Visit pinoybigbriber.com, Now Na!
November 7, 2007 by mlq3
Filed under Daily Dose
Visit pinoybigbriber.com! Now Na! Thanks to Rebolusyon2006, to Ceci da Supastar, to DPS Class 67, and to gourmet blogger Market Manila for their linking to the site!
As they say in showbiz, “in fairness,” reservations on this activity are expressed in Iniibig ko ang Pilipinas! Milder criticism (on questions of translation) in caffeine sparks.
I’ve signed two online petitions, the first calling for a snap election (a position I’ve adopted in my column, so I’m just being consistent) and another one, petitioning for clemency for Marilou Renario, a Filipina OFW facing the death penalty in Kuwait.
A hat tip to Piercing Pens for pointing to the Time Magazine article, Crisis — Again — for the Philippines’ Arroyo, which quoted me.
Now here’s a question, not because I hope it happens (I hope to God it never does) but with the following: Oil and gold soar as US dollar wilts and Asia marker Tapis crude breaks $100/bbl for 1st time and with the widely-held assumption George W. Bush is looking for excuses to bomb Iran, what do you think will happen if the lifeline of remittances that keeps our economy afloat, suddenly gets strangled or even cut?
What then, do you do in a crisis situation where the head of state depends on lavish cash-giving to maintain political support, and where a significant chunk of the population detests her? What then?
The President has no reservoir either of popularity or good will, to bank on. Her allies support her conditionally, and voraciously. People can ignore anything political because their escape route abroad has been planned. Those at home can wait for remittances. Cut off that escape route, throw a monkey wrench in the sending of those remittances, and then what happens?
The President can cut tariffs and keep the cost of oil low for public transportation. But the middle class will feel the pinch, as will large corporations with their fleets of vehicles. Transport costs for products will escalate. The sectors in the economy growing are not big enough to absorb those who suddenly have to give up prospects of going abroad, and Heaven help us if some sort of general state of war erupts in the Middle East and causes trouble, in turn, in Muslim-dominated nations. You get my drift.
You may not need a government with legitimacy in normal times but you need one when there’s a crisis that affects all sectors, including those who craved stability at all costs, because their pocketbooks weren’t affected by “political noise.”
Anyway, on to the political scene.
A shrewd observation from John Nery in his column:
The photograph showing Lakas-CMD party leaders giving the thumbs-up sign purports to show renewed “unity of purpose†forged in a summit in Malacañang last Saturday; instead, it projects an air of vulnerability. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo herself, in the center of the picture flanked by Speaker Jose De Venecia and ex-President Fidel Ramos, does not seem to be too pleased; we’ve seen her strike a happier pose before. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita is all the way on the left, almost literally marginalized. (Indeed, he is cropped out in the photo published in the Inquirer.) The lone senator in the gathering is a rookie and a lightweight, Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri; in the photo, he is dead center, but in the political crisis that the President is working mightily to resolve, he is firmly in the periphery.
Not least, Ermita’s rival as the President’s most influential alter ego, Interior Secretary Ronaldo Puno, is not in the picture. Of course, that’s because he is not Lakas-CMD, but Kampi. But that’s precisely the point, isn’t it?
Puno, of course, has the last laugh: Kampi gave cash gift to solons–party exec. Over at blog@AWB Holdings, he has something to say about that:
Can you believe that? I don’t.
1. Why only now? Abante and Villarosa should have made that admission on the day the issue was forced out. The timing reeks of planning. After all, after Panlilio and Mendoza exposed the cash gifts to governors, the supposed source of funds admitted giving cash two weeks after the fact. And since there was no visible and audible outrage, the people has given the politicians a clear signal – rob us more, fool us more. So admitting now is just OK, right?
2. Why give money to non-party mates? You take care of your own, right? Poor Angelica Jones. (Background: the showbiz actress ran for the position of provincial board member under KAMPI. She lost, and blamed the party for not supporting her.)
3. Where did KAMPI get all that money? Mike Arroyo? Iggy Arroyo? Jose Pidal? Wow, I had no idea KAMPI is this rich. Maybe I should join the party, no? Most probably I’d get the laptop that I am eyeing. Hmm.
4. Ronaldo Puno once claimed that the money did not come from them, instead pointed to Lakas’ Jose de Venecia.
Not that Eduardo Ermita isn’t beyond a chuckle or two. Konfrontasi between Puno and Ermita had tongues wagging that Ermita was on his way out, that Puno was ascendant, and that the Batangas mafia in the cabinet were out, too: but the Batanguenos seem to have struck back -and struck a deal. They’re still in the official family and not out in the cold.
Now a conspiracy theorist might explain the “Hail, Hail, the Gang’s All Here” Kodachrome moment at the Palace in this manner, as a text message has it:
See if you can check w ur sources: gma s cptv of lakas due 2 anthr tape gvn her fri. night by nidntfied source. She ws up n abt ntl 3 am of sat. tryng 2 determine who tpd it. If gma does not hold up 2 truce, lks wl pounce on her. It dpnds how puno wl counter 2 sve queen. D war s nw btwn lakas n kampi. ermita as proxy vs puno, oppo wl jst play their role.
When I asked for clarification, the following arrived:
Apparently jueteng pay off w GMA present. Its in her house daw in Forbes. Or in La Vista.
Another source opined,
If true, Obviously k chavit galing yan. Dats d bomb he threatened to explode coz of erap pardon.
Yet another message said,
Yun tape kung jueteng di si chavit ang source. Blackmail yan and gma unlike erap will give chavit wat he wants.
But in the end, the best that text messages can provide are leads, which can lead to wild goose chases and dead ends, or the opening of a real can of worms. But there’s no need to go into conspiracy theories.
As far as the Inquirer editorial goes, it’s all posturing:
The exemplar of this progress is the increasingly institutionalized Malacañang cash bar and buffet, courtesy of the President. This Tuesday, after weeks of bumbling and confusion, the source of the half-a-million-peso cash buffet servings to congressmen was finally revealed. It was the President’s very own pet political party, Kampi, that doled out the money. Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante Jr. claimed that Deputy Speaker Amelita Villarosa claimed in turn to have doled out the cash, and that he was surprised Kampi was giving him, a Lakas-CMD party member, money. But he said thanks for the half a million, anyway.
To be fair, Abante shouldn’t have been surprised. Party affiliation has never been so meaningless as it is now. We should point out that no president, ever, has been so promiscuous when it comes to party affiliation, thus rendering it inconsequential. Ms Arroyo is titular head of Lakas-CMD, of the Liberal Party and of Kampi. All previous presidents were content to head one party or movement at a time. But this is part of Ms Arroyo’s claims of progress.
The acerbic Manuel Buencamino also looked at the same picture Nery did, and this is what he concluded:
Those “small hurts†did not look so small when Fidel Ramos was pounding his desk protesting the pardon of Joseph Estrada, when Gloria Arroyo’s aides bribed 190 congressmen to force Speaker de Venecia to refer the bogus impeachment complaint to the House justice committee, and when de Venecia responded with an ultimatum letter to Gloria Arroyo asking her to fire her most loyal henchmen and to undergo a moral recovery, even if there were no morals there to recover in the first place.
The family disagreement looked so large and irreconcilable a split looked inevitable. But size became relative when the grand vision emerged—“unlimited power and unrestrained plunder up to and beyond 2010.â€
And so the ruling family’s capos decided, “Our loyalty to our country ends when our loyalty to our party begins.â€
Lakas-CMD will not split into two lines, one behind Mrs. Arroyo and the other behind the Speaker, because Gloria Arroyo made sure everyone saw who held the slop bucket.
Under Erap it was “weather-weather langâ€; under Gloria it’s “pera-pera lang.â€
Gloria Arroyo will not be impeached over the ZTE broadband deal. The leaders of the ruling party, their group picture splashed on the front page of last Monday’s papers, gave the thumbs up for this administration to continue with plunder, human-rights violations, extrajudicial killings and, most important of all, to keep those cash-filled envelopes coming.
It doesn’t matter that Joey de Venecia III told the truth. Not when the AFP is the AFGMA and the PNP is “Pulis Ni Pidalâ€; not when businessmen are under the spell of a brother of fugitive businessman Dewey Dee; not when the perfumed set continue to consider themselves and the Arroyo couple as “somosâ€; not when the guardians of morality, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, allow themselves to be wined and dined by Malacañang.
Gloria is not afraid of civil society anymore. The only people who still scare her “are those soldiers kept in General Esperon’s jails.
And here’s the clincher: with the President saying that the bottom line is, indeed, the bottom line, of big business and the bigshots in her various pet parties, something has to give. As Buencamino says, in the continuation of his column,
Under ordinary circumstances, those soldiers, charged with mutiny and attempted coup, would be considered traitors. But these are extraordinary times, and those soldiers hold the moral high ground over Gloria Arroyo’s generals who are perceived to have turned their back on everything they learned in the academy.
And so, with each new scandal, the prisoners of Esperon gain more respect from the public and the rank and file in the military.
Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t think a coup is the best solution to the Gloria Arroyo problem.
I have no doubt those soldiers detained in Tanay are highly principled, honest and patriotic. But a junta, no matter how pure and well-meaning at the outset, has a tendency to degenerate into a dictatorship, as history has shown countless times.
So I think it’s best for the civilian population to take care of the Gloria problem before the military becomes impatient and does it for them.
Over the weekend, I received an alarming text that confirmed rumors that the soldiers are losing patience and a bloody civil war is in the offing if civil society delays on its duty to oust Gloria through impeachment or people power.
The text message read:
“While Malacañang was loudly rejoicing over the neutralization of civilian society, a high-ranking general was quietly dispatched to Tanay to plead with the detained soldiers not to issue any more inflammatory statements against their superiors. He told them their uncompromising position was beginning to seriously affect the chain of command; the rumbling among the rank and file was growing stronger. From Tanay, the general went straight to Malacañang to report that his appeal was turned down.â€
We are foolishly marching toward civil war, the most uncivil of wars, because we continue to buy the lie that human beings will tolerate injustice as long as they have a full stomach. History does not suffer fools gladly.
The deals, if anyone doubted they’ve been signed, sealed, and delivered, have their details trickling out in the headllines: first order of business, House rejects supplementary impeachment case of UNO and the second order of business is the clincher, House Ethics panel rules to clear JdV of charges.
This is just silly: Summit of 4 living presidents pushed. If thats what the officials want to do, there are two institutional means for accomplishing this. The first is the Council of State. The second, is the National Security Council.
My Inquirer Corrent (see the previous entry by John Nery, Sleepless in Glorietta) entry is on the competing presentations of the police and Ayala Corp., as well as Newsbreak’s report. Newbsreak’s article is particularly interesting, because I think nearly everyone has smelled stinky gases from the sewers of nearly all the major malls, so if methane ends up the culprit, some sort of action needs to be taken.
On to the world beyond our borders. US Senate approves more funds for RP so long as government solves killings.
In Thailand, Tycoon Politics Return to Thailand.
In The Freedom Agenda Fizzles, Fred Kaplan describes how American officials frantically tried to convince the President of Pakistan not to impose martial law. Apparently, he proved unwilling to be swayed, unlike our own president who received a visit from US spookmaster Negroponte in January, 2006, when GMA was serious about proclaiming martial law. Read Pervez’s Power Play for an additional blog roundup. Meanwhile, in Islamabad, Ousted Top Judge Calls for Uprising:
Sacked top judge Chaudhry called on his countrymen to save the constitution, prompting authorities to sever mobile phone coverage in parts of Islamabad as he addressed a meeting of lawyers by telephone. “I want lawyers to spread my message to the people of Pakistan,†he said to cheers from supporters before all lines went dead. “The time for sacrifice has come, to rise up for the supremacy of the constitution,†he added.
In his blog, The Washington Note says Dubya’s stuck in a trap of his own making:
The fact is that we have to deal with democrats and dictators around the world. The CNN clip did a good job showing how we had worked with Saddam in the past and other tough self-dealing thugs like Noriega, Marcos, and the Shah. We could get away with that in the Cold War when America was clearly a better overall alternative to the Soviet Union — but today, there is nothing else for global citizens making choices about their own governments to compare America to.
Our choices define us — and yes, we still have to deal with some of the world’s bad guys. But Bush set up a huge hypocrisy test which he shouldn’t have. George W. Bush’s pretensions in January 2005 puffed up a democracy bubble that Musharraf has definitively punctured.
In South Korea, Philippine school linked to scandal in South Korea over fake diplomas. Note that its South Koreans who faked their diplomas, not Philippine schools.
A final word about the fucked-up NPC mural. Pardon my French.
Look, if you are going to commission an artist’s collective, regardless of what you spend, you don’t fuck around with their painting. Don’t like it? Ask for revisions, but considering you commissioned a collective, which is a type of organization that obviously has ideological principles as its foundation, good luck with that. Still don’t like it? Return it. Don’t have time? Tough, don’t put the painting on display. Still want something on your wall? Put up a government poster, if you’re the NPC.
But when you fuck around with a painting expect a big, royal, resounding “Fuck you!” in return. You’re dealing with artists from Angono, not corporate drones who can Photoshop on client demand.
Conrado de Quiros says it better.
And good news, particularly since no renaming of streets was involved: Finally, a boulevard named after ‘Ka Pepe’ Diokno.
Technorati Tags: Blogging, constitution, elections, House of Representatives, impeachment, journalism, media, military, philippines, politics, president, Washington DC
Delicious
Facebook
Flickr
LinkedIn
Technorati
Twitter
Loading ...
tonio on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 4:22 pm
… well it’s two days after, but after all this ain’t England.
tagabukid on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 4:49 pm
mlq3,
nakaboto na ko… but im really sorry i cant go Friday, tagal ko pa naman hinintay ng rally na yan, kaso natapat talaga. i will do my share na lang in spreading the word sa e-group namin.
anyway, mahaba pa ang labanan. im sure marami pang susunod, magkakasama-sama pa rin tayo… babangon na ang Pilipino!
tagabukid on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 4:54 pm
Kudos to BnW for the PBB concept… magaling, magaling, magaling!
mlq3 on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 5:02 pm
tagabukid, salamat. puwede ka namang magpadala ng postcard kung saan man ka sa biyernes.
tonio on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 5:15 pm
can you actually mail a postcard to the Imperial Palace without postage?
Chabeli on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 5:17 pm
MLQ,
The idea of taping payoffs to Gloria & FG is not new. I already saw one (I don’t know if this is the same as the text message you got) when Gloria was still a VP.
Gloria should not even wonder who has been taping the payoffs. She should just look in her backyard. She will know who they are. The people who claim to support her, NEVER trusted her for one bit.
It shows you how long the Pidals have been in the payoff business !
tonio on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 5:26 pm
Arroyo’s Pax Corruptio could only last so long…
mlq3 on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 5:41 pm
tonio, as far as i know, the franking privilege (free postage) is regulated by law:
1. Former Presidents of the Philippines:
http://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1967/ra_5059_1967.html
2. Widows of former presidents:
http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1979/pd_1625_1979.html
3. Certain courts of law:
http://www.chanrobles.com/supremecourtcircular1%5B1979%5D.htm
4. Members of Congress
http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno6650.htm
5. The Ombudsman, as follows, in the Constitution:
“Section 37. Franking Privilege.
— All official mail matters and telegrams of the Ombudsman addressed for delivery within the Philippines shall be received, transmitted, and delivered free of charge: Provided, That such mail matters when addressed to private persons or nongovernment offices shall not exceed one hundred and twenty (120) grams. All mail matters and telegrams sent through government telegraph facilities containing complaints to the Office of the Ombudsman shall be transmitted free of charge, provided that the telegram shall contain not more than one hundred fifty (150) words.”
It seems proposals have been made, in Congress, to extend the franking privilege to the public in certain cases, but I’m not aware of any law actually enacted.
john marzan on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 6:10 pm
this is a perfect opportunity AGAIN for maam arroyo to split from the US. She did it once after solving her legitimacy problems in 2004 elections by immediately pulling the troops out of iraq, angering the americans, especially after spain pulled out after madrid 3/11. I see this as another opportunity to show her independence from the Americans by counselling the Boosh team re diplomacy and patience on Iran, dahil maapektuhan ang mga overseas workers natin kung magkagera.
Manila Bay Watch on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 6:14 pm
Agree with Mlq3: “…if you are going to commission an artist’s collective, regardless of what you spend, you don’t fuck around with their painting.”
I said pretty much the same thing in Ellen’s blog: If NPC President Roy Mabasa didn’t want the painting as such, he should return it and if he couldn’t return it, cancel it, commission another painting with exactly what he wants on the murals — it’s absolutely uncalled for for this shylock to make alterations without asking and obtaining the permission of the artists (and show the work with the unauthorized alterations). This jerk is thoroughly uncivilized!
Very cavalier way of doing things.
You do that sort of thing in Europe, you’re “deadâ€, buried under a number of lawsuits. Mabasa and his friends are nothing but amateurs, pathetic amateurs.
john marzan on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 6:15 pm
hindi ba “state of emergency” rin ang tawag ni musharraf sa ginawa niya sa pakistan? katulad sa “state of emergency” natin?
Manila Bay Watch on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 6:33 pm
Very difficult dilemma facing Musharraf.
The difference is that Musharraf is facing a conglomeration of Taliban inspired hardline islamist fundamentalists in his own backyard who have grown stronger and quadrupled in size over more than 3 decades straight from the wars on Afghan soil where they fought the Russians.
Letting lose these fundamentalists in Pakistan will take it back to “stone age”, no need to bomb Pakistan for that.
These fundamentalists don’t believe in democracy or equality between men and women. They have their own personal interpretation of the Koran which they harness to sow fear on the half-illiterate population of Pakistan.
Manila Bay Watch on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 7:59 pm
Re: “The first is the Council of State. The second, is the National Security Council.”
I wonder — would Cory Aquino attend?
BrianB on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 8:24 pm
“You do that sort of thing in Europe, you’re “deadâ€, buried under a number of lawsuits. Mabasa and his friends are nothing but amateurs, pathetic amateurs.”
I had the same experience when I was just beginning to publish stories. The editors treat you like you’re in kindergarten. I had to make a phone call (I have a baritone voice) and dress down the girl. I never got published by her again.
BrianB on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 8:25 pm
testing, got moderated
Joselito Basilio on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 8:35 pm
Manolo,
Crisis — Again — for Philippines’ Arroyo…..this page cannot be displayed…
Joselito Basilio on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 8:44 pm
mlq3,
Franking privilege is not granted by law to widows of former presidents. They are entitled only to life pension of 96T pesos per annum.
cvj on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 10:00 pm
What’s this about GMA and her propensity to be taped? If she belonged to the 80’s generation, i’m sure she would’ve found herself in an Assumption Sc*ndal.
renmin on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 10:59 pm
Please note: it’s Marilou Ranario, not Renario.
Bencard on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 1:35 am
all these calls for resignation, petitions for snap election(actual or on-line), impeachment complaints, and media anti-gma campaigns are all going nowhere like a stationary bike. but as long as the efforts do not cross the line where freedom of expression ends and lawless violence begins, i believe there’s no cause to worry about “martial law” in the philippines under pgma. she has up to now withstood and tolerated personal insults, mockery, humiliations, defamations, unsubstantiated condemnation, etc., against her person and her family with head unbowed. for her courage, her enemies are driven to fits of desperation and frustrations, wailing and gnashing their teeth.
if i may repeat what i have said previously, i don’t think pgma would be harassed into quitting or allowing extra-constitutional means of removing her. you can try to make her life miserable (whatever your motivation is) but you cannot make her quit, doing what you are doing right now.
Abe N. Margallo on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 2:18 am
Gloria is not afraid of civil society anymore. The only people who still scare her “are those soldiers kept in General Esperon’s jails.
. . .
So I think it’s best for the civilian population to take care of the Gloria problem before the military becomes impatient and does it for them. – MB
I’m in the mode of economizing my mental efforts, so pls just see if what I have written before makes more sense today:
_________
. . . former President Ramos’ observation in February 2006 may still be valid in terms of the Great Beast fully rising to its feet:
“Still absent from the convergence of anti-government forces at this time is the involvement of significant elements of the Armed Forces and the National Police – which, as admitted by the opposition leaders, is the crucial component needed to topple PGMA. What most analysts overlook is the fact and the historical reality that, during the period 1986 to 1991, the Armed Forces (which then included the Philippine Constabulary/Integrated National Police), effectively supported the Aquino government in defeating 9 coup attempts that were shoot-to-kill military encounters . . . The steadfastness of the present chain-of-command in defending constitutional authority and protecting the safety of the people should be gauged from the loyal support they (as junior officers) and their forebears gave the Aquino government, and not from their possible defection to the opposition today – as what happened during the Marcos and Estrada administrations . . .â€
My own take in the foregoing regard is as follows:
The Quezonian dilemma (of mlq3, I mean) comes into play at this juncture. “(W)hat is decisive in a People Power event: is it the people, or the military? Or: what makes a coup different from People Power?†Manolo answers himself: “the military, by themselves, can never decide the issue, just as the civilians, when it comes to toppling a government, cannot do it by themselves. A fine balance is required . . . .â€
I suppose a military coup without the support of People Power will have legitimacy issue and People Power without the support of the military will have lesser chances of success or of succeeding peacefully. But People Power must be both “intense†and “legitimate†enough to earn the military’s support in the first place. It seems that by experience one million protesters meet the requirement of intensity. And to be credited with legitimacy, I surmise, the multitude should be sufficiently representative so that any fair-minded observer could regard it as a cross-section of the various components of the Civil Society.
__________
The Ca t on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 2:58 am
And I thought you’ll going to move heaven and earth just to go to EDSA for a rally.
hmmm
triolosbogus on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 2:58 am
calling for Snap Election is one of the legal processes in resolving the issues of PGMA Presidency as to the allegations of impeachable improprieties that impeachment has no chance of resolving as it was preemptive to take its place. even eviction by means of ‘people power’ is now even considered legal as presided by the Marcos ouster and the ouster of Erap later ruled by the SC as constructive resignation. even forced eviction by the people is still legal by any means as long as it succeeds and supported by the majority as the power of government in a democracy still resides with the people.
so it is just a matter of… will it succeed or not? so next time just make sure that it will, GMA can not always win. she may had win a few battles, but the whole war not yet…
The Ca t on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 3:00 am
I took a look at the names of people heading the snap election advocacy. Two of thenm, I know to be corrupt too. So corrupt that one even allowed people to get killed just to get some few hundred thousands.
hmmmmm.
Manila Bay Watch on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 3:08 am
Teh Cat,
Are you saying that you know of two people who committed a crime or crimes and are not reporting these two people to the police?
Bencard on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 3:36 am
abe, as i see it, not only that the oust-gloria movement lacks the support of the military, except for a few that are in detention for previous charges of coup d’etat and thus may not already be considered a part of the military, but that it continues to fail to present a valid cause beyond unsubstantiated “scandals” that, time and again, have been rejected or ignored by a decisive majority.
the post edsa 2 mass protests, carried out by a ragtag aggregation of disgruntled “civil society” personalities, leftist/communists, estrada fanatics, political has-beens, and assorted haters-without-a-cause, that altogether hardly ever totaled 200,000 souls, all culminating in humiliating failure after failure. nothing much has change except maybe the noise level which, i think, is largely coming from the same oft-repudiated source(s).
despite vociferous claims to the contrary, opposition to pgma, as i see it, has not risen, and probably will not rise, to a level sufficient to generate “people’s power” intense and legitimate enough to support a successful military coup.
BrianB on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 4:15 am
“ow here’s a question, not because I hope it happens (I hope to God it never does) but with the following: Oil and gold soar as US dollar wilts and Asia marker Tapis crude breaks $100/bbl for 1st time and with the widely-held assumption George W. Bush is looking for excuses to bomb Iran, what do you think will happen if the lifeline of remittances that keeps our economy afloat, suddenly gets strangled or even cut?”
I think OFWs are better protected from suddenly being cut off economically than, say, our exports and outsourcing jobs. If Hillary won, she may cutback outsourcing. If US attacks Iran, Republicans may back her up to protect US businesses (US businesses may have to send back essential operations on home soil).
BrianB on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 4:20 am
“I suppose a military coup without the support of People Power will have legitimacy issue and People Power without the support of the military will have lesser chances of success or of succeeding peacefully.”
Abe, the problem is many people have been convinced EDSA is dead. What the Ayala March proved was that the true leader of the people was Cardinal Sin not Cory. But does this mean Edsa will not work anymore? Against Arroyo, it will have to be a stronger Edsa than what removed Erap, but it doesn’t mean it will no longer work.
The Ca t on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 5:52 am
there were investigations but he got away with it.
But in the family who knew him very well, even his tears can not absolve him from his sin.
d0d0ng on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 7:53 am
#2063….. regardless of our differences, when it is time to stand up for your country, please let your vote be counted and sign the petition…
Manila Bay Watch on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 8:13 am
dOdOng, Agree!
leah on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 9:35 am
the problem with snap elections , especially at this time , is the result could be worse than GMA. the public could easily choose Jinggoy, Lacson, Binay or Fernando. I don’t see any Pinoy Ron Paul on the horizon.
inodoro ni emilie on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 9:37 am
not very happy—but happy still, eh?
Geo on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 9:42 am
“…if we do not add our voices to the brewing outrage, we will one day wake up under a martial law regime with a new charter that will overextend GMA’s stay in power.”
—BnW
BnW needs to convince people that the above statement is inherently true. How can they? How come they have not yet?
Jeg on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 9:59 am
Bencard: i don’t think pgma would be harassed into quitting or allowing extra-constitutional means of removing her.
I too dont expect to see ‘GMA Resigns’ on any newspaper headline in the foreseeable future. I hope the leaders of the resign movement keep the pressure on the vice president as well as some cabinet members (Ermita for example?) to resign by appealing to their sense of decency as that has a higher chance of getting results. Isolate GMA.
The Equalizer on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 10:18 am
“BnW needs to convince people that the above statement is inherently true. How can they? How come they have not yet?geo”
dean:”patience is long,long suffering”
Abe N. Margallo on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 10:22 am
Bencard and BrianB,
My sense is that both the “reformists†in the military and the “progressives†in the civil society are somehow constrained by the possibility that even if People Power III succeed, the movement could again end up repeating a vicious cycle of simply “moving on†in circle, and not leaping onward or to higher ground. Take note for example that even rebel leader and now swashbuckling senator Sonny Trillanes has said he does not want to reinvent the wheel. But if the system or part of it is not working, shouldn’t the flawed facet be allowed to die away and make way for that which is budding and promising?
After two upheavals, the expectations are greater (such as Leah’s?) that the next exercise of People Power would propel the transitioning into a “new qualitative state.â€
The new state may be approximated by answering a few questions such as, off the top of my head, the following:
On the economic front (and this is directed more specifically to the country’s wealth creators): Why are we exporting people – teachers and young mothers like Marilou Ranario – instead of producing competitive goods and services that create value-added? Why has the Philippines been lagging behind its peers in the region or why a war-ravaged Vietnam is poised to overtake America’s first empire, once a regional powerhouse in the 50s and 60s?
On the political sphere: Should the process of building a working democracy be bottom-up or for the most part brought into being by the wise, the learned, the elites by the process of re-entrusting? If our borrowed democracy be redefined, should it continue to be based on some preconceived foreign notion or principally upon our own unique experience? How much power the sovereign people should retain and not delegate until public servants prove their worth?
And ultimately, the fundamental question: How much do we love our country?
So, People Power III should not just arrange to force a sitting president from power, it must “press on†to graduate from the same retrograde state the country is in.
A crucial part of the initial dialogue is the question of representation in governance where various interests should adequately be given a voice. So is the “to do list†during the first 30 – 60 days of regime change.
On the other hand, justice to those who breached the public trust should be swift, predictable yet humane but only after appropriate charges are substantiated by due process of law.
There’s plenty of work to do. Indeed, as the experience of People Power I and II tells us, removing someone from the seat of power could be the easy part.
No, EDSA is not dead. On the contrary, to borrow from Salud Algabre, each EDSA is “a step in the right direction.â€
Btw, I’ve signed both petitions.
Jeg on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 10:37 am
Should the process of building a working democracy be bottom-up or for the most part brought into being by the wise, the learned, the elites by the process of re-entrusting?
Yes. To both sides of the ‘or’. I was speaking yesterday to 2 former cabinet secretaries (both known for their intellect and decency–that’s prolly why they arent in government anymore) and they said the hope of the country is in the people of the countryside. Theyre inspired by the kind of community leaders they meet there. The national leadership? They just shook their heads. One said everytime he feels depressed by the national leadership, he just goes back to the countryside and he feels inspired again, and hopeful for our future.
We do have leaders. Theyre there in the ‘bottom’. We do have enlightened elites who’s morals are solid. It is our system of representative democracy that’s flawed and needs fixing.
Jeg on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 10:38 am
whose, I meant.
Shaman of Malilipot on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 11:01 am
“but that it continues to fail to present a valid cause beyond unsubstantiated “scandals†that, time and again, have been rejected or ignored by a decisive majority.” – Bencard
Where, do you think, should these “scandals” be substantiated? Your rule of law says that a president can only be tried while in office in an impeachment court. But we all know very well that the impeachment process has been so debased (first by the SC in the Francisco case, and second by the demise of its spirit in the House through death by bribery, the one who buys the most gets the numbers) that it has become a useless tool to exact accountability.
Are you saying that GMA should be found guilty first (substantiate the scandal first) before she can be tried? Hindi ba, you substantiate a case in a trial? Senate investigations of so many scandals have established probable cause to warrant a trial. There has been no trial simply because the only constitutional venue (impeachment court) has been rendered inutile. We are now nearing the point where the people will have no choice but to take the extra-consititutional route.
Jeg on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 11:21 am
Shaman: We are now nearing the point where the people will have no choice but to take the extra-consititutional route.
You mean of the EDSA 2 type? The Supreme Court ruled it constitutional throughout. So we’re still within the bounds of the constitution if the people decide that this is the route to take.
tonio on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 11:26 am
shaman:
your calls for a solution beyond what is constitutionally mandated will never reach bencard’s deaf ears. after all your just one of those paltry “haters-without-a-cause” that he loves to poke fun of because his president is still in the palace.
he’s right in a way. because his president will never do the constitutionally correct thing, she’ll won’t leave unless forced, which carries the threat of legitimacy issues for any future government.
the ball’s still in her court.
and she’s not playing.
qwert on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 11:40 am
“There’s plenty of work to do. Indeed, as the experience of People Power I and II tells us, removing someone from the seat of power could be the easy part.”-Abe
_________________________________
Abe,
There is a difference of emphasis with regards to the nature of People Power I and People Power II and a lot of people up to now are not cognizant of it. People Power I was an extra-constitutional exercise of the sovereignty of the people to dismantle a dictatorial regime and the system appurtenant to it. The ascendancy of Cory Aquino to the presidency was just a collateral, subsequent, and serendipitous event .
People Power II was exactly the opposite, there was no dismantling of the system, just the ascendancy to power of GMA. Since it was an intra-constitutional exercise, it was therefore subject to judicial review and the justiciable issue was the right of the vice-president then to assume office based on the “constructive resignation” of then President Estrada.
Kaya maraming mga tao ang nagsasabi:” People Power na naman, magpapalit na naman ng presidente, e wala namang nangyayari”
How I wish our people will have the wisdom to know the difference…
tonio on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 11:42 am
qwert:
how then would you characterize any future people power, if ever it comes to play, as the former or the latter?
qwert on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 11:54 am
“how then would you characterize any future people power, if ever it comes to play, as the former or the latter?” – tonio
____________________________
tonio,
I would prefer the former because there was less politics, less malice and beside it was not just about the lifestyle of a sitting President, it was more than anything else the freedom from the dictatorial power.
Geo on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 12:02 pm
“We are now nearing the point where the people will have no choice but to take the extra-consititutional route.”
—Shaman
———————
If “the people” don’t come out on the street, do not support “extra-constitutional routes”, then what?
What if “the people” turns out to be “a few people”, a sliver of the population? Then what?
Jeg on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 12:10 pm
I love rhetorical questions.
rego on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 12:17 pm
Is there any existing law that pave the way for snap elections? Who and what will decide the holding of snap election? The number ofpetitioners? What number is that? 1 Millon? 2 milion?
Snap election will shorten the term of the president and the vice president. But will it shorten or lengthen the term of congress men and senators and other elected offials.
How much will snap election cost us? where will you get the budget for it? Will it be compuetrized or manual counting? Is there any safeguards for cheating? Ig cheating occurs are you going to do the same tricks used on Gloria?
HOw serious really is the petition for snap elections? Dp they really intend to hold snap elections or they just wanted to harass Gloria?
And last but not teh least. who will the candidates be? Lacson? Villar?, Roxas. Loren? Is it worth it? The country will shell out a very huge amount of money only to elect any of these people?
Geo on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 12:19 pm
I was actually hoping for an honest answer (hence it’s not rhetorical).
It would only be rhetorical if one was sure that the answer was: “There won’t be any large turnout or support.” Is that the case here?
And if that is indeed the case, the second part of the question is still unanswered: “Then what?”
leah on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 12:24 pm
if there is people power who would take over?
in 1986 it was easy-it was Cory
but how can there be people power if there is no clear choice. Wouldn’t it just be better for GMA to resign and Noli take over for a few years.
Jeg on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 12:24 pm
I see, geo. I suppose my misunderstanding stems from the fact that I dont equate ‘the people’ with ‘a few people’. ‘The people’ means, well, THE people. ‘A few people’ are just some guys standing around. My apologies.
Jeg on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 12:27 pm
Rego, those are very important questions.
(The law, btw, allows for ’snap’ election when both the Prez and the VP are incapacitated, or if they resign.)
The Equalizer on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 12:59 pm
What is the mafia? Today’s mafia is a group of criminals organized into “families,” and operating in different parts of the world, The main idea of the mafiosi today is to make money, whether it be illegal or legit it doesn’t matter.
The Philippine branch of the mafia, named “La Costra Nostra” (“Ka Kampi†in the vernacular)create a sense of family, based on cash dole-outs(or bribery in polite language) .
If their targets for cooperation/ collaboration do not comply with the “family†requests, they can expect more radical methods to be used against them as convincing arguments.
Joselito Basilio on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 1:02 pm
leah wrote:
if there is people power who would take over?
in 1986 it was easy-it was Cory
but how can there be people power if there is no clear choice. Wouldn’t it just be better for GMA to resign and Noli take over for a few years.
As Archbishop Lagdameo lamented the trouble is that media are not hospitable to the emergence of “a new breed of leaders.â€
We have a choice. I believe Gov. Panlilio fits the role of moral alternative.
anthony scalia on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 1:46 pm
rego,
haaaay naku. yan ang problema sa bayan natin. di pa rin ma-realize na there are much more bigger problems than removing GMA. ang be-all and end-all pa rin ay GMA removal.
the resources could just be channeled to job creation.
di naman nating sinasabing GMA will go scot-free. file cases against her the moment she becomes plain Mrs Arroyo on 30 June 2010 at 12:00 pm
from now till 2010, efforts should just be channeled to job creation, tourism development etc.
Shaman of Malilipot on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 2:10 pm
Jeg, not necessarily the people power-type. MB is hinting at a civil war. Even Marines Maj. Gen. Dolorfino already mentioned its possibility. And that’s the really scary part. And for what? Just because an illegitimate president wants to stay in power?
Shaman of Malilipot on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 2:40 pm
anthony scalia,
I’ll state it again: Until and unless we get the right kind of political leadership, as most of our neighbors have taught us, we will never experience the kind of economic development that our people, the majority of whom are poor, need. And we will never get that right kind of leadership if we do not exact accountability from our leaders. We allow Gloria to do all kinds of shenanigans while in office, the next President will do the same things, and so on down the line. I’ve stated many times in this blog that it’s the height of stupidity to expect different results by doing the same thing.
Sure, with the same kind of leadership that we always had, the economy may grow, jobs may be created and tourism may be developed, but we’ll continue plodding at a snail’s pace while our neighbors (soon Vietnam will surpass us, if it already hasn’t) are leapfrogging.
But how long can the vast majority who are poor, who are hungry, who are unemployed wait? Twenty years? Fifty years? A hundred years?
I wish to God we really had the luxury of time.
mlq3 on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 2:41 pm
jeg, i agree with your observation and have said as much myself, elsewhere.
DevilsAdvc8 on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 2:42 pm
my God! my 4 month old son was just confined last night. he had the chills. I jz arrive here in Mla this morning and now I’m rushing back to Naga.
ramrod, if you’re reading this, please tell me what ailed your son and how high did his fever get. I’m dead worried, and all I can do is wait for the soonest trip back home.
DevilsAdvc8 on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 2:44 pm
im freaking out! i’ve searched online everywhere and the soonest flight to Naga is tomorrow at 5am. i’m better off riding the bus tonight.
anyone know of a faster way?
qwert on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 2:46 pm
devils,
I hope your son is ok and nothing that serious. Ingat sa biyahe.
DevilsAdvc8 on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 2:51 pm
I’m hoping that as well. I hope it’s not dengue. that’s why im rushing home. I’m the only one qualified to donate blood if ever.
di ko alam ganito pala ang feeling. halos maiyak-iyak na ako. half in frustration bec i cnt do anything to fly out of here, and half out of worry.
I’m asking God to take everything jz to make my son healthy again. i’d turn Faust in an instant if that’s what it’ll take.
inodoro ni emilie on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 2:52 pm
ha! tell that to imelda and erap.
mlq3 on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 2:57 pm
devils, godspeed and good luck to your son. i remember my dad always told me he had to make a point not to be reckless trying to reach me in case of an accident or sickness, because a dead father wouldn’t do a sick son any good. perhaps your wife can text you some of the symptoms and you can make an inquiry at the nearest hospital or if you have an pediatrician friends…
Shaman of Malilipot on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 2:58 pm
qwert, there’s another difference between PP1 and PP2. PP1 was a military uprising supported by the people. PP2 was a civilian uprising supported by the military. It’s apparent now that the civilians are not inclined to start an uprising anytime soon. If there’s going to be another PP, it will be of the PP1 variety, a military uprising that will be supported by the people. But some people are saying that it might not be peaceful the next time around.
Shaman of Malilipot on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 3:04 pm
Devils, my prayers are with you and your son. If there’s anything you need now, it’s equanimity. Your Jesuit mentors have taught you where to turn to in times like this.
DevilsAdvc8 on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 3:10 pm
Manolo, tnx for the sound advice. but my wife is Indiana, and only my mother-in-law and sister-in-law are with my son right now. and they’re not exactly being very transparent. i guess they jz don’t want me to worry so much.
i already bought a bus ticket leaving first time tonight.
im leaving off this civil war worries for a while till my son gets better. and by God, I’ll not allow us to get stuck here!
signing out for now.
qwert on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 3:19 pm
“If there’s going to be another PP, it will be of the PP1 variety, a military uprising that will be supported by the people. But some people are saying that it might not be peaceful the next time around.” – shaman
________________________
Shaman,
It is my personal opinion that GMA is waiting for it to happen and she’s going to use the uprising as a license to declare martial law.
manuelbuencamino on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 3:25 pm
Guys let’s not get ahead of ourselves thinking about what it will be like after another people power.
Let’s just get rid of this pain in the butt first.
We’ll all be able to think more clearly afterwards
lino on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 3:46 pm
i suggest that instead of going out to the streets to pressure gma to resign, lets all stay home for one day. no going to the malls, dont report for work, students wont attend classes. will just stay home and bond with family members or do those long delayed house repairs, maybe we can call it family day. I also want gma gone but i dont relish the idea of being beaten by batuta or hosed down. BnW will you consider this?
leah on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 4:04 pm
I wouldn’t want a priest as president no matter how honest he is.
we had the president take orders from the Vatican from 1986-1992. does anyone want Henrietta Mendoza back at MTRCB?
mlq3 on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 4:33 pm
lino, we have, but the main problem is for daily wage earners and others who might get penalized by their bosses… but it’s something that’s been discussed for some time…
The Equalizer on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 4:51 pm
DevilADv8:God bless your son!Take care.
qwert on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 4:57 pm
RE: martial law “another flawed assumption is that the current safeguards in the constitution are both meaningful and would be a deterrent. they aren’t…-MLQ3
_________________________
MLQ3,
When you have posted the abovementioned statement in your previous thread, I told myself, Manolo must be kidding,the safety provisions are airtight, no loopholes, then I took my copy of the Constitution from the bookshelf and carefully studied the provisions. I was surprised to find out there are loopholes in the so called “safeguards”. I beg your indulgence on this.
What I will discuss below is just my personal opinion about the possible loopholes of the safety provisions of the Constitution regarding the declaration of martial law. The scenarios are purely fictonal.
One of the options of GMA, for whatever reason she intends to use it whether to perpetuate her in power or to use it as a subterfuge to change or amend the Constitution, is to declare a misnomered state of national emergency and an incognito martial law, both terms will be used interchangeably to create a “state of national quandary”.
If and when martial law will be declared by GMA, she must consider the following:
1. How to deal with Congress.
2. How to deal with the Supreme Court.
3. How to deal with the International Community (primarily U.S.).
1. How to deal with Congress.
They say that it will be very hard for any sitting President to declare martial law under the 1987 Constitution. For the sake of argument, let me create a scenario. One morning when Congress is in recess, we heard the news on TV and Radio that there is a coup(mock coup by GMA,an autogolpe if you may) and GMA appears on national TV and tells us that the whole country is in a state of national emergency and that there is an ongoing rebellion and thus prompting her to declare martial law.
By virtue of the provision of Article XII,Section 17 of the Constitution, GMA orders the AFP to secure all vital installations (all TV and Radio stations,all piers,all airports, SLEX,NLEX,national highways,).All flights are cancelled,all roads leading to the provinces are closed, nobody will be allowed to enter or leave Metro Manila as long as it is necessary for the understandable reason not to allow rebel forces to gain access and allow reinforcements to the Metropolis but in reality the reason is to stop the majority members of Congress to come/fly back to Manila within the prescribed time frame:
“…The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call…”-Art. VII, Section 18
“Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President”-Art. VII, Section 18
So, in effect Congress is rendered inutile and cannot revoke the declaration of martial law within the prescibed period of time and by default gives the President her sixty days. While waiting for the “dust to settle down”, and this she can do after the twenty-four or fourty-eight hours provision, the President will contact all congressmen who are part of the majority coalition to assuage their apprehension regarding the declaration of martial law by informing them that it is an opportune time for congress to change the charter and assure them that martial law will be lifted once the new charter is ratified through a plebiscite with the “help” of the Comelec. The President will also call the attention of the congressmen that even if there is martial law, congress can be convened being a legislative body and amend or change the charter effectively changing the form of government(parliamentary form):
“A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies…”-Art. VII,Section 18
Once the support of the majority congressmen is secured, the President will make arrangements for their transportation to Manila. It is also important that administration senators(charter change advocates) and some co-opted “opposition” senators be actively involved in the process of charter change, this is to dilute the right of the senate as an institution to question the constitutionality of the process before the Supreme Court by arguing that Congress must vote separately.
2. How to deal with the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court needs an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen for it to promulgate a decision for or against the declaration of martial law:
“The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.” -Art. VII,Section 18
The President can at the height of the mock coup (autogolpe)produced a bogus intelligence report “Oplan Whatever” citing a plan by the mock rebels to harm or even liquidate the justices and with this, order the AFP to secure the justices in the “safety of their homes”(house arrest) with an accompanying bomb explosion inside the building of the Supreme Court. The President then orders the “loyal AFP” to secure the perimeter and the building itself ( physically preventing any citizen to file an appropriate proceeding) as long as it is necessary.
3. How to deal with the International Community (primarily U.S.).
A plebiscite will take care of that, for as long as the majority of the voting public ratifies the new charter,then we have democracy at work.
“The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.”
It is a possible option for GMA to use martial law as a means to an end, charter change.
Mike on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 5:05 pm
I will be there for the postcard march tomorrow, but my worry is this: is there some chance that the post office, not wanting to anger the president, will accept the postcards and then lose them (secretly, of course)?
mlq3 on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 5:07 pm
qwert, we came awfuly close to it in 2006. only the intervention of nonong cruz and a sudden visit by negroponte shelved the idea.
qwert on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 5:11 pm
“qwert, we came awfuly close to it in 2006. only the intervention of nonong cruz and a sudden visit by negroponte shelved the idea.”-mlq3
__________________
Mlq3,
The purpose in 2006, I think ,will be very much different this time.
mlq3 on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 5:12 pm
Thanks, Mike, we honestly don’t know. There will be enough lawyers I’m sure to argue in favor of our right to mail things to the President, but well, if they have orders not to accept the cards, then we’ve made a strong point, no? and the press, i’m sure, will see if the cards reach the palace. if they don’t… well, someone, somewhere, will slip up.
anthony scalia on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 10:26 pm
Shaman of Malilipot,
Did you know that during those times when South Korea was under a military dictatorship, characterized by corruption, that was when it experienced rapid economic growth?
Shenanigans were never absent from South Korean administrations during the super-growth years.
No, Im not saying that our country should be in one also before it can prosper.
What I would like to point out is that government is negligible in the path towards economic development. The key, major player is the private sector.
Oh yes, the economic and industrial policies of dictator Park Chung Hee certainly helped. But thats all a government can do, provide an environment conducive for business. Once the correct environment was in place, the private sector did the rest.
Guess what? The South Korean private sector did not wait for ‘democracy’ to be restored, for the shenanigans to be eradicated, before it created companies and jobs. And the growth was not a snail’s pace.
Suwerte ang South Korea. It never had to deal with colonial mentality. It never had a shortage of citizens who were willing to sacrifice for their country by staying put
You may want to ponder on this – neighbors of the Philippines that you mentioned that are leapfrogging the Philippines, they are much less democratic than us! Washington SyCip is right when he said the problem of our country is too much democracy!
That’s why I am totally shocked with this statement by a poster – “Let’s just get rid of this pain in the butt first. We’ll all be able to think more clearly afterwards” Yikes! Completely oblivious of the potential collateral damage!
By the way, what is your basis in concluding that a country, say Vietnam, has leapfrogged the Philippines? For sure economic figures, right? In terms of growth rate, Vietnam is better, but in terms of GDP, the Philippines’ is way much bigger. If the growth rates of both countries stay the same, it may take Vietnam decades to surpass the GDP of the Philippines
Di malayong mangyari yun. Dahil sa Vietnam, walang opposition, walang people power, walang mga rallies, walang freedom of the press, walang coup attempts, walang strikes, walang impeachment, walang terrorism, walang insurgency, walang kumokontra sa official economic figures.
inidoro ni emillie,
i just did. well before the conviction.
cvj on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 12:08 am
Anthony, what you say about South Korea i.e. private sector led growth with negligible government role, is an inacurrate characterization of what took place. The government just didn’t set the stage, it had an active role in managing and protecting the Chaebols using what Alice H. Amsden calls reciprocal control mechanisms. As for Washington Sycip, he is part of the problem. As per hvrds:
Democracy or the lack of it was not the main factor in the development of our East Asian neighbors. It’s the fact that they followed the right economic policies. If we followed Washington Sycip and his elitists, it will just be more of the same failed Washington Consensus policies that benefit only themselves.
Abe N. Margallo on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 12:12 am
There is a difference of emphasis with regards to the nature of People Power I and People Power II and a lot of people up to now are not cognizant of it. People Power I was an extra-constitutional exercise of the sovereignty of the people to dismantle a dictatorial regime and the system appurtenant to it. The ascendancy of Cory Aquino to the presidency was just a collateral, subsequent, and serendipitous event.
People Power II was exactly the opposite, there was no dismantling of the system, just the ascendancy to power of GMA. Since it was an intra-constitutional exercise, it was therefore subject to judicial review and the justiciable issue was the right of the vice-president then to assume office based on the “constructive resignation†of then President Estrada.
Kaya maraming mga tao ang nagsasabi:†People Power na naman, magpapalit na naman ng presidente, e wala namang nangyayariâ€
How I wish our people will have the wisdom to know the difference… – Qwert
Qwert,
I have a rather lengthy discourse on this issue in “A perpetuity in juridical misadventures †first published under a different title by Inq7.net on March 24, 2001. Btw, I have tried first to just provide a link to it here but Manolo’s minesweeper seems unremitting. You can google it instead, if you are interested to read more about it.
Anyway here are some excerpts (still quite lengthy but which I suppose could become pertinent again in the light of what many think an impending People Power III) – with due apology to Manolo.
_________
I have earlier advanced that a popular revolt is an ultimate exercise of political power; that People Power I and People Power II are of parallel dimension; that the underlying expediency of both revolts is beyond the review and sanction of any other authority inferior to the Civil Society (therefore, a “political question†the Supreme Court cannot rule upon); that the only possible sanction against a people’s revolt is the harsh consequences of its failure; and that, if otherwise successful, the revolutionists would be free to set new rules and use or set aside existing ones. Therefore, that GMA, as the acknowledged leading representative of the rebelling Civil Society, has chosen to revert to the legal order of the status quo ante (by taking her oath under the existing constitution), which the exultant rebels have compliantly acquiesced in, opting in that way for incremental rather than radical transformation, is no valid argument that the revolt was not successfully completed.
It was in the same light I have argued that Chief Justice Davide’s decision in administering GMA’s oath was a patriotic class act of an instant revolutionist who wisely stepped down as the presiding officer of the impeachment proceedings to join the multitude at EDSA. The exercise served as a moderating event during those critical and uncertain hours while it also set the turning point to reestablish immediate continuity with the past. The interval was indeed brief but enough to legitimately install GMA as leader of a new regime.
Justice Vicente Mendoza in his concurring opinion (in Estrada v. Desierto) was of the view that the uprising only created a “crisis, nay, a vacuum in the executive leadership.†Didn’t John Locke confront this issue a long time ago in his Second Treatise on Civil Government? Locke postulated that “(w)hen the supreme executive power neglects or abandons that charge,†the government is effectively dissolved for, “where the laws cannot be executed it is all one as if there were no laws . . ..â€
I have disagreed, in one exchange, with such a proposition as Justice Mendoza’s more specifically in this manner:
It should be noted that the “system in place†was illegitimated as the people’s consciousness about the fundamental crack in the system was hastened by the education provided by the impeachment trial through the intercession of information technology and, of course, the ubiquitous media. The realization that the government has been criminalized by the likes of Atong Ang and Dante Tan, that the malevolence of patron-client complex is not a leftist concoction after all, that the people’s representatives in the legislature personified by the ‘‘Dirty 11†[the eleven senators who voted during the impeachment against the opening of the envelope believed to contain evidence incriminating Estrada] would openly pursue narrow selfish interests at the expense of salus populi, and that establishment icons like retired Chief Justice Andres Narvasa and former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza could mock and manipulate the legal and judicial system through all the legalistic chicanery at their disposal, all contributed to the illegitimation of the “system in place.’’
Through people power, the people collectively aspired to overthrow the system via the symbolic ouster of Erap, whom they perceived as the man at the helm of the status quo ante. The people revolted with the full knowledge that Erap is not the only enemy. They saw that the real enemy is the “system in place.â€
On the other hand, Justice Jose Vitug in his own concurring opinion has submitted that “(a)ny revolution, whether it is violent or not, involves a radical change†and that what is “vital is not the change in the personalities but a change in the structure.†Noting further that “(t)he ascension of Mme. Macapagal-Arroyo to the presidency (not having resulted in) the rupture nor in the abrogation of the legal order, . . . (t)he constitutionally-established government structures, embracing various offices under the executive branch, of the judiciary, of the legislature, of the constitutional commissions and still other entities, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police and local governments as well, have all remained intact and functioning.â€
Justice Vitug has obviously failed to distinguish between a revolution as a process and a revolution as an immediate outcome. While both People Power I and People Power II were successful revolts, they are however somehow intricately linked together as a continuing and unfinished revolution of the Filipino People. GMA herself has said post-revolt: The fight is not over yet.
Thomas Jefferson once held the belief that a revolution about every generation would be good for society. Such a view could very well be an indictment of the elitist root of republicanism. But the United States, like other older large-scale democracies, has somehow gone the route of democratic elitism that looks down upon popular action, what the trilateralists of the 70s called as “excess of democracy.†The challenge of older democracies is really how they could continue to enshroud democratic elitism with the rhetoric of republicanism. To the Filipinos, the challenge, I suppose, is how to perfect their re-invented system of representative government co-existing, with People Power. As societies become more and more compressed as a result of technology, it would seem that Jefferson’s populist idea wasn’t wistful thinking after all. Filipinos have proved it twice in a row, and peacefully, securing, deepening, and further advancing in the process their democratic culture, beliefs, and institutions. That’s an excellent batting average.
__________
And you may also check this related post of mine on the same issue in response to DJB’s:
__________
When once people power-averse vice president Arroyo had been swept to power, I was among those who argued very strongly for the legitimacy of her government so established via People Power, upon the following grounds:
1. People Power I was indistinguishable from People Power II; in both instances the people withdrew their consent through the exercise of the right of rebellion.
2. Rebellion is an ultimate political act of the people; it is borne out by its success, hence, any imprimatur given by any other agency including the Supreme Court on the new government installed by the rebellion is unnecessary, a surplusage.
3. Specifically, the withdrawal of support from the Estrada government was so widespread – i.e., from the two Houses of Congress and the Impeachment Court to the military establishment and a wide range of civil society groups – it was impossible for Estrada to continue to govern under his “ousted†regime; withdrawal of the people’s consent proceeded from it.
4. The international community immediately recognized the Arroyo government as the “successor†regime they would be willing to deal with.
In my view, the foregoing political and other relevant events acted upon each other and served as operative factors legitimizing the Arroyo regime with or without the contorted decision of the Supreme Court in Estrada v. Desierto (whereby Estrada was deemed by the Court to have left his office by “constructive resignation†paving the succession of Arroyo to the presidency).
I have also argued that the successful defense of the Republic by the Arroyo government during the EDSA Tres uprising, considered by many as Estrada’s attempt to recapture his office (only four months after Arroyo had assumed the presidency and about two weeks before the mid-term senatorial elections of May 2001 where the administration candidates won 8-5) co-opted the outcome of the elections as the political coups de grace in ultimately completing the legitimation of her administration. The whole world was then assured the Arroyo government could withstand a rebellion and criminal conspiracy of a dimension not seen even during Marcos.
The reasons I gave why Arroyo had easily thwarted the uprising were: “Firstly, the insurrection has been real and has not been stage-managed by her or her close allies in order to perpetuate themselves in power. Secondly, the Philippine military and the PNP have just been through a recent examination of conscience during People Power II that had put to an acid test the true attributes of their professionalism. Finally (and this is something transcendental and therefore, extra-constitutional), Mother Mary, whose shrine had been desecrated by the rebels, sided with GMA.â€
Why should I now think the legitimacy of the Arroyo government is imperiled today? Two things: 1) The “Garci tapes†controversy constitutes a strong prima facie presumption of illegitimacy; and 2) The presumption, not being thoroughly refuted in any forum, remains.
The presumption standing, the people’s consent for Arroyo to continue ruling is tainted.
What is obviously undeniable is that the existence of the Garci tapes strikes at the essence of an election, a betrayal of public trust that cannot possibly be let off or forgiven by the mere convenience of admitting to a “lapse in judgment.†The burden of going forward, that is, to show that those tapes are bogus, adulterated or non-existent is thereupon on the lapse of Arroyo. It is a burden that cannot be dodged or wished away simply because Arroyo’s supporters in the House have voted on procedural grounds not to allow a full-dress impeachment hearing on the matter. On the contrary, this whole conduct of Arroyo’s congressional allies has only reinforced the general perception that the people’s consent was thwarted, the election not having been free, fair and honest in the first place. In view of this, Arroyo today is governing only under color of authority or, at the most, apparent authority but not with true authority.
If Arroyo continues to hang on to rule with a tainted authority without the benefit of public acquiescence even as a large segment of the polity continues to agitate for reasonable elucidation or raise more questions about the “Garci tapes†scandal, then the people shall have the right to authenticate their consent in a new election, through the un-election process called impeachment or by the exercise of the right of rebellion – at the people’s discretion.
cvj on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 12:29 am
Contrary to your impression that the South Koreans were docile during the dictatorship, they actually had an active resistance movement. In fact, Choon Doo-hwan, the General who succeeded Park Chung Hee was convicted of the Kwangju massacre where 200 pro-democracy protesters belonging to the workers movement were killed and 1000 injured. This outrage in 1980 jump-started the democracy movement in South Korea which culminated in the ending of the dictatorship in 1987.
Don’t compare the brave South Koreans of yesterday with the docile Filipinos of today. Ang mga Koreano, hindi nagpapagago.
Bencard on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 1:33 am
shaman, at the risk of being repetitive (ad nauseam), i must tell you again, a finding of “insufficiency in form and substance” in the impeachment process is part of the “rule of law”. if you were in a contest and you lost according to the pre-set rules, you have lost no matter how strongly and repetitiously you cry “i was not given a chance, i was cheated”. i think it’s time our people learn to accept defeat, as a good sport, as wholeheartedly as we accept victory.
d0d0ng on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 2:03 am
leah on, “the problem with snap elections , especially at this time , is the result could be worse than GMA. the public could easily choose Jinggoy, Lacson, Binay or Fernando. I don’t see any Pinoy Ron Paul on the horizon.”
Fernando is dead. The old people who usually go out and vote don’t trust younger gambling-lord-Jinggoy, vigilante charles-bronson-Lacson, and rambo-style Binay for president.
There are better candidates with solid track of records the likes of Manny Pangilinan, Manny Villar, Manny Roxas and Miriam Santiago.
In the US, too bad for any republican candidate because Hillary will be the 1st US woman president. There is no stopping on that.
d0d0ng on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 2:19 am
“if there is people power who would take over?”
—The constitution calls for snap election in 60 days.
“but how can there be people power if there is no clear choice.”
—the choices for president and vice president will be AFTER (not before) the resignation of current president and vice -president.
“Wouldn’t it just be better for GMA to resign and Noli take over for a few years.”
The petition is anchored that both the president and vice president are beneficiaries of 2004 electoral fraud (using the Marcos recovered ill gotten wealth).
d0d0ng on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 2:39 am
“MB is hinting at a civil war. Even Marines Maj. Gen. Dolorfino already mentioned its possibility. And that’s the really scary part. And for what? Just because an illegitimate president wants to stay in power?”
Probably that is the reason why the bloodless people power has a mockery results since 1986, an unchanged political atmosphere for 22 years that stunted economic growth. The politicos are back to division of spoils and power without genuine fear of the people.
Manila Bay Watch on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 3:56 am
“The politicos are back to division of spoils and power without genuine fear of the people.”
Seems the situation today mirrors your description…
Shaman of Malilipot on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 11:14 am
[“Wouldn’t it just be better for GMA to resign and Noli take over for a few years.â€
The petition is anchored that both the president and vice president are beneficiaries of 2004 electoral fraud (using the Marcos recovered ill gotten wealth).] d0d0ng
In addition to what d0d0ng has written, even if both Gloria and Noli resigned, the Constitution provides for the Senate President to take over and call for a snap election within 60 days.
Shaman of Malilipot on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 11:46 am
Bencard, at the risk of being repetitive (ad nauseam), I must tell you again that the manner of how (with emphasis on “how”) the finding of “insufficiency in form and substance†in the impeachment process is arrived at matters very much. If a ruling favorable to a litigant was issued because the prosecutor was bought, it cannot be a part of the rule of law. To believe otherwise is to believe in a farce. In the same manner, if a finding of “insufficiency in form and substance” in the impeachment process was arrived at because the congressmen were bribed, it cannot be a part of the rule of law. To believe otherwise is to believe in a farce.
At any rate, I have lost my faith in the impeachment process as it is structured now because it has become a purely useless political exercise instead of an avenue to redress grievances against the President, a situation that finds great favor in people of your persuasion.
Shaman of Malilipot on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 3:06 pm
Anthony Scalia,
It might interest you to know that one of the first things that Park Chung Hee did when he seized power was to prosecute the business profiteers who profited from corruption in the South Korean government. Twenty-four leading businessmen were arrested. (Just imagine Donald Dee and Sergio Ortiz-Luis under arrest.) Only Lee of Samsung escaped arrest because he was abroad at the time. Later, he and some prominent business leaders offered to donate a substantial part of their fortunes to the government.
So, it’s not true that all the government can do is set down policies and press the auto-pilot button, and, presto!, you get rapid economic growth. In fact, Park laid down an economic development program that the private sector unquestioningly followed, or else… And Park also did launch some sort of a morality campaign. Oh, yes, Park’s was an authoritarian, centralized government. So was Chun Doo Hwan’s. So was Lee Kwan Yew’s. However, Mahathir showed that the right kind of leadership can be wielded in a democratic environment. Okay, he was a “strong” political leader. So did Thaksin when he led Thailand to recovery after the 1997 financial crisis.
All this shows that economic development cannot be left entirely to the private sector. It is the government that has to spearhead economic growth. And more often than not, “government” means the national leadership.
The question in the Philippines today is whether we will find the kind of leadership that will propel us to rapid economic growth in an authoritarian or democratic milieu.
Bencard on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 10:14 pm
shaman, your response begs the questions. were the prosecutors really “bought”? where’s your proof? wasn’t pork barrel distribution part of the current system?
to a sore loser, any exercise is “useless”. the essence of democracy is the rule of majority. it’s not perfect but the alternative is worst.
Watchful eye on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 11:10 pm
Bencard, get your math straight. The congressmen who killed the impeachment against Ate Glue and prevented the substantiation of the charges against her, the thing you always want to tell the whole world did not occur, are extremely in the MINORITY.
MAJORITY of the Filipinos would like your client Ate Glue to disprove what they heard and believe from the Hello Garci tapes and she has continually refused to do so and hop into the ring while bragging her opponent cannot prove their mettle.
In other words, takot siyang lumaban kasi, sa paniwala na rin ng KARAMIHAN, ang kaso niya ay walang iboboga. But every time she, like you, claims she won the fight without entering the ring, that’s pang-gagago.
Marunong ang mga Pilipino manuod ng boksing kung hindi mo pa alam. Everyone understands that simple reality. Why can’t you?
Bencard on Sat, 10th Nov 2007 12:00 am
watchful eye, sorry to say, but i don’t think you know what you are talking about. the finding of insufficiency of form and substance was arrived at by the required majority of the people that count, the ones authorized by by the law and rules, not the majority of the entire population. and how can you be so sure about the “majority of the filipinos? surveys? that would be another topic to argue.
Watchful eye on Sat, 10th Nov 2007 1:50 am
Bencard, remember what I told you before, “if instead of being encapsulated in the mentality of an ambulance chaser, you allow your grey matter to be more supple (or kung gagamitin lang natin ng konti ang utak natin at hindi tayo magtatanga-tangahan sabi ni ay-naku), you’ll probably have a better chance like mb, nick and cvj arguing on firmer grounds and possibly help unearth the truth in the process. I can see that readers of mlq3’s website are not ‘plain and simple morons.’â€
So, I’ll say it again, get out of you legal straightjacket. It will make you a better man and of sounder mind and hopefully a credible debater.
I have another post for you in the “Freedom’s marching†thread that’s been under moderation. Read it and you’ll know more where I’m coming from.
Watchful eye on Sat, 10th Nov 2007 1:53 am
Here’s the post I’m talking about.
“the alleged phone conversation did not cause enough outrage as to drive people, in sufficient number, to whip up a successful “people power†imitation.â€
But 10, not one or two, of her cabinet resigned on that issue. Isn’t that sufficient, by any standard of public accountability, for a president, or any president of a country that’s not a banana republic, to provide a convincing explanation to her official family and the Filipino people, why her voice, or something that sounds very much like it, was on the infamous tape asking a Comelec commissioner to massage the result of the presidential election?
If “the PERCEPTION that gma cheated†is not a FACT, doesn’t she have the obligation to show or explain it otherwise? She is not just a litigant in an impeachment case who could conveniently hide behind a technicality. For Almighty sake, she is also the president representing more than 80 million people, and the reality is that up to this very point, the country is still waiting for some modicum of decent explanation so that if the perception is not a fact, every one who PERCEIVED the FACTS incorrectly would owe her the apology she deserves and thereafter the nation could move on.
Bencard on Sat, 10th Nov 2007 5:28 am
watchful eye, again, i think you have no understanding of the word “ambulance chaser”. stop using terms that you are clueless about. btw, i don’t need to be a “better man”, “of sounder mind” or a “credible debater” in your eyes. i only value the opinion about me of people that count.
Watchful eye on Sat, 10th Nov 2007 7:04 am
Bencard, your memory is getting shorter. I understand. I’ll get there myself you know. Below is our truncated exchange before –
Watchful: If you are an eyewitness to an intruder raping your wife, why wait for a judge or the majority of the Supreme Court to rule it was indeed a rape in order for you to make a sigh of relief and say ultimately: “I now realized what happened and I’m right my beloved did not dishonor me.â€
Bencard: Your hypothetical is nasty because, i don’t know about you but if it was me, i would not just watch by but would either try to snuff out the life of the would-be rapist before he could do the act, or get killed in the process. Only a person who (a) is a gutless coward; (b) doesn’t care about his wife (c) values his own life more than anything else; or (d) is just a plain and simple moron, would live to tell the sordid episode.
W: My hypothetical nasty? Bencard you still don’t get it. You are perpetually trapped in your ambulance-chasing mentality. Try donning some other hats – like that of a journalist for example since you seemed to have taken up some journalism, haven’t you? – in order for you to fathom the depth of symbolism.
See, some Filipinos are like you. They will dare to rise up and die defending an honor or an idea – like democracy, for instance. Still many more will not take your route or Musa Dimasidsing’s but will just watch by as their loves are violated or the ideas and ideals they believe are abused, raped with impunity. Some people are indeed “gutless coward,†selfish or are “plain and simple moron.†I’m glad there are Bencards and Musa who will not sit by and simply choose to “live to tell the sordid episode.â€
B: I don’t know where you’re coming from with “ambulance chasing mentalityâ€. are you sure you know what you’re talking about or the meaning of the term you’re using?
do you know anything about how i practice law, or the principles i live by in the practice of my profession. i don’t know what you do for a living but however it may be, it seems you are not governed by principles, if any, with real sanctions for their violation. are you?
W: Many American lawyers are ambulance chasers. Check again the yellow pages in the U.S. and you will not need the rules of evidence to prove that fact. At least on this aspect of legal ethics Filipino lawyers are more admirable. Which one are you Bencard?
In the hypothetical, did you ever speculate that the SC could be the “intruder†or a least a conspirator in the dastard act? Have you ever thought the hypothetical could also be alluding to an incest rape, the justices being “system insiders� Think of Javellana at this point … how the “gutless cowards†in the SC then had allowed Marcos to perpetuate his tyranny. Outside of your straightjacket legalese, I’m hoping you are now beginning to see some light at this stage.
Watchful eye on Sat, 10th Nov 2007 7:06 am
Bencard, my response is awaiting moderation.
Bencard on Sat, 10th Nov 2007 11:01 am
watchful, i really don’t want to revisit the intellectually demeaning discussions we had. still you are clueless about what an ambulance chaser is. so you decide i’m “trapped in ambulance-chasing mentality” because, by your own deduction, many american lawyers are ambulance chasers as shown in their “yellow pages”? would it be o.k. for me to say you have a corrupt mindset because many filipinos are corrupt as reported daily in your media?
Watchful eye on Sat, 10th Nov 2007 12:50 pm
Bencard, if you are a bit curious go look for the rest because our discourse actually ended on a highly intellectual note.
Joselito Basilio on Sat, 10th Nov 2007 3:02 pm
Leah wrote :
I wouldn’t want a priest as president no matter how honest he is.
we had the president take orders from the Vatican from 1986-1992. does anyone want Henrietta Mendoza back at MTRCB?
_________________________________
Where’s the logic? You don’t want a priest to become a president because a non-priest (Cory) took orders from Vatican for 6 years. The trouble with us is we endlessly whine without offering a solution to the problem we face. What’s wrong with a priest, or a militant priest at that, becoming a president.? Why a priest? Why not? No one bears the torch of hope other than Fr. Ed.
Joselito Basilio on Sat, 10th Nov 2007 3:04 pm
The distinctions between EDSA People Power I and EDSA People Power II, particularly in regard to the justiciability of the challenges to the legitimacy of the governmental regimes resulting from them are found in the ruling of the Supreme Court in Estrada vs. Arroyo, viz.:
“The legal distinction between EDSA People Power I and EDSA People Power II is clear. EDSA I involves the exercise of the people power of revolution which overthrew the whole government. EDSA II is an exercise of people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances which only affected the office of the President. EDSA I is extra constitutional and the legitimacy of the new government that resulted from it cannot be the subject of judicial review, but EDSA II is intra constitutional and the resignation of the sitting President that it caused and the succession of the Vice President as President are subject to judicial review. EDSA I presented a political question; EDSA II involves legal questions.â€
BURAOT on Sat, 10th Nov 2007 5:45 pm
as i read your article and stumbled on Buencamino’s, i felt utterly hopeless again. ano nang nangyayari sa bayan natin? pera-pera na lang talaga ang labanan, wala nang prinsipyo. at tayong mga nanonood sa mga nangyayari, nakatanghod lang sa mga susunod pang mga kababalaghan. although some tries to write about it, like we do,and some do something about it, like cause-oriented groups, still, majority of our people, without any reaction at all, are really accepting it as a fact: “OK lang yun, ganun talaga.”
we can never wait for the military to do something, unless it turned bloody. besides, as Buencamino pointed out quite clearly, kahit na gaano ka noble ang intention ng military, there is a history and a tendency for it to turn dictatorship. is that what we want?
di na pwedeng walang pakelam, di na pwedeng “ganun talaga ang kalakaran”. we as a people, need to do something fast.
Mike on Sat, 10th Nov 2007 5:51 pm
How about the money bags that Kampi now admits to giving congressmen and governors? That money wasn’t pork barrel, which would have been properly disbursed, with receipts. Isn’t it clear that the money was for buying the loyalties of these officials? Or you won’t believe it until you see a Malacanang voucher saying so?
anthony scalia on Sun, 11th Nov 2007 3:50 pm
Shaman of Malilipot,
“It might interest you to know that one of the first things that Park Chung Hee did when he seized power was to prosecute the business profiteers who profited from corruption in the South Korean government. Twenty-four leading businessmen were arrested. (Just imagine Donald Dee and Sergio Ortiz-Luis under arrest.) Only Lee of Samsung escaped arrest because he was abroad at the time. Later, he and some prominent business leaders offered to donate a substantial part of their fortunes to the government”
“So, it’s not true that all the government can do is set down policies and press the auto-pilot button, and, presto!, you get rapid economic growth.”
Very true. I wholeheartedly agree. The private sector was the key.
“In fact, Park laid down an economic development program that the private sector unquestioningly followed, or else… ”
Really, ‘unquestioningly’ followed? Well what was the result of this ‘unquestioning following’?
“And Park also did launch some sort of a morality campaign. Oh, yes, Park’s was an authoritarian, centralized government. So was Chun Doo Hwan’s. So was Lee Kwan Yew’s. However, Mahathir showed that the right kind of leadership can be wielded in a democratic environment. Okay, he was a “strong†political leader. So did Thaksin when he led Thailand to recovery after the 1997 financial crisis.”
Again, very true.
“All this shows that economic development cannot be left entirely to the private sector.”
Excuse me? Maybe for Singapore, where most of the big businesses there are owned by the state-owned Temasek. But not for South Korea, Japan, Taiwan.
“It is the government that has to spearhead economic growth. And more often than not, “government†means the national leadership”
Spearhead? The government? How? A la Singapore? Its always the private sector who spearheads grwoth. At best, government can only provide the right environment.
“The question in the Philippines today is whether we will find the kind of leadership that will propel us to rapid economic growth in an authoritarian or democratic milieu”
Clue – our rich neighbors do not have the democracy that we have
anthony scalia on Sun, 11th Nov 2007 4:05 pm
cvj,
let me break down this quote of mine:
“Guess what? The South Korean private sector did not wait for ‘democracy’ to be restored, for the shenanigans to be eradicated, before it created companies and jobs. And the growth was not a snail’s pace”
this way:
“Guess what? The South Korean private sector
did not wait for ‘democracy’ to be restored
for the shenanigans to be eradicated
before it created companies and jobs. And the growth was not a snail’s pace.”
Thats why your statement “Contrary to your impression that the South Koreans were docile during the dictatorship, they actually had an active resistance movement” continues to baffle me. Sablay to say the least.
I said the Koreans did not wait for democracy to be restored before it created companies and jobs. Unlike the attitude of so many Pinoys na hinihintay palagi ang perfect moment before doing something.
But since you posted those info, I have to honor them by commenting on them also
“This outrage in 1980 jump-started the democracy movement in South Korea which culminated in the ending of the dictatorship in 1987″
Noted. When the dictatorship ended in 1987, South Korea was not an economic ground zero. The 1987, post-military dictatorship South Korea was very well-off than present-day Philippines.
“Don’t compare the brave South Koreans of yesterday with the docile Filipinos of today. Ang mga Koreano, hindi nagpapagago.”
Hey hey, ang mga Pinoy ngayon hindi na rin nagpapagago – di nagpapagago sa mga taong nagsusulsol pa rin ng rally, people power EDSA 3 or 4, impeachment, etc.
At lalong hindi nagpapagago ang mga Pinoy sa mga nagsasabing aalis si GMA pag nakatanggap ng postcard eviction notice!
May mas gago pa dun – umaasang aalis si GMA pag tanggap ng mga postcard!
May mas gago pa dun – nagtataka kung bakit di umaalis si GMA pag tanggap ng postcard!
anthony scalia on Sun, 11th Nov 2007 5:16 pm
cvj,
your reference to hvrds is interesting.
Washington SyCip, part of the problem? Really now
The ‘reciprocal control mechanism’ are set up for those who received any form of state aid. Both government and the chaebol cooperated in coming up with the appropriate policies.
But it was not like the government acting like big brother over the chaebol.
Policies, plus state financing – these are all what the government provided the private sector. Oh yes one thing more, the government ensured that the right environment was there for business to flourish. During the period of rapid growth, there were no rallies, no impeachments, no terrorism, no insurgency, no people power and anything of that sort.
By the time ‘people power’ toppled the dictatorship in 1987, South Korea was already rich! By then, rallying is a luxury they can afford!
“The chopsticks economies he refers to have a long history of formal national fedual structures in place. But they all followed a national mercantilist dirigist economic paradigm along the same lines as proposed by the then father of U.S. industrial mercantilism Alexander Hamilton”
“If we had followed this paradigm at the end of the second world war then we would have destroyed the landlordism in the country by force and installed a genuine agrarian reform program that means that there would have been no parity rights for the Americans and all multinational corporations would have been nationalized and there would have been no Washington Sycip. That is what Japan, South Korea, PRC and Taiwan did.”
It seems that the ‘national mercantilist dirigist’ paradigm went for naught immediately after world war 2 (for Japan) and the Korean war (for South Korea)
Japan, South Korea are both severely devastated by wars. Japan and South Korea prospered for what they did right after those wars!
As for Taiwan, did you know that even as recently as 1980, the Philippines was still ahead of Taiwan?!
What could be the connection of agrarian reform to those countries’ rapid growth from the 1950s onwards?
“It is precisely Washington Sycip who benefitted from the policy framework of the Washington Consensus.”
“He has become rich though the policy of debasing the national currency”
Oh really? How? Im curious, really. Tsk tsk tsk too bad no specifics were given. How did he ‘debase’ the national currency?
“It’s the fact that they followed the right economic policies.”
The problem is, the “rightness” of a policy does not become obvious at least until after a decade. Now its easy to say they were right because the results are there decades later. But try to judge the policies at the time they were laid down, before any result was visible.
It is worth stressing a thousand times that the private sectors who worked within the framework of those policies produced the economic development their countries are now experiencing.
Why don’t we take a cue from them? Removing the chief executive never crossed their minds. Energies were focused on job creation.
“If we followed Washington Sycip and his elitists, it will just be more of the same failed Washington Consensus policies that benefit only themselves.”
Really? To begin with, who are his ‘elitists?’ and what do they espouse?
For discussion purposes only – How sure are you that the result would be the same? That is, if we followed SyCip and his ‘elitists’?
Too bad SyCip was not touted as a business entrepreneur role model. He said he formed SGV to beat the British CPA firms that were operating in the country at that time. Not only was he successful, he was able to make SGV the biggest auditing firm in the Philippines, and for some time, in the whole of Asia.
In case you didnt know, SyCip was a product of the Philippine public school system.
I’m all ears (or should it be all eyes) on your dossier on SyCip. Bring them on!
As Jessica Zafra said, we don’t have to agree with Washington SyCip, but we have to listen to him
Shaman of Malilipot on Sun, 11th Nov 2007 6:12 pm
“to a sore loser, any exercise is “uselessâ€. the essence of democracy is the rule of majority. it’s not perfect but the alternative is worst.” – Bencard
Oh, my dear Bencard, your kind of democracy is all form but no substance.
Shaman of Malilipot on Sun, 11th Nov 2007 6:40 pm
So, Anthony, without the “right environment”, where would economic growth be? We’ve all known where – languishing in low single digit rate. Can the private sector create the right environment by itself?
The government spearheads economic growth by, yes, you’re right, creating the right environment. The private sector does the rest, precisely because we are a free market enterprise economy, not a state enterprise economy. And the government has to sustain that environment; it’s not a one-time deal. Put a national leadership at the helm with the wrong set of priorities and the economy will tail-spin. The private sector will be blunted. So, which is the real spearhead? The government or the private sector?
cvj on Sun, 11th Nov 2007 7:09 pm
Not true. Some are, some aren’t. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are democracies. Your misconception is that democracy or the lack of it is the key variable in bringing about economic development. It’s not. Inequality is a bigger factor.
The South Korean ‘private sector’ (i.e. those who are not in government) was doing both. The private sector was actively working for economic development while at the same time, they (in their capacity as private citizens) were fighting for democracy. The Koreans worked hard on both economic and political fronts. Same applies to us who oppose Gloria. It’s disingeneous to automatically conclude that those of us who are in the opposition are not also doing our part on the economic front especially since you do not know what each of our day jobs are.
The ‘national mercantilist dirigist’ paradigm that hvrds referred to were implemented in South Korea by Park Chung Hee after the Korean War and in Taiwan by Chiang Kai Shek after their defeat by Mao and retreat into the island. Land reform was a key first step since it removed inequalities that would have acted as a barrier to implementing an industrial policy based on the ‘national mercantilist dirigist’ paradigm.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘being ahead’ but the GDP per capita (‘PPP converted’) of Taiwan in 1980 was already USD 3282.36 compared to our USD 1753.51. They overtook us in 1968.(Source: World Penn Tables)
We’ve already had a couple of decades to see that the Washington Consensus model that all our Presidents (real & fake) have implemented has failed as compared to the national mercantilist dirigist policies that our neighbors followed.
No one is arguing against the role of the private sector. Where i disagree with you is on the role that government plays and the role of private citizens in disciplining government.
vic on Sun, 11th Nov 2007 7:28 pm
Democracy as I have known it. Democracy could be defined as the government where people are free to express their views without fear of disappearing and never be seen again and totally forgotten. such is the case of so many we call “deciperados” or the disappeared. That although the Majority rules, the minority still has the voice and that voice should be respected, otherwise when that minority turn to go into the majority, the respect that was not extended to it will also not be extended to the new minority. We call it the continuity of Democratic Process (just in every day simple terms, as I consider myself a simple man).
Also that the rule of law as we know where the Democratic Principle is founded upon is applicable to all, not just to the minority or the majority, the marginalized or to the privileged but All. I think the Bearded President of the U.S. summed it up succinctly that is “a government of the people by the people and for the people”..nowhere he actually said of majority or minority..majority or minority only matters in government, nothing to do with democracy….
anthony scalia on Mon, 12th Nov 2007 4:18 pm
shaman of malilipot,
“So, Anthony, without the “right environmentâ€, where would economic growth be? We’ve all known where – languishing in low single digit rate. Can the private sector create the right environment by itself”
No, but successful businesses have shown that they need not wait for the right environment to be in place before succeeding.
“So, which is the real spearhead? The government or the private sector?”
It should be the private sector. If growth rates aren’t that big and sustainable yet, its because the private sector isnt doing enough. It only means the private sector must grow even more, which requires more entreprenuers to step up, which requires a single minded focus on company and job and value creation, and forget all about changing the chief executive.
anthony scalia on Mon, 12th Nov 2007 5:25 pm
cvj,
“Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are democracies”
But they don’t have the same ‘freedoms’ that we trumpet that we have here.
“The South Korean ‘private sector’ (i.e. those who are not in government) was doing both. The private sector was actively working for economic development while at the same time, they (in their capacity as private citizens) were fighting for democracy.”
Okay, assuming arguendo that the Sokors are ALSO working for democracy (while working for their econ devt), well which one caused their prosperity? Comparing them with Pinoys now, all efforts are just on ‘restoring democracy’! Take note, as you earlier said, democracy was restored in 1987, but South Korea by then was already advanced!
Its hypergrowth years were during the years of the military dictatorship!
“The Koreans worked hard on both economic and political fronts. Same applies to us who oppose Gloria. It’s disingeneous to automatically conclude that those of us who are in the opposition are not also doing our part on the economic front especially since you do not know what each of our day jobs are”
Well, what are your day jobs? Do you have a direct hand in channeling foreign direct investment here? Can you easily persuade foreign businessmen to invest here? If yes, then please continue doing it, and thanks.
Can you blame us people holding a ‘disingeneous’ conclusion? As far as I can recall, and for as long as I have been observing the Philippine scene, those so-called ‘opposition’ are just that, good for opposing, but doing nothing good for the country. They have no strengths but merely rely on the perceived weaknesses of the incumbent.
But if you are like Manny Villar, who presents himself as an opposition, yet has invested his wealth here, doing his share of job creation (every time a house is built several industries experience movement – cement, trucking, hardware, banking etc), then I salute you. Keep on opposing GMA, but keep on investing here. Because what will prosper the Philippines is not the efforts to kick out GMA but your investing.
“Your misconception is that democracy or the lack of it is the key variable in bringing about economic development. It’s not. Inequality is a bigger factor”
For the Philippines, that may be a key variable. Its not a coincidence that our rich East Asian Neighbors do not practice Philippine-style democracy, at least during their hypergrowth years.
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘being ahead’ but the GDP per capita (’PPP converted’) of Taiwan in 1980 was already USD 3282.36 compared to our USD 1753.51. They overtook us in 1968″
That’s GDP per capita. What matters is over-all GDP. Can you please compare what was the GDP of both countries by 1980? At present the Philippine per capita GDP is bigger than China and India, yet they are considered more advanced than the Philippines. If you can show that the GDP of Taiwan is bigger than the Philippines’ in 1980 then I stand corrected.
‘The ‘national mercantilist dirigist’ paradigm that hvrds referred to were implemented in South Korea by Park Chung Hee after the Korean War and in Taiwan by Chiang Kai Shek after their defeat by Mao and retreat into the island. Land reform was a key first step since it removed inequalities that would have acted as a barrier to implementing an industrial policy based on the ‘national mercantilist dirigist’ paradigm’
I am still at a lost as to what creature is this ‘national mercantilist dirigist’ paradigm! What I know is that our rich East Asian neighbors got to where they are because their companies focused on exports to the rich industrialized nations. Land reform was never a factor.
The proximate cause of their economic success was not land reform but their export-driven companies! I dont see the ‘connect’ between land reform and the export-driven thrusts of their companies. Well, isa lang – maybe these companies were formed by people using cash from selling their lands to the government pursuant to land reform.
“We’ve already had a couple of decades to see that the Washington Consensus model that all our Presidents (real & fake) have implemented has failed as compared to the national mercantilist dirigist policies that our neighbors followed”
I think I asked what was that model? What are its components? You cannot just sweepingly declare that they failed. In the first place, were they even implemented?
One thing i know, an anti-GMA stalwart, Cory Aquino, is a huge stumbling block to the CARPability of Hacienda Luisita.
“Where i disagree with you is on the role that government plays and the role of private citizens in disciplining government”
Noted. Thats our deadlock.
I just think that we’d produce more returns if we focused on job creation alone. Perish the thought that GMA will step down. All those rallies and EDSA attempts are useless. They don’t bring food to the table (maybe sa mga rallyists for hire) A coup de etat is not worth it, with its incalculable collateral damage.
If you want to strike back at GMA, then gather and document all evidence now, then file an avalanche of cases against her when she becomes a plain citizen on June 30, 2010.
But no more of actions that will reverse the gains and the slow momentum. It is for everybody’s benefit if the growth is sustained for more years. Trickling down takes time.
I believe in the free market, and the less government intervention the better.
cvj on Mon, 12th Nov 2007 9:34 pm
I don’t know where you get that impression but below are Freedom House’s ratings of the three countries’ Political Rights and Civil Liberties. (The lower the score, the freer.)
Year: 2007
Philippines:
Political Rights score: 3
Civil liberties score: 3
Status: Partly Free
South Korea:
Political Rights score: 1
Civil liberties score: 2
Status: Free
Taiwan:
Political Rights score: 2
Civil liberties score: 1
Status: Free
We used to be ‘free’ back in 2005, but it deteriorated in 2006. Both South Korea and Taiwan has been classified as ‘free’ since this report was first made available in 2002.
For South Koreans, a tangible result of their working for democracy is the high-level conviction of two of their Presidents i.e. Choon Doo Hwan and Roa Tae Woo. The former was a dictator while the latter was his protege. This demonstrated the primacy of rule of law (relative to our situation) which is one of the pillars of economic development. Imagine what signal a Gloria Arroyo conviction would send to future wannabees.
cvj on Mon, 12th Nov 2007 10:07 pm
Actually no. What matters is per capita GDP.
Land reform (1) freed up capital for investment into industry and (2) created a class of consumers from former peasants. In Taiwan, the government also channeled income from fertilizer sales to farmers into industry. In both Korea and Taiwan, the greater social equality brought about by land reform also gave the government the political runway to concentrate resources on a few industrialists thereby achieving economist of scale. In highly unequal societies, resistance to such concentration of resources makes such a policy more politicallly costly.
On Washington Consensus, i’d like to direct you to Joseph Stiglitz’ book Globalization and Its Discontents for starters. It’s basically a policy mix of financial liberalization, privatization, deregulation and trade liberalization among others.
cvj on Mon, 12th Nov 2007 11:28 pm
sorry, “economist of scale” above should be “economies of scale”.
anthony scalia on Tue, 13th Nov 2007 12:04 am
cvj,
“We used to be ‘free’ back in 2005, but it deteriorated in 2006. Both South Korea and Taiwan has been classified as ‘free’ since this report was first made available in 2002.”
Oh no, another fan of (very subjective) surveys. From an organization supported by the US government! One web site even describes Freedom House as an organization created by Franklin D. Roosevelt to prepare the US public opinion for war.
You know the reasons for the low score – because of perception, and because of what happened to mediamen, missing people, extrajudicial killings etc.
And as you said, ‘we ‘used to be free’ in 2005. Those countries are johnny-come-latelys when it comes to freedoms that we enjoy.
Id still stick to the very obvious fact that Philippine democracy is ‘freer’
You should have known the methodology of Freedom House.
By the way, Freedom House’s Freedom in the World reports are given less credence in academia. Only the gullible media cite them.
“For South Koreans, a tangible result of their working for democracy is the high-level conviction of two of their Presidents i.e. Choon Doo Hwan and Roa Tae Woo. The former was a dictator while the latter was his protege. This demonstrated the primacy of rule of law (relative to our situation) which is one of the pillars of economic development. Imagine what signal a Gloria Arroyo conviction would send to future wannabees.”
Not responsive to my question of which of the two acts ’simultaneously done’ – acts towards economic development and acts towards restoration of democracy – was the key to their prosperity?
The acts towards democracy? By 1987, the year democracy as restored, South Korea was already rich! To repeat, in 1987 South Korea was not an economic ground zero, not reeling from devastation. They’re rich! Now did they become rich by toppling the corrupt dictators?
Now rule of law as pillars of economic development? well there was rule of law all right during the hypergrowth years of South Korea – no rallies, no impeachments, no ‘EDSAs’ no people power (till the mid 1980s), no attempts to remove the chief executive – during those times, which enabled the economic builders to focus on what they’re doing.
During the hypergrowth years, Korea wasn’t exactly enjoying Philippine-style democracy!
“Actually no. What matters is per capita GDP”
Well that’s another deadlock. and that makes the Philippines better than India, and just a striking distance off China. Hey that should be shouted from the mountaintops and bannered in headlines – the Philippines is better than the global leader in offshoring, India!
“Land reform (1) freed up capital for investment into industry…”
I gave that one possible ‘connect’
“and (2) created a class of consumers from former peasants” In Taiwan, the government also channeled income from fertilizer sales to farmers into industry. In both Korea and Taiwan, the greater social equality brought about by land reform also gave the government the political runway to concentrate resources on a few industrialists thereby achieving economist of scale.”
True, but those arent what made Taiwan into what it is today. Taiwan owes its present lofty status to its decision to be export-oriented. Like Korea.
“In highly unequal societies, resistance to such concentration of resources makes such a policy more politicallly costly”
True.
“On Washington Consensus, i’d like to direct you to Joseph Stiglitz’ book Globalization and Its Discontents for starters. It’s basically a policy mix of financial liberalization, privatization, deregulation and trade liberalization among others”
Well thanks for the reference. But I’d rather know what components of the Washington Consensus was implemented here.
cvj on Tue, 13th Nov 2007 1:09 am
And aren’t these legitimate indicators of our lack of freedom? If someone gets killed or abducted for speaking out, you don’t think that reflects on the health of our democracy?
But they were fighting for it nonetheless and they achieved both economic progress and freedom (with the improvement in the rule of law that came with it).
Even if you compare the period when both countries were under a dictatorship (from 1972 to 1985 when the Philippines was under Martial Law so was under a dictatorship just like South Korea), you will see that Korea still grew faster. When both turned into democracies at around the same time, Korea also grew faster. Your conclusion that democracy (or its absence) is the variable that determines the pace of growth cannot explain the above.
Regarding export orientation, that is not the complete story. Rather, it was a combination of ‘export promotion’ and ‘import substitution’ or in hvrds’ terms, a national mercantilist dirigist economic paradigm (although much less protectionist than a similar policy implemented by the United States in the 19th centurty). Alice Amsden, in her book ‘The Rise of the Rest’ gives an account of this policy mix as implemented in Korea:
So in the case of South Korea, it is not a question of ‘either/or’ i.e. export promotion vs. import substitution, but the right combination of both.
The reason why we cannot ’shout from the mountaintops’ is that what matters, aside from per capita GDP, is the rate of GDP growth where India (a democracy btw) is ahead of us. The reason why absolute size of GDP per se is not as important as the other two measures is because it does not give an indication of a country’s productivity (as measured by GDP per capita) nor its rate of productivity growth (as measured by rate of GDP growth per capita).
So why do you think India, which is a democracy, is also growing faster than us?
anthony scalia on Tue, 13th Nov 2007 10:59 pm
cvj,
“And aren’t these legitimate indicators of our lack of freedom? If someone gets killed or abducted for speaking out, you don’t think that reflects on the health of our democracy?”
No.
may I remind you, that those ‘legitimate indicators’ are of an Arroyo vintage, that the ‘freer’ countries you cited became ‘freer’ just now.
And I will strongly disagree with the view that the killings and other violations were caused by the government. But Id still blame government for failing to protect the victims
“Even if you compare the period when both countries were under a dictatorship (from 1972 to 1985 when the Philippines was under Martial Law so was under a dictatorship just like South Korea), you will see that Korea still grew faster. When both turned into democracies at around the same time, Korea also grew faster”
Very true! Now what could be the difference? Why did Korea grow faster in the midst of a dictatorship, while the Philippines did not even grow? Answer below.
“Your conclusion that democracy (or its absence) is the variable that determines the pace of growth cannot explain the above”
No, that is not my conclusion. Your retorts were focused on my citing of Washington SyCip that the problem of the country is too much democracy. Then you cited the dirigist ek-ek which led me to respond to it…
And if wikipedia is authoritative, it said that one of the factors for the success of the East Asian tigers (includes Korea and Taiwan) is “Non-democratic and relatively authoritarian political systems during the early years.”
Maybe you forgot the drift of my comment to Shaman, the private sector is the key to development, that we need not wait for the perfect leadership to move forward.
Ever wonder why I kept on harping the private sector? Because that is where the greatest need is. The best and the brightest Pinoys, instead of creating companies and jobs, would rather migrate to first world countries. We are not as patriotic as those Koreans and Taiwanese who sacrificed for their countries, during their growth years.
Its sad, but it seems nobody bothered to build companies and jobs during the Marcos years. The sole goal was kick out Marcos and restore democracy.
Worse, the best and brightest all suffer the delusion that kicking out GMA is the sine qua non for prosperity a la Korea! So thats where the thrust is now, kicking out GMA, ‘dahil ginagago na tayo!” What a waste of talent and resources!
“An important Korean industrial policy for electronics was protecting the domestic market. In return for protection of the domestic market, the government required the enterprises to export a part of their production”
“So in the case of South Korea, it is not a question of ‘either/or’ i.e. export promotion vs. import substitution, but the right combination of both”
Very true! A combination of both, really!
Which one do you think brought more riches to the exporters? The domestic market, or the markets of the rich industrialized nations?
Again, if wikipedia is authoritative, it said that another success factor of the East Asian tigers is their focus on exporting to the rich industrialized nations. Not to deny the profitability of their domestic markets, but the profits really went north with their exports.
whether export or domestic market, their private sector was very active in creating jobs and value. wish it were the same here.
“So why do you think India, which is a democracy, is also growing faster than us?”
i thought you said what matters is per capita GDP?
Why? Im glad you asked -
no impeachments, no ‘EDSAs’, no people powers, no agitators, no “kami naman’ opposition, no rallies
many Indians willing to sacrifice for their country, either by not migrating to a First World country, or returning home
many entrepreneurial Indians focused on job and value creation, who have no time for thinking how to remove the president or prime minister and no time for rallies, mass actions, postcard sending etc
many entrepreneurial Indians creating wealth for their country
and even a minute increase in the productivity of hundreds of millions of the Indian workforce results in increased GDP. to match the same GDP increase, the Pinoy workforce, 40-50 million, needs to be much much more productive. but how can the Pinoy be expected to be more productive when
his work is interrupted by rallies, strikes, attempts at EDSAs and another people power, impeachments, postcard sending, etc
cvj on Wed, 14th Nov 2007 7:58 am
Then Wikipedia (specifically the one who wrote that passage) is making the same attribution error as you and Washington Sycip. While there are countries that prospered under dictatorships, there are also countries like us that stagnated under one.
That’s an inacurrate characterization of the Marcos years. There was entrepreneurial/business activity at that time but the difference is that the Marcos government did not implement policies similar to that of South Korea which led to the rise of the Chaebols in the latter’s case.
That is a truncated and strawman understanding of the opposition to GMA. The issues against Gloria Arroyo are her lack of legitimacy (aka her cheating) and her undermining of our institutions that we need as the basis for a functioning society. I don’t think the private sector can do its part if the Philippines is on its way to becoming a failed state.
I guess you overlooked what i said above (at 1:09am):
what matters, aside from per capita GDP, is the rate of GDP growth.
Not true. While i was in India, i saw that they also had rallies.
Both India and the Philippines have a large pool of people working overseas and both have a large immigrant community in the West.
What India and South Korea have in common is that their governments were more successful in pursuing industrial policies that encouraged the growth of their private sector firms, i.e. what you refer to as ‘dirigist ek-ek’.
anthony scalia on Wed, 14th Nov 2007 10:10 am
cvj,
“That’s an inacurrate characterization of the Marcos years.”
No, what i wrote was very accurate.
———————————————————-
“There was entrepreneurial/business activity at that time but the difference is that the Marcos government did not implement policies similar to that of South Korea which led to the rise of the Chaebols in the latter’s case.”
No, entrepreneurial activity was not enough to produce Korea-like results. The policies were there, there was just a few takers. And the quest to migrate was already there.
———————————————————-
“That is a truncated and strawman understanding of the opposition to GMA”
No it is not. Just a picture of reality, and the misplaced priorities of many.
———————————————————-
“The issues against Gloria Arroyo are her lack of legitimacy (aka her cheating) and her undermining of our institutions that we need as the basis for a functioning society.I don’t think the private sector can do its part if the Philippines is on its way to becoming a failed state”
Lets go back to Park Chung Hee’s time. He has ‘undermined the institutions’ of his country. Yet how come when democracy was restored in 1987, Korea was very rich. Compared to the Philippines post EDSA 1. Prior to 1987, it can be said that Korea was a failed state.
Face it, we don’t have enough patriotic, entrepreneurial countrymen that see beyond GMA. What we have are Pinoys still thrilled by the romanticism of people power removing a President.
———————————————————-
“Then Wikipedia (specifically the one who wrote that passage) is making the same attribution error as you and Washington Sycip.”
Sorry to say, no, that was not an error. Di mo lang matanggap ang statement ni Washington SyCip. Did it ever occur to you that SyCip has survived more presidents than anyone else, has been in the Philippine business scene actively since the 1950s? That if there is anybody who has the credibility to say something definitive about the Philippines, it is Washington SyCip?
Just because it differs with your view, it is already in error? I hope you can back it up with authors like Alsem.
———————————————————-
“While there are countries that prospered under dictatorships, there are also countries like us that stagnated under one”
Agreed.
———————————————————-
“what matters, aside from per capita GDP, is the rate of GDP growth”
i refer you to my query to you earlier:
‘If you can show that the GDP of Taiwan is bigger than the Philippines’ in 1980 then I stand corrected’
to which you replied with a one-liner:
‘Actually no. What matters is per capita GDP.’
———————————————————-
“Not true. While i was in India, i saw that they also had rallies”
Really, please pray tell me what are the rallies for. The resignation of the president? The prime minister?
———————————————————-
“Both India and the Philippines have a large pool of people working overseas and both have a large immigrant community in the West”
Agreed. But in terms of number of returnees, Indians lead Pinoys.
———————————————————-
“What India and South Korea have in common is that their governments were more successful in pursuing industrial policies that encouraged the growth of their private sector firms, i.e. what you refer to as ‘dirigist ek-ek’”
Asus, where do you think are the traces of the ‘national dirigist mercantilist’ policies you claim that the Indians and Chinese pursued?
If the Indian offshoring industry is an indication, insiders say that its a good thing their industry boomed in the mid 1990s, becauyse if the boom took place much earlier, the Indian government would have nationalized their industry. Indian policies simply caught up with the already growing offshoring industry.
Yes, the policies may have helped later, but the self-starting, diligent, resourceful and entrepreneurial Indians began their businesses without the benefit of policies.
Yan ang kulang ngayon sa mga Pinoy – those who are self-starting, diligent, resourceful and entrepreneurial. Pero how can we expect Pinoys like them to rise if all they do is either migrate or just think “patalsikin na now na”
mlq3 on Wed, 14th Nov 2007 10:26 am
this debate about korea and india is making me impatient. it ignores the often bloody confrontations between the koreas and their authorities. it ignores that park chung hee was assassinated. it ignores the confucian culture of the koreans which has never been an aspect of our culture and is about as useful as saying we should engage in a mass conversion of filipinos to protestantism so that we can engage in a more capitalist mentality ala weber’s observations. it ignores the indian’s problem with the “license raj”or how we are facing many of the same issues as the thais, malaysians and indonesians are wrestling with, and how we can learn from them as much as they learned from us.
anthony scalia on Wed, 14th Nov 2007 7:04 pm
mlq3,
noted. it stops there.
mlq3 on Wed, 14th Nov 2007 7:10 pm
anthony, i have no intention on stopping the vigorous debate you have going. i just wanted to point out where i felt both you and cjv were entirely missing the point.
cvj on Thu, 15th Nov 2007 12:46 am
mlq3, Anthony, regarding India’s takeoff and, in particular, the role of dismantling the ‘license raj’ and the Information Technology sector in bringing this about, this is what Economists Dani Rodrik and Arvind Subramanian say in their paper “From “Hindu Growth†To Productivity Surge: The Mystery Of The Indian Growth Transition*”.
Anthony’s claim that Indian policies simply caught up with the already growing offshoring industry is not historically accurate since the basic policy change (what they call government’s ‘attitudinal shift’) and the growth acceleration tooke place a decade earlier. In explaining the source of India’s growth acceleration the authors explain that distinction between pro-market and pro-business.
To use Anthony’s term, it’s again more of that ‘dirigist ek-ek’.
Now the question is, where did these existing businesses come from in the first place? For that, we have to look to Alice Amsden’s account on the Indian government’s reciprocal control mechanisms (which included the much-maligned license-raj).
cvj on Thu, 15th Nov 2007 1:15 am
First of all, we cannot both be correct so if i believe i’m right, then Washington Sycip must be wrong and vice-versa.
I suppose you mean Amsden. No need for that since i’m familiar with the elitist mindset. Washington Sycip wants a dictatorship because he believes it would give arbitrary powers to technocrats like him which would speed up formulation and facilitate the execution of his favored policies. This despite the fact that our biggest economic downturn in our history happened when technocrats like him (Cesar Virata and Jobo Fernandez) were given free hand by the dictator Marcos. Haven’t we already learned this lesson?
Their political leaders don’t have the same legitimacy issues as their Filipino counterparts.
The absolute value of the GDP which you refer to above is different from the rate of GDP growth which i said was important.
cvj on Thu, 15th Nov 2007 3:15 am
I pointed to the “the Kwangju massacre where 200 pro-democracy protesters belonging to the workers movement were killed and 1000 injured.”
You’re right, i should have brought that up as i did in a previous exchange with Ca T on this topic.
anthony scalia on Thu, 15th Nov 2007 11:59 am
(sorry mlq3 i have to post this:)
cvj,
wait, did i ever insinuate that the IT industry of India was the main driver of Indian growth?
I pointed out to the indian offshoring industry as the best example of self-started and self-driven industry without the benefit of a government aid. And that the policies just caught up with the industry.
When asked why did they choose IT, these Indian entrepreneurs said that because they had no choice, as IT was (then) the only business they could form without going through government red tape.
The ‘policies’ that caught up were the policies relevant to the Indian offshoring industry. Take note that phrase was on the same paragraph. Kindly refer to that paragraph. I was not referring to the whole Indian economy.
The Indian National Dept of IT was formed when India’s IT and IT-enabled services prowess became obvious. This Department really helped the industry further. But such prowess could not have surfaced if not for the initial efforts of the Indian entrepreneurs.
Imagine if the size of the Philippine offshoring industry is the same as that of India. It may not be enough to cause the Philippine economy to leapfrog, just as the Indian offshoring business may not make a dent to India’s over-all economy, but at least you have millions less unemployed to worry about.
My over-all point has been – we need more Pinoys like those Indian self-starters. The problem is, Pinoys are either migrating or thinking of ‘patalsikin na now na’
And removing the chief executive will not usher in economic development.
I wonder where did you get ‘the dismantling of the IT sector’?! For your benefit, you may want to check the history of the Indian IT giants Infosys and Satyam, as it will also give a history of the Indian IT industry. Then you can verify if ‘dismantling of the IT sector’ is accurate or not.
And may I remind you that your quotation from Dani Rodrik and Arvind Subramanian actually helps my argument. (Take note, the ‘policies’ that caught up refer to the offshoring industry, not general policies).
They argue that what triggered the real growth was whewn the government became pro-business. The entry of Suzuki was mentioned – a private sector activity.
Accept it, policies do help, but private sector involvement is what brings the money in. Pinoys still suffer from the malady of waiting for the right policies before doing anything.
By the way, Rodrik and Arvind put it well, “…rapid economic growth is attainable under appropriate policies.”
Not removing chief executives.
How can we expect government to come up with policies if the Senate wastes its time on investigations that are irrelevant to the needs of the country? Thats not being pro-business!
“First of all, we cannot both be correct so if i believe i’m right, then Washington Sycip must be wrong and vice-versa”
Sorry, but your view is wrong. If you can back it up with info from authors like Amsdem, then maybe I’ll believe you. You were able to cite authors in rebutting my arguments. Why cant you do the same with respect to the views of SyCip on democracy? Sorry but that quote from hvrds doesnt qualify.
“I suppose you mean Amsden.”
Ah yes, Amsden.
“No need for that since i’m familiar with the elitist mindset.”
Oh really? Sorry but you don’t.
“Washington Sycip wants a dictatorship because he believes it would give arbitrary powers to technocrats like him which would speed up formulation and facilitate the execution of his favored policies.”
Maybe mlq3 can help verify this – Washington SyCip was at best a government adviser. He never occupied a government position, just those 1-peso a year advisers IIRC.
Maybe it didnt occur to you that Washington SyCip was pro-business all along – like the indian government in the 1980s, as per Rodrik and Arvind?
“This despite the fact that our biggest economic downturn in our history happened when technocrats like him (Cesar Virata and Jobo Fernandez) were given free hand by the dictator Marcos. Haven’t we already learned this lesson?”
SyCip never occupied any government post, much less a policy-making post. What makes you think that if SyCip were given a post, he would do as poorly as Virata and Jobo? And are you sure Virata and Jobo were given a ‘free hand’? During Marcos’ time, nobody had a ‘free hand’!
“Their political leaders don’t have the same legitimacy issues as their Filipino counterparts”
implied answer – no, the rallies in India that you saw were not on removing chief executives. and how sure are you that their leaders do not have legitimacy issues?
“The absolute value of the GDP which you refer to above is different from the rate of GDP growth which i said was important”
Hey hey, you only said
‘rate of GDP growth was important’
after i gave that statement that
‘Well that’s another deadlock. and that makes the Philippines better than India, and just a striking distance off China. Hey that should be shouted from the mountaintops and bannered in headlines – the Philippines is better than the global leader in offshoring, India!’
which is my reply to your earlier statement that
‘Actually no. What matters is per capita GDP’
because the per capita GDP of the Philippines is bigger than India’s.
cvj on Thu, 15th Nov 2007 4:08 pm
As requested. Here is what economist Dani Rodrik has to say in his paper on Democracy and Economic Performance.
The entire paper is available in the web. Just google.