| �Real Scared of the Communists�? By Antonio C. Abaya May 23, 2002 Reacting to my column �Collective Leadership Means Junta,� Mila D. Aguilar wrote: �I agree with your views here. Only thing, you seem be real scared of the communists, even if they are already splintered. They do have a role to play in social and political reforms, and I think we could grant that. At this point I don�t think they have the capacity to launch a power grab, and not at (any) point in the future either. So I�m wondering what your beef is with them, aside from the usual ideological stuff.� MY REPLY: I am not �real scared of the communists�; I am just amused and annoyed at their continuing arrogance and conceit that they and they alone possess the One and Only Truth, which stems from their ideological position that their views are �scientific� and hence incontrovertible and beyond argument. And they have not given up their dream of revolution even if the empirical evidence worldwide has shown that their formulae for reorganizing society have been failures. Thus you have ideologues like Nelia Sancho (formerly of the NPA) and Jesus Lava (co-founder of the PKP) insisting that the triumph of Communism is inevitable, �even if it takes hundreds of years.� Such self-fulfilling prophecies mean that �tuloy ang ligaya� despite the failure of theory to translate into reality over, in the USSR, 73 years. What role do you see for them in social and political reforms, given that their ideology demands monopoly of power for the Communist Party under their concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat; given that they also would have all the means of production in the hands of �the workers and the peasants� which really means the hands of the Communist Party, as demanded by the theory of surplus value; and given that in the societies that have had the bad fortune of falling under their control, there were/are no open elections, no free press, no private enterprise, no protection of civil and human rights, no freedom of assembly of more than five persons, etc?. Or didn�t you know that? The latest news from the workers� paradise, Cuba, is that Fidel Castro has decreed, and a national referendum has, not surprisingly, ratified by a 99% majority, that Cuba�s socialist system cannot ever be changed in the future, even by generations yet unborn. Do you really think people like this have anything worthwhile to contribute? I realize there have been reformers in the Soviet Union, in Vietnam, in Eastern Europe, in Cuba, in the People�s Republic of China, but these reformers have been the exception rather than the rule, and they all emerged AFTER the failure of their preferred Marxist orthodoxies. With their history of failure, the proper role for communists should be that of a loyal opposition, as they are in most of the countries of Western Europe, offering one truth (which may be wrong) among many truths but not The One and Only Truth, in open societies where they must compete with other political parties. But that also means that The Revolution has to be formally and explicitly abandoned, for why kill and be killed if what you possess is only one truth among many (and which could be wrong), and not The Truth (which supposedly is The Absolute Scientific Truth)? You are correct, Filipino communists do not have the capacity for a power grab. But their capacity for mischief is unlimited as long as they continue to believe that they and they alone know how best to reorganize society. This mischief is in the form of a continuing armed struggle by their illegal organizations (like the NPA), and also in the form of welgas ng bayan, virulent street protests and disruptive labor strikes by their front organizations, which have driven and still drive investors, tourists and ultimately even Filipinos away from this unfortunate country. Because we have a soft state and uniformly weak governments � the inevitable result of wishy washy liberalism - Filipino communists were/are allowed to have their cake and eat it at the same time, something which their comrades were never permitted to enjoy in Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia , Thailand, South Korea or Taiwan, thus giving those countries the stability needed for economic growth. ***** Reacting to my column �RP: Failure of Liberal Democracy?�, Gras Reyes wrote �Failure of democracy? Or is it the failure of the Filipino people? They chose to have a democratic government, but they can�t hack it. They went for dictatorship, but no meaningful change took place. They went for people power, but no meaningful change took place either. Some want a Communist system but they cannot convince the majority. Others want a parliamentary form of government, but they are not sure the Filipino will change and improve. It looks like Filipinos fail the system rather than the other way around�.From 1935 to the present, the Filipinos failed in their schooling in democracy. They want to start on another subject, parliamentary system, because they think it is easier. The unfortunate way Filipinos behave is sure to make them fail again.� Reacting to my column �More on Free Trade�, Reyes also wrote: �Nothing seems to work for the Philippines. President Carlos P. Garcia and other protectionists did not succeed in getting the Philippines up on its feet and on to industrialization of first class calibre. Free Trade does not seem to work either. I guess it is how Filipinos themselves do things.� MY REPLY. So what is the solution? Slash our collective wrists and bleed to death? In a way, we are doing that already. With 2,307 adult Filipinos leaving EVERYDAY for jobs overseas, we are really bleeding to death as a nation, even if the immediate effect is to put more bread on our tables and support the proliferation of Shoemart malls around the country.. What glory is there in being a nation of atsays and drivers doing the menial work for the middle class families of the world? But let me give a familial example of how the political system of this country, inherited from the Americans and distorted by the Filipnos, has worked against our national interest. My father was appointed in 1951 by President Elpidio Quirino, architect of �Total Economic Mobilization�, to the board of directors of the National Steel and Shipyards Corp. (NASSCO), which was tasked to put up the country�s first steel mill and first modern shipyards. NASSCO succeeded in setting up these industrial facilities. But because of the nature of our political system, these steel mill and shipyards never matured into integrated industrial complexes. Changing presidents every four or six years, as mandated by the constitution, has meant that every new president changes the plans and priorities of his/her predecessor to start his/her own plans and priorities, which are then changed or replaced by the succeeding president. And so on ad nauseam. We are always on Step One and Step Two; we never get to Step Three or Step Four and beyond because of the constitutionally mandated constant change in leadership. Half a century and nine presidents after it was established, NASSCO�s steel mill has gone bankrupt and stopped operating, and its shipyards have gone to seed. By contrast, Indonesia�s Krakatoa Steel Mills, South Korea�s Pohang Steel Works and Malaysia�s HIMCO, all established 20 to 30 years AFTER our own, are integrated, thriving and world-class, protected by their governments against foreign competition., and major partners in their industrialization programs. Thailand�s Sahaviriya steel complex was established only in 1993, or 40 years after NASSCO�s; it supplies the steel plates for Thailand�s thriving automotive industry which now produces more than one million vehicles a year, including most of the pick-up trucks sold in the US. (The Philippines� automotive industry, established about 35 years ahead of Thailand�s, assembles only about 65,000 vehicles on a good year, and uses imported, pre-formed components from CKD kits). But you may be right: nothing seems to work in this country. Who bears the bigger blame: the political leaders that get elected, or the people who voted for them, or the political system that consistently spawns and nurtures such mediocrities? ***** The bulk of this article appeared in the June 10, 2002 issue of the Philippine Weekly Graphic. |
 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Real Scared of Communists�? July 6, 2002 Why the Philippines Always Fails: State industries have always failed. Perhaps we should have gotten the cue from Quezon�s hanky-panky back in 1916 when he created the Philippine National Bank. (Yeah, same dog, new leash). It was near-bankrupt in a few years and had to be rescued by a state bail-out. Good that the Governor-General then was Francis Burton Harrison, who was soft on the Filipinos. When the Republicans took over, they cast a cold eye on the independence/political ambitions of Quezon et al. (which are indistinguishable), and the mestizo prick had to sulk it out until another Democratic administration was in place. Solution: Re-colonize the Filipino. With gusto, Ross Tipon. [email protected]. MY REPLY. But, Ross, which imperial power would be demented enough to take responsibility for the feeding of, and, more challenging, the enforcement of laws among, 80 million quarrelsome anarchists, with their 50,000 contentious lawyers and their 600 impossible-to-please columnists and radio commentators? Genghis Khan? ACA. ***** The Filipinos have only themselves to blame. But they would rather blame the Americans or the Chinese. Damned fools. And people like De Quiros who constantly preach nationalism are the very same people who commit graft and corruption. Those who know him well would rather stay abroad than live in the same country as he does. Tony, if Filipinos in general cannot see what you see � the political system that nurtures mediocrities � and therefore cannot remedy the system and come up with leaders who can lead them in the right direction, then obviously they are to blame. If people like you and others cannot convince policy-makers, not necessarily because of your own shortcomings, then solutions to the political and economic problems of the Philippines will not be found. Who is to blame? The Filipino character, I think, not his intelligence, is to blame. The Filipino is intelligent and sees, like you do, what is wrong with the political system, but his character prevents him from doing the right thing, just as many presidents did not want to do the right thing. GMA is no exception. She has to please her voters. And the voters like someone who will please them, not necessarily the one who will put the interest of the country first and foremost. But if the majority of Filipinos do not want to work for the common good but only for their individual families� good, then the Philippines will not see the light at the end of the tunnel. Instead, the Philippines will keep going down the Philippine Deep. It will take a long time before it hits rock bottom. Gras Reyes. [email protected]. MY REPLY. Assuming you are right, that the Filipino character is to blame for the endless woes of the Philippines, what is the solution? Character is not an inherited trait but is molded by each individual�s environment. That is why, as many have noted, Filipinos living in the US are usually law-abiding, but they revert to law-bending and law-breaking when they come back here, where laws are not strictly and equitably enforced. To break the vicious spiral into anarchy, there must be a strong state and a strong government, so that laws are strictly and equitably enforced, so that in time the Filipino character is changed to a law-abiding one. Our nemesis here is the prevalent wishy washy liberalism, unwittingly nurtured by the liberal press and encouraged by communists and pro-communists, that equates a strong state and a strong government with the Gestapo and fascism. That is a deliberate tactical political choice because a weak state and a weak government are susceptible to anarchy which is ideal for revolution. There is nothing wrong with GMA or any other politician wanting to please her/his voters. That is a given in a democratic political system. And it is not incompatible with a strong state and a strong government. The strong states and governments in place in South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia are now run by politicians who must stand for election or re-election and must therefore please their voters. GMA understands the need for a strong state and a strong government But she may be a little confused on what that involves. She has parried criticisms of her hiring of political mercenaries from the Estrada camp (including one involved in massive cheating in the 1992 elections, another in charge of bribing print and radio journalists during the Erap presidency) with the declaration that a democratic leader �does not have to be a wimp� and that this is all �part of having a strong republic.� Let me put this as gently as I can: hiring political dirty tricks artists, with proven track records in the gutter, is not a sign of strength but rather of weakness. It suggests that GMA�s handlers are not sure of her worth in 2004 and must therefore hedge their bets with dirty tricks to ensure her victory. Whoever advised her to hire these scumbags has done her a disservice. ***** If you were given a (blank) sheet of paper to draw out a cure for the Philippines in an enumerated form, what would you write on it? Whenever I try, one cure gets bundled up by more strings that ultimately it is difficult to write anything down. Our problems are so complex and deep-rooted that they seem insurmountable. Nonoy Yulo. [email protected]. MY REPLY. But we can try. Watch the space under Tapatt�s Vision for an interactive redefinition on how we want to be governed. Offhand, I would say the priorities would be a) a shift to the parliamentary system of government; b) stringent requirements on those who want to run for public office; c) dismantling of political dynasties; d) sanctions against political turncoatism; e) execution by firing squad of leaders of military mutinies; f) scrapping of �absolute freedom of the press�; g) permanent disqualification from public office of convicted criminals; h) posting and updating on the Internet of all pending cases against government officials, elected and appointed; i) a Comelec that is not a brainless, spineless and toothless wonder; j) 45-day continuous trial for high-profile cases involving public officials; k) an electronic national ID system for administrative and electoral uses; l) death penalty for heinous crimes such as kidnapping-for-ransom and rape-murder of minors; etc. How�s that for starters? ***** Dear Mr. Abaya, I am not a communist but the article below seems to have shown that Cuba, for example, has gone around the energy problem quite well on its own despite the embargo by its neighbor. Maybe we can learn a lesson for two from this one. (See �The �Sol�of Cuba,� by Laurie Stone on http:/www.solarenergy.org/cuba.html). Jun B. [email protected]. MY REPLY. Thank you for the article by Stone. Actually, Cuba has scored many other successes besides this. Cuba is said to have had three big successes: world-class athletes, an excellent public health system, and free education up to tertiary level for the entire population. Cuba�s three big failures are said to be breakfast, lunch and supper. As a faithful satellite of the Soviets during the Cold War, Cuba was getting Soviet oil at one third of world prices. In exchange, Cuba sent troops, tank crews and pilots to fight the Soviets� proxy wars in Eritrea, Ethiopia and Angola. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989-91, Cuba was left without oil and not enough dollars to buy it in the world market in the quantities needed. As a result, factories ground to a halt, 12-hour daily power outages became the norm, and transportation was severely crippled. This was what Castro called Cuba�s �special period� when there were not enough fuel, jobs and food, when the average Cuban monthly wage of 300 pesos was worth exactly three US dollars in the black market, when stray cats and dogs disappeared from Havana�s streets. In the mid-90s, to save the economy from total collapse, Castro instituted many reforms that saw Cuban socialism diluted with profit capitalism. Individuals were allowed to go into private business in such fields as carpentry, handicrafts, home repairs and small restaurants, which previously had all been state-owned and operated. With Canadian and Spanish investors, the tourism industry was revived, drawing in millions of tourists each year who brought in the much-needed dollars (but also spawned an upsurge in another dollar-earning industry: prostitution). By far the most effective economic change Castro introduced was to decriminalize the possession of US dollars and other hard currencies. Millions of Cubans have relatives in Miami and other US cities. The hundreds of millions of dollars that these exiles sent home to their impoverished relatives each year is what saved the Cuban economy from total collapse, in much the same way that the billions of dollars sent home by Filipino OFWs are what have kept the import-oriented Philippine economy from sinking. But, in the case of Cuba, the free inflow of dollars has created a divide in its avowedly classless society, between those who have dollars and those who don�t. Dollar-holders could/can use them to buy imported food, wines, chocolates, toiletries, cosmetics, designer clothes, tapes and CDs and other consumer goodies in dollars-only stores operated by the socialist government (similar to the beryoshki in the Soviet Union where the national currency, the ruble, was also not accepted as a medium of exchange). Those who have no dollars have to make do with champurrado and panocha. Long live the Revolution! ***** OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |