miami. Chicago and St. Louis are commercial hubs. Media is divided between New York and L.A. Washington D.C. is merely a diplomatic and cultural center. In China, finance, trade, commerce and industry are mainly centered in Shanghai, Hong Kong and Guangdong. Beijing does not monopolize everything. The political and business decision-makers based in Manila were too greedy and short-sighted when they centralized everything in Manila. Because industry and job opportunities were focused on Manila, urban migration occurred. That is why Manila is faced with so much garbage, pollution, traffic and urban sprawl. But those problems matter little to the elite. What matters is that they control the purse strings and monopolize the country's wealth, power and opinion. Furthermore, I believe a unitary government could work better if the capital were more geographically at the center. Cebu or Bacolod could be better suited as the political capital because they are between Luzon and Mindanao. This is another concept that has been tried in other countries. Finally, I also hope that the other ethnic groups would be given more support and encouragement to promote their own cultures and languages. It is not so much that they oppose the predominance of the Tagalog culture and language, but that their own heritage and language is ignored and even ridiculed. They know that they are not treated as equals in what is supposedly their country, too. As long as the decision-makers in Manila refuse to make political, economic and cultural concessions, Federalism, and even independence, will remain the more attractive options. I do enjoy reading your columns and agree with almost all of your views. I do not even entirely disagree with your views of a unitary government. I just believe that the kind of unitary government that we have is an abomination that doesn't do the rest of the country any good. Carl Cid S.M. Inting, [email protected] Cebu City, August 02, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww |
| Sir: I read your posting on www.tapatt.org on "Federalism No Panacea". I read Mr. Cabahug's reply to your article and I must say that he makes a good case for independence. After all, our government and our politicians have shown so little concern or compassion for ordinary citizens. And, I must admit, this includes those from other regions all over the country as well. Patriotism sounds hollow when government cannot even provide basic services like education, roads, employment, etc. As Mr. Cabahug points out, love begets love. Phrases like JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you..." make good political slogans, but they do not reflect reality. Even in love and marriage, it is often a two-way relationship, unless one partner were a masochist or an aspiring martyr. For too long, Filipinos have had to migrate to other countries to improve their standard of living. Perhaps Mr. Cabahug just takes this logic to the extreme when he says that people from Mindanao want to be independent. By becoming independent, everyone in Mindanao instantly migrates from the mess that is the Philippines. Perhaps this also reflects the feelings of citizens in other regions. After all, surveys indicate that a large percentage of Filipinos would want to migrate abroad. I think the message here is that a nation has to take care of its citizens. It cannot command loyalty or patriotism if it is so indifferent and unresponsive to the people's needs and aspirations. Juan Deiparine, [email protected] Toril, Davao City, August 26, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, I read "Federalism No Panacea" and the attending reactions from your readers in your website. I would like to react to Mr. Narciso Ner's reaction which, incidentally, was off-topic (re GMA as the world's 4th most powerful woman). My reaction is to Mr. Ner's statement that budget deficits are due to GMA's excessive borrowings. I am not a GMA fan but, to set the record straight, Ferdinand Marcos started the borrowing binge. It was during Marcos' term that we incurred debt on such a massive scale. Most of it were behest loans for himself and his cronies, overinflating project costs and stashing the loot abroad. Unfortunately, Cory Aquino and her Kamag-anaks and fellow travelers squandered all the international goodwill from EDSA I without doing anything about the onerous debts. On the contrary, they continued borrowing more money, adding to the debt load. FVR, Erap and GMA simply followed this formula of borrowing to fill in budget gaps, a classic case of being entangled in a debt trap. Although all succeeding administrations after Marcos are not blameless, it is Ferdinand Marcos who should rightly be blamed for putting us into the economic black hole that we now cannot extricate ourselves from. I would also like to say something about the letter of Mr. Erineo Cabahug. If Mindanao can repudiate debt by becoming independent, it is an avenue worth exploring. All other regions should encourage Mindanao to break away. Why? Debt is the single biggest drag to our economy. GMA's new budget allocates interest payments alone at P1 BILLION a DAY! When debt amortization is included, debt servicing shoots up to more than P2 BILLION PER DAY!!! Those are mind-boggling amounts that are siphoned out of our economy. We sure could build a lot of infrastructures and provide a lot of social services with that kind of money. The other regions should closely be watching Mindanao. If Mindanao can escape the debt trap through independence, Cebu and the other regions should follow suit. That would mean economic salvation for all of us! Why not make Mindanao the guinea pig for this bold experiment? Carl Cid S.M. Inting, [email protected] Cebu City, August 27, 2005 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |