 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Foreign-Owned Media
By Antonio C. Abaya Written Oct. 18, 2006 For the Standard Today, October 19 issue All of a sudden, Malacanang is pushing for changes in the Constitution that would allow foreign ownership of mass media in the Philippines , supposedly to boost the standards of local newspapers and broadcast stations and bring them at par with global leaders. (Philippine Daily Inquirer, Oct. 13). Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita was quoted as saying in an interview over radio station DZRH, �I am sure there will be foreigners who will be interested to have a large share or to have ownership of mass media in order to improve their management.� Is that a valid enough reason to amend the Constitution, to accommodate the foreigners who want to own media in this country? How many countries does Sec. Ermita know of, that amended their constitutions just to accommodate these predatory foreigners? Sec. Ermita is said to have cited the mass media as an example of how decades-old foreign equity restrictions in the Constitution had hampered the country�s economic development. I am sure Sec. Ermita would deny having uttered such stupid nonsense. This country has had lackadaisical economic development because of poor choices in economic policies and strategies in the past 50 years, not because of constitutional restrictions against foreign ownership of media. Sec. Ermita should be reminded that two of the country�s premier print media icons � the Philippines Free Press and the Manila Bulletin � were for decades owned by foreigners (i.e. Americans), but that fact has had no bearing, good or bad, on the economic development of this country. If it is Sec. Ermita�s contention that foreign ownership of media is a sine qua non condition for economic growth, then he should cite empirical evidence to support that contention. How many of our economically successful neighbors amended their constitutions to allow foreign ownership of their media, and thereafter achieved the economic success that had eluded them before? I doubt if he can name a single one. While we�re at it, can Sec. Ermita or the other proponents of the Sigaw ng Langaw cite one, just one, country that changed its form of government from presidential to parliamentary � or from parliamentary to presidential � in the last 50 years? Not a single one, Mr. Secretary. That�s because our neighbors have more common sense than to believe that the form of government determines economic success. Malaysia , Singapore and India have parliamentary forms of government because they inherited these from their British colonial overlords. Japan and Thailand , never colonized by the Europeans, were largely influenced by European political institutions in the 19th century. But, contrary to the ignorant claims of Sigaw ng Langaw advocates, South Korea and Taiwan , both former colonies of Japan , do not have parliamentary forms of government but follow the presidential, in which the all-powerful president is elected by direct vote. Again, contrary to the ignorant claims of Sigaw ng Langaw advocates, China (like Vietnam) has neither a parliamentary nor a presidential form of government , but follows the traditional communist power structure in which the (unelected) secretary-general of the ruling Communist Party is the most powerful political figure, not the president or the prime minister, even if it has one. Economic success does not depend on the form of government, and the best proof of this is the success of our neighbors, some of which have the parliamentary, others the presidential, still others the communist, form of government. Economic success is the fruit of correct economic policies and economic strategies chosen, foremost among which, as the examples of Asia�s economic tigers show, is an economy geared towards the export of manufactured goods, as I have written in several articles, including Why Are We Poor? ( Dec. 14, 2004 ). Nothing to do with the form of government chosen. So why are Filipinos being hoodwinked by the Sigaw ng Langaw etc into believing that changing into the parliamentary form of government would bring about unprecedented prosperity? There is only one explanation: to allow Gloria Arroyo to remain in power beyond 2010, either as prime minister in a Westminster-type parliament, or as president in a French-style parliamentary model. And why is Malacanang suddenly pushing for foreign ownership in Philippine media, also through the mechanism of constitutional change? The two advocacies may be intertwined. Sec. Ermita�s non-sequitur officiousness suggests something insidious is indeed in the works. Rewind to late 2005 when National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales was grilled by the Senate regarding the public relations contract that he had signed with Venable, a lobbyist firm in Washington DC , for the expressed purpose of getting US congressional support for charter change in the Philippines . Gonzales could not explain why that support was necessary in the first place. For his refusal or inability to give credible answers to the senators� questions, Gonzales was declared in contempt and was detained by the Senate for several days, which in turn caused his blood pressure to shoot up, requiring his confinement in a hospital. In my article A New Magsaysay ( Jan. 15, 2006 ), I wrote that �the only connection I could see was that amending the Philippine constitution to allow foreign (i.e. American) corporations to own assets 100% in the Philippines would gain the support of US congressmen whose campaign contributors include precisely those corporations which have those interests (or intentions) in the Philippines.� If my reading is correct, then there is/are indeed one or more US corporations which have an interest in owning media assets in the Philippines, for whose benefit some US congressmen would intercede at the, er, prompting of the right PR firm like Venable, with the help of a few million dollars. This is how American democracy works. But which American corporation wants so much to own media assets 100% in the Philippines that it would go to the extent of using the US Congress to conspire with the Philippine government to amend the Philippine Constitution in order to achieve that purpose? I can think of only one such possibility, and this is the media empire of Sir Rupert Murdoch, the Australian media mogul whose interest lies beyond disseminating information, to disseminating information congruent with the strategic geo-political aims of the neo-conservative cabal that dictates the foreign and defense policies of the Bush administration. Murdoch owns the Fox News cable TV network, among others, the most vocal supporters in media of the Bush �war on terror.� More importantly, Murdoch finances the Weekly Standard, the mouthpiece of the neo-conservative intellectuals who have provided the policy underpinnings of the wars in Iraq , Afghanistan and, soon, Iran . Why would the neo-cons in Washington want to control and mold public opinion in the Philippines ? If my reading is correct, the aim is to recruit an endless supply of canon-fodder for the neo-cons� wars, since American public opinion is becoming increasingly critical of the rising US death tolls in Iraq and Afghanistan . Low-wage mercenaries, similar to the Philippine Scouts in the old USAFFE or the Gurkhas in the British Army, would not be a domestic ( US ) political issue when they suffer heavy casualties. The neo-cons know that the Philippines has millions of unemployed and under-employed men and women who will willingly take up even hazardous work abroad because they cannot find gainful employment at home. The neo-cons also know that Filipinos, reasonably conversant in the English language, are incurably pro-American who will easily believe George W. Bush�s simple-minded mantras about �freedom and democracy�, especially if there is a dollar pay-check (and possible US green card) that goes with it. (According to American investigative journalist Wayne Marsden, the giant oil firm Halliburton, of which US Vice-President Dick Cheney was formerly CEO, has interest in a Dubai firm, Prime Projects Inc. which recruits low-wage workers from the Philippines for work in �sub-standard conditions� in Iraq , despite Philippine government restrictions against such dangerous deployment. Cheney is the most senior neo-con in Washington . [http://waynemarsdenreport.com]. There are also reports of private US security agencies hiring and training Filipinos in Subic to serve as �security guards� for civilian contractors in Iraq . From �workers� and �security guards� to mercenaries is not unimaginable.) So, if my reading is correct, US interest in amending the Philippine constitution to allow foreign (i.e. US) ownership in Philippine media is motivated, not by any altruistic desire to improve the editorial contents and/or the technological level of Philippine print and electronic media, not even by any financial desire to earn profits in the relatively small Philippine market, but by geo-political interests dictated by the strategic goals of the neo-cons in Washington. I think the Greeks called it a Trojan Horse. ***** Reactions to [email protected]. Other articles since 2001 in www.tapatt.org. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |
| Reactions to �Foreign-Owned Media�
Tony, you wrote: �Is that a valid enough reason to amend the Constitution, to accommodate the foreigners who want to own media in this country?� This is not the only reason. But of course this is just one example. There are a lot of reasons and Secretary Ermita mention one. But to make look that he is saying that this is the ONLY reason is making your argument out of context. �But, contrary to the ignorant claims of Sigaw ng Langaw advocates, South Korea and Taiwan, both former colonies of Japan, do not have parliamentary forms of government but follow the presidential, in which the all-powerful president is elected by direct vote.� Again, you have wrong information. I am working here in Taiwan for about 3 years now. True they have President to elect during election but essentially the form of government is almost Parliamentary. All their cabinet secretaries are not chosen by their president. They have Executive Yuan members (lawmakers) elected by the people and all cabinet secretaries are selected by the Premier (He himself a lawmaker elected by the people). (�Almost parliamentary� as in �almost pregnant�? See emails below from Orion Dumdum and Nonoy Ramos. ACA) Whether parliamentary or Presidential have good and bad points to offer. But I personally believe that parliamentary is more appropriate to the Philippines. If you believe in Presidential form I won�t question you. Since we have democratic institution why not let the people decide on this matter by a Plebiscite. Alex Yalung, [email protected], Taiwan, Oct. 19, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hahaha, Trojan horse! Better just a Trojan, ha? Tony, this column was well-written, BUT for the first time, I disagree with you. Well, not entirely. I think that foreign intervention CAN BE helpful, as when Sam Donaldson goaded Marcos to declare coming elections, which Coriring won- and relatives took advantage of, is there anything new?, OR when the New York Times is now published here thru the International Herald Trib. But you are right, the constitutional amendment may be dangerous. However, if Harvard Law has taught me anything, I'd like to suggest that any proposed amendment be passed by you, or Teddyboy or me, before final reading...we cannot shut ourselves out like China did in the early part of the century and maltreated their hapless citizens or Iraq which tolerated a dictator for so long, we have to be global now. (Does China, or Singapore, or Malaysia, or Vietnam, or Indonesia allow foreigners to own media in their territory? Have they become less �global� by refusing to do so? ACA) Cita Abad Dinglasan, [email protected], Oct. 20, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Copy furnished)- I don't like Mr. Abaya's dialectics, i.e., he asks the questions, he provides the answers, he draws the conclusions from his own answers. (I do not expect everyone to agree with me, but this is a non-argument. Why can�t I ask questions? Why can�t I answer those questions myself? Why can�t I draw my own conclusions? No one is forcing you to accept my answers and my conclusions. ACA) #1. Why does he assume that only American firms would be interested in owning Philippine media companies? What about the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Chinese, the Singaporeans, etc.? And what possible harm could there be if the Japanese owned GMA/Inquirer? Is Abaya afraid that the Japanese will start selecting our public officials? (In your hypothetical case of the Japanese owning GMA/Inquirer, you are being na�ve if you think the Japanese would not start choosing our own public officials. The last time they controlled Philippine media (1942-1944), they did. ACA) #2. Why does he not question the status quo, i.e., the elites owning nearly all of the wealth in the Philippines, and who have become ever richer - some are among the richest in the world - while 70 to 80% of Filipinos have become much poorer? Does Abaya care that the foreign investors may bring in much-needed foreign capital that will develop the country's resources, provide jobs, and contribute to the upliftment of the poor who desperately need "saviors"? (The Philippines has not risen much above poverty � as fast as our successful neighbors have � because of poor choices in economic policies and strategies in the past 50 years, as I have written in �Why Are We Poor?� and other essays archived in www.tapatt.org. (Blaming the so-called elite for this failure is silly. The elite are into commercial and industrial enterprises. It is to their advantage to have more poor people rise to the middle-class so that they become customers of the elite�s commercial and industrial enterprises. ACA) #3. Why does it matter that no one has tried to change its form of government before? Did the founders of YouTube care that no one had tried their business model before? (It matters because it shows that people around the world have more common sense than Filipinos like Mr. Lumba who think that economic prosperity comes from changing from presidential to parliamentary, or from parliamentary to presidential. ACA) #4. Has Abaya researched the relative merits of presidential vs parliamentary forms of government? Why did he not try to rebut the points raised by the proponents of the parliamentary system? Start with just one of the arguments for: that the parliamentary form will eliminate wasteful - as in unaffordable - national campaigns for the presidency, the vice-presidency and the senate. Has Abaya noticed that to finance the impossibly expensive presidential campaigns, the candidates must mortgage their souls to (whoever) or, for sitting presidents, it has been alleged to mean raiding the Treasury and/or the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes and the International Red Cross? (Mr. Lumba obviously has not read my articles going back to the late 1980s favoring the parliamentary system. But I have never been under any illusion that parliamentary, by itself, results in economic prosperity. My objection to current ChaCha maneuvers is that it is only a self-serving ploy of Gloria Arroyo to stay in power beyond 2010. ACA) #5. Has Abaya wondered at all why the advanced countries of the world - the U.S., Australia, Britain, Canada, etc. - do in fact welcome foreign ownership of businesses and media? (I have never objected to foreign-ownership of businesses in this country. In fact, I welcome them. But media is something else. Show me one country, in or at our level of development, that allows foreign entities to own media 100% in its territory. ACA) The Philippines has acted for decades like a Maria Clara-type virgin, despite being ravished by besotted, lecherous foreign investors, and what do we have to show for it? 83 million agitated souls, 30% of whom are undernourished, undereducated, underperforming, non-dreaming, surviving by the skin of their teeth. (Because of wrong choices in economic policies and strategies, not because of its form of government. ACA) It is time to stop using foreigners as bogeymen. The enemy, Mr. Abaya, is us. Cesar Lumba, [email protected], Oct. 21, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Copy furnished) This is not a surprising position for Chay (Cesar Lumba), for, even worse, he wants to give away to foreign corporations Philippine territory -- he calls them "commercial bases" -- where the Philippine government has totally no sovereignty or jurisdiction whatsoever! #5. Welcome??? I don't know where he got this notion which he states cavalierly and recklessly to be a fact. The fact is Rupert Murdoch about a couple decades ago had to take up American citizenship because there was and I am sure still is a US law against control of American media assets by foreigners. America is extremely strict about this. In college I wanted to work as a radio technician in our college TV station and the FCC rejected my application because I was only on student visa. Even a green card was not enough either. Citizenship is required. If I remember correctly I was told that no foreigners were allowed near transmitters! I cannot speak about Australia, Britain or Canada, and I don't want to research on it either. However, I'd like you, Chay, to present me the evidence that foreign media corporations are in fact welcome in these countries and that their governments have no laws against foreign ownership of media. Louie Fernandez, [email protected], Oct. 21, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Again..Bullseye on why the government is so gung-ho in changing the constitution! And indeed so many crazy dimwit reasons are being given to rationalize it. Heaven help the Philippines! Jose Luis Yulo Jr., [email protected], Oct. 21, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Unbelievable! How can Filipinos allow these appointees even by what majority of them consider as a bogus president to insult their intelligence by this kind of statements that foreign media can improve the media in the Philippines!!! Overseas they know that giving more freedoms than necessary to foreign media can spell disaster. Over in Japan, foreign writers are off-limits in joining the Nippon Press Club, and so they formed their own organization, the Foreign Correspondents� Club, and they are not allowed to write derogatory articles on the Imperial Family if they want to get a fair access to Japanese news. Golly, this proposal by this former military official, who is short of offering the Philippines on a silver platter to another invasion, should be opposed by all means by men of letters who fight with their pens for country and freedom! Sira rin ang ulo, ano? Yuko Takei, [email protected], Tokyo, Japan, Oct. 20, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony Your piece is a good expose of the real story behind the 'chacha train'. It is a piece, I'm sure, that would unsettle the likes of the not so intellectually honest Alex Magno (that is, if he ever gets to read this particular column)? Good stitching up of issues from the narratives being peddled in fragments by the establishment. Ferdinand Anno, [email protected], Oct. 20, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony: Amend the Philippine constitution to allow foreigners to own and manage print and broadcast media? That's a No-No pure and simple! My sense is that there are already enough print and broadcast media owned and managed by Filipinos themselves. And these are intelligent enough, knowledgeable enough, free enough, fair enough, objective enough, responsible enough, and aggressive enough to adequately serve the interests of the Filipino people. The Filipino press is considered one of the freest and in fact one of the most rambunctious in the whole world. In general, with a few exceptions of course, the Filipino press has done a good job of informing the society of what's going on internally as well as abroad. The adversarial position it relentlessly takes with respect to authority has done quite a lot to protect the rights and liberties of the Filipino people. In this regard, it is the envy of the whole world. . To sum up there is absolutely no need for foreigners to own and manage print and broadcast media in the Philippines. The Philippine constitution should never be tampered with to make that possible. Mariano Patalinjug, [email protected], Yonkers, New York, Oct. 20, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww More than ever before, tocayo�you should be on top of our country�s governing body. I mean the very top. Mabuhay! Tony Joaquin, [email protected], Daly City, California, Oct. 20, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hello Tony, Clarification, not necessarily a correction. Vietnam changed from presidential to parliamentary and from democratic to communist forms of government. It worked wonders not necessarily because of the change in the form of government, I agree. However, one must wonder if that would have even been possible if the change of government did not happen in the first place. (The short-lived South Vietnamese government had a presidential system. North Vietnam has always had a communist government since 1954, which was the surviving form of government after North and South were re-united in 1975. I am not aware of any parliamentary phase. Vietnam began to progress rapidly only after the communist government, following China�s lead, re-embraced capitalism and the profit motive in 1986, and pursued the liberal policy of dong muoi. ACA) While, we can not argue on the need for more prudent economic policies, I believe that the root of all our woes is the Filipinos' lack of discipline as a people, its mind-set which the politicians have been using to their own selfish advantage, it's lack of discipline, its wavering sense of nationalism. Nothing less than a complete overhaul of Filipino psyche can offer a cure. If everyone can only work to replicate the concept of GAWAD KALINGA on a national or regional basis, then this can be a good start. This movement is succeeding at community levels but this needs to be replicated on a broader scale before it becomes too late, because the other solution will be a bloody revolution like what Vietnam, South Korea and China/Taiwan experienced before their transformation. Arnel Serrano, [email protected], Southern California, Oct. 20, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, It seems that being hoodwinked has become an accepted fact of life for all of us. We are all so frustrated but not desperate enough, yet? Regards, Cesar Sarino, [email protected], Oct.20, 2006 Former Secretary of the Interior and Local Government wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, I thought we have already granted US parity rights when they granted us our independence. Why do we always look outside for help? Why not look within ourselves? This latest move is another scheme for our brilliant politicians to enrich themselves. It's shameless. It's obscene. Why do we depend on others? Why can't we do help ourselves? Why can't we be self-reliant? (Because some Filipinos [see below] do not believe that the Philippines should engage in nation-building. ACA) Virgilio Gonzales, [email protected], California , Oct. 21, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Correction: The French system IS NOT considered to be a Parliamentary System by political scientists from OUTSIDE the Philippines . Numerous political scientists from abroad classify the French System under a Presidential System (because it is the President who has final authority on the government's decisions). On the other hand, a few other political scientists think of the French System as a combination or "mixed" presidential and parliamentary system only because the Prime Minister has some degree of power. But the real determining factor of whether a government system is Presidential or Parliamentary is who has ultimate power in government. If the Prime Minister / Premier / Chancellor is the one that everyone considers to be ultimately responsible for how a government performs, then that's a Parliamentary System. (The Westminster Model is the ONLY real Parliamentary System) Even if a country may have a so-called "Parliament" (which might simply be the name they use for their legislative branch), if the buck stops with the country's President, and therefore the President of that country is held responsible for how the government performs, then that is a Presidential form of government. In France , since Jacques Chirac has ultimate responsibility for how the French government performs, it is upon this basis that most non-Pinoy political scientists say that the French System is ultimately a PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM. The Philippines under Marcos was not even a true copy of the French System, because Marcos' legislature was a rubber stamp formality that didn't deliberate on issues, but instead gave a semblance of approval for what he had already decided to do. The use of the French System would have implied that Cesar Virata and the Batasang Pambansa would have functioned separately from Marcos, and not have been his "running-dogs." Having a "French System" can, however, act as a transitionary phase towards a TRUE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM (the Westminster one). What I really still cannot get is why Pinoys keep insisting that the French System is a "Parliamentary System." (Because that was what Marcos and his apologists claimed it was. To them, it was not a transition phase to a Westminster-type parliament, but the End Game itself. It was the only way they could constitutionally justify his stay in power after his presidential term had expired. Hence the current usage of the term in this country. But you are right, the French system was/is really presidential, and so are the systems in Taiwan, South Korea and Russia. ACA) It is NOT. The French System allows voters to vote for the top leader - the President - and this President is NOT A MERE FIGUREHEAD. He has real powers. He has real responsibilities tied to the performance of government. In the end, most people don't really care if the Philippines moves towards a real (read: Westminster ) parliamentary system. What the real majority (minus the noisy activists and political pundits) cares about is whether such a system (which studies have shown to be more efficient than the Presidential "separation of powers" System) can bring about real economic improvements. No normal person really cares about whether the country's leader stays on for 4, 6, 10, 20, or 30, or 40 years. (You mean the hundreds of thousands of Filipinos who took part in EDSA 1 were all abnormal? The millions of Eastern Europeans who walked out on their communist governments in 1989 were also abnormal? ACA) What ordinary Pinoys today really care about is whether their economic livelihood improves and their basic needs are met. We can argue on and on all about "corruption" or "honesty" or "term limits" or all those abstract issues, but the majority of normal practical-minded Pinoys only give a Scheisse about whether the end-results of changing the system or whether a leader stays or quits improves their lives. More and more open-minded Pinoys (who formerly had been staunchly pro-Presidential System - such as myself) are already seeing how much the grid-lock and lethargy of the current American-style Presidential "separation of powers" System wastes in terms of time, energy, and opportunity. In fact (please look for stuff by Dr. Juan Linz, PhD or other sources about "Parliamentary versus Presidential" free on the NET), many US-based political scientists today all say that the USA is the one and only country with a Presidential "separation of powers" system to have had a uninterrupted system that has been able to achieve economic success. Other Presidential Systems that had been successful - such as countries like Taiwan and South Korea - succeeded because they passed through phases where economy-focused military or authoritarian rule was unhampered by internal dissent ---> which is what internal GRID-LOCK ("separation of powers", right?) is all about. Mr. Abaya, I know you are yourself a proponent of the Parliamentary System, and that your only beef with Charter Change is that you don't want GMA to continue on... Well, as I said, most ordinary Pinoys have turned apathetic to the whole "who's running the show" theme, and really care more about the results. If, for instance, GMA stays on as a result of Cha-cha, and succeeds in drastically fixing the economy, majority of Pinoys will cheer her on and praise her, despite having stayed beyond her "term limit." If someone else takes her place and succeeds in fixing the economy, majority of Pinoys will cheer and praise him/her. But if GMA stays on and fails, or if her would-be replacement fails, the result will be the same. People will lose respect for the leader. Let me also state something really, really HERETICAL or perhaps downright "BLASPHEMOUS" (but TRUE!): ...If Marcos had succeeded in truly fixing the economy, despite his "authoritarian" style and his "human rights abuses", people today - who presumably would be enjoying the fruits of the hypothetical economic boom - WOULD BE ALL PRAISES for him. This surely sounds heretical to political pundits with an anti-Marcos bias (don't worry, I'm in the same club), but that is - at the very gut level of human sentiments - really how people are. People ultimately look at results. Sadly, Makoy failed. And because of that, everyone today sees his authoritarian style as his undoing. (Sorry folks, that's not what it was... It's actually because he didn't really improve the economy! He borrowed so much money and it didn't go into the country's development, and instead it contributed to the peso devaluation and our huge foreign debt. That's really why people went against him.) (Marcos failed to build an export-oriented economy for this country that the other authoritarians in Asia at that time built for theirs. ACA) ...People went against Marcos not because he was "authoritarian." People went against Marcos because he ultimately FAILED TO IMPROVE THE ECONOMY under his watch. (Agreed. That is neither HERETICAL nor BLASPHEMOUS for me. I have written so in many previous articles. ACA) It's the practical results, Mr. Abaya. Few people these days really care about cute little "issues" like term limits and allegations on corruption. All normal Pinoys care about is surviving and getting their economic situations improved. If a military dictatorship will create a better investment climate, people will ultimately support and praise it. If an extended GMA administration will get that done, people will support and praise her. If a Tony Abaya-led Philippine Government will be able to create prosperity for people, then everyone will support and praise you. (Agreed. But GMA has had six years to show what she can do and she has shown that she does not have what it takes. Her bias against industrialization and in favor of free trade and globalization limits her capability to create jobs and, therefore, prosperity. So why give her more time, on the prayer that she will do better in the indeterminate future? ACA) It's the results that count. And normal Pinoys in the majority are slowly beginning to notice that the US-style Presidential System doesn't really fit the Pinoy psyche, our cultural inclinations, and has not brought about the prosperity we've all been wanting to have for so long. (Prosperity has eluded the Philippines because of wrong choices in economic policies and strategies in the past 50 years, not because of the weaknesses of the presidential system. Taiwan and South Korea, which chose the correct economic policies and strategies under presidential systems, are living proofs of that. ACA) A change in system is in order, and it doesn't really matter to most normal Pinoys (how do you know? ACA) whether it causes the incumbent to extend his or her stay. All we normal Pinoys really care about is Cuba Gooding's phrase in Jerry Maguire... "Show Me The Money!" (Read: "Show me the results!") (I thought you said �normal people� do not rely on abstract ideas. But �changing the political system� IS an abstract idea, with absolutely no empirical evidence to prove that it can �show me the money.� I am not aware of any country that changed from presidential to parliamentary, or from parliamentary to presidential, in the past 50 years. ACA). Orion P�rez Dumdum, [email protected], Oct. 23, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Copy furnished) Chay, If I remember correctly Murdoch's holdings were put in some sort of a trust until he got his citizenship. If controlling stockholders would acquire Filipino citizenship, live in the Philippines, then perhaps many Pinoys would have no problem with that. And if like Murdoch they would then divorce their wives and marry locals, that would even be better. I have no idea how Rev. Moon got his US-based media assets going. All I know is he and his Washington Times are allied with far rightwing groups. Perhaps this has something to do with their getting their licenses. (The Washington Times is probably owned by a US corporation organized by American Moonies � though financed by Rev. Moon. Not a difficult legal maneuver to concoct. ACA) These are advanced countries you mentioned with basically common Anglo-Saxon heritage (although there is anger that most of the biggest players are in fact Jewish with sympathetic ties to the Zionists). Australia, Britain, Canada and the US, when in comes to geostrategic politics against non-Anglo-Saxons, are like hand in glove. So neither national security or cultural heritage issue is a special concern. But let's see what the reaction is if a major Saudi Arabian, Russian, Chinese, or even French media corporation with lots of money came to America to challenge the local players. What if Al Jazeera somehow established a beachhead in New York and challenged Fox News, or even CNN? Let's see if any of them gets a welcome mat! We already saw what happened to the United Arab Emirates (a US ally!) port facilities management company which was basically kicked out of the US. So this notion of yours that these English speaking countries would be blindly welcoming of foreigners in media is a total nonsense. Perhaps the countries you should look at to emulate are China, Japan, South Korea, India, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Thailand -- all with stringent laws regarding foreign media ownership -- and not these Anglo-Saxon countries as models. Finally, the trash and lies the Pinoy media broadcast and publish can equal those these foreign media companies disseminate anyway, and therefore Pinoys have nothing to learn from them. Louie Fernandez, [email protected], Oct. 23, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww If Philippine media ownership is opened to foreign enterprises, the Filipinos who currently own the media will realize the true potential of their businesses. The global market value of the Philippine concerns is probably higher than it is now, and owners who want to sell will probably find deep-pocketed buyers. My hunch is that the quality of TV programming will also improve, since TV producers will no longer have to worry about financing. Wowowee will still reign in the afternoon, but Filipinos will find better alternatives to choose from. Regional TV - Visayas and Mindanao markets - will probably develop faster and in time may actually be on par with the Metro Manila market. Local newspapers will spring up, and a Philippine version of Gannet newspapers will be on the horizon. The Philippines is primed to be a major TV market because of our exploding TV-addicted population. The locals don't have the money to develop the Philippine market, so let's welcome foreign money. The Philippines benefits from globalization. The sooner we globalize our economy, the more economic benefits will accrue to the country. We know that foreign remittances are keeping the country afloat. Open the floodgates to foreign investments - including investments in media - because that is the other shoe in accelerated economic development. Remittances increase Consumption, foreign investments fuel entrepreneurship. (The Philippines has been globalizing its economy since the early 1990s, under President Fidel Ramos, influenced as he was by the free trade economists Bernie Villegas and Jess Estanislao. Look at what it has given us: 11 (or is it 13?) million Filipinos working abroad; one million leaving EVERY YEAR for jobs abroad that they cannot find at home. ACA) Chay Cesar Lumba, [email protected], Oct. 23, 2006 PS If the Japanese or South Koreans want to influence our politics by owning our media, let's welcome them. They may have valuable insights that we as a people are incapable of having because of calcified habits of thought. They want the headaches that come with nation-building in the Philippines? Let them have those. (But why stop there? Why not hang out a sign at the United Nations, or take out a full-page ad in The New York Times, to proclaim that the Philippines is no longer interested in nation-building and welcomes all interested foreigners to come and pick up what they want while the picking is good? ACA) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww The French government is not listed as a parliamentary system. Check the web site below then scroll to the bottom to see the list of countries under a parliamentary form of government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system Countries with a parliamentary system of government: Australia, Austria, Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Hungary, Iceland, India, Republic of Ireland, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta , Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, United Kingdom. Nonoy Ramos, [email protected], Pennsylvania , Oct. 24, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Mr. Abaya.... Thank you for your feature re the intending murder of our media industry by this b.s. administration. Got (your article) from a core group that I belong to in Ellen's blogsite. My concern now is to translate the whole thing into Tagalog and distribute it to the country-side for them to see the light. This is the problem that we have in this country, being an archipelago and divided by great bodies of water all around The provincial folks are "hungry" for the "real truth" to be able to think for themselves and decide for the future of their families and their destiny. More power, sir, and Godspeed.... Soleil, [email protected], Oct. 23, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Copy furnished) All who can get hold of a pen should rise in pen (not in arms) like Abaya and the rest of our brave journalists. Lintik talaga and mga langaw na ito. Peste ng Bayan. Jose Balmadrid, [email protected], Oct. 24, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Re: Taiwan and South Korea . Mr. Abaya, please be informed that political scientists abroad generally take the view that the "presidential system" in use in both countries has been successful as a result of having gone through economy-focused authoritarian regimes (decades of Martial rule under the Kuomintang in Taiwan, while South Korea went through Gen. Park's rule) (By the same logic, it can be argued that the success of the parliamentary systems in Malaysia and Singapore was the result of the authoritarian nature of the states there. But the truth, of course, is that the success of all four countries plus China and Vietnam, with three different forms of government [presidential, parliamentary and communist] � were the result of correct economic policies and strategies, at the core of which is the export of manufactured goods. ACA) Once again, I would invite you to please do a google search on the numerous articles floating around in the Internet under the heading "parliamentary versus presidential." You will find names like Juan Linz and numerous other names of leading theorists on political systems, and the same recurring theme will pop up: that the USA is the only country that uses a Presidential System to have become a successful economic power through an uninterrupted use of the presidential system, while others that use a presidential system have either failed or - if they succeeded economically, succeeded because they passed through phases where they were temporarily replaced by economy-focused authoritarian or military regimes. (Check out Wikipedia for the parliamentary versus presidential topic since it is summarized in there. But you may want to get independent sources, so please just continue doing a google search for more of these articles.) Moreover, it would be good to remember that while you mentioned that Taiwan and South Korea had both been "Japanese colonies", their most recent influence (the one which has an influence on their political system and their political stances) had been the USA . Taiwan , for one, inherits its system from what the original Mainland China-based Kuomintang once had, which was shaped largely by the American influence that Sun Yat-sen received long ago. (Sun Yat-sen lived in Hawaii for years and modelled himself as the "Chinese Abraham Lincoln .") Also note that both South Korea and Taiwan (as well as Mainland China ) drive as Americans and Pinoys do: They drive right, and have the driver's seat on the left, unlike Japan which copies the British system of driving on the left, with the driver's seat on the right hand side of the vehicle. (Could these be vestiges of America 's influence in South Korea and Taiwan ?? They probably are!) (Actually, the Taiwanese and South Korean forms of government are closer to the French model than to the American model. The French also drive on the right side of the road, if you want to belabor that point. It was Napoleon who decreed driving on the right side of the road. ACA) More importantly, you were wondering about countries that may have moved from Parliamentary to Presidential, and it seems your conclusion is that there have been NONE. Allow me to give two CLEAR EXAMPLES of such shifts: Parliamentary to Presidential: PAKISTAN . Pakistan , obviously a former British Colony, was established with a Parliamentary System and for decades, was supposed to function with a parliament (led by the Prime Minister) at its helm. But a few times, Pakistan - due to internal issues, went through periods of dictatorship which caused the leader of each dictatorship/junta to be the de facto "President." Just before Musharraf did his "defensive coup" that made him President, Pakistan had a Westminster Parliamentary System. But obviously, right now, its current system makes the President of Pakistan both de facto head of Government and head of State. And thus, Pakistan uses a PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM. Presidential to Parliamentary: LEBANON . While officially, Lebanon is supposed to use a Presidential form of government that is modelled after the French system (a presidential system, not a parliamentary one!) - modified with confessional (sectarian) assignments, today, Lebanon is seen to function mostly as a Parliamentary System. Reason: Since the President of Lebanon (A Maronite Catholic) is generally seen as a "lameduck" proxy and appointee by Syria , the person who is today MOST VISIBLE as the de facto leader of Lebanon is the Prime Minister (a Sunni Muslim). Who do you see coming out in the news as Lebanon 's "leader?" Is it Emile Lahoud? (the Maronite Catholic President) Or is it Fouad Siniora? (the Sunni Muslim Prime Minister) These days (esp. starting in the late Rafik Hariri's time), it's the office of the Prime Minister that has been most visible as the "real leader" in Lebanon . As such, Lebanon has - in many ways - SHIFTED from Presidential to Parliamentary! So please, Mr. Abaya, let's be reasonable: (Actually the two cases above are not �clear examples� of a principled shift to one or the other, which is what we are discussing here. They are mere de facto permutations brought about by unique local developments, such as a coup d�etat or a revolution, and are vulnerable to further de facto permutations such as, in both cases, a sudden upsurge in militant Islamic fundamentalism. About ten countries in Eastern Europe had parliamentary systems in place but were forced to adopt a communist system as a result of being overrun by the Soviet Army in 1945. Iran�s faux parliamentary system was replaced by a theocracy as a result of the Islamic revolution in 1979. Cuba�s presidential system was replaced with a communist one after the victory of Castro�s revolution in 1954. ACA) I know that deep down (and I have read your past articles in which you mention such), you don't disagree with the Parliamentary System. But please do not do what the people you criticize do. You have long criticized people who try to sabotage the country's prospects in the name of hatred of GMA, but now you yourself are doing the very same thing. Rather than looking objectively at which system is more efficient or which system has had a better track record of success, you yourself are shooting down your own preference for a parliamentary system ALL BECAUSE you do not want GMA to continue. (I have criticized GMA�s harshest critics � the trapos and the communists � because they have nothing constructive to offer in her place. I have criticized the People�s Initiative because it is nothing but a self-serving maneuver by another set of trapos to keep GMA in power beyond 2010. If GMA were specifically excluded from any office after 2010, I might support the shift to parliamentary. ACA) The whole point of Charter Change isn't simply about shifting the system of government. (This has been the focus of most of your tirades) It's also about changing certain provisions on the economy and easing restrictions on who can invest in the country. It's also about how much economic activity the country can increase by opening up the economy to foreign investment in the same way that successful countries like Singapore have done. (This can be achieved without the presence of GMA in government. ACA) In the same article below - which came long before some of us have decided to make some corrections - mentions a "French Style Parliamentary System." I know you now know that the French system is not Parliamentary. But as I have seen that you have repeated this error over and over again, I believe this is one reason that you continue to go against Charter Change. (because you think that Marcos' system was a "French style Parliamentary System" when all it was was simply a "French style system" which implies that it was actually a PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM) Why? Because it was still Marcos (the President) who was visible to everyone and who called the shots, not Cesar Virata (the Prime Minister). If, for the sake of argument, GMA were to move to a French System, then that would NOT constitute a SHIFT from Presidential to Parliamentary AT ALL! So please refrain from even mentioning the adoption of the "French System" as your doomsday scenario. I can merely imagine that an interim "French-style system" (again, it's a Presidential system!) may be used during the transition period towards a FULL-FLEDGED WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM. (IT people who did Windows NT 4.0 to Windows 2000 (Active Directory) system migrations before would also be familiar with "mixed mode" as an interim step in the migration process before moving on to "native mode", which is done once all individual machines have been upgraded to the new OS and everything is ready to be switched over. That's what a "transition phase" would be about when switching over from our very American-style Presidential System towards a very European/British Parliamentary system. The French system - with a President on top of everything - is one such halfway-house transition phase.) Strictly speaking, the administration has been VERY CLEAR about what it ultimately wants our system of government to be: A full fledged WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM. No ifs, no buts. No "French" system too, except, perhaps as a mere transitory phase towards the Westminster model. (As said earlier, the French System is not even parliamentary!) Is Cha-cha really bad? Is having foreign investors come in and own majority in local companies really bad? Is having a president go beyond his or her term limit really that bad? No one really gives a Scheisse, Mr. Abaya. (How can you say �no one�? Did you ever talk to the hundreds of thousands who took part in EDSA 1? They gave a Scheisse then, most of them still give a Scheisse now, even if admittedly most of the lumpen proletariat are too busy trying to make ends meet to give serious thought to these matters. If the lumpen were the decisive element in civilization, you and I would still be living in caves. ACA) (only naysaying political pundits and those who want a "piece of the action" care about those issues) In the end, ordinary Juans and Marias really care about whether the economy improves so that they can earn enough (or more) to put food on the table and send their little chikitings to school and give them a good future. If Cha-cha will improve the economy, well and good! If getting investors from abroad to come in and set up globally-competitive companies that will provide jobs and training for Filipinos to earn good wages will do it, then HOORAY!!! Now can we please move on to discussing ways to improve the economy?? Sincerely yours, Orion P�rez Dumdum, Oct. 23, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Mr. Abaya, Thanks for the message. I'm sorry if my recent comments might have been a little too harsh. Actually, I've recently been crusading on "correcting Pinoys' notions on the French System" (and other related stuff) on dozens of other yahoogroups, so you'll notice that I was a bit fatigued from all the retyping and re-explaining (which is based on what the comments of the members would be, so I don't "cut-and-paste" and instead write fresh new responses). Such "fatigue" causes me to simply focus on the meat, but sacrifice on writing diplomatically or elegantly. I guess the main takeaway I simply wanted to emphasize to you and to everyone else who reads the stuff on the tapatt site is that IN THE END, normal people - at the most basic "gut" level - don't really care so much about issues like extended term limits, system of government, corruption, authoritarian tendencies, etc,etc... In the end, normal people (who form the majority) truly just want to put food on the table, and they generally sense that a better economy means more food on the table. What matters to them is simply that the economy improves so that their own personal lives get better. And if things do get better, they won't mind it if authoritarianism, an extended term limit by one leader, a shift in government system caused things to get better. And in fact, if things do get better, normal people would even be willing to turn a blind eye to corruption and heck, even Human Rights Violations! ;) Such is real human nature, and until we "educated members" of the Philippine populace understand this, we'll continue asking ourselves why so many other countries have succeeded while we continue to fail or muddle along with mediocrity. Best regards, Orion Perez Dumdum, [email protected], Oct. 25, 2006 (I basically agree with you. But it does not mean we, both �normal� and �educated� people, should just keep quiet and unquestioningly accept the self-serving maneuvers of shameless politicians to perpetuate themselves in power, on the promise that their maneuvers will bring �more food on the table� when we very well know they won�t. ACA) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Sir; Your writing is well composed and easy to comprehend. I often read your columns. I must take exception with what I perceive to be a failure to understand the basic cause of economic stagnation in the Philippines . Perhaps I am being simplistic, however it seems to me that the main problem in your country is a lack of low cost investment capital. When money is scarce, like any particular commodity, it is expensive. High interest loans for business development retard economic growth. In most nations, including the US , the majority of jobs are generated by small business. When small business start up costs are too high, the risk factors are to high. The key to generating cheaper capital is international trade and development. The current laws in the Philippines limiting land and corporate ownership to control by citizens is very discouraging to foreign investment. Take a look at the economies of growing Asian nations (such as?�..ACA) and established first world nations and you will see that they are very liberal about allowing foreign ownership of land and business. In my state there is a law in the constitution dating from the 1880's forbidding foreign ownership of real estate. I called the state secretary of state office to inquire about this law and was cheerfully told that the law is on the books but no one in state government would so foolish as to enforce the law due to the catastrophic economic results that would be sure to ensue, no less the loss of tax revenues. There is a common perception among many expats I know in the Philippines that exclusionist laws exist primarily to preserve the economic and political power of the elite. By limiting the ability of the hoi poloi to compete economically, the powerful preserve the positions they have carved out for themselves over the last some 400 years. The impact on the bulk of the population is not pretty... and NOT patriotic. Another way to look at this is to observe the fluid social structures of open economies... it is practically possible (you meant �impossible? ACA) for an energetic and creative entrepreneur to rise in the social strata, failing to maintain that energy will inevitably lead to being replaced by someone who is more energetic and creative. The admirable productivity and creativity of Filipinos who manage to escape to other nations further points up the concept that it is not the people or their culture that is at fault... it is the greed of the elite. John Long, [email protected], Seattle , Washington , Oct. 27, 2006 (Blaming the �greed of the elite� has become a stereotype. But look at the picture more closely. The �elite� have been mostly in commercial and industrial activities. It is to their advantage to have more poor people rise up to the middle class as this would mean more customers for their commercial and industrial enterprises. (The fact that this has not happened as fast as it has in, say, Malaysia or Thailand or South Korea � all of which were poorer than the Philippines up the late 1960s � is due to wrong choices in economic policies and strategies for the past 50 years. I refer you to my article �Why Are We Poor?� archived in www.tapatt.org. (Agreed that the high cost of capital inhibited investments. But this could have been corrected in the 1970s and 1980s if Marcos had geared the Philippine economy to the export of manufactured goods � as his fellow authoritarians did in South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia. More jobs would have been created in this incipient industrialization, enabling more people to rise up from poverty, as, in fact, did happen in the above countries. (Instead he gave his cronies � his elite, if you will - monopoly positions in the domestic market, leaving the bulk of the elite no choice but to play along with him. Marcos himself did not come from the elite, but from the provincial petit bourgeoisie: his father was a municipal judge, his mother a public school teacher. He became fabulously wealthy only after he became congressman, senator, then president, and thereby hangs a tale. ACA) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww |
| In one of Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism's (PCIJ) books, it noted that the President is the only who can appoint some 3,000 plus positions in a government office or government-owned and -controlled corporation (GOCC). Indirectly, the President can influence the appointment of another 100,000-200,000 positions in the bureaucracy throughout his/her administration.
If only for that reason, we should amend or revise (take your pick) the Constitution. Media credibility is low in both the Philippines and in the US , hence the rise of alternative/independent media and the need to triangulate (look at different sources) information. The political actors involved and the responsiveness of the Constitution to the country's needs and realities over time are two distinct discussion points that we should not conflate. Who will do this for us? Thanks for caring, Hecky Villanueva, Oct. 29, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Copy furnished) I like to read foreign news publications only because I want to know what's going on in the foreign countries where the writers in these publications are accountable citizens and can vote., and therefore have a right to say something about their own country because they are stakeholders. However, I don't need foreigners in my country, who are not stakeholders by virtue of citizenship, to tell me how my country should be run and by whom. Aside from interfering in the internal affairs of my country, these foreign publishers are able to have their cake and eat it, too: they tell you what to do, and if it flops, you're saddled with the consequences and not them. Therefore if any foreigner wants to publish anything in my country, let him become a citizen first, so he can suffer, along with the rest of us, any consequence that his publications might cause. Charlie Borromeo, [email protected], , Oct. 30, 2006 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |