| Obama's Warning
By Antonio C. Abaya Written on Jan. 26, 2009 For the Standard Today, January 27 issue It was not quite the Gettysburg Address of his hero and role model, Abraham Lincoln, but in his inaugural address President Barack did strike some reassuring notes about the place and role of the new, hopefully improved USA in an increasingly discordant and fractious world. I especially liked his promises to specific regions and warnings to unnamed scoundrels lurking in the shadows. "�We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waiver in its defense, and for those who seek to advances their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken, you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. "For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus � and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth, and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass, that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve, that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself, and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace. "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West � know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not on what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist�." Some commentators have jumped to the conclusion that this warning was directed specifically at President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. I beg to disagree. This statement was a generic warning to several world leaders, which could conceivably include President Arroyo. The Philippines is not a central issue in American foreign policy to merit an oblique or direct warning from the American president, least of all during his inaugural address. There are four elements in this warning, only three of which can be interpreted to refer to the Philippines. These elements are a) and b) clinging to power through corruption and deceit, which can refer to rigged elections and endemic government corruption; c) the silencing of dissent; d) the unclenching a clenched fist. President Arroyo can rightly be accused of clinging to power through corruption and deceit. But so can Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe on both counts. Vladimir Putin of Russia can be accused of deceit in clinging to power: he shifted from being president to prime minister when his presidential term ended last March, but he is genuinely popular with the Russian people, to whom he has given prosperity and a new sense of national purpose. Although Putin has not been personally linked to any corruption scandal that I am aware of, corruption is said to be widespread among the Russian power elite. But he has been accused of silencing dissent from crusading journalists, such as Ana Politkovskaya who was assassinated in the stairway to her flat in Moscow more than a year ago, and another journalist who was assassinated only last week. Russian media, especially television, is generally not hospitable to opposition voices. And let us not forget President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs of Iran, who came out of their mothers' wombs with fists clenched at the US and the Zionists, but who are apparently not tainted by corruption or deceit, even as they stifle dissent against the Islamic revolution. President Arroyo has been accused of silencing dissent, principally because allegedly some 61 Filipino journalists have been killed since she assumed the presidency in January 2001, making the Philippines "the second most dangerous country in the world for journalists, next to Iraq." But this accusation is overdrawn because almost all of these slain journalists were provincial media persons who were killed by local political bosses and/or local gangsters for crusading against local criminal syndicates, not for attacking the Arroyo government. Nevertheless the tag against her has stuck. As for clenched fists raised against America, this can be said to be true in the case of President Putin, but this was the fault of the cowboy George W. Bush who deliberately provoked the Russians by trying to dragoon Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, an act that would have been equivalent to Russia dragging Canada and Mexico into an anti-American military alliance. President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and the virulently anti-American non-state players like Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda also have clenched fists defiantly raised against America. But Chavez is genuinely popular among his people and was elected and re-elected by them in open elections. And so was Hamas in Gaza. President Obama can try but there is very, little he can do to unclench their fists. In the Philippines, the only one, aside from the residual Communists, shaking his clenched fists at America is the First Gentleman Mike Arroyo, who was unable to watch the last Pacquiao fight in Las Vegas because of a mysterious bout with diarrhea, contracted in mid-flight on his way to Los Angeles, which could not be treated on American territory. So President Obama's warning was not directed specifically at President Arroyo, but at a clutch of at least four or five world leaders that seems to include her. She is, at least, world-class. But what can President Obama do against any or all of them to unclench their fists, aside from telling them that they are on the wrong side of history? Really, nothing, as far as Presidents Putin, Chavez, Ahmadinejad and Mugabe are concerned. In the case of President Arroyo, President Obama can translate warning into action if she should insist on remaining in power beyond 2010, using "deceit and corruption" and even martial law, as she and Kampi are likely to do. The US could make public their dossiers on the Arroyos and freeze all investments and official development aid, which would be a lethal blow in these days of economic meltdown. As a last resort, the US could also withdraw or suspend or down-grade diplomatic recognition, which would certainly be followed by other Western countries plus Japan, But in the final analysis, it will have to be the Filipinos who must solve their problem with Mrs. Arroyo themselves. Obama's America can only lend a helping hand. *****. Reactions to [email protected]. Other articles in acabaya.blogspot.com. in www.tapatt.org. To subscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Subscribe. To unsubscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Unsubscribe. . OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to "Obama's Warning" 'Noli's Waterloo: Celso' 'Presidential Powers: RP vs US' 'Wal-Mart and San Miguel' 'Soul of the Nation' Tony, Do all great minds think alike? We also thought what you thought when Obama mentioned THAT phrase on corruption during his inaugural speech. Maybe the only person who didn't realize it was the very person Obama was targeting. Ang Saklap! Cita Abad-Dinglasan, (by email), Jan. 28, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony: It was natural for President Barack Obama to reveal to the whole world his global vision and his intentions because in addition to being President of the United States of America, he is generally conceded likewise to be the "Leader of the Free World." But the whole world fully realizes that the United States is now caught in the clutches of a very serious financial and economic crisis which is now in a downward deflationary spiral which, in turn, could easily turn into the "Great Global Depression of 2008." Restoring America to health, vigor and strength will pretty much require practically all the attention, the skills, the push, the determination and what resources are available which President Obama and his Brain Trust can muster, leaving nothing much for him to realize his global vision and intentions. Even as these lines are written, his Reinvestment and Economic Recovery Plan is encountering rough sailing In the Congress, among Republicans in particular, and even among some Democrats. Some Republicans are opposing it because (1) it fails to make George W. Bush's tax cuts to America's wealthiest 1% permanent; (2) because (speciously) it calls for more "spending" rather than tax cuts; and (3) because (and here they could be right) it is chockful of "pork." The few Democrats who oppose Mr. Obama's Plan say that the $825 billion which it calls for is simply too much, ignoring the considered opinion of reputable economists that as a matter of fact that amount may not be big enough to do the job. My sense is that given the worsening economic climate both in the United States, in Europe and in Asia, and the increasingly indignant mood of the American people, eventually President Obama's Plan will get the grudging approval of the Congress--but also at some cost to Mr. Obama's political capital even just a few weeks after his inauguration. President Obama will have his way as far as closing Guantanamo within a year is concerned. The United States will no longer use torture as a means of ferreting information from detainees; it will henceforth comply with U.S. laws and the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. Those "renditions" which have given the United States such a black eye will be gone with the wind--forever under an Obama administration. Spying on Americans on U.S. soil, sans judicial warrants, will be a thing of the past. U.S. military forces will be withdrawn from Iraq--within 16 months exactly as President Barack Obama promised and pledged on the campaign trail. Even now he has already directed the Pentagon to prepare the plans for withdrawal. In his illegal war in Iraq, ex-President George W. Bush squandered over-$1 trillion in direct and "indirect" costs. There the U.S. is still spending around $10 billion a month. Once the umbilical cord which ties Iraq to the United States as a vassal or client state is sundered, the United States will be able to save what it is now spending in Iraq. Iraq is awash in oil revenues which it has cleverly stashed away in banks all over the world. With the impending withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, the Iraqi government will then have to "govern" the country, handle its own security, and spend its own money. There will be a fundamental change in the way the "war against terror" in Afghanistan is handled. Military action, alone, will not and cannot do the job, as postulated by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. He wisely asserts that military action, coupled with reconstruction and economic development, is what promises to be an effective solution. In an op-ed in the Washington Post today, 28 January, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari is requesting the U.S. Congress to pass the pending "Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act," which is a multi-year $1.5 billion annual commitment designed to improve education, housing and health care. These, Mr. Zardari points out, are the most effective tools his government could wield against terrorism. Note that Egypt and Israel have each been receiving U.S. financial assistance for several decades now to the tune of billions of dollars a year each. Considering that Pakistan is a nuclear power, the U.S. and the West cannot afford to lose Pakistan to terrorism and extremism. The $1.5 billion a year in financial assistance which it is requesting may very well be a good bargain. President Barack Obama has already picked George Mitchell as his Roving Ambassador to handle the long-festering Palestine-Israeli conflict. Likewise he has assigned Richard Holbrooke the delicate job of handling the whole of the Middle East. These are two areas which have confounded past U.S. governments before. With President Obama assuring the Islamic world that America is not their enemy, and that he is willing to talk directly with them (and not just "to" them), there is a chance--though realistically still a slim one--of a change in U.S.-Islamic relations, for the better. President Obama and Secretary of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are well aware of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's desire to stay in power beyond 2010 through the stratagem of changing the form of government from presidential to parliamentary, with her occupying the position of Prime Minister. They must likewise be assumed to fully know of her record regarding corruption, given the reports which the American ambassador to the Philippines and the CIA regularly send to Washington. Mrs. Arroyo will be making a very costly mistake if she assumes that President Obama and Secretary Clinton look with favor on what she has in her mind. The whole world can expect "Change We Can Believe In" in a Barack Obama administration. Mariano Patalinjug, (by email), Yonkers, NY, Jan. 28, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Sir: All the "Obamas" in the world can't inspire hardened hearts consumed by greed and powered by survival instinct. Only the freedom-loving and men and women of noble ideals can dream of and aspire for a world that is just and free. But the courage, the focus, the volunteerism, the unity and the passion of Obama's supporters can serve as our model for a movement for change. The Philippine transformation should start from the Filipinos who alone are the victims of this inconceivable depth of corruption and staggering height of ambition. We ourselves need to break ourselves free from the grip of the tentacles of government thievery and repression, and from the shackles of helplessness and apathy. Each of us can be the proverbial pebble which can start the ripple necessary to produce the waves of change that will wash away the phalanx of corrupt leaders and their cohorts. Only then�not after an outside force or a home grown power-seeking alliance have done it for us--can we reclaim the purified shorelines of our beloved country on which to build a new nation. Indeed, the 2010 election can be the trigger for such an avalanche, but we have to make it happen. And then hopefully, all the freedom-loving and honourable Filipinos scattered all over the world can at least hope for the blessings of a peaceful, free and productive God-given nation. Grace Ri�oza-Plazo, (by email), Quezon Cty, Jan. 28, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww As usual, you are just right on the dot! I agree with you completely. During the live telecast of Obama's inauguration (which I was glued to) the moment he mentioned that thing about graft and corruption, the first image to emerge in my mind was GMA, and true enough, many (like you) would opine the same. This "reference" to GMA puts us again in the map of FIRSTS in a negative light. Ed Valenciano, (by email) Jan. 29, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, hi, Another gem from a great writer. I like your sense of fairness for not attributing all the killings of journalists and the way you substantiated your honest belief. Too bad for Gloria, for being on the top she has to pay the price: she is a fair game for everybody who believes in command responsibility syndrome. I also like your sense of humor, on Mike's diarrhea which can not be treated in the States leaving him no option but to abort his trip with Gloria to Peru (?) and plan to see Manny's bout with the golden boy dela Hoya in Las Vegas. As to Barack Obama's speech. It was splendid and the only way I can do is applaud the speech in its entirety for substance and brilliancy. In the meantime, I have to take my seat to rest my aching back and wait for Barack Obama to walk his talk. And I wish him luck that he could deliver as he promised. Arcy F. Sibal, (by email), Sta. Maria, Bulacan, Jan. 29, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Indeed, as you wrote: " in the final analysis, it will have to be the Filipinos who must solve their problem with Mrs. Arroyo themselves. Obama's America can only lend a helping hand. * Here's what I wrote in reaction to Obama's inaugural speech: What caught my attention was the part when he said and I quote: " To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are in the wrong side of history;..." There is no doubt in my mind that any right thinking patriotic Filipino would agree that Gloria Macapagal Arroyo fits exactly that description and therefore should take heed. Narciso Ner, (by email), Davao City, Jan. 29, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, Yes, I fully agree : that in the end, we Filipinos will have to deal with GMA and only we can decide whether or not she should stay on beyond 2010 or not. We need not also be told by foreigners that ours is a corrupt government. We should by now be acting on it, because we knew this long long ago, and that if we do anything then we can only admit that we deserve what we have. We had two EDSA revolutions that succeeded but lost steam and every momentum favored only those who now wield the power. GMA may have taken a hint from Obama, but that would be too far a threat for her. She remains in control, unpopular but decidedly glued to her throne. And the others we elected to the House and Senate would partly serve the people, partly partake of the perks, enjoy the level of power entrusted to them, and rake in what they can. We do not need another EDSA, and we shouldn't do another. But we can ensure an election in 2010, and make changes in the ways we vote. Victor Manalac, (by email), Jan. 29, 3009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Well said, Tony!. Unfortunately any actions that you mentioned would hurt the Filipino more than the ones they would be intended to hurt. The elitist politicians and scoundrels to use your description will retreat into their little holes only to appear again when the pressure is off. I doubt if Obama wlll take any actions as you suggested. I will be surprised if he becomes a strong leader who will take strong actions when needed. I think the only hope the Filipinos have is for a strong leader to emerge who owes no allegiance to any one and who is not afraid to change status quo. Puno? If this leader should appea,r the Filipino people will rally behind him and have the country that they so deserve, a country that cares about all their people instead of just the favored few. Jay Brundage, (by email), Ridgefield, Connecticut, Jan. 29, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi, Tony! Even as we write this email, the extreme right Republicans, through its mouthpiece Russ Limbaugh, are already hoping that Pres. Obama would fail, without giving him a chance to prove himself. It's very difficult to warn the outside world when the enemy is from within. Rome Farol, (by email), Highlands Ranch, Colorado, Feb 01, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, Will Obama shake loose GMA and hope that the next leader here will have America's interests at heart? They have a saying, "Better to have an enemy you know..." Robbie Tan, (by email), Feb. 02, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Forwarded to Tapatt by Willie Villarama Noli's Waterloo: Celso By Ducky Paredes, Malaya Can Vice President Noli de Castro's friends in the Senate (where he was part of an influential group of senators before the 204 elections) keep his name out of the Legacy scandal? He has clear ties to Sto. Domingo, Albay Mayor Celso de los Angeles, the owner and operator of the bankrupt Legacy Group of Companies. Hundreds of thousands of Filipinos lost hard-earned money in Legacy's fraudulent investment firm and rural banks. Can they actually forgive Noli de Castro's role in their worst-ever experience? These people lost their life savings to someone who campaigned for Noli and was rewarded with a high post in Noli's housing programs. Of course, the Vice President is now distancing himself from De los Angeles after the latter's grilling by the Senate for the questionable operations of the Legacy group and his companies' investigation by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) and the Securities and Exchange Commission. But no matter how De Castro disowns Delos Angeles, the damage to his squeaky-clean image has been done. Noli De Castro admits that Delos Angeles financed his 2004 vice presidential campaign, caused the printing of his campaign materials, and even bought a tabloid to help sell him to voters. So, immediately after De Castro assumed the vice presidency, he promptly endorsed De los Angeles as head of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC). By paying a political debt to De los Angeles, De Castro not only epitomized everything despicable about traditional politics. De Castro also helped De los Angeles lure more unsuspecting investors and depositors into putting their money in Legacy. How does the Vice President connect to the Legacy mess by his acceptance of the 2004 election funding from Delos Angeles and his endorsement of the businessman to NHMFC? Simple. When De Castro endorsed De los Angeles, he vouched for the latter's integrity, leading people to conclude that De los Angeles and his Legacy Group must be clean for having been given a seal of approval by De Castro, no matter how indirectly. In fact, although Noli had no qualms dropping De los Angeles like a hot potato, it may not have been because of complaints to Gloria Arroyo that Celso was the worst thing to happen to her housing program, we hear that the two friends had already reached a state of enmity over a pretty young thing. Of course, the TV talent chose the more powerful of the two (and refused to return the jewelry that the other gave her as gifts). How ironic that they were both working in the Pag-ibig program. Ang pag-ibig nga naman! With the discovery of the dubious operations of the Legacy Group, shouldn't the Senate do what it should have done a long time ago � investigate De los Angeles' stint as head of NHMFC to uncover possible anomalies? In fact, isn't it about time that they take a hard look at their former colleague's work at Pag-Ibig and the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council? Are they afraid that they may find that the foundation of our Housing Program is infested with termites like Celso and other Noli friends? wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Presidential Powers: RP vs. US In the power to appoint justices, judges, and prosecutors, both Philippine and U.S. Presidents have similar appointing authority. So far so good. About the U.S. Presidency: It is ironic to think or say that President Barak Obama (PBO) has the most powerful government position on earth and yet this is not true. His presidential power is weaker than the Philippine president has (as explain below). "He can even learn from Malacaniang" according to GMA's Rah Rah boys, and it is his country that is the most powerful country in the world. Why? Because once he consummates his judicial appointments, he cannot absolutely interfere with the functions of justices, judges and prosecutors with criminal sanctions by someone higher in authority than him. Who, God? No. Absolutely not. They are lower than, and creatures of, God, of course. They are the common and mostly poor private but sovereign American citizens, through their Grand Juries. In the Philippines, we call them the "Bakya" crowd. If a U.S. President middles or intrudes in the function of justices or judges, a Grand Jury representing the common and poor American citizens can secretly investigate and indict him for Obstruction of Justice. Thereafter he will face a court trial before a Trial Jury also composed of common and poor private citizens and gets convicted swiftly and sent to jail. It is as simple as that. Period. In the U.S., the highest authority is the common and poor private citizens because "sovereign majority rule" belongs to them. Why are they called "sovereign majority"? Because they comprise the greatest majority of the people in that country. Yes, they are common and poor and, yet, they make their country great and strong because they can stop any U.S. President from becoming a crook. About the Philippine Presidency: It is also ironic to state that the Philippine President, now personified today by a certain so called "elected" President Gloria Ayorro is even more powerful than PBO, yet the Philippine Government is the weakest country in the world and the poorest country in Asia. Why is PGA more powerful than PBO? Because in the Philippines, the power of the presidency is unstoppable. She can do anything such president wants. She can surreptitiously dictate her wishes in the jobs of judges, justices, and prosecutors, her judicial errand boys and girls. She can order without being molested by the people the killing of any person she does not like or send such person to jail with bogus charges or make a person disappear like Jonas Burgos or like those witnesses in the investigation of illegal jueteng gambling games. Philippine presidents cannot be charged for obstruction of justice because: No. 1, there is no justice in the Philippines to speak of to begin with. If there is such a thing, it is only for the rich and powerful like Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez or like the millionaire parents of the Alabang Boys; No. 2, Justice is a government monopoly. It is none of the people's business because they are branded as legal ignoramus by bright crook and brainless high government officials and; No. 3, the President and Congress does not want creation of the jury systems by not implementing Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution. The President and Members of Congress can make themselves rich at will legally with their fat or bloated pork barrels and discretionary funds and spend the people's money in buying mansions and SUVs and cannot be investigated. Why? Because the Filipino people have no Grand Juries that can investigate where those filthy rich officials spend the people's money. As a result, the Philippine president (and members of Congress) are rich, indeed filthy rich, but the country is poor and its working people are forced to work overseas to put food on the table for their starving families back home while the President (and his loyally bribed high ranked army or police officers) are wallowing with hoarded billions of pesos of the people's money. Shall we approved the adoption of the Grand Jury system on our own efforts with the "People's Jury Initiative" or shall we not? We cannot, if we simply rely in writing thousand and thousand of pages of criticism against our so-called "strong president" by our equally strong media people. Only by the adoption of the "People's Jury Initiative" by the votes of the people can we prevent corrupt presidents-to-be from staying in power forever. For us, common and poor people, the choice is ours: Establish the Jury System and make the country progressive, rich and strong with a weak president; or have a "VERY, VERY, STRONG AND FILTHY RICH PRESIDENT" with a poor and weak country for lack of justice? Marlowe Camello, [email protected], Homeland, CA, Jan. 29, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Wal-Mart and San Miguel The Wal-Mart story is a microcosm of how the global economy plays out. Blue chip Western companies, not unlike the Ayala group of companies, are committed to progressive business and management practices. Yet, it took a company in the middle of nowhere from a very poor, conservative, Midwestern state to force Western businesses to update their practices. The Proctor & Gambles of the world were caught flatfooted when Wal-Mart started dictating terms and conditions of doing business with them. Despite the history of progressive management education and training in these companies and cutting-edge innovation and technology, they woke up one day to realize that they were not geared to deal with the new Wal-Mart � their sales force were not equipped to negotiate with Wal-Mart buyers; as bad if not worse were their infrastructure, systems and processes especially sales forecasting and supply chain � production planning, materials, warehousing and logistics management. How can these pillars of Western business not foresee what Wal-Mart saw much earlier? Paraphrasing George Soros (in reflecting the influence of Karl Popper, Aristotle and his own life experience): our cognitive function cannot be divorced from our own view of what we consider reality such that our understanding is not a pure outcome of our thinking but colored by our culture, ideology and other biases. In particular, Wal-Mart saw that their margins were at risk as they faced greater competition from other retailers; and so they had to reassess their business model, beliefs and practices. Early on they assumed that economies of scale were the key to their success. But retailing is not a high-value adding (essentially a brick-and-mortar and no R&D) business such that their margins were very thin; while a manufacturer (given greater value-adding elements) is able to generate double-digit profit margins north of 10% - retailers net a much lower 3% to 4%. Wal-Mart did not have to go very far to seek models to adopt given the learnings from the challenge the U.S. faced with Japan, Inc. � that threatened the profitability of Corporate America. From Japan they "shamelessly copied just-in-time" inventory management principles and from the U.S. (and later Germany) they acquired state-of-the-art computing and communicating technology; while still pushing economies of scale but in a more aggressive manner � they put together a plan to rapidly build more stores across the U.S. and in numerous strategic international locations. And then they announced to the manufacturers that henceforth there would be new rules that they had to meet if they expected Wal-Mart to continue to carry their products � Wal-Mart accounting for upwards of 10% of their revenues. Here was where the manufacturers were caught off-guard: Their sales force's skills-set was based on relationship selling; while logistics was driven by traditional inventory practices, e.g., safety stock levels. Wal-Mart buyers could run rings around the sales managers of the manufacturers. To begin with, they were savvy MBAs and financial analyst-types who were writing up orders based on: "just-in-time" delivery (so that they would not be carrying safety stocks and hence reduce inventory and improve working capital), shelf-space allocation by market shares of categories/brands/SKUs as well as planned in-store promotion programs (designed to cover any margins of error in their forecasting and/or realize incremental revenues). Such a bias for driving revenues may not be inherent in the public sector but given our negative balance of trade and if we are to become a developed country, do we need to put our collective brainpower behind gearing up to drive export revenues? Both Thailand's and Malaysia's exports alone are bigger than our total GDP � this is where we need to invoke and rally national pride; but we can't go it alone with our limited resources; we need to partner with the right global players? The Wal-Mart buyers were no longer predisposed to oblige and indulge in such niceties inherent in relationship selling as having coffee or a meal or even a night out with the manufacturers. The manufacturers were blown-away! They had to say yes to most everything Wal-Mart demanded or lose the business. The manufacturers had to quickly do their homework and then in rapid succession: developed the appropriate training and education programs, installed enterprise-wide information systems and linked their order-processing to the Wal-Mart system (i.e., integrated checkout scanners and warehouse network) which in turned drove their own inventory management and production planning processes. The result of all these combined efforts and on-line processes was to reinforce Wal-Mart's "everyday low-price" pitch while the manufacturers similarly achieved greater efficiency, productivity and profitability � and at the macro-level they held inflation at bay thus fueling consumption and higher GDP. The rest of the retail industry including those outside the U.S. (Metro/Macro, Carrefour, etc.) did the same thing thus elevating competition to an even higher level � and challenging human capacity once more. How will a retailer in a smaller market like the Philippines deal with this development? As we now know, a couple of our taipans partnered with these global retailers so that they co-own the business in the Philippines. Another opportunity they pursued was to partner with these global retailers as they set up shops in other countries. "Partnering" is today's mantra as opposed to "monopolizing" (a throwback to our cacique history), e.g., San Miguel very recently sold a major stake in the company to Kirin to diversify and optimize its investment portfolio; and generate greater profit potential � that would reflect a bigger dent on our GDP. (It appears San Miguel is not waiting for the global economic turnaround and instead is gearing up to exploit the moment � mirroring the investment philosophy of Warren Buffett.) The Wal-Mart story is a microcosm of how economies of scale drive businesses to go global and how smaller businesses and countries can piggyback on and partake in the benefits/positives of the global economy and engender a healthy GDP. In the same manner that a typical negotiation does not have to be a win-lose proposition, leveraging the global economy does not have to be a zero-sum game. (But there is anecdotal if not empirical evidence that countries with hierarchical cultures see things otherwise, i.e., the "master" will always get the better of the "servant" especially when transparency is the exception than the rule. Yet, China and the Asian tigers have overcome their cultural and ideological baggage in pursuit of free-market economics.) And as importantly even blue chip institutions (or the Proctor & Gambles of the world � progressive, cutting-edge and innovative) can be overtaken by the rapid and accelerating generation of new thinking, knowledge and practices in today's age � of Gmail, facebook.com, iPods and Black Berrys. At the country level, invoking ideology that shunt "imperialism" or multinationals or foreign investors will not stop the speed and progress of today's cyber world. At best it will stunt the progress of economies like the Philippines, i.e., limiting our options means establishing an economic model that will be characterized by sub-optimization � sub-optimized: capital formation, investment, market, technology, efficiency, productivity and competitiveness; and in the final analysis, sub-optimized GDP growth yielding more not less poverty. And that is without factoring corruption yet; and when combined equates to a perfect storm? Romeo Encarnacion, (by email), Bulgaria, Jan. 29, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Soul of the Nation Dear Tony, Recently, one of my students asked me this question: Does our country have a soul? I was bewildered by the question since it was not within the purview of our topic being discussed. We were talking about the City of God of St. Augustine. I honestly said to my student that I was not ready to give an answer and if he can give me some time to think it over When I got home, I pondered on the question and tried to relate it with St. Augustine's political theory. After a philosophic reflection I concluded that our nation indeed has a soul. If man has a soul and it is being quarreled over by two forces- the force of good (City of God) and the force of evil (City of Man), our nation's soul is being torn apart by these same forces. The following day, I went to school with a ready reply to the question. I said emphatically that our nation has a soul. The soul of our nation is the values by which we live. We are known as a people to be hospitable, respectful, patient, work as a team known as the bayanihan spirit, and many others. It is sad to note that nowadays hardly any of these values are put into practice by us. It is even sadder to observe that our national leaders seem to ignore this moral malady. It is because they are the cause why the soul of our nation is unwell. If only our national leaders are more decent and respectable, if only they appreciate a little more the value of honesty, fair play, and truth-telling, our country would be better off and the soul of our nation would become a member, by St. Augustine's parlance, of the City of God. At present, I say that the soul of our nation is captured by the force of evil hence our country belongs to the City of Man. In my humble opinion, the soul of our nation is not only unwell but is dying. What we need are leaders who can inspire us to live morally. We need leaders who can be trusted and has a vision for this country. We need leaders who are willing to listen to concerns and troubles and be our voices. My students were satisfied with my answer. They even complemented it with their bright ideas like the soul of the nation needs to be spiritually and morally nurtured.. However, in the closing stage of our class, one keen student said that "he disagrees with me that the soul of our nation is dying because our nation is soul-less." The statement hit me like a bolt from the blue. I did not know how to react and what should be the appropriate reply. The bell rang and it saved me from embarrassment. As part of their homework, I told my students instead to mull over the statement and be ready for another roundtable discussion next meeting. Thank you. Very truly yours, Reginald B. Tamayo, (by email), Aparri, Cagayan, Jan. 31, 2009 Member, Sangguniang Bayan OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to [email protected] To subscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Subscribe. To unsubscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Unsubscribe. |
 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |