 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Federal Role Models?
By Antonio C. Abaya Written on May 07, 2008 For the Standard Today, May 08 issue As promised, I will discuss the reaction of Manuel Lino G. Faelnar to my previous article Federal Fol-de-Rol. He at least based his argument on verifiable historical evidence, unlike the five or six others who gave vent to purely emotional and anecdotal guesswork, without any basis in economics, demography, history, geography, political science, ethno-linguistics or just plain common sense. Reader Faelnar identifies himself as the director of DILA Philippines Foundation Inc. and the director of Lubas sa Dagang Bisaya Inc. DILA stands for Defenders of the Indigenous Languages of the Archipelago. Clever acronym, that. He started out his reaction as follows: �We believe you would have been better served had you searched in Google or Wikipedia before you wrote your article. You wrote: �Can Pimentel and his 11 apostles cite even one example in the last 60 years of a country that switched from a unitary state to a federal union, or from a federal union to a unitary state? Or from the presidential to the parliamentary system, or from parliamentary to presidential? And suddenly achieved elusive prosperity as a result of that switch? They can't because there isn't any..� �Mr. Abaya, you are dead wrong. Here are a few examples of countries, most notably Belgium , UK and Spain , which have become federal since 1960:� And he went on to list and encapsulate the recent political history of those 12 countries. (I understand from another pro-federal reader that Faelnar was hired by Sen. Pimentel to reply to me.) As his reaction email rambles on for four pages, it is too long to reprint here in its entirety. But, without researching into Google or Wikipedia, I can scratch away most of those 12 countries from the list, especially Belgium, the United Kingdom and Spain . Please note that I challenged Sen. Pimentel and his 11 (is it now 16?) apostles in the Senate to �cite even one example in the last 60 years of a country that switched from a unitary state to a federal union��.and suddenly achieved elusive prosperity as a result of that switch�.� It is important to remember this point because the rationale for Sen. Pimentel�s federalism is �to spur economic growth.� Belgium, the United Kingdom and Spain do not fall within those parameters because they achieved prosperity long before they federated (or virtually federated, in the case of the UK, which does not have a formal Constitution),.(or �fiscally federated� in the case of Spain, which basically remains a unitary state). These three countries became prosperous (or �spurred their economic growth�) as a result of their early membership in the European Economic Community, which is now known as the European Union, which expanded the markets for their export products and services. They did not become prosperous just because they federated or virtually federated or fiscally federated... Additionally, Belgium is in limbo as a federal union. Because of the historical enmity between the French-speaking Walloons and the Dutch-speaking Flemings, Belgium did not have a government for six months in 2007 and may actually split into separate countries. This would be similar to the break-up in 1993 of the federated Czechoslovakia (which Faelnar failed to include in his list) into the Czech Republic and Slovakia .. The �fiscal federalism� of South Africa and the actual federalism of Russia also do not count since they were already federal unions before their present incarnations. As every stamp collector knows, South Africa used to be known as the Union of South Africa, which reflected the diverse origins of the early settlers (the Dutch-descended Boers or Afrikaaners), the later arrivals (the British), and the Zulus who migrated in between.. The present Russian Federation (1993) was preceded by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics , both of them federal unions, separated by only about 20 months of chaos as Communist deputies in the Duma or Lower House attempted to stage a coup d�etat to recover the state power that they lost in 1991. Additionally, Russia �s current prosperity is not due to its being a federal union but to the high world prices of oil and gas. Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the Federated States of Micronesia also do not count since they were federal unions right from the start of their national lives as independent states. They did not begin as unitary states and then shifted to federal unions �to spur economic growth,� which is Pimentel�s rationale for his proposal and the parameters for my objection.. I was in the UAE in 1995 as guest of the UAE government (as I was in Malaysia in 1992 as guest of the Malaysian government.) The UAE is, of course, fabulously wealthy, but it cannot be a model for this country since that wealth is due solely to oil and gas, which we do not have in similar abundance. Besides, 80% of its population are foreigners, a situation unique to the UAE. And what can we possibly learn from Micronesia , which has a population of only 107,000 at low tide? So, after removing Belgium, the United Kingdom, Spain, South Africa, Russia, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, and the Federated States of Micronesia from Reader Faelnar�s list, what does he have left as role models to entice us with to federalism? Bosnia and Herzegovina , Ethiopia , Nepal and Nigeria . Would Sen. Pimentel and his 11 (or 16) senator-apostles call for dancing in the streets that we have four such inspiring role models for a shift to federalism? Even that may be premature. Bosnia and Herzegovina (or B&H) may have been a unitary state (I don�t really know) between the end of World War I (which began with an assassination in its capital Sarajevo ) and the beginning of World War II. After the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945, the fabled Communist guerilla leader Josip Broz, more widely known as Marshal Tito, stitched together a federal union called Yugoslavia (�Southern Slavs�) made up of Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, B&H, Macedonia and Kosovo (as part of Serbia). But after the death of Tito in 1980, the union began to show cracks and fissures, largely due to differences in religion: Croatia and Slovenia are predominantly Roman Catholic , Serbia and Macedonia are predominantly Eastern Orthodox, Kosovo and B&H are predominantly Muslim. The simmering three-cornered conflict finally erupted into open civil war in 1992, resulting in the bloodiest genocide in Europe since WWII as the majority Serbs tried, unsuccessfully, to keep the federal union intact.(Faelnar also failed to include this in his list.) So it can probably be said that Bosnia and Herzegoovina did transit from a unitary state to a federal union, but did it finally achieve prosperity? Even Faelnar says that may happen if and when B&H is accepted into the European Union. Too bad the Philippines has no chance whatsoever of becoming a member of the EU. (Another federal union that Faelnar did not include in his list � perhaps because it is an economic failure - is Myanmar, which was known as the Union of Burma when it became independent in 1947, and is now the Union of Myanmar, under military rule since 1962.) According to Faelnar , Ethiopia became a federal union n 1994, but judging from the endless famines that we see on TV, federalism is far from having �spurred economic growth.� So is Nigeria, which like Malaysia , has been a federal union since independence and should also be scratched off this list. Despite becoming a major oil producer in this decade., Nigeria has been racked by civil wars, military take-over, mega-corruption, recurring kidnapping of foreigners including Filipinos, and tit-for-tat massacres by Muslims and Christians involving hundreds of victims each time... The only country in Faelnar�s list that could conceivably resemble the Philippines is Nepal, which was a unitary state under a monarchy until 2007, last year, when the monarchy was overthrown and the new Nepal resurrected as a federal union Whether it will enjoy prosperity as a result of that shift is too early to tell. The only problem is that the monarchy was replaced by the Maoist Party. Here�s your last chance, Joma Sison, to push your Maoist Revolution.. ***** Reactions to [email protected]. Other articles in www.tapatt.org and in acabaya.blogspot,com. To subscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Subscribe. To unsubscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Unsubscribe. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Federal Role Models� More Reactions to �Instead of Federalism� Hi, Tony I�m ambivalent about federalism. I supported federalism before, and not because it would automatically lead to economic prosperity. I was thinking that with federalism, some states may escape the clutches of our rent-seeking elite (or oligarchs) and thereby have more chances of becoming prosperous and free. Thus, a Pampango government may adopt open skies because that would be in the interest of the Clark airport, even if it were opposed by Lucio Tan. (Toti: Do you really think there would be no rent-seeking oligarchs in a federal set-up? You mentioned Pampanga. What do you think were the Lapids doing when they controlled Pampanga? They were rent-seeking on the lahar. ACA) The danger, as you point out, is dismemberment or centrifugal forces. On the other hand, with information technology now, mini-states could be viable, as proven by Singapore , or Taiwan , or HK. Prosperity is not guaranteed, mind you, but maybe one of two mini-states or sub-republics may shine and Filipinos can migrate internally instead of foreign lands. (I disagree that Taiwan is a �mini-state.� It is about as big as Luzon from the Ilocos to Metro Manila , and has a population of 23 million. ACA) However, I have second thoughts about federalism, but not for the reasons you cited. What would be the political basis of the regions or the mini-states? Negros Occidental and Negros Oriental are different, culturally as well as economically. Same with Ilocos Sur and Ilocos Norte. We might as well stick to the present system but allow for greater autonomy to the local government units. (I agree 100 percent. Tony). Regards, Calixto (Toti) V. Chikiamco, (by email), May 08, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww That was a masterful rebuttal, ACA, enough to throw Sen. Pimentel and his surrogate defender Reader Faelnar's argument out the window. Cesar M. de los Reyes, (by email), May 08, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, I wish that you could, even if it is very long, send to your recipients the reaction of Mr. Faelnar to your article "Federal Fol-de-Rol, so that we can also digest it and will have the opportunity to give our own comment/s. Jerry Quibilan, (by email), May 08, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony: Your point-by-point rebuttal to Manuel Lino G. Faelnar's federal role models is compelling, your logic invincible. I wonder where Sen. Nene Pimentel goes from here, now that his non-sequitur has obviously gone with the wind. Mariano Patalinjug, (by email), Yonkers , NY , May 08, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, Hindi kailangang palitan an ating Saligang Batas at porma ng pamahalaan. Ang kailangan palitan, lahat ng nasa pamahalaan. Wala ka nang mapiling mabuti kahit sampong porsyento, dahil lahat nabahiran na sa katiwalian. Change everyone in government, but do not replace them with the devils just waiting to take over and do worse. Marami tayong mararangal na kababayan, pero karamihan, takot mabahiran ng putik sa pamahalaan. Marami ring magagaling, at mapagkakatiwalaan, ngunit hindi sila popular sa taong bayan. Ang gusto ng masa, mga artista at nagpapatawa na magaling magsalita ng wala namang katuturan. We get the government we deserve, because we do not choose competent leaders who have high and strong moral values. Rex Rivera, (by email), Gen. Santos City, May 08, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi, Tony, Congrats for your very enlightening rejoinder! More power to you. Erick San Juan, (by email), May 08, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, Let me share with you what I know about Manuel Faelnar. He's a Cebuano who studied at the Ateneo de Manila in the 60s circa. His former classmate described him as �a highly motivated person who was vocal about his convictions. He went on to become a lawyer.� Regards, Yett Montalvan, (by email), May 08, 2008 (There is, of course, nothing wrong with being a highly motivated person who is vocal about his convictions, nor with being a lawyer. ACA) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony, Why do we have so many qualms about the system of government we will have to improve. Does anyone not see what really the problem is? I believe that it is not the system of government. Our system is/was patterned after the United States . But look! Federalism will never work for us. Just look around. Almost 80% of our provinces are run or controlled by Mafias. Imagine if that is federal. Our problem is not the system of government, but we Filipinos themselves are the problem. When are we going to wake up? As I said before, what we need is a revolution, not the bloody type, though. We must revolutionize ourselves, that is the key, not the system of government. Thanks and more power. Bert Celera, (by email), May 08, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, To the question :"Is the switch from unitary system to federalism the road to economic prosperity?� The answer is: �It's the people, stupid!� Dr. Nestor P. Baylan, (by email), New York City , May 08, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, If no one has forwarded this article to Senator Pimentel, please forward this to him and to his supporters. Our political leaders are incapable of helping solve poverty because they do not know why we are poor. Through your articles, you have clearly expressed your love for our country and people. More power to you and may our Lord God keep you strong and healthy. Sincerely yours, Hector Tarrazona, (by email), May 08, 2008 Col., (Ret.), Philippine Air Force wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Federalization, Wrong Solution. "Federal" seems to look like a sweet and pretty description of a country like the "US Federal Government", but those who want to change the Philippine Government into a "Federal" System is aiming at the wrong kind of federalism and very different from the US Federal government system. The US federal government provides empowerment to common citizens by granting them a deciding vote (or voice) in justice through their grand jury and trial jury systems in the American Bill of Rights as a means to control the conduct of their public officials. When it comes to keeping decency in their government and continuing economic progress, the common and ordinary American citizens are the main stoppers of corruption of public officials and the economic movers in their country - not necessarily their public officials. The current move to federalize the Philippine government is geared towards more empowerment for public officials. It is more of a basic recipe in creating "pocket" dictatorships. The brand of federalization we are looking at will only create greater number of independent "run away" regional dictators, sub-dictators and junior dictators in the so-called Philippine federal states. This is why many regional and provincial high officials are very eager to embrace the system so that they will become more venerable powerful dictators like the power that the Philippine president is now enjoying. This federalization thing will further hasten the cessation of Mindanao into becoming a Bangsamoro country. The following are examples of countries with federalized governments which the movers of Philippine federalism seem to be enamored with: Mexico (whose poor people want to get out of their country like the Filipino people and wish to migrate to the US ); Russia ; Iraq ; Pakistan ; Venezuela ; Bosnia and Herzegovina ; and Nigeria . Recent collective chaotic events and history in these federal countries can speak for itself and we must wonder if the Filipino people would want to "enjoy" the kind and quality of life the people of said countries are suffering from with their so-called federal governments. I believe, the best solution in modernizing the Philippines into a first class progressive and stable democracy is by amending its constitution with the following essential features and all other provisions to remain the same: 1. Amend the Filipino Bill of Rights to mandate the creation of the Grand Jury and Trial Jury System; 2. Amend the election of the members of the Senate by regions (example: the proposed federated states instead into Senatorial Regions) so that each region in the Philippines will be assured a representation in the Senate to keep a firm unity of the country and people. Election of Senators at large does not make sense. It is like electing Missuari of Bangsamoro to represent Bobong's Batac Ilocos Norte; and 3. Outlaw the pork barrel system. This is a secret tool and legalized stealing of public funds to enrich politicians and dictators. Amendment should be done by Constitutional Convention (or by public initiative) - not by Con-Ass which is dominated by corrupt elites. Marlowe Camello, (by email), Homeland, CA, May 08, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I'm watching the arguments in your piece, but I can only say this. I think it is not a system problem, but a people problem and a leadership problem. Without any change in the habits of the Filipinos, no government system can help. If the same leaders will run the country, the same devastation will continue. Pimentel has missed the issue. But, of course, what can you expect? He is one of those leaders who have ruined this country. Arfeo Sescon, (by email), May 08, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, Bravo!!!! If the decision on federalism will be based on this "report" of yours, then the answer to the proposal of Pimentel is a big NO. How can federalism spur economic growth when the same fundamental problems that we have stays? How can it stop corruption if the same crooked politicians (like Pimentel et al) are still in the government? Mabuhay po kayo. Regards, Marvin Valido, (by email), May 08, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Your presentation of the Yugoslav experience is a good citation for a federal downside. This Yugoslav experience is never mentioned by federalist advocates. You may also try to write something on the economics of federalism or federalist project. Albert Banico, (by email), May 09, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Again, thank you for updating me on the latest twist on Sen Pimentel's debate-by-proxy federalism pitch. The haughtiness by which Pimnetel tries to ignore your--and our {the people's}--call to debate on his plan for Congress to amend (change altogether would be more like it) the Constitution so as to give way to his federalism "baby" is so disgusting, were it not so pathetic. It is pathetic because Pimentel's arrogance is reflective of the mindset of the ruling elite who frown on the contrary ideas/opinions of lowly people such as us, such as you, more so if our views expose the actual bankruptcy of their ideas and the self-aggrandizing motive behind their plans, such as this federalism gobbledygook. Pimentel thinks and acts as if he has invented a surefire formula to lift us, the people, from the centuries-old bondage of poverty that has grotesquely damaged us. (How does the Bible put it? There's more wisdom nestling at the tip of God's needle, Pimentel, than your thick skull can ever imagine.) Truth to tell, it's Pimnetel's personal, selfish agenda that he's pushing, not the people's welfare. The fact that he's a last-termer senator doesn't escape us. How pitiful he'll be without a post, as he once did when Garci cheated him once of his supposed win. During that time that he was out of (an elective) office, it was so easy to interview the man, who was, with his woebegone look, so humble like a lamb. Today, Pimnetel is no better than the Gloria Macpagal-Arroyo that he supposedly lambastes (critics say he does it less out of principle but more to spite Gloria for choosing Guingona in 2001 as her vp, and not Pimentel, who lusted after the position), but whose dictatorial practices he emulates to the fullest. But with Pimentel's federalism project out in the open, Gloria can well ask, who needs enemies? (The talk is that Sen. Pimentel�s reward � for pushing for federalism before the end of President Arroyo�s term � is that his son Koko will be �allowed to win� in his electoral protest against Migz Zubiri. I can believe that. ACA) But if we dissect the basic thesis as to whether federalism could solve the most serious economic problems that we've been facing for more than a century now, if it could "spur economic growth," I say this is immaterial. For I go by the practical dictum long propounded by the diminutive but intellectual giant, Deng Hsiao ping, whom Mao punished a number of times for his unorthodox ideas, to wit: "I don't give a damn whether a cat is black or white or brown or what-have-you, provided it catches mice." Today, China logs the highest economic growth rate in the world, making theirs the fastest growing economy on earth. This, in a nutshell, shoots down Pimentel's spirited defense of his federalism baby. Using even today's form of government, today's present Constitution, today's present economic system, the Philippines can be economically progressive--if only its leaders know the right things to do, implement the right policies needed, but most of all, imbibe the right ethics required of a true leader, incorruptible, visionary, self-sacrificing and self-effacing, brilliant, pro-people and gutsy. Singapore (with Lee Kuan Yew) did it, Malaysia (with Dr. Mahathir) did it, South Korea did it, even Vietnam is doing it (shooting even a general for being corrupt). How can the Filipinos respect, much less obey, a regime so hopelessly peopled by illegitimate, most corrupt, most venal women and men one can find in this country, who continually ransack at every turn the government coffers worse than Ali Baba and his forty thieves could ever do, whose guiding motto is "what's in it for us" (for every government transaction they lay their dirty hands on), and who continue to prey upon us, sadly, only upon our sufferance? Our poverty today is not like leprosy during Marcus Aurelius' s time, incurable and immutable, like the death sentence handed down by a Roman centurion upon his object of wrath. Yes, even we non-economists (who know the right economics as if people mattered) know how to lick it, were we to be given the levers of power to pull hither and thither--and we'd have no need for Pimentel's federalism hallucination. But why should we tip off Gloria, Pimnetel and Co. for our solutions, when they should rack their brains on how to solve these lingering economic problems? The Philippines is saddled with gargantuan problems that cry for real and immediate solutions. Sad to say, the present wielders of power ( I have my doubts in calling them "leaders," for they are self-imposed upon us) are not equal to the challenges thrown their way. On the contrary, these tyrants--corrupt, immoral, vain, boorish, unregenerate, dissembling, ruthlessly fascistic--are part of the problem, not of the solution. This is this country's misfortune, and a Rubik's Cube it must solve, quickly. Jennifer Potenciano, (by email), May 09, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, "Slave of the wheel of labor, what to him Are Plato and the swing of Pleiades?" The phrases in Edwin Markham's poem about the "Man with the Hoe" are very timely. The Filipino people have groveling in poverty since independence while those capable of alleviating their situation or improving their lot are focused on consolidating their own political power. Tell us, how will a change of political system add a grain of rice or a gram of protein to a hungry Filipino child? How will a change in the system eradicate corruption in the government? Voluminous rhetoric and debates cost money. They are counterproductive. You can argue all you want, until night becomes day, but you'll still have to find breakfast for the poor child. Lionel Tierra, (by email), Sacramento , CA , May 09, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Mr. Abaya: In response, Mr. ML Faelnar has provided you quite a number of countries, but one by one you disqualified them for some reasons. Of the 16 senators reportedly supporting federalism, why can't anyone of them or all of them explain why they support a federated Philippines (specially Senator Pimentel). I remember some years back, I read a speech by the good senator advocating federalism. It was quite convincing. Perhaps, if you request the senator for a copy, he might very well furnish it to you. It's healthy to debate this matter publicly. Only good can come out of it. Let the better position win. Martin Celemin, (by email) Las Vegas , NV , May 09, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww A beautiful rebuttal, Tony. Smashed Faelnar's charge to smithereens and deservedly so. Angie Collas-Dean (by email), Eugene , Oregon , May 09, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr.Abaya; After reading everything on this Federal issue - let me just say that I'm not a lawyer nor a politician. But from what I've read so far, everyone had an opinion about this country having a federal system - both from the negative and positive points of view. I hate to put a damper on everyone's parade but from where I am - whether we become a federal government or not - bottom line � it�s still a matter of people. People who sit in government and what the integrity level of these people are. Maybe its too idealistic of me to say but in whatever form of government - if those sitting with the power to alleviate the lives of their constituents fail to meet the level of integrity, honesty, sincerity, foresight and the political will to rule properly - whether its federal or whatever form of government system - a country will forever be doomed. Those in public office should lead and lead with honesty and integrity should be a main criterion to sit in office. Whether it�s a federal system or whatever system these people think 'can improve' this country - if they are the same batch of thieves and scoundrels sitting in office - nothing will change. Until they get rid of the 'utang na loob' system, putting retired officials in government agencies who do not know what to do, putting party loyalties first before the welfare of this nation, commissions first before approvals - nothing will change. Until those currently in government service change their "me-first" mentality and get rid of their crab mentalities as well - nothing will change. So to the federalization issue � that�s all I can say about it - until people in government learn to really sincerely serve the public interest of this country, be transparent and honest enough, have enough integrity to earn the respect of the people, be fair and have enough foresight to protect our country even from ourselves - we can go federal or whatever as long as those in public service are people with heart and soul... and a used brain. Best regards and God bless. Jenifer Xavier, (by email), May 09, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Federalism does spur economic growth? (Of course, it does. But so does a unitarian state. Didn�t you hear what I was saying? Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam are all unitary states, and they have had rapid economic growth in the past 20 to 30 years, Japan since the 1880s. ACA) Why? Because the government will not anymore be distracted in quelling rebellions around the country. Thus, it can concentrate more in making sound economic policies around the country. (Don�t you read the news? Didn�t you hear or understand what I was saying? Yugoslavia was a federal union from 1945 until it started to break up in 1992 in a three-sided civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of people in the worst genocide in Europe since World War II. Nigeria was a federal union since independence in 1963, but it has been racked by civil war, military take-over, and mutual massacres of Muslims and Christians that continue to this day. ACA) Tagalistas don't want federalism. Why? Manila is located at the very center of Tagalog lands. They are solely benefitting by this overly centralized system, because it is a very convenient thing for them. Tagalista are not very supportive of federalism. Why? They have this mindset that they have more to lose, because they are used to the idea of being the center of attention.But in reality, when you federalize, you are addressing the needs of the local more effectively and directly. And thus creating more opportunities from around the country. In federalization, it will relieve the population pressure in Tagalog lands. (Didn�t you understand what I was saying? There are billions of people around the world who are required to learn their countries� national language in school, even though they speak a different language or dialect in their home regions. And I gave the examples of China , Indonesia and France . Yet you do not acknowledge this fact. Instead you keep on ranting and raving about Tagalog and the evil Tagalistas. (If you do not know how to debate rationally � and it is obvious that you don�t � your opinions are no longer welcome in this website. ACA) Joemax Sencio Kiamco, (by email), May 09, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Bravo Tony! I love the way you presented your argument, particularly on the historical perspective. Narciso Ner, (by email), Davao City , May 09, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Mr. Abaya, First, scrutinize the "real motive" instead of listening to the "propaganda." The proposal to federalize is an attempt to seduce and solicit the population's approval by using "old errors, with new labels." When the ethical, political, and economic fiber/engine of the government is rotten, plastering it with "new label" shall not make the engine run any better. Pierre Tierra, (by email), Great Falls , Virginia , May 11, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww How can we tell people how to fish when fishermen themselves are starving? And I do not just refer to the fishermen along Manila Bay and Laguna Lake . Look at the PUB, PUJ and taxi drivers nationwide. Look at the former workers in the once flourishing garment industry in Taytay, Rizal and elsewhere. Aren't they all in the same sinking boat where survival, not fishing is of utmost concern? People will go fishing if the water's not murky, or if no storm's abrewing or if there's fish in the waters. Frogs flourish when conditions in a pond are favorable. People too will, and unlike frogs they can choose to multiply their goods, not just their kind. Gloria bashing and search for truth only describes the pond. It does not make it livable.. I admire the guts of Sen. Pimentel for proposing something which he thinks would alter the conditions of the pond even if I think it isn't a sensible idea. It came just when I gave up trying to contact him. I just wanted him to keep his local government code alive and kicking. Now that he is too preoccupied with a preposterous idea, who can I turn to but ACA? At least, discourse with you is alive. There is nothing but dead silence from our senators. I just can't buy this obsession of each region having their own dogs. Bicol has 5 and it is as poor as any region could be. Cha-cha will have its time, but for now I just want more local autonomy in our country. Not that I feel comfortable with LGU's handling more funds. It's just that it's easier policing them than Imperial Manila. Eustaquio Joven, (by email), May 11, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, I will respond to your article, Federal Role Models? in due course. Meanwhile, please allow me to share with you this article by Luis Moreno, Senior Research Fellow of the Spanish National Research Council on Devolutionary Federalism in Spain . What makes the Spanish model attractive to my group is its respect for, and promotion of, multi-culturalism and linguistic diversity. Same with the Belgian, South African, Indian and Swiss models. (Belgium is close to breaking up into Wallonia and Flanders, similar to the break-up of federated Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993. The cable TV ad that promotes investment in Belgium was pulled out two weeks ago and replaced with one promoting investments only in Wallonia, the French-speaking part of Belgium . (In India, students are required to learn the national language Hindi in school, even if they speak Bengali, Malayalam, Punjabi, Tamil, Gujarati, Urdu, etc or any of the 1,600+ other languages and dialects of India at home. In Spain , students are required to learn Castillan or Spanish in school, even if they speak Catalan, Basque, Galician, Asturian, Aragonese, Extremaduran, etc at home. ACA) By the way, I do not work for Senator Pimental. I happened to respond to you because I posted a comment on your article in our internet forium and my colleagues urged me to reply to you. With some modification of my original posting, I sent you my reply. Best regards, Manuel Lino G. Faelnar, (by email), May 11, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Hereunder is FFP's response to your position on Federalism. I handle economic-related matters for FFP advocacy. Regards, Philip Camara, (by email), May 12, 2008 Mr. Abaya's column "Federalism Fol-de-rol" makes the main argument that switching to a federal structure will not have any effect on economic progress of the country. To support his argument he points out that many Unitary-structured Countries are highly developed (ergo..the fact that the Philippines is Unitary is not the reason for its underdevelopment; ergo..a shift to Federalism cannot be posited as a cure for "underdevelopment"). He also discusses the risk of the break up of the Philippines by state action citing examples of Indonesia and Yugoslavia . Lastly, Mr. Abaya makes the point too that no modern country has ever changed its political structure as the structure is meaningless without the correct "economic strategies". And what is wrong with the Philippines under-performance is simply wrong economic policies. This is the response of FFP to the issue of underdevelopment and the Philippine Political system. In response to the main argument as to the correlation of political structure and economic performance there is obviously no particular structure that guarantees development. Development can indeed happen in any type of political structure. China is certainly showing that a communist dictatorship is the best political structure for GNP development. (It is not China �s Communist dictatorship that is responsible for China �s rapid economic growth. China had been Communist since 1949 under Mao, but growth became rapid only when capitalism and the profit motive were re-introduced, starting in 1979, by Deng Xiao-ping. ACA) However, when Filipino Federalists point out that a federalist Philippines will have better economic performance it is for the reason that a situation where having a state (region) government that directly collects its share of taxes from its governed citizens and is held directly accountable for the rationale use of tax collections for state development, obviously you will be assured of more targeted and focused economic programs, unlike the current Unitary Philippines "One-size-fits-all" solutions say for the rice crisis, education/skill development policy, job creation, the water crisis, the forest crisis, etc. Neither is a Province or City (the largest local units allowed in our present constitution) of sufficient size to achieve economies of scale for efficient responses to the issue of under-development. Economic development is merely the increasing and sustainble generation of income for the citizens of an area. It results from the organization of land, labor and capital into enterprises or community organizations like cooperatives that produce goods and services. The correct question is: Why has the Philippines failed to find the right "organization of land, labor and capital" to generate increasing and sustainable income for its citizens? (Because it failed to follow the examples of South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore in the 1970s; and the examples of Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia in the 1980s, when they geared their economies towards the export of manufactured goods. See the comparative export statistics I cited in my article �Federal Fol-de-Rol.� The Philippines also failed to ride the tourism boom in Southeast Asia starting in the 1990s. See the comparative tourism stats that I cited in the same article. Add to this the foolish embrace of free trade and globalization even ahead of fully developed Taiwan and South Korea , and the failure to curb population growth, and we have a patented formula for economic underdevelopment. (It can be calculated how many tens of million jobs we failed to generate and how many tens of billions of dollars we failed to earn because we exported only $47 billion worth of goods in 2006, compared to, say, the $215 billion of Taiwan; and attracted only 3 million tourists in 2007, compared to the 13 million of Thailand. Nothing to do with being unitary or federal, since the Philippines , Taiwan and Thailand are all unitary. On the other hand, Myanmar , which followed even worse economic strategies � �the Burmese Road to Socialism� � is a bigger basket case than the Philippines even though it is a federal union. ACA) Federalist believe that under the Philippine Unitary System the paradigm of development is essentially that of "trickle-down" . Sec. Neri said the country is run by a few poltical families supported by a bunch of oligarchs. Wealth and patronage start from here in the Unitary Political Center and it trickles downwards to the periphery creating vertical chains of patronage where money flows from deals, legal and illegal, with all the required protection from the legal armed groups. Competition to this dominant Unitary Political � Economic class is slanted in favor of the clique in power. Meanwhile, in the provinces, people are unmotivated with the lack of good local governance at the municipal, city and provincial level with just a handful of LGUs really enjoining the participation of the people in formulating and implementing a development plan. Even the Local Development Councils have not really been activated in a meaningful sense. The majority of Filipinos merely depend on relatives to send overseas earnings or for a politician or government to "deliver" development at their doorsteps. That is the nature of a trickle-down paradigm. (�Trickle-down paradigm� is an inherent feature of capitalism, whether the political structure is unitary or federal. This can be compensated for by socialist measures of social organization. But socialist, not in the Soviet or Maoist sense, but socialist in the Western European sense. Federalization is not necessary. ACA) If the Philippines were a Federal Country with 11 states, then whether to "copy" the trickle-down paradigm or not is the choice of the State Government. With its direct shares of tax collections from the consumption and properties of its citizens it can embark on its own way of "organizing land, labor and capital" within its state boundaries. It now has real choices whose outcomes directly impact its fiscal position and political standing with the locals. Careers (and egos) are at stake. The probability is 11x better (if one had 11 states) than a unitary system getting the combination of "land, labor and capital" right. Of the 11, even if only 3 or 4 discovered the right combination for its citizens then that is already an improvement. Maybe the remaining "lagging behind" states will follow their way of organizing "land, labor and capital" to generate sustainable and increasing incomes for their citizens as well. Clearly, if there were 11 States in a Federal Philippines each State Government would have to justify its relative performance with other states. This creates competition. And guess what, Mr. Abaya, the real secret of economic development or progress is competition. China created its economic miracle by introducing competition within the communist structure. This is what animates and motivates action. Action from politicians running appropriate sized governance units (states), enterprises, and the different societal sectors and actors will more likely than not spawn sustainable development. So, the question is only: will a Federalist Philippines spur more competition or less competition than a Unitary Philippines? The answer is obvious. (You have to show empirical evidence that a country actually achieved prosperity AFTER switching from unitary to federal. Your ally Manuel Faelnar could cite only Ethiopia and Nepal , neither of which is a convincing or inspiring model. ACA) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww The only solution we need is to improve the Constitution, not change the government or the terms of office of public officials in the Law. But this should be done under a widely accepted and trusted leadership in government. Tes Yu, (by email), New Zealand , May 13, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Please see attached Sen. Pimentel's power point presentation on Federalism to the Federalist Forum of the Philippines at the Philippine-Columbian Club last Friday, May 9, 2008. As the presentation is in power point format, it could not be accommodated within the load requirements of the yahoogroups and has had to be emailed to you individually. Best regards, Manuel Lino G. Faelnar, (by email), May 13, 2008 (There is also no space here to accommodate Sen. Pimentel�s presentation. ACA) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I think that those who react against the idea of federalism are apprehensive, or are actually to the point of being fearful, about extending the president (whoever he/she may be) beyond the last term. Trying to be objective about it all, would the proposal be alright if, say (and just an assumption) the president decides to fade out of the limelight and truly retire or is suddenly taken ill and can't participate in government anymore, would the new system be alright in the minds of everyone ? Victor Manalac, (by email), May 15, 2008 (I would still oppose it because it is not based on empirical evidence, but merely on wishful thinking: that it would �spur economic growth,� that it would unify a divided country, etc. In this particular instance, the main proponent is apparently being promised a political reward. [See above.] Part of the motivation is also resentment among upper class Cebuano- and Ilonggo-speakers at the prominence of Tagalog, which they deign not to speak. The more numerous working classes, however, have no such problem. They flock to Tagalog movie houses, watch Tagalog TV programs and listen to Tagalog radio programs. ACA) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww More Reactions to �Instead of Federalism� (May 07, 2008) Hi dear Tony, Many response, many ideas. But clearly one thing is true: Whatever change is done to the governing system, it will not change the existing situation for the better. Probably, at least for some time, make it worse because of the countless changes in government and different rules in every state, it will confuse and slow down everything. If Gloria is not good as president, why she should be a better Prime Minister? And if lawmakers are corrupt, why they should not be corrupt anymore under another system? The main change would be that there is no more Senate which at least can show problems and wrongdoings, even it cannot solve it under rules that protect any corrupt, criminal and wrongdoing official against any investigation, just by invoking privileges or privacy. Which has very little to do with democracy where the people rules, not a dictatorial president. And regarding the rice crisis, it IS used for diverting attention from critical issues. As many organizations now state, the possibility of such food crisis has been warned about for some years already. But still all the conversion and misuse of land continued. Now, when worldwide warnings go around how bio-fuel replaces food production and it is clear already that bio-fuel is not saving energy and not improving the environment or lessen the pollution (if all facts are counted), it is again nothing than looking for easiest profit. The more, as not only the production changes but like at oil, the futures business is driving prices up and up. OPEC is very aware of this and therefore they refuse to be blamed for a shortage which increases the price. As long as speculation is allowed on basic goods, a small group of rich speculators will suck the last drop of blood out of the common population. And this, no matter what is the form of a government anywhere. Kurt Setschen, (by email), Switzerland , May 13, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, No matter what the form of government we take we still have to vote for the officials. This is where our main problem is -- how the majority chooses who to vote for. We may have to wait for another decade at least before we mature into levels that would make us choose on basis of performance, quality of character, and the manner by which we gather the information to support a personal analysis and decision. Our main problem, I think, is that the majority of voters (the masses for instance, depend on more intimate factors that personally affect him (like dole-outs, dependence on existing leaders to dictate to them the choice, ignorance, personalities and eloquence, and other shallow items, etc...rather than well thought out decisions. (Note for instance the continuing popularity of ERAP, disregarding his past conviction, wrongdoings, immorality, and the like). We have much to work on to prepare for the next generation of leaders. Changing the form will simply change clothing, while in the heart of it, with the same governance orientation we will continue to suffer. Victor Manalac, (by email), May 13, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mang Tony, A lot of analysis was done about the different problems besetting our beloved country. Oftentimes it boils down to one common ground, policy issues. From traffic problem, coastal resources, agriculture, pollution ,labor issues, etc. There are too many laws created by our past and present legislators. Anyway, their performance is measured by the bills that passed into laws. But while there are so many laws of the land, most of it remains in paper and oftentimes subject to manipulation. The same so many laws are what bringing in the problems we encounter everyday. Let's look at the fisheries and coastal resources, at least for the field that I am engaged, there are four recently created major laws affecting the coastal resources and fishery sector, the LGC of 1991, Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act, the Fisheries Code of 1998 and the NIPA's Act. Each law is to be administered by separate agency/department or local/national authority. Imagine the "labo-labo" that will happen if let say a particular bay is subjected to the four different laws. Policy analyses say that while there are a lot of laws, there are no laws created to unify or harmonize conflicting existing laws. Worst, while the laws when created provides for funding for the implementation, the money is always missing. This brings us to the two current issues that are being discussed here. The P500 that the government intends to dole out to poor families should be spent to improve enforcement and implementation of existing laws. The government can buy equipment for the Bantay Dagat so that they can improve their patrolling activities and ward off illegal commercial and dynamite fishers from the municipal waters. In this case, there will still be ample fish stock available for our marginalized fishers and the P500 peso will go longer ways. Instead of it providing for week supply of rice for families, it may be able to provide a week or even sustainable fish harvest for our municipal fishers. In the case of promoting federalism, again, as policy analyses found, what is needed is to harmonize and unify the policies. Creating another divisive policy will create further conflict. By the way, we Filipinos know that sometimes, the problem lies with the electorate when it comes to choosing politicians. However, we should avoid overly judgmental when it comes to talking about the other people, specially the marginalized sector. For the other readers who are sending reactions, Don't blame people for their misfortunes, we need to help them. They did not choose to be in their situation, instead, they are being manipulated for being in their situation by those in the powers that be. Edilberto Anit, (by email), May 13, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I just want to confirm if the email address is correct. I had read your article regarding the change. Your article is very informative, especially for us who are busy and always focus on our work here in abroad. Your article was forwarded by my friend. I want you to know that changing the form of government is not the solution to the present problem. Kindly inform those politicians who are pushing for a change. The only change that they must do first is changing their attitude. Towards the government, towards the fellow politicians and towards the people of the Philippines . The present problem of the PHILIPPINES will not be solved if you will change the organization. The politicians must regroup as one, they must identify the problems that are present in our country. When they already finished gathering the data, then they must set the priorities. Then will assigned person / committee for each problem identified. The group will only find causes and solution for the problem. Maybe by this, the issues may lessen. The senators and the congress are required to do this. They were elected to check, verify and improve our government. They are not elected to make an infrastructure project with their name written in the billboards. They must check what are the important things to improve our economy and our government. For example, increasing the VAT. Nobody in the government evaluated the result of this. It is effective or not? In my own opinion it is NOT because the TAXES are not properly collected. As of now it is already implemented. Their is no need to change it, they must make a way in how to collect the taxes properly. Bernardo L. Mendoza Jr., RME , (by email), May 14, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Response to Nonoy Ramos Nonoy Ramos responded to your article "Instead of Federalism" that "Senator Nene Pimentel need not respond to your article or commentary as it is not an official form" And justifies it that �there are ethics in government service that they follow....", I was astounded and laughed. Anybody, regardless of status in life, be he a King, Pope, President or a farmer or ordinary citizen can respond to anything written about them. Nonoy Ramos, please write me the regulations ("ethics") Title , Article, Section and Paragraph that you based your opinion on. If you can't, then you are making it up. Martin Celemin, (by email), Las Vegas , Nevada , May 14, 2008 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO To subscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Subscribe. To unsubscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Unsubscribe. |