 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| What�s She Smoking?
By Antonio C. Abaya Written July 02, 2007 For the Standard Today, July 03 issue President Arroyo is either delusional or hallucinating. The question begs to be asked:: What is she smoking? In a recent speech before a group of Filipino and Singaporean businessmen gathered together as the Philippine-Singapore Business Council, she was quoted as saying: �We would like to be like Singapore someday, maybe in 20 years � a First World country.� (Philippine Daily Inquirer, June 26, 2007). Added the Inquirer: More importantly, the President vowed to replicate the Singaporean government�s global reputation of being one of the least corrupt in the world, and use this to attract more investment. President Arroyo: �There is something else that Singapore is famous for, and that is its high standard of transparency in government. This is another thing that we want to emulate.� Who does not want the Philippines to become a First World country, in 20 years or whatever? And who does not want the Philippines to become one of the least corrupt countries in the world? But between wanting to be one and being actually one is an immense black hole of unmet expectations, unfulfilled ambitions and unrealized potentials which Filipinos have been humiliated with for decades because of poor governance by their leaders. President Arroyo has been dangling the dream of the Philippines becoming a First World country for almost a year now. Last year, her battle-cry was �Stay with me. I will make the Philippines a First World country in 20 years.� Or words to that effect. This was interpreted by some, including this writer, as her most hard-sell exhortation to amend the Constitution so that she can remain in power beyond 2010, as prime minister. But, as I wrote in my article First World by 2020? (Nov. 01, 2006) and subsequent articles, for our current per capita GDP of $1,433 to rise by 2020 to $20,000 � the per capita GDP of the �poorest� First World countries - would require a GDP growth rate of at least 15% per annum for the next 13 years. Not even China or India or Vietnam � the fastest growing economies in East and South Asia � has reached that level of growth. Malaysia , under Dr. Mahathir, also targeted the year 2020 as their coming of age as a fully industrialized country, under the catchy slogan Vision 2020 that was first articulated in the mid-1980s. So with a 35-year industrialization program � compared with President Arroyo�s 13-year undefined dream � Malaysia has a good chance of becoming a First World country by that year. Malaysia �s exports (mostly of manufactured goods) in 2005 totaled $147.l billion, compared to our $41.3 billion. Our manufacturing sector continues to shrink, because of the onslaught of free trade and globalization on our domestic producers. Helped along with a persistent and consistent promotion blitz on cable TV, Malaysia drew in 16 million tourists in 2005; without a similar marketing program, we are still struggling to reach three million in 2007. Perhaps buoyed up by the 6.9% GDP growth during the first quarter of 2007, President Arroyo is getting carried away by her own hype. This achievement seems to make realizable the 7-8-9 Plan of Joey Salceda, meaning 7% GDP growth in 2007, 8% in 2008, and 9% in 2009. But even that relatively modest target � compared to the 15% needed � is not going to happen anytime soon. The usually buoyant NEDA has just set our GDP growth target in 2008 at 6.2%. So what has President Arroyo been smoking to believe that the Philippines will be a First World country like Singapore (per capita GDP in 2005: $28,100) in 20 years, or by 2027? As for wanting to emulate the high standard of transparency in the Singapore government, and extolling its reputation as being one of the least corrupt governments in the world, isn�t this equivalent to a streetwalker preaching virginity to a gathering of nuns? At the very least, it is grotesque. And ironic that she was uttering these words in Singapore . At the height of the Hello Garci scandal two years ago, the Singapore government, in reply to a note verbale from our Department of Foreign Affairs, confirmed that Virgilio Garcillano � or someone who claimed he was Virgilio Garcillano � flew in to Singapore from Manila on July 14, 2005 in a private Lear Jet and left the next day for London (?) on board a commercial airliner. This was a direct refutation of the long-disappeared Garci�s claim � accepted by the Arroyo government, but believed by no one else � that he never left the Philippines . So who was lying? The �highly transparent� Singapore government, or the maddeningly opaque Virgilio Garcillano and Arroyo government? President Arroyo does not have the moral credibility to claim that she wants to emulate the incorruptibility of the Singapore government. It was/is under her watch that the Philippines became the second most corrupt country in East Asia last year, and the most corrupt country in East Asia this year, in the perception index of Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) Ltd. of Hong Kong .. It was a total waste of money on the part of the Arroyo government to hire Hong Kong anti-corruption adviser Tony Kwok, unless part of his job description is to someday burn down the offices of PERC in Hong Kong . By an apropos coincidence, the Manila Standard Today reported in its July 2 issue that Transparency International has just rated the Philippines as the eighth most corrupt country in the world, up from ninth last year, in its yearly corruption survey of 163 countries. The least corrupt countries, according to TI, are Finland and Iceland and New Zealand , all tied for first place, followed by Denmark in fourth place, and Singapore in fifth. It is not far-fetched to believe that the Philippines can jump from no. 155 to no. 5, even under our present group of leaders. It all depends on what you�re smoking. ***** Reactions to [email protected]. Other articles in www.tapatt.org and in acabaya.blogspot.com. TONY ON TV (20). Tony Abaya will guest on Manolo Quezon�s TV show �The Explainers� on ANC tonight, July 3, at 6:00 pm. ***** If you wish to be unsubscribed from this newsletter, please send a blank email to [email protected], with the subject heading Unsubscribe, and you will be removed from our distribution list. Thank you. ***** OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �What�s She Smoking?� More Reactions to �What to Do?� You are right, Tony. Probably she's been drinking too much cognac. But what else is new with this illegitimate and immoral head of state. There is only one solution....and you know what I'm thinking. Anyway, just keep it up so that I can continue forwarding your articles to enlighten those who are still skeptical. Narciso Ner, (by email), Davao City , July 03, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi, Tony. I hate to point it out because that would reinforce your argument, but a per capita of $1,433 growing at a compounded rate of 15% will only reach $8,817 after 13 years and not $20,000. For it to reach $20,000 it has to grow at probably about 30% per year compounded. At 13%, it would take about 23 years to reach $20,000. At its present rate of 6%, it would probably take about 50 years. On the other hand, are you sure of your per capita figure of $20,000? (The �poorest� First World countries, Portugal and Malta , had per capita GDP of $19,300 and $19,900, respectively, in 2005 ACA..) I wish to make a correction. The existing 6% growth rate refers to GDP and not per capita. I believe the per capita income grew much less because of the population growth rate. (What have I been telling you? All things being equal, the more people to share the pie, the smaller each share becomes, even if the pie grows a little bigger every year. ACA). From World Bank. (2007). Data & Statistics: Country Groups. Retrieved on 2007-06-20. While there is no precise definition of the "first" or "rich" world, the World Bank does categorize countries as high, upper and lower middle as well as low income. High income countries are thereby defined as countries with a Gross National Income per capita of $10,726 or more. While there is no precise definition of the "first" or "rich" world, the World Bank does categorize countries as high, upper and lower middle as well as low income. High income countries are thereby defined as countries with a Gross National Income per capita of $10,726 or more. At a compounded growth rate of 10%, it should take about 20 years, before the country's per capita income should reach a level close to $10,000. Or an equivalent of just one generation. However, whether this is attainable or not shouldn't be the issue. The issue is whether the Filipino people are willing to work hard, make the necessary sacrifices, think positive and be united in pursuing our goal of economic prosperity. Even if we don't succeed in attaining the 10% growth rate for 20 years, we will surely be much better off than the condition we are in right now. (Of that I am sure, but GMA should not make outlandish claims. It just further erodes the little credibility she has left. ACA) As they say, aim high and hit the target. (Or land splaaat on the pavement, if the goal is clearly unattainable. ACA) (The common usage in the 1970s and 1980s was: First World � the rich capitalist countries of North America, Western Europe, Japan, Australia-New Zealand; Second World - the communist countries led by the Soviet Union and China; Third World - the rest of the world. (Since the collapse of Communism in 1989-91, some ex-Communist countries - Poland , Hungary , Czech Rep., etc � have been inching up to First World level, but are not yet there. On the other hand, some Asian countries � Israel , South Korea , Taiwan , Hong Kong and Singapore � are already there. ACA) Bobby Tordesillas, (by email), July 03, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, There is a television campaign I see on the government channel saying in essence we're not THAT corrupt and mentions some successful programs that had brought the current administration to where it is. I personally feel it's fooling us Filipinos and this is what I hate about advertising. Pretty soon we'd be telling ourselves there's nothing wrong with the country, nothing wrong with our leaders and we will meet our goals however grandiose these might be. Then again, we can dream, can't we? Very truly yours, Mariquit Soriano, (by email), July 03, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, If it were true that President Arroyo hopes to have a country in the likeness of Singapore , it is a pipe dream. The government in the first place does not lead by example. Lee Kwan Yew flies on commercial airlines; the President of the Philippines flies on a chartered plane. Imelda Marcos, the widow of Ferdie, is a big spender and heavy tipper and so is Mr. Arroyo, the husband of Gloria. Those who are in power always remain above the law and those who are dispossessed are below. The people are easily swayed by name-recognition in selecting their leaders. The people are neither reactive nor proactive in the affairs of their country. The Filipinos are individual superstars rather than team players in their own country. They work hard to protect themselves and their families but not their country. If Filipinos love their country, they should be the first to punish those elected officials who have led them to the path of disaster and ruin. Those who have profited much from the country pay the least in taxes; those who earn the least pay the most. The hard hand of justice strikes the poor more often; the rich get a slap on the wrist most of the time! Dr, Nestor P. Baylan, (by email), New York City , July 03, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww In America , we call her speech lip-service. A feel-good approach without delivering the goods. I swear Philippine politicians adhere to demagoguery at every opportunity. They live and breathe it. They have gotten so good at it they don't even bat an eye, mainly because they couldn't care less as to whether they mean it or not. As long as it sounds good, it is fair game. The poor public is so used to it, so why raise questions? It would be an exercise in futility. My math tells me many of Arroyo's goals do not compute, so I beg to question. Is she intending to be around for 20 years to oversee the miracle of transcending the Philippines into a first class World Power? (Of course. ACA). God forbid! This is all hocus pocus to me. What a shameful thing to promise, knowing it's so full of loopholes and hot air. She can't even connect the dots now, that is why the country is going down the drain fast. Okay let's be fair though. I will give credit to the administration. Lately the exchange rate has gotten better by a few pesos to the dollars. This is a sign the economy is improving. Small it may be, but it is a step forward. Footnote: Let's refrain from using negative expressions such as most corrupt, the poorest, Etceteras because they do not help the country's image in the world stage. When foreigners read it this sticks to their consciousness forever. It is never acceptable to wash our dirty laundry publicly. We are sending the wrong message. Thanks, Tony, keep stirring the pot. Someone has to. Oscar Apostol, (by email), Roseville , CA , July 03, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Who do we shoot, Tony? The spread of cancer in Philippine politics will continue to grow in different directions. From one main aorta unto the small veins, then goes to the tiny capillaries. This means that corruption starts from the executive branch and ends up in a small barangay unit. How pathetic is this? Ganny D. Cornelio, (by email), July 03, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hahahahaha! That was hilarious, Tony! Especially the Garci part! What IS she smoking, indeed? Hahahahaha! Charlie Borromeo, (by email), July 04, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Another Singapore in 20 years? Will somebody please tell GMA to step down and let the country take its due course? Does she know where "exactly" Singapore is? She wouldn't know! But everyone ELSE does! This is going to be funny (maybe) but I know exactly where Singapore is. Are you ready for this, Tony? Singapore is exactly between "Singa-three" and "Singa-Five". Nowhere is the Philippines any where else in "20 years" as GMA would want us to believe. Another "20 years" with GMA? PLEASE! MORE POWER, TONY Jeremias, Decena, (by email), July 04, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww People like you who seems to be very pessimistic about the good chances we have at this time, are the kind of people that we do not want to be in the country in the first place. Perhaps it is better for you to find somewhere else to stay. (I resent that insulting remark. I love this country more than a foreigner like you can. But it does not mean I have to close my eyes to its shortcomings or to its perennially poor leadership. ACA.) I do not bite your comments, nor I believe that it is impossible for us to really improve in 20 years time. Take out the politics from our lifestyle and I am sure we will recover. John Pennifold, (by email), July 04, 2007 (Don�t you understand your own native language?. I did not write that �it is impossible for us to really improve in 20 years time.� Our current average growth rate of 5.5 to 6.5% per annum is respectable and welcome. See my article �Hooray for 6.9% June 04, 2007. What I wrote was that it was not enough to make us into another Singapore in 20 years� time, as PGMA preposterously claims she can. What have you been smoking? ACA.) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, You mentioned that 'Our manufacturing sector continues to shrink, because of the onslaught of free trade and globalization on our domestic producers.' I think another cause, which is not minor, is radical labor unions. Philtread, the manufacturer of Firestone tires, closed down in the 1990's after a massive labor strike. Michelin, a bigger tire company, bought the factory to produce Michelin tires in our country, but then it suffered the same fate. It also shut down after a labor strike. Nars Silverio, (by email), July 03, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Your lack of understanding of basic economics is partly to blame for the necessity for some deals to remain nontransparent. If it were up to you many populist and politically convenient laws would be passed. Mahatir and Lee Kuan Yew made many populist compromises during their tenure. Many free market deals had to be concealed for fear of scaring the local populace due to a lack of understanding of economics. Singapore was not always as transparent as it is now. Hell Mahatir also a bad human rights record. (I have never been under any illusion that Mahathir and Lee Kwan Yew were/are liberal democrats. Their successes were partly due to their readiness to use draconian measures (e.g. their Internal Security Act., inherited from the British colonial government) against their Communist insurgencies. ACA) You also forget that Singapore 's success hinged largely on the application of free markets with duty free entry of goods. Foreign ownership of companies was not an issue (Singapore, like Hong Kong, is a free port. Free trade is advantageous to it because its population (4.5 million) is too small to build prosperity on. It needs a global market so that its manufactures/services achieve economies of scale. But what is good for Singapore (and Hong Kong) is not necessarily also good for the Philippines , with its population of 88 million ACA). To quote: " Malaysia 's exports (mostly of manufactured goods) in 2005 totaled $147.l billion, compared to our $41.3 billion. Our manufacturing sector continues to shrink, because of the onslaught of free trade and globalization on our domestic producers." So do I take it that we can expect to export our goods to other countries if we protect our industry from foreign competition? Why would they buy our goods if their goods are cheaper and better than ours? Especially if you factor in the cost of transporting it here it is still cheaper. If our local industry can't compete with imported goods at home, how do you expect them to compete globally? You don't have to be an economist to understand this. I haven't even mentioned the costs of protecting local firms to society and consumers. Anyway, I recommend you read: "The Peso Exchange Rate: Why Are We So Poor?" by Rey Angeles to broaden your mind a bit. Mark Belo, (by email), July 03, 2007 (To broaden your mind a bit, why don�t you learn some economic history? The US practiced protectionism from 1787, when Alexander Hamilton was secretary of the Treasury, until the 1930s. Even during the postwar years, the US imposed limits to imports of footwear, motorcycles, garments, sugar, etc, to protect American jobs and American producers. In the last two years alone, George W. Bush, the great Free Trade advocate, imposed tariffs on Canadian lumber, Korean and Brazilian steel, Vietnamese prawns and catfish, etc to protect American jobs and American producers. (On the other side of the Atlantic , despite pressure from the Americans, the Europeans continue to subsidize their agriculture, to protect their farmers against American imports. Last I looked, France and Italy did not allow Japanese and Korean cars to capture more than a small percent of their automotive markets, to protect their workers and their industries against foreign competition. (Japan modernized under protectionist regimes, from 1880 to the present. So did South Korea and Taiwan from the 1970s to the present, and China from the 1990s to the present. Admittedly, all four have been under pressure, from the Americans and the Europeans, to open up their economies. They have done so, kicking and screaming, but it does not erase the fact that they could not have industrialized if they had not protected their industries from foreign competition during their formative years. (If it is alright for rich, industrialized countries to take measures to protect their jobs and their industries, why is it not alright for poor developing countries like the Philippines to do the same? ACA) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Buti di siya tinamaan ng kidlat habang nagsasalita. I wonder how she actually felt saying all the impossible things on that day, Tony. James Tanaka, (by email), July 03, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, As I have been saying all along since after the term of Cory Aquino, our country can achieve progress in one generation if we could find a leader as strong as Marcos, with the sincerity of Cory Aquino. Ping Lacson comes close but not close enough as his orientation is Marcosian. General Fred Lim is even closer, but people are dumb that he landed at the bottom in the 1998 (or was it 1992) presidential election. Thanks and more power. Bert Celera, (by email), July 03, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, We can be a prosperous country if we have a good moral leader trusted by our people, and who know what to do. A leader who knows the way and walks with his people towards our common visions, missions and goals, I do not see it among our present government officials, Rex Rivera, (by email), July 03, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony: It may have been a long time ago that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo earned her doctorate in Economics. It is quite possible that she may have forgotten much of what she learned then in the confines of academe. I will grant her that. But I am not prepared to concede that she has forgotten all of it, particularly the subjects critically associated with the broad discipline of Economic Development which routinely includes GNP, GNP Per Head, GDP, GDP Per Head, Savings, Investments, Imports, Exports, International Trade, Public Expenditures, Household Expenditures, Population, and Rates of Growth of the Previous Categories. With this premise in mind, she must actually have known that given her country's actual performance over time, it was in no position ever to reach First World status in the span of 20 years! She must also have known that her audience, practically all experts, knew that the Philippines had no chance of attaining such status in the time frame she mentioned. So, why did she knowingly say what she did? My sense is that President Arroyo was not trying to reach her immediate audience. She was deliberately reaching beyond her immediate audience to another target audience--the Filipino people. Very clever, indeed! Mar Patalinjug, (by email), Yonkers , NY , July 03, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony A, People are beginning to wonder if the subject you are referring to is as you say, 'delusional' or is just trying to pull people's legs, as it were, into believing her raving lunacy! In my lifetime, which is over four scores and counting, I have never met anyone who overtly does one hideous thing and without batting an eyelash tells the world she proposes the exact opposite. I don't think she or anyone in her behalf can correct the fatal mistakes she has done. Even all the well-known convicted former leaders of other nation-states were not as "capalmuks"as she is. Good day, friend of good people, and more power to you. Jose Regino, (by email), July 03, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Sir Abaya, It seems to me you are very good writer, and as I read all your articles, all you are doing is pointing out what is not good in the country, the president, the people, and I appreciate you for that. What you seem to lack is an analysis on what are we going to do to better the situation? I suggest you do that from time to time, so we will know that you are a Filipino who actually gives a damn for this country. Thanks, Gary Glenn Estacio, (by email), July 04, 2007 (See my succeeding article, What to Do? ACA) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Pardon my language but again and again, from voters, readers in response to your online columns, and from other journalists, we hear and read only complaints, condemnations, charges of ineptitude or deceptions, while from our public masters (not public servants) we see only political smokescreen and hear empty platitudes and impossible promises. The world sees and reads about how bad or inept our politicians are, how deceptive the President is, how silent and inactive our Vice President is, (read: the VP wants a clean slate for the next prexy election but presents an empty slate instead, or does he know the difference), how widespread is fraud and corruption in the land and how stupid our voters and candidates are. Now, where is the solution or solutions to our economic problems? Can pointing accusing fingers at each other solve a single eco problem? What we need to hear, Mr.Abaya, are proposals of viable economic solutions, yes, blue prints for progress, not more blah-blahs on the country's dirty laundry. The world already knows this and is already deaf to our incessant complaints. Moreover, our problems won't go away by our repetitive cackling and barking under the guise of articles or RX letters that have new or different headings. May I suggest that all RX to your illuminating articles that consist only of praising you for your journalistic ken or how fantastic your articles are, or agreeing with you on your exposes and critiques, but do not in any way offer a solution, (no matter how ridiculous the proposal may be), then the Rx should be considered as trash and thrown to where it belongs, your garbage can. May I suggest that you print only positive and viable proposals so we can get moving. Solutions, solutions, solutions, are what we need, and I repeat, we should consider them no matter how ridiculous they may appear to be. Weak solutions are better than some readers' capitalized, underlined, vehement curses on politicians and our economic situation. Some readers show stats about our plight and some even refer to the causes of our deplorable situations, but stats and diagnoses are good only as starting points. The important thing is to move from that spot toward a possible solution or prescription or antidote. The focus of the brilliant mind of every reader should be redirected towards finding and suggesting a positive solution. There is no other path to take and the hour getting late. Our country can not wait another hour. We must arrest its slide towards political and economic chaos. And what is the solution offered here? Harnessing the power of OFWs and patriotic Filipino expats (each to buy $10 a share) to fund a Filipino Global Fund in the care of a Board of Stewards who will manage the financing of (a) the teaching of entrepreneurship henceforth (b) the running of a Microlender Bank for new entrepreneurs and small businesses (c) to pay cash rewards to informers and whistleblowers and attorney's fees to the lawyers who will assist in the prosecution of inactive, inept and corrupt public servants ( ay mali, public masters, pala). My $10 is ready. How about yours? Lionel Tierra, (by email), Sacramento , CA , July 04, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is both delusional and hallucinating. Over here in Singapore , the businessmen who heard her say she would like to replicate Singapore in 20 years are one in saying that she must be joking, the way she damaged the country.. They added that perhaps, she must be thinking of perpetuating herself in power for that long by really changing the Constitution and making herself the lifetime president, or better still, Queen of the Philippines . Sincerely, Frank Y. Anoyan, (by email), July 04, 2007 An OFW in Singapore wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, I have read your item regarding the topic above (Standard Today, July 3, 2007) and I am really amazed by it. You got details. You seem to be a well-informed and intelligent guy. Guys like you can really make a difference. In addition to your goal of earning your buck, what did you hope to achieve by your narration? My admiration would have been complete if you have included something that will contribute to what we all hope for, that is, for our beloved country to move forward. I am away and I really do not know GMA that much or what she is doing for that matter, but I will not throw the first stone. It is so easy to ridicule and condemn. If we could only use our talents positively�in my own little way I know I am. Ramon M. Golpeo, (by email), Saudi Arabia , July 04, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Copy furnished) Hey, guys�..this is a good article. Take time to read it. For being well-researched and direct to the point�.I rated this article ***** Romino A. Buccat, (by email), Saudi Arabia , July 04, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Is there anyone that can give an opinion that can support the current government on how to achieve the stated goal no matter how absurd to others opinion. I really believe unless we try to help instead of not supporting the goal and being critical to be counter productive by swaying others to do nothing or to do something against the possible goals to better the country anti corruption just proved that we are just negative people. I have been in many countries....including Singapore believe me Singapore is not that transparent....they are just good on what they do.....there corrupt people every were....it is human nature...we are all born sinners. So help our Birth Country,,,to be better.....it is better than before and getting better......look at last election results.....there is HOPE...... At your service, Dick Aquino, (by email), July 05, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww The title is catchy but probably you are just being careful? But, you might not be far from the truth because GMA was exposed to tons of marijuana smoke that she herself took the initiative to burn sometime ago. Felix Zamar, (by email), July 08, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya: Re your �What�s She Smoking?� on PGMA�s dreams for the Philippines as uttered in Singapore recently, please save your talent and time on her. She doesn�t listen to Filipinos, only to her foreign master(s). Remember that highly treasonous event a few months ago when she personally plucked that convicted U.S. serceman from the Makati jail and deposited him into the �laps� of the U.S. embassy in Pasay ? Did any of our newspapers raise hell as a result of that infamous incident? Did we hear any significant howl of protest from our �elites� in the government, the CBCP, and even from the masa? And what did President Bush do to pre-empt any possible attempt to incite local opposition to PGMA�s disloyalty to the Filipino people? For as long as the country�s government maintains the �special relations� (read:master-slave arrangement) with the U.S. , this country will remain �the sick man of Asia �, nunc et semper. Ramon.A. Ibarbia, (by email), July 10, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Re Your views on GMA's Speech before Singaporeans 1) Singaporeans do not have the freedoms we Filipinos enjoy. If they had, probably they could not have reached the kind of 'economic stature' we now envy. Don't you remember Lee Kuan Yu's visit in the '90's when he tried to warn us about enjoying too much freedom. Singaporeans then were pressured to have only two children, until recently when they discovered the folly of their zero growth policy and have reversed tactics. DO YOU WANT THIS TO HAPPEN IN OUR COUNTRY? (If you are asking me if I agree that if the Singaporeans had our freedoms, �probably they could not have reached the kind of �economic stature� we now envy,� my answer is YES. (If you are asking me if I agree with the Singaporean policy of encouraging their people to have only two children per family, my answer is also YES. ACA) 2) On corruption - hasn't this been the national culture? Why blame the current government. Is it the government who cheats or is it the people. Who pays the correct taxes in our country if they can cheat. I DARE ASK THOSE WHO CONDEMN THE GOVERNMENT: businessmen, professionals (supposedly respectable doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc) who of you issue receipts. I ask, if you can avoid it will you pay the correct taxes? will you not 'tip' the policeman if caught? will you not beat the red light, go ahead of others on the road, in the line, etc? 3) On immediately believing everything that is negative and questioning whatever is positive. Which of the Congress and Senate investigations proved to be true? The only thing that came out of it is that those who came up with the accusations (even when proved wrong) were voted into the Senate. How easily we believe everything negative; not questioning their intentions the way we question everything the President does or says. SHOULDN'T WE BE ASHAMED OF OURSELVES? WHEN CAN WE THINK FOR OURSELVES AND NOT LET OTHERS DO IT FOR US? 4) Where is our honesty? If we cannot be fair ( accepting at least all the improvements in the national situation - the economy; the investments coming in; the overall positive outlook even by foreign respected bodies and large multinational businesses who know where to invest their billions) then we have NO MORAL RIGHT TO CRITICIZE. 5) Finally, THIS IS OUR ONLY COUNTRY. WE ALL HAVE A STAKE IN IT. WE ALL RISE OR FALL TOGETHER. WE CANNOT BE POINTING FINGERS FOREVER. LET US BE GRATEFUL THAT WE ARE AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME WHEN THINGS ARE LOOKING UP FOR US. LET US GET OUR ACT TOGETHER NOW. HELP IN WHATEVER WAY WE CAN. TOMMOROW MIGHT BE TOO LATE! Best regards, Pichi Escoda, (by email), July 11, 2007 Wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww More Reactions to �What to Do?� (July 04, 2007) Hi Tony, Further to my reaction to the above subject, it would be an interesting thought about how many Filipino OFWs' have any proposal at all on how to solve the Philippines' problems and are willing to part with their hard-earned $10. Take my particular case for instance. I may not be smart enough to come up with any proposal at all, but I do have the $10. Regards, Noe Castanos, Toronto , Ontario , Canada , July 08, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Very good suggestions! However, suggested to who?Anong halaga kung ang nakakabasa ay katulad naming hindi naman taong gobierno o walang paraan para ma-influence iyong mga nakaupo sa government. So talak ka lang ng talak na walang magandang pupuntahan, Nasasayang lang ang horas mo.A ang magaling na dapat mong gawin ay kumandidato ka kahit na mag-umpisa kang baranggay captain. Kung manalo kay may chance ka ng ipakita ang gilas mo. Otherwise para ka lang si Perry Diaz, putak ng putak wala namang iniitlog. LOL Ross Sedillo, (by email), July 09, 2007 (You are assuming that all those who read this space are �innocent bystanders� like you. But you may be interested to know that many of our readers are prominent in business, civil society, media, academe and the military. It is possible some of them may be in the next government, whether constitutional or revolutionary. ACA) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I think it is a good first step. Eliminate the unqualified....like boxer Pacman, actors and actresses who live in a make-believe world. Candidates and holders of public office should have knowledge of the Constitution (ask Erap), workings of the branches of government, taxation (customs and internal revenue), foreign affairs, domestic affairs, law and order, etc. Pinoys are politically immature. They don't vote on issues but on personalities. Hopefully, the barangays will involve grassroots movement for better governance. Each of us can start with our arangay officers. Request budget vs. actual performance. Do any of those living in their local barangays know what their budget is, where the funds go? Ernie Aragon, (by email), July 09, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Agree in principle. But I do not think it will pass muster. It goes against the grain of a Democracy, where any law abiding citizens can run for public office. Majority of Phil. office holders/candidates are well qualified and know the laws, etc. But instead of using that knowledge to advance the welfare of the people, they used it to exploit and cheat and advance their personal agenda. Disqualifying the unqualified candidate should be a good first step as you said. But the second phase is to detect the crooks. How? By a well informed, involved and interested majority of citizens who will take the time to anlyze issues, past performances and qualifications of the candidates. There lies the problem. Don't ask me how since I am not a candidate. I will only be mouthing smarter people than I, who have expressed ideas and visions for the future. As SVR mentioned, ir will take a holistic approach by all levels and parts of society. The schools, media, parents, religious groups, gov'ts at all levels from the barangays to National, and individual commitments. Who will lead and inspire? Another factor to consider. If an office holder is too honest and sqeaky clean and does not compromise, can he/she win reelection? Politics in general is complex but especially so in developing countries. To survive, one must be street smart, pragmatic, and must have financial means. If you are not born wealthy, how will you finance your election and reeelection? Even if one is rich, how will one recoup his/her election expenses after one wins? But let us stay positive. It can be done and will be done in due time. Rey Caringal, (by email), July 10, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Caringal , Uncle Ernie ... Want to make a REAL difference? Rather than tilting against windmills ... Here's a chance for each of us to make a meaningful contribution. Let us work together for the grassroots transformation of our people. Visit http://www.gawadkalinga.org Albert Aragon, (by email), July 10, 2007 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |