| GMAs New Populism By Antonio C. Abaya July 22, 2004 President Arroyo is basking in the glow of public approval that met her decision to accelerate the departure (by about one month) from Iraq of the Philippine �humanitarian� contingent in exchange for the life of Angelo de la Cruz. According to this morning�s Philippine Daily Inquirer, 72% of Metro Manilans approve of her decision, in a survey of 300 respondents conducted July 17-19 by the HB&A Research International Inc. (an American firm), even before Angelo�s release on July 20. A similar survey conducted by the same outfit on July 10-12 found only a 50% support for such a decision then.. I do not recall a higher approval rating for anything GMA has done in the past. This despite words of disapproval from the American and the Australian governments and some of the world�s major media. In fact, the same survey showed that 81% �believed that Ms. Arroyo should put national interest ahead of its alliance with the US and Australia.� In addition, 76% said they supported (as distinguished from �approved of�) Ms. Arroyo�s decision, and 75% believed that the US was not justified in getting angry at the Philippine government�s pullout of its troops. Is this the beginning of a truly independent foreign policy for this country? That remains to be seen. Old habits die hard and the shibboleths of yore have the comfortable fit of an old pair of shoes that are hard to discard. Even before the Angelo brouhaha peaked, Malacanang was already talking of a new �People First� tack for President Arroyo. Is this really a new tack or just another empty maneuver by a master politician, making capital of a fortuitous decision, to shore up a questionable mandate from a questionable election? Again, that remains to be seen. But the problem with a �People First� slogan is that it may raise expectations that will be hard to meet. What happens to �People First��, for example, when the time comes to raise, yet again, the price of petroleum products, the cost of electricity and water, or the fares for public transportation? Or when the debate resurfaces over the automatic servicing of our foreign debt (which eats up a major portion of the national budget), or when the government must publicly ponder what new taxes to impose to bridge the yawning gap between income and expenses. The �people� will always oppose any price increases, any new taxes and any accommodation with international creditors, especially when goaded to do so by the communist movement, who have entrenched themselves more solidly into the body politic after the electoral victory of their party list groups last May. (It is instructive to be reminded that communists of all stripes are not allowed to participate in the political life of South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, or Thailand, not coincidentally, our more successful neighbors. But we are a liberal democracy, or at least we like to think that we are, so we must allow everybody to have his say, including those self-styled progressives who want us to regress to a Maoist �dictatorship of the proletariat� with monopoly of power for the Communist Party.) Because the Arroyo Government, like all bourgeois governments before it, does not know how to explain and defend its policies, it is always at the losing end in any shouting match with its critics, except when its decision fortuitously coincides with its enemies�, as in the Angelo case. A case in point is the looming power shortage and crisis. There is not enough space here to go into the details, but the simple truth is that no financial institution will fund any power project in this country (or anywhere else) unless it is assured of getting its money back plus a reasonable profit. But with Napocor saddled with a P500 billion debt and the national government with a credit rating downgraded by a gargantuan budget deficit and an even bigger public sector debt, lenders will always demand higher interest rates on the money they lend to us, to repay which would almost certainly mean a substantial increase in power rates. Napocor is talking about an almost 100% increase in generation charges, which translates into about a 50% increase in consumers� bills, in Metro Manila, Luzon and the Visayas. (Rates in Mindanao are always lower because the bulk of generation comes from hydro.) Even without any goading from the communists, consumers (�the people�} will certainly resist such an onerous burden. With a little agitprop push from the communists, legitimate anger can be made to morph into a revolutionary situation. But what is the alternative? No power rate increase, no lenders for additional power plants. No additional power plants, then power outages in the Visayas by 2005 (already occurring in Panay and Negros islands), in Mindanao by 2006 (just started this year), and in Luzon by 2007. It�s back to the future in 1991. What happens to �People First� then? And what happens to GMA�s ten million jobs by 2010? ***** The bulk of this article appears in the July 31, 2004 issue of the Philippines Free Press magazine. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �GMA�s New Populism� Dear Tony, You raised three important issues: parting with the US regarding Iraq, the people first policy, and what to do with NAPOCOR. On Iraq, it is a decision viewed by pro war supporters as a sign of cowardice and weak spine. Regarding the people first policy, the problem is which people? On NAPOCOR, it is sore a thumb sticking out since the Marcos era with the Bataan nuclear plant. Spain one of the strongest ally of US and UK backed out earlier with Honduras following Spain thereafter. The size of the Philippine contingent is less than 3% of Spain's and less than 2% of the combined soldiers contributed by Honduras and Spain. When you see 1700 Spanish speaking soldiers running away from Iraq and followed by some 51 little brown soldiers, does that make Pinoys a greater coward? As to the people, when have they been served and led well? As to NAPOCOR, it is an inefficient organization, Terminating it makes more sense than keeping it. It is about time that the government look for least expensive alternate source of energy by harnessing the sun, the water and the wind. They are all environmentally safe! Dr/Nestor P. Baylan [email protected] July 25, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww The President is doing something to address the economic situation of the country, and I think she is well equipped since she is an economist. Whether it will succeed or not we will see later on. Do you have other alternatives or suggestions to offer the President? I think it is better to offer constructive criticism rather than to put into question a program that is still at its incipient stage without suggesting better alternatives. The latter approach, which I think your article falls in, I consider as having very little value. As I mentioned in a previous letter, what our country needs is for our government officials to work together harmoniously, putting aside their differences so as to work more and talk (squabble) less, and give priority to national interests. [email protected] July 26, 2004 MY REPLY. Advising GMA not to emphasize �People First� as a policy slogan because it might and will be used against her when prices of fuel, power, water etc are raised�is constructive criticism. Suggesting that the Philippines send medicines for the children of Iraq, instead of a few soldiers and policemen whose contribution will be insignificant�is constructive criticism. Pointing out that broad-based manufacturing will generate more jobs than agriculture�.is constructive criticism. Emphasizing that runaway population growth will negate modest economic growth�is constructive criticism. What specific constructive criticism have you offered her lately? And why do you not have the courage of your convictions by putting down your full and real name? wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, For your info, HB & A is not a foreign firm, though the name's provenance is indeed American. It is run by a tocayo of yours, Antony L. Abaya (also nicknamed Tony), <[email protected]>, and well-known for regularly conducting surveys for Lakas since FVR's time or even earlier, as well as for GMA. Mahar. [email protected] July 26, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww AS USUAL, I AGREE WITH ALL YOUR POINTS. HOWEVER, LET US NOT BE TOO HARD ON THE LADY. DID SHE NOT SAY IN HER SONA THAT SHE WILL MAKE HER PRESENT PRESIDENCY THE TURNING POINT FOR THE COUNTRY; THAT SHE WILL FOREGO PARTISAN POLITICS AND BE THE RIGHT PRESIDENT FOR A CHANGE? LET US GIVE HER THAT CHANCE, BUT LET US CLOSELY WATCH HER SPECIALLY ON HER PROMISE TO RID THE GOVERNMENT OF GRAFT AND CORRUPTION. LET US WATCH HER HUSBAND ESPECIALLY (TO ME HE REALLY IS A HEAVY BAGGAGE TO CARRY, LITERALLY/FIGURATIVELY, AND IT WOULD DO GMA GOOD IF MIKE ARROYO AND HIS MINIONS CAN DISAPPEAR FROM THE SCENE PERMANENTLY FOR THE NEXT 6 YEARS). THEN, IF AFTER TWO YEARS NOTHING HAPPENS, THEN LET US DO WHAT WE S HOULD DO; WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. IN THE MEANTIME, LET US WATCH AND SEE. WHAT DO YOU THINK? SHOULDN'T WE GIVE HER A CHANCE? SHOULDN"T WE LEAVE HER AT PEACE TO DO HER TH ING? Ed Valenciano [email protected] July 26, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww It is indeed a walk on the tight rope for GMA or whoever in the helm. The solution is cut and dried and there is no other way but "just do it". Again it is a question of political will or what we say "tibay ng dibdib" as we say it in the vernacular. Nothing in this world is free. Everything has a cost. The nation must now pay the price. Everybody in this country had it easy putting off things until the inevitable comes and everything explode. Most likely the cut and dried solution will invite a major social upheaval. Most believe it is becoming more and more inevitable. The masses should be made more aware of it because they will be the ones who will be used by the rabble rousers who are mostly s.b.s.(sobrang believe sa sarili) Jorge Matanguihan [email protected] July 27, 2004 MY REPLY. I agree with you that a major social upheaval is becoming more and more inevitable, and that the masa will be used by the usual ra bble-rousers, of which there are a lot in this country because the communists are allowed a free hand to rabble-rouse. Can GMA cope? That remains to be seen. Wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, Here is an exchange of notes between Ben Sanchez and Ding Roces' wife, Baby, with reference to your July 8 column (and Peruvian social economist Hernando de Sotto). Fil -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Tony Abaya's Column Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:31:58 +0800 From: Conrado Sanchez Jr <[email protected]> To: [email protected] CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Dear Irene, I am glad that you are in tune with what's happening in the Philippines. Thanks for sending Tony Abaya's perceptive column. He is well versed on the Philippine economy. In brief, Tony is saying that what is sustaining the economy is the informal sector combined with the remittances of overseas workers. I believe that he is the only journalist I know who has written about the importance of the informal sector or underground economy. More power to him. After making a brief review of the economy, the best that GMA can achieve during her full term is to attain fiscal balance while attending to the nation's growing needs for social infrastructure like schools, health centers, roads, bridges, communication facilities, power, water and social services. That's a tall order in itself. But to this we have to add the necessity of maintaining peace and order and a credible justice system, on the one hand, and the eradication of rapacious politics and greedy government bureaucrats, on the other hand. On top of all these, Gloria promises to generate 6 to 10 million jobs before the end of the decade? She must think she is Superwoman! The business of government is to foster a stable economic environment in which enterprises, formal and informal. can thrive so that our economy can stride vigorously forward. In the last seven years, that economy has slowed down to a crawl. According to economist Sixto K. Roxas, the Republic has gone through a total of 15 crises. On average a crisis, occurs every 3 1/2 years. At each turn, the economy appears to grind to a halt. This time, the doomsayers say that the Philippines is on the verge of multiple crises. They may be correct. One right wing analyst said that we are "over the cliff." But that is saying too much. Tony Abaya focuses on the boast GMA made about creating jobs. If I were GMA, I will not promise to create jobs but to reduce jobs . . . in government. The bureaucracy is truly overstaffed. The papers announced this morning that about 29 government agencies will be closed. Good move. But as someone said, "Lets walk the talk." Though I am not a constitutionalist like my father was [he was a signer of the 1935 Constitution], I don't believe our Constitution obligates the government to create jobs. Only socialist and communist nations, by their ideology, promise to jobs to people. In a democracy, government is charged with the obligation to institute a regime of economic stability in which business and entire economy can thrive. It is not the business of government to create jobs. That is the job of the private sector. Gloria Arroyo is playing to the grandstands as usual. She promises whatever the electorate expects her to say. When she delivered her SONA [State of the Nation Address] last Monday, an opposition Senator commented: "Too much rhetoric, but little substance." So, the nation is saying to GMA, "Just do it!" However, Tony was right in saying that, in 1984 terms, it takes Php. 140,000 of investment to provide employment for one person. [At 2004 prices, it would take much more than that.] Nevertheless, at 1984 prices, it would cost Php. 1.4 trillion in investments to give employment to 10 million workers. Overburdened with over $60 billion worth of foreign debt, the government certainly lacks the capability to raise those funds. It may be pointed out that, unwittingly, Tony's article validates Gloria Arroyo's claim. Abaya says that "more Filipinos (about 3,500 every day) leave for jobs abroad." If this be true, then about 1.3 million Filipinos find jobs abroad every year. This is much more than GMA promises. So, there is a built-in safety valve in the Arroyo declaration - our OFWs [Overseas Foreign Workers]. The number of OFWs leaving the country, according to another source, is 2,350 daily. This is large enough and amounts to about 860,000 annually. About 1 million of our young folk, enter the labor force each year. Recently, the governments of Korea and Taiwan announced that factory jobs are openly available for qualified Filipino workers. Our Department of Labor will naturally exploit the employment opportunities in these terror-free countries. The Filipino diaspora continues. I know very little about Mr. de Soto, but his arrival is most welcome. Sixto "Ting" Roxas was kind enough to send me a copy of his book report on a publication written by Mr. de Soto. I shall send the full report to you [with my comments] separately. Forgive me for sending this late. Eddie Lachica, a journalist-friend from Washington, stayed with me for two weeks after he covered the Indonesia election. Sincerely, Ben Dear Ben, Just in case you have not read this column of Tony Abaya. He mentions the Philippines approaching as Argentinian-like meltdown. Sounds like your doomsday scenario. What do you think of GMA hiring Mr. de Soto? Regards, Baby wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, Here are some "quick and dirty" responses to your most recent article. In summary, as my associate Sonny J put it to me in another email, "I can defend both sides of the issue on the withdrawal of the Philippines from Iraq.....(with unanimity) - it all depends on which side of the room I was sitting at the moment." I have inserted my comments, parenthetically. Thanks for the update. Pepeton =========================== Subj: Fw: FW: The mollycoddling milksops of Manila* Date: 7/24/04 3:52:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: [email protected] (Sonny Juico) To: [email protected] (Alfredo D. Garcia) File: winmail.dat (39072 bytes) DL Time (115200 bps): < 1 minute Pag fiestahan nyo na itong attachment. As far as I'm concerned I can take any position on the Phil troop withdrawal in Iraq. The bottom line is WIN LOSE situation yan. The problem is who won and who lost. Again, your view of the room depends on where you sit. Da short on theory but sufficient in experience coach. ================================ In a message dated 7/25/04 6:59:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Subj: GMA's New Populism Date: 7/25/04 6:59:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: [email protected] (Antonio C. Abaya) To: "Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@skyinet.net GMAs New Populism By Antonio C. Abaya July 22, 2004 President Arroyo is basking in the glow of public approval that met her decision to accelerate the departure (by about one month) from Iraq of the Philippine �humanitarian� contingent in exchange for the life of Angelo de la Cruz. ==================== Pepeton: Is this a statement of fact or mere "media perception"? Is "support for a decision" the same as "approval of a decision"? I think not! ==================== According to this morning�s Philippine Daily Inquirer, 72% of Metro Manilans approve of her decision, in a survey of 300 respondents conducted July 17-19 by the HB&A Research International Inc. (an American firm), even before Angelo�s release on July 20. ===================== Pepeton: This is a very misleading statement. 72% of 300 equals 216 Metro Manilans???? What does that tell anybody??? Who is HB & A? And so what if it is an American firm? Who owns it? Why was the "survey" taken? How superficial can we get? What is the bottom line message that you (Tony) or the survey wishes to convey? No disclaimer???? What were the questions asked??? Vigilance, my friend, applies all the time, whether evaluating a survey for a political election or for a "leftist leaning liberal group". I have just hinted that the group that did the survey and the PDI is a liberal media that has a tendency to give too much credence to "left leaning liberals". Who is to disprove me now? I can be accused of the same thing I am criticizing, huh? ========================== A similar survey conducted by the same outfit on July 10-12 found only a 50% support for such a decision then.. Pepeton: So what is the explanation for the sudden "upsurge" or climb in the "support" for the decision. You don't seem to distinguish between "support" and "approval". There is a very clear distinction between the two. I support democracy. But I need not approve the way its principles are manifested by an administration charged with the responsibility to carry out its laws. Your first observation claims "72% approval". Here you write of "50% support". Let's quickly analyze these figures. That means that in July 10-12, 2004, assuming the survey asked for a mutually exclusive position, 50% DID NOT SUPPORT the decision. Similarly, this means that 28% DID NOT APPROVE of the decision. So, exactly what do these figures tell us about the merit and demerit of the "surveyed feelings"? Absolutely, nothing. You have not included any detailed or even summary explanation or reason for the "increase". I see the comparison as superfluous and actually misleading. As one of your regular readers, I must point out, that Philippine media's credibility is suspect. It has been proven, time and again, that Philippine media cannot be depended upon when it comes to reporting simple statements of facts. So, when you write about a survey conducted, it is no longer sufficient for you to say what the survey "revealed". Uh-uh. We need to know, what the purpose was, who conducted it, what questions were asked, who validated it, etc. ================ I do not recall a higher approval rating for anything GMA has done in the past. This despite words of disapproval from the American and the Australian governments and some of the world�s major media. In fact, the same survey showed that 81% �believed that Ms. Arroyo should put national interest ahead of its alliance with the US and Australia.� Pepeton: See what I mean? 81% of what and who believed what exactly? First you state, "American and Australian governments," then add, "some of the world's major media," - in effect - disapproved of the decision of GMA. Then you state the survey claims 81% "believed" that Ms. Arroyo should put national interest ahead of its alliance with America and the USA. What exactly are you trying to "hint" here, Tony. That the decision of GMA was really a "popular one"? To whom, the Pilipinos? Which Pilipinos, those in the metropolitan areas of Manila? All 216 of them? Based on this ambiguous survey, you have tried to develop some kind of "thesis" about the "support and approval" of GMA. I just don't buy it. Who are the 19% who DID NOT believe that national interest should first be put ahead of international alliance? Assuming without granting that your quoted figures are accurate, I would think that the more IMPORTANT AND CRITICAL figure is the fact that 19% DID NOT BELIEVE the same thing. Specially, if these 19% turned out to be the POWER ELITES WHO CONTROL THE COUNTRY'S POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES. Now deal with that. ========================== In addition, 76% said they supported (as distinguished from �approved of�) Ms. Arroyo�s decision, and 75% believed that the US was not justified in getting angry at the Philippine government�s pullout of its troops. ---------------------- Pepeton: Finally.....a disclaimer. What do these "disclaimers" now mean? Is the critical term SUPPORT, or is it APPROVAL. You still have not made any distinction, Tony. 75% "believed" that the US was not justified in "getting angry" at the Philippine government's "pullout of its troops. Tony, what does "getting angry" mean? Angry enough to "pull back all economic and military aids", is this what you are suggesting? The Americans got angry at Japan. So they bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. This kind of anger? So matapang ang Pinoy? WOW, ANG TAPANG NG PINOY...."lupang hinirang duyan ka ng magiting, sa manlulupig, di ka pasisiil....aming ligaya na pag may mangaapi, ang mamatay ng dahil sa iyo???" Ganoon ba? Is this the message? Are the Pilipinos challenging the Americans (and Australians) here? ================== Is this the beginning of a truly independent foreign policy for this country? That remains to be seen. Old habits die hard and the shibboleths of yore have the comfortable fit of an old pair of shoes that are hard to discard. Pepeton: No, Tony, it is not the beginning of anything. A mere continuation of the Pilipinos penchant for telenovela, the mellowdrama, and story-telling-lies (or kwentutan ng mga Pinoy) which media just loves to wallow in, to continue the abusive manipulation of the Pilipino mindset. That's all. ========================== Even before the Angelo brouhaha peaked, Malacanang was already talking of a new �People First� tack for President Arroyo. Is this really a new tack or just another empty maneuver by a master politician, making capital of a fortuitous decision, to shore up a questionable mandate from a questionable election? Again, that remains to be seen. Pepeton: Nothing new here, Tony. It was PILIPINO FIRST. Not PEOPLE FIRST. It was a policy which Carlos Pulistikus Garcia propagated during his administration. IT WAS A COMPLETE FAILURE, ALSO. Dado Macapagal changed the Independence Day from July 4th to June 12th. THE NEW INDEPENDENCE DAY....He changed the wrappings...but that's all he accomplished. Same thing here. PEOPLE FIRST. PILIPINO FIRST. Pare-pareho yan. When the "economic and military days of reckoning come", the poor, the indigent, the third world economies of the world will still go to the more affluent ones and "beg for their rightful share of a breadth of heaven". Ganoon lang yun. ENUF SAID. ================ But the problem with a �People First� slogan is that it may raise expectations that will be hard to meet. What happens to �People First��, for example, when the time comes to raise, yet again, the price of petroleum products, the cost of electricity and water, or the fares for public transportation? Or when the debate resurfaces over the automatic servicing of our foreign debt (which eats up a major portion of the national budget), or when the government must publicly ponder what new taxes to impose to bridge the yawning gap between income and expenses. The �people� will always oppose any price increases, any new taxes and any accommodation with international creditors, especially when goaded to do so by the communist movement, who have entrenched themselves more solidly into the body politic after the electoral victory of their party list groups last May. (It is instructive to be reminded that communists of all stripes are not allowed to participate in the political life of South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, or Thailand, not coincidentally, our more successful neighbors. But we are a liberal democracy, or at least we like to think that we are, so we must allow everybody to have his say, including those self-styled progressives who want us to regress to a Maoist �dictatorship of the proletariat� with monopoly of power for the Communist Party.) Because the Arroyo Government, like all bourgeois governments before it, does not know how to explain and defend its policies, it is always at the losing end in any shouting match with its critics, except when its decision fortuitously coincides with its enemies�, as in the Angelo case. A case in point is the looming power shortage and crisis. There is not enough space here to go into the details, but the simple truth is that no financial institution will fund any power project in this country (or anywhere else) unless it is assured of getting its money back plus a reasonable profit. But with Napocor saddled with a P500 billion debt and the national government with a credit rating downgraded by a gargantuan budget deficit and an even bigger public sector debt, lenders will always demand higher interest rates on the money they lend to us, to repay which would almost certainly mean a substantial increase in power rates. Napocor is talking about an almost 100% increase in generation charges, which translates into about a 50% increase in consumers� bills, in Metro Manila, Luzon and the Visayas. (Rates in Mindanao are always lower because the bulk of generation comes from hydro.) Even without any goading from the communists, consumers (�the people�} will certainly resist such an onerous burden. With a little agitprop push from the communists, legitimate anger can be made to morph into a revolutionary situation. But what is the alternative? No power rate increase, no lenders for additional power plants. No additional power plants, then power outages in the Visayas by 2005 (already occurring in Panay and Negros islands), in Mindanao by 2006 (just started this year), and in Luzon by 2007. It�s back to the future in 1991. What happens to �People First� then? And what happens to GMA�s ten million jobs by 2010? ***** The bulk of this article appears in the July 31, 2004 issue of the Philippines Free Press magazine. Other articles may be viewed at www.tapatt.org. ============================ Pepeton: There is only one alternative. When you make a mistake, what is the only alternative? Apologize, make up, and hope you are forgiven, and that complete reconciliation is possible. It's called, OWNING UP TO IT. Yan ang tunay na MACHO..... ================ Pepeton Janton [email protected] July 27, 2004 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |
 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |