 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| No Brains Either By Antonio C. Abaya June 05, 2003 And before anyone accuses me of being unpatriotic and moves to strip me of my citizenship, �no brains� in this context is supposed to mean �deprived of good leadership�, not �stupid�, although it must also be said in passing that the level of stupidity in these parts is sometimes truly breathtaking. I had argued in my previous column, �No Soul�, that our political culture � defined in large measure by the political system and political values inherited from the Americans � has unwittingly crippled the development of our sense of nationhood. Political liberalism, nominal egalitarianism, and the glorification of the individual over and above the community, (all as American as apple pie) have combined to make it extremely difficult for any of our political leaders, even if they were so inclined, to get around to defining the national soul that would have been the basis for a �deep and horizontal comradeship� among us Filipinos. Not that any of them had exerted supreme efforts to do so. It can be said that Ferdinand Marcos had some inkling of this need to cultivate a sense of nationhood when he proclaimed, in his trade-mark grandiloquent manner, that �this nation can be great again� and that he was out to build �The New Society���..�Ang Bagong Lipunan�, in case anyone has forgotten. But it was all a sham and a fake, like his alleged World War II medals, calculated to prolong his stay in power indefinitely and to maneuver his ambitious wife Imelda into the line of succession, while he, his family and their cronies plundered the country like there was no tomorrow. Indeed, for most Filipinos, there was little or no tomorrow to look forward to while Marcos and his greedy kleptocrats sucked this country dry. In such an environment, the only �deep and horizontal comradeship� that developed was often six feet underground, in a cemetery. It was Corazon Aquino who had the greatest opportunity to define for us our long dormant and amorphous national soul. She was elevated to power by a spontaneous, leaderless and largely bloodless uprising, the kind that occurs but once, if ever, in the life of a nation., and woe to those who do not seize the moment. For a few glorious days, we Filipinos were on center stage in the global village, and we performed magnificently, for all the world to see and admire. For a few luminous days, we had that sense of nationhood, and we felt that �deep and horizontal comradeship� that the Vietnamese must have felt after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, a sense of relief that the dark days were over, a sense of pride that victory was ours, a sense of expectation that a new beginning was at hand. Yet, all too soon, it was gone. It was gone and gone fast because Mrs. Aquino did not seize the moment to articulate a national ideology based on �the spirit of EDSA�. And I am not patronizing her when I say that it was not her fault. She did not want the job, she was dragged into it kicking and screaming, and protesting that she didn�t know how to be president. How right she turned out to be! She saw her historic mission as that of removing the Marcos kleptocracy from our political life, and in this she was spectacularly successful. But she was no visionary. No shame in that: most people aren�t. She wanted to restore our democracy to its pre-martial law configuration, and in this she was successful, but she had no sketches, no plans, no diagrams for the New Jerusalem that she was NOT going to build. If anyone has to be faulted for her mediocre presidency, it has to be her inner circle of advisers, who should have known better. It was they who convinced her to have a rainbow Cabinet representing a wide spectrum of advocacies, from communist and pro-communist to military rightist, presumably on the prayer (the favored methodology then) that it would please everyone. In fact, it ended up pleasing no one. It is no coincidence that it was during Mrs. Aquino�s watch that the CPP-NDF-NPA reached its fullest flower, with an estimated 26,000 armed fighters, and at the same time it was also during her watch that the centrist government suffered, for the first time ever, coup attempts by the military, two of which (August 1987 and December 1989) came close to toppling her from power. Fidel Ramos was perhaps the most genuinely ambitious of our post-1965 presidents. His mantra was �Philippines 2000� and he set out to make the Philippines a Newly Industrializing Country or NIC by the year 2000, to put the country up there with the other economic tigers of East Asia: South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia. But a funny thing happened on the way to NIChood: FVR embraced without question all the parameters and principless of globalization and free trade, even those which rich countries themselves refrained from practicing in order to protect their own industries. FVR�s Philippines had to be more Popish than the Pope and forthwith opened its gates to floods of imported goods, pushing thousands of Philippine manufacturers and millions of Filipino workers into the margins. We indeed became a NIC: a Newly Impoverished Country, as the value of the peso plunged, the sovereign debt soared, and millions of Filipinos had to seek jobs abroad because there were too few to be had at home. What can one say about Erap? His idea of a national purpose seems to be to convert the entire country into one gigantic gambling community, tended by the likes of Stanley Ho, Atong Ang and Chavit Singson. �Deep and horizontal comradeship?� Only with pretty women whose last names ended with �ez.� Could anyone have expected more from a certified ignoramus with a permanent erection? Next week: what about GMA? ***** The bulk of this article appears in the June 14, 2003 issue of the Philippines Free Press magazine. |
| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �No Brains Either� Tony, Again, your article proves that the Philippines is in need of a real leader. All the so-called leaders are not equal to the task of leading Filipinos. But blaming the Americans and the values they might have imparted could not provide (scapegoating does not work) the Filipinos the kind of leader they deserve. So, the Philippines, it would seem, is a country in perpetual search of the good (moral and efficient) leader. Gras Reyes, [email protected] June 10, 2003 MY REPLY. I am not scapegoating. I am trying to fathom the reason why we have not produced good leaders, and I am looking at historical, cultural and social reasons unique to the experience of Filipinos. This does not make sense to you because you believe the reason is genetic or biological. But tell me what gene or genes determine/s good or poor leadership. �������������������������� Tony, Thank you for sending me your latest article. I found it all enlighthening, refreshing and somewhat intriguing. More than all that, however, I believe it is what Fox would brag as "fair and balanced" review and appraisal of contemporary political history. With your permission, I would like to post this in several newsgroups and send you responses as I receive them. I have also a few personal thoughts that have been both provoked and stimulated by your article. I will send these also along with the feedback from the others. Warmest regards. Pepeton, [email protected] June 11, 2003 ��������������������������� Hello Mr. Tony Abaya, Allow me to give a few numbers & stats in reply to some of your points. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> Subject: [Never Again] Digest Number 942 Message: 1 Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:39:05 +0800 From: "Antonio C. Abaya" <[email protected]> Subject: No Brains Either "But a funny thing happened on the way to NIChood: FVR embraced without question all the parameters and principless of globalization and free trade, even those which rich countries themselves refrained from practicing in order to protect their own industries. FVR's Philippines had to be more Popish than the Pope and forthwith opened its gates to floods of imported goods, pushing thousands of Philippine manufacturers and millions of Filipino workers into the margins. We indeed became a NIC: a Newly Impoverished Country, as the value of the peso plunged, the sovereign debt soared, and millions of Filipinos had to seek jobs abroad because there were too few to be had at home." (1) On "flooding" of imports: Merchandise imports: 1992, $15.52 billion; 1998, $29.66 billion (91.1% increase) But RP exports also "flooded" other countries during that time: Merchandise exports: 1992, $9.82 billion; 1998, $29.50 billion (200.4% increase). This is bad? hey-hoo! (2) On "marginalization" of Filipino workers and unemployment: Unemployed, October rounds of labor force surveys by the NSO: 1992, 2.263 million (8.6% unemployment rate) 1998, 3.016 million (9.6% unemployment rate) => net increase in the stock of the unemployed bet. 1992-98 = 0.753 million But look at the employed people (same October rounds of surveys) 1992, 23.917 million 1998, 28.262 million => net increase in people employed bet. 1992-98 = 4.345 million Anti-globalists and/or anti-free trade could harp on the increase in unemployment, but seldom (if ever) consider the new jobs generated by freer trade & increased integration of RP economy to the global economy. (3) On plunge of the peso: Average exchange rates, in P/US$ * I use 1993 figures because though I have Phil. P/$ rates in '92, I can't find my data on other SEAsian countries' 1992 exchange rates 1993, 27.1 1998, 40.9 (50.9% depreciation) Compare this with other Asian-crisis affected countries (all currencies in 1US$ equivalent): (a) Taiwan: 1993, NT$26.4; 1998, NT$33.4 (26.5% depreciation) (b) Thailand: 1993, Baht 25.3; 1998, B41.3 (63.2% depreciation) (c) S. Korea: 1993, Won 802.7; 1998, Won 1,402.1 (74.7% depreciation) (d) Indonesia: 1993, Rupiah 2,102.6; 1998, Rupiah 10,147.5 (382.7% depreciation) [source: ADB, ADO '99) Your currency's value will fall sooner or later, if prevailing exchange rates are artificially high due to fixed exchange rate policy or even "managed float" or "dirty float" policy. A check with published statistics will help in our understanding if those past RP Presidents indeed got the "brains." Not that I am a fan of FVR. I'm simply a fan of free markets. Thanks. Nonoy Oplas, [email protected] June 11, 2003 MY REPLY (which I emailed to neveragain on June 14 but was never posted by them, for reasons unknown to me). Our website has been disabled since June 8. Whether deliberately or not, we are not sure. So I might as well answer your points. a) On the flooding of imports: I have often commended FVR for getting the Philippines into the global marketplace after we missed the exports bus in the 70s and the 80s. But $29.5 billion in exports, though apparently a boon in absolute terms, is not such a big deal since 65% of our exports were in electronic components where the value-added was only 10-15%. Since 1998, the value-added has gone up to 20%, but still no great shakes, hey-hoo! b) On employment and unemployment. Statistics here are more guesstimates than hard data. In developed economies, data are based on active membership in the social security system minus those who apply for unemployment insurance. There are an estimated 28 million income earners in this country, but only some 3 million file income tax returns, and only some 2 million pay any income tax at all, for the reason stated below: In poor countries like the Philippines, most (underpaid) jobs are in the underground economy and are undocumented, and there is no unemployment insurance. Those in the underground economy are there because there are not enough jobs in the formal, above-ground economy, and they include fixers in government offices, sidewalk vendors, prostitutes, GROs, domestic helpers, producers and vendors of fake CDs and fake DVDs, muro-ami divers, dynamite fishers, sugar cane sacadas, etc. No government or ideology should rejoice that most of its income-earners are in the underground economy since that is just an indication of its failure to develop a robust above-ground economy. No one should take credit that people have to try all ways to make a living in order to survive. Even assuming, without admitting, that your numbers reflect an accurate picture of employment and unemployment, keep in mind that the number of new entrants into the labor market was estimated at 700,000 in 1992 and one million by 1998. So in those seven years, a healthy economy should have generated some six million new jobs in the formal economy for the new entrants alone, plus perhaps 10 million more for the unemployed and underemployed carried over from 1992. You are claiming 4.3 million new jobs, most of them in the underground economy. During that period, there was not a 4.3 million increase in membership in the SSS/GSIS or in the number of taxpayers. I realize that we must all be grateful even for small mercies, but this should not be made a cause for unwarranted triumphalism. The very fact that 7-8 million Filipinos are working abroad (because they could not find jobs in the domestic economy) is eloquent proof that the unemployment situation here is worse than your chirping presentation indicates. c) On new jobs generated by free trade and increased integration of RP economy into the global economy. As a result of free trade, many major multinational companies have reduced or stopped altogether their manufacturing activities in the Philippines since it was more advantageous for them to just import their products into the RP from their other factories in Vietnam or China or Malaysia or Indonesia or Thailand. The list reads like a who's-who in industry: Sony, Philips, Uniden, Johnson & Johnson, Warner-Lambert, Abbott Laboratories, Colgate-Palmolive etc. That's thousands of manufacturing jobs lost to Filipinos, in addition to tens of thousands of other jobs lost in the cement, footwear, poultry, hog, furniture, steel, etc industries, because their employers could not compete successfully with imported products..We are supposed to rejoice over this because we are now integrated into the global economy ? If free trade is such an unalloyed blessing for everyone, why did the USA follow a strict protectionist policy from 1789 (when Alexander Hamilton become Treasury Secretary) all the way to the late 1930s? Why, even after officially abandoning protectionism, did/does the USA continue to impose protectionist levies/quotas on the imports of footwear, garments, motorcycles, corn, cotton, sugar and, only last year, steel and lumber? The answer, of course, is to protect American industries and American jobs. Now if it is acceptable for a rich and developed country like the USA to protect its industries and jobs, why is it not acceptable for a poor and vulnerable country like the Philippines to likewise protect its industries and jobs? Free Trade is like Communism: it exists only in the imagination of those who blindly believe in it. d) On the plunge of the peso. The list you gave of countries negatively affected by the 1997 Asian financial crisis is disingenuously selective. You included the Indonesian rupiah (382% depreciation) to emphasize your point that the peso (50% depreciation) was not so badly off, without mentioning the political turmoil surrounding the ouster of Suharto, which was the bigger cause of the rupiah's collapse.. Yet you deliberately excluded the two currencies (the Malaysian ringgit and the Chinese renminbi) which were not affected at all because their governments had the foresight to put in place barriers to full convertibility, against the holy canons of Globalization. Some people may misconstrue this as intellectual dishonesty to support a favored advocacy. I do not have the time to engage in daily exchanges over this or other matters. So you may have the last word. ��������������������������� Dear Tony, Just a short note to let you know that EJ and I truly appreciate - and enjoy - your columns. The last two were even terrific. You are such a great writer. Just with the style alone, it is worthy of inspiration. You might be interested to write a book on your columns of the past many years. If you ask me, perfect timing if it can come out in early December. Nice Christmas present and itcan also influence the politics of the 2004 national elections. Let me know what you think. Sincerely, Rick B. Ramos, [email protected] June 10, 2003 MY REPLY. Thanks for the kind words, Rick. The idea of collecting my articles in a book or books has been suggested by many other friends in past years. And although a book or books is/are ideal for prestige, I think my website is better. In my website my articles are available and free to anyone with a computer anywhere in the world. (I get email from North America, Europe, Australia and the Middle East). A book would cost hundreds of pesos per copy and would have little or no circulation outside Metro Manila. In my website, I know exactly how many readers are viewing which articles every month. I would not be able to do that with a book. In my website, I interact with my readers in a dialogue that I would not able to carry on with a book. So, you see, there is no practical reason to publish a book or books. My website is so much more efficient, democratic and, in the final analysis, influential. I am claiming a first in Philippine journalism. I know other Filipino journalists have followed suite. ��������������������������� Dear Tony, Let me congratulate you on this fine piece of work which gives your readers a snap shot of how the Philippines has suffered economically and politically in a little more than 30 years. It is pathetic how four past Philippine Presidents and their lackeys could have caused this devastation of such magnitude, one term after another. And now to await your piece on PGMA. More power to you. Archie Lacson, [email protected] June 11, 2003 ���������������������������� Dear Mr. Abaya, Have just read your article " No Brains Either". What can I say? You most eloquently articulated the shortcomings of our past & recent leaders. This one I could have it framed, to be honest with you. More power & regards. Napoleon P. Serrano, [email protected] Saudi Arabia June 13, 2003 ............................................................................................ Dear Tony, Thanks for sending me your article. I generally agree with your views, especially that about the national leadership's lack of a nationalist vision. I'm looking forward to your piece on the GMA presidency and am wondering whether her vision of a "Strong Republic" is the kind of vision you're looking for. I just want to comment on that part where you said that the Aquino cabinet was composed of people with pro-communist and communist advocacies. I wonder who among her cabinet members you were refering to. To my mind, the only ones with a shade of pink on their shirts were Bobbit Sanchez and Joker Arroyo, and mostly because they were human rights lawyers. Truth was, the Aquino cabinet was a generally rightist, anti-communist cabinet. The Aquino regime symbolized the return of the old oligarchy, including their massive influence over the country's bureaucracy and political infrastructure. That the NPA reached its peak during Aquino's term was not due to the government's softened stance against them but due to the momentum of the last days of the Marcos dictatorship. In fact, the Communist movement started to wane in 1987, the year Aquino declared she would "unsheath the sword of war" against them. They started to regain momentum only in 1998, the year Erap became president. And we know that it was not because Erap was pro-communist. Teddy Casino, [email protected] June 11, 2003 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |