Democracy with Southeast and East Asian characteristics
January 25, 2008 by mlq3
Filed under Daily Dose
Today is the 75th birthday of Corazon C. Aquino, who was the Free Press’s Person of the Century. A welcome move: Chief Justice Puno: Fine will do for libel (see also SC to release circular on libel). Concerning another Supreme Court initiative, see www.soriano-ph.com on Habeas Data. Naturally, it;s driving Philippine Commentary bananas.
In other news, Ayala offers more proof of G-2 bombing.
In Davos, Finger Pointing, Preserving Legacies, Looking for Leadership engages those present. In his blog, Stuart Santiago tackles the possibility of a global recession.See also Joblessness seen rising in 2008.
The debate continues: New ‘PI’ eyes revision, not amendment. Just a distraction, so Talks on with foreign firms on NBN can proceed? Or part of a broader effort to keep relevant, as Mon Casiple suggests:
Charter change–in these end-game times–requires extraordinary measures in order to neutralize the overwhelming public opposition to a GMA charter change. The 2006 Cha-cha debacles are still fresh in the minds of both proponents and oppositors.
President Macapagal-Arroyo should stop all these political maneuvers by her subordinates to maintain her in power after 2010. It only make more difficult for her to concentrate on a legacy agenda and for her coalition to maintain its unity. One can discern already the separation of interests between her and some of her advisers.
If proponents of amendments have given up on the parliamentary option as too alien -and alienating of the electorate- they continue to flog Federalism (which I am interested in, too). Miriam Coronel Ferrer in Cutting up the Philippines dissects the issue, but points to how the proponents generally envision a kind of consolidation of existing provinces into federal states:
In two House Bills filed in 2004, Luzon will have the five federal states of Metro Manila, Northern Luzon, Central Luzon, Southern Tagalog and Bicol. Visayas and Mindanao will each have three: Eastern, Western and Central Visayas; and Northern Mindanao, Southern Mindanao, and Bangsamoro Federal States. In all, 11 federal states.
The Citizens’ Movement for a Federal Philippines’ draft constitution aims for 10 states, with Visayas divided into only two states: East and West. The current Western Visayas provinces of Aklan, Antique, Capiz, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental will be boosted by the inclusion of Palawan, currently under Southern Tagalog. All the other Visayan provinces will make up Eastern Visayas.
A trimmer proposal recommends only eight states – Northern Luzon (including the Cordillera), Central Luzon (including provinces in Southern Luzon and Metro Manila cities except Manila, Makati and Quezon City), a single Visayan state, Bangsa Moro, Northern Mindanao, and Southern Mindanao. In this proposal, the federal capital will be made up of Manila, Makati and Quezon City. Jose V. Abueva suggests transforming the Clark Economic Zone into the federal capital instead.
She then tackles the opposition of other places to these proposals (for example, Palawan, which wants to be its own federal state), and gives proposals of her own, such as dropping proposals for a Bangsamoro state; her proposal’s very interesting but bucks the conventional wisdom too much, or rather, takes the inclusive rhetoric of its proponents too seriously.
My view is that proponents of Federalism from outside government view it far differently than its supporters within government. People outside government, it seems to me, view Federalism as a means to give greater freedom to local governments, but also, that provinces need to be reconsolidated into larger, self-sufficient territories. Proponents from within government, who have already gerrymandered many provinces into existence, aren’t interested in consolidating the resources and territories of their fieffoms.
This passage from “Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations” (Martin Goodman) struck a chord:
Government without bureaucracy could operate successfully only if it was government with consent -even if the motivation for consent was ultimately the fear of extreme violence by the state as penalty for open opposition. Much administration, such as the collection of taxes at the local level, was in effect carried out on behalf of the state by local urban elites in return for Roman support of their local status. The success of government thus depended upon acceptance by provincial aristocrats of the value of honors and tites bestowed by local people and recognized by Rome. Much of the extant evidence for this “empire of honor” appears to confirm such a consensus. Inscriptions on monuments from all over the empire boast about the status of local magistrates and the favors granted to them, and through them to their communities, by governors and emperors. Such evidence suggests an integrated society of provincials willingly cooperating with a benevolent and responsive state. But of course only those individuals who accepted and benefitted from the system will have paid for such monuments to be erected…
…More significant than the overt recognition by provincials of their place in the Roman system of power was the nearly universal practice of patronage to give individuals of all backgrounds a sense of connection, however tenuous, between themselves and the emperor. Almost everyone in the Roman empire knew someone who knew someone who might be able to intervene, through however many links in the chain of patronage, at the center of power in the state…. But for the provincials far away from the locus of power in Rome, the most effective invocation of patronage ties was acheived either by traveling to Rome in person or sending an embassy.
I wish more people would explore the political goings-on in other countries in our part of the world, to see if some sort of patterns emerge to show whether or not politics as our part of the world practices it, has common characteristics. I believe it does: dynasticism, the single-part urge, tight connections between business and the political class, to name just three.
See also Sycip pitches Asian democracy model, more power to technocrats:
Although he was cut short of advising that the government should do away with the elections as this will curtail the rights of the people to vote, Sycip said legislators should be stripped off the powers concerning the economic matters of the country.
This would mean the rise of the technocrats, who should be insulated from the politicians. These select people will run the country’s economy and will have the necessary powers to immediately effect change or react in cases of emergency, such as the recent move of the US Federal Reserve to cut its interest rates by three quarters of a percentage point.
Sycip, 87, said these technocrats should be given powers like those of the Bangko Sentral’s, that can either raise or ease interest rates immediately without getting the nod of Congress or consulting the President.
He said with this type of system, the technocrats can even go against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, especially on family planning, in order to reduce the country’s population of close to 90 million.
Reading the dynamics of Japanese politics, see Japan’s Dilemma, where basically they have had single-party governance for close to six decades; or of the Taiwanese, see Taiwan Does the Presidential Math, where after decades of dictatorship they have developed a vigorous democracy, or Malaysia, see Malaysian Yumpies Just Wanna Have Fun (which suggests Tim Yap represents a regional Zeitgeist); or Thailand, see Thaksin’s Friends Are in Power, where they’re confronting the failure of their own version of Edsa Dos; the list goes on and on, as far afield as India.
In the blogosphere, Danton Remoto has a blog. His recent entries gives a pretty exhaustive list of senatorial candidates being proposed by the various parties. What’s amazing to me is that the parties are actively speculating on their senatorial bets -another sign of Arroyo fatigue? Or simply an admission by the entire political class -the leaders of all the parties- that they don’t intend to get anything done between now and 2010, so better to fuel speculation on elections they don’t even intend to have?
Torn & Frayed says the number of people who read books is dwindling:
Nevertheless and despite the terrible implications, I can’t help thinking that this is indeed “the twilight of the books”. As Samuel Johnson said, “people in general do not willingly read, if they have something else to amuse them”.
smoke takes a skeptical look at Christian Monsod.goodbye blue monday and Studentstrike continues the debate on the Left and Edsa Dos.. Re: the former, who asserts,
Sa paggamit ni MLQ3 ng resulta ng nakaraang eleksyon upang masukat ang laki at lakas ng Kaliwa kumpara sa mga dominante at pangunahing partido ng bansa, nakalimutan ata niya ang konsepto ng dagdag-bawas kung saan nabiktima ang mga kaliwang partylist at tumabo ng ganansya ang mga kandidato at partido ni Gng. Arroyo.
Uh, no. I considered that when I wrote:
Let’s argue the Left had only 1 out of every 4 votes cast for it actually counted, a potential constituency of 9,732,680. That puts it on parity with: Prospero A. Pichay, Jr. TEAM Unity – Lakas-CMD 9,798,355
She asks,
Sa mga komento, binaggit din ni Manolo na “in retrospect, the resign all call was the correct one to make.” Hindi ba’t ito ay dogmatismo sa pinakapayak na depinisyon ng salita?
No. That’s an opinion, a change of mind because a reflection made in retrospect -the opposite of dogmatism which never permits the changing of one’s mind or opinions.
As for her assertion,
Salamat kung inyong kinukundena ang pamamaslang. Subalit hindi rin naman nakakatulong upang matigil ito kung patuloy na ilalagay sa margins ang kaliwa. Kung patuloy silang ikokonsiderang insignificant. Kung patuloy na sasabihin na hindi pa sila tanggap ng mamamayan kahit na ang kasaysayan na ang magpapatotoo sa kabaliktaran nito.
The following readings will be relevant. See the columns of Juan Mercado: Guarded skepticism, from June 20, 2006, Have-gun-will-tax collection, September 5, 2006; Cry of the widows, September 6, 2007, Those grisly secrets, September 12, 2006, and Those sealed graves, September 14, 2006 (which may or may not include information presented in The CPP-NPA-NDF “Hit List†– a preliminary report).
(As for Jose Ma. Sison himself, he says Three Governments Persist in Persecuting Me. And there’s a dossier on why Romulo Kintanar’s death shouldn’t be blamed on the politburo. And much exculpatory material.)
But the ultimate point comes from Miriam Coronel Ferrer’s presentation (in the Forum on Violence Against Movements, Movements Against Violence), reproduced in PATH sums it up perfectly:
The language of anti-communism remains effective, given a general antipathy to communism, and an increasing alienation of the citizenry to national politics. To those who have fallen for this anti-communist rhetorical hysteria” (defined by Wole Soyinka, first African to win the
Nobel prize for literature, as the one-dimensional approach to all faces of reality, however varied or internally contradictory), the killings are not a case of “slaughter of innocents” given that these people are somehow allied with the CPP-NPA. They don’t think much about the fact that slaughter remains slaughter; that the basic principle of respect for human life and human dignity is for everyone, including the enemy number one of the state, and yes, including terrorists; that there are rules even in war that must be followed, notably distinction between those who carry arms
and those who do not. Meanwhile, businessmen and professionals may be morally aghast at the unabated killings of alleged communists, but are not motivated enough to put pressure to stop it, until somehow, it starts hurting their economic interests, or their immediate environment. The middle class will continue to fight for their own means of survival regardless of the course of Philippine politics.However, class analysis alone cannot explain part of the lingering potency of anti-communism. Part of the effectiveness of the language of
anti-communism and resultant alienation is also due to the CPP-NPA-NDF themselves – their excesses (revolutionary taxation of rich and poor, infliction of punishments), own pandering of violence and machismo, their inclusivity and dogmatic framing of Philippine society and politics, and their counter-monologue to the state’s anti-communist mantra. The purges, the CPP-NPA-NDF hopefully recognizes by now, cannot be simply forgotten without full retribution and honest accounting before former and present comrades and the greater public. The ghosts of murdered comrades will haunt the party forever. And though not particularly convincing to explain away the recent spate of political killings among those who study their politics, and revolting for the disrespect shown the dead lying in mass graves, the purges of the 80s and 90s will remain scraps (war material) to poke around with, in the AFP and police forces’ psywar ops.In all, taken in the context of an untransformed state and reform-resistant state elites, the language of anti-communism coupled with anti-terrorism is actually anti-left (because the communists do not alone make up the Philippine left), and even more broadly, anti anti-status quo. Thus while we have our differences with the communist left, and as human rights advocates, oppose terrorist methods, we cannot tolerate the rhetorical hysteria of anti-communism/terrorism. We cannot be unconcerned with the killings of branded communists/terrorists, because the label easily includes all of us unhappy with the status quo, and exercising our rights to express our beliefs.
That razor-sharp statement of essentials having been made, what now do we make of scuttlebutt that a retired general linked to the time of the fast and furious and plentiful liquidations of activists, has now received a new lease on life -as the Deputy National Security Advisor. This man, when still in the active service, seems to have born command responsibility for some of the killings. Back in the saddle again, is it open season on the Left once more?
Postcard Headlines on land reform.
And finally, a UP Student’s Manifesto.
Delicious
Facebook
Flickr
LinkedIn
Technorati
Twitter
Loading ...
BrianB on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 11:43 am
Federalism is very dangerous. I imagine, more and more people would voice out their racist ideas.
Who’ll take Metro manila for instance?
There’s also this problem of constitutional liberties. Can a governor ban a Filipino from living, finding work in a provice not of his birth?
A single Visayan state. Can you imagine the fear this will inspire, especially on the Tagalogs. Have you any idea how huge the Visayan population is, and the Visayans have been practicing a brotherly form of tolerance towards the vocal Tagalogs.
cvj on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 11:44 am
The Philippine Star article is not new evidence as it is similar to the one published in PCIJ that you linked to yesterday.
john marzan on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 11:46 am
so sycip want us to follow china’s model
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/opinion/04brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
cvj on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 11:50 am
Washington Sycip exhibits the same Elitist mindset that is common among the Middle and Upper classes. It bears repeating that it was under technocratic leadership (of Cesar Virata and Jobo Fernandez) that the Philippines experienced its worse economic decline.
BrianB on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 11:51 am
We are the exact opposite. The establishment hates talent. Oh, you might mistake their patronizing attitude towards achievements based on talent as giving honor, but it is not. And our capitalist don’t think they need talent, just pretty people with connections to market imported goods.
cvj on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 11:53 am
What Sycip conveniently forgets is that China first got rid of its original elite before embarking on its successful economic program. In our case, that would include him.
DevilsAdvc8 on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 12:09 pm
which is why we see the phenomenon of Filipinos flourishing outside the Philippines. the same Filipinos who stagnated when they were here.
as i have said in comments past, Philippine establishments (both govt and private) seem to have a kind of peter principle syndrome.
per wikipedia definition – “In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.”
and this is observably what happens in our govt and corporate settings:
that’s why rigid nincompoops rise to the top of CSC, while true talent soon gives up and moves elsewhere. (nepotism and utilizing connections not withstanding)
manuelbuencamino on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 1:10 pm
MLQ,
Studentstrike:
“Sa mga komento, binaggit din ni Manolo na “in retrospect, the resign all call was the correct one to make.†Hindi ba’t ito ay dogmatismo sa pinakapayak na depinisyon ng salita?”
You:
“No. That’s an opinion, a change of mind because a reflection made in retrospect -the opposite of dogmatism which never permits the changing of one’s mind or opinions.”
Me:
Kasi namam you used “correct” to describe their call. Di mo ba alam na sa mga komunista yun salitang “correct” ay naksaad sa dogma at kung anu-anong ilaw ang sumisindi sa utak nila pagnadidinig o nababasa nila yun? Next time gumamit ka na lang ng synonym, di nila alam yun kasi bawal ang synonyms sa vocabulario nila. And party line ay hindi freeway, makitid hindi malawak.
manuelbuencamino on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 1:15 pm
MLQ,
Oops. Upon further reflection, malawak pala ang party line. Hindi nga ba at napagkasya nila na suportahan nung Mayo si Joker Arroyo na estrella ng TU ?
Ano kaya “correct” o counterrevolutionary yun?
stuart-santiago on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 2:17 pm
hey, manolo, thanks for the mention. it’s “her”, btw.
anthony scalia on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 2:45 pm
cvj,
You still can’t do away with your ‘Sycip-elitist’ mindset. He advocates a system that suits the southeast asian model. SEA democracy for SEA. Too much Western style democracy doesn’t work for the Philippines.
If Virata and Jobo fared poorly, it doesn’t mean that others would do similarly.
What do you have against ‘elites’? Let me ask you again – do these ‘technocrats’ and ‘elites’ stifle the rights of others? prevent others from achieving their full potential?
China got rid of its original elite? Hello? These ‘elites’ were there all along. And even assuming they disappeared, a new breed of ‘elites’ took over
And before China ‘embarked on its successful economic program’ it never practised western style democracy!
anthony scalia on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 3:00 pm
Look where is China now – Its now the 4th biggest economy in the world. By 2020, if growth rates stay the same, it will be the biggest economy in the world, going past the US and Japan. It dominates the Asian Games. It wins golds in the Olympics. The top badminton players, both genders, are Chinese.
Maybe we have sugar-coated ‘crab mentality’ and called it ‘anti-elitism’.
This is an interesting discussion topic – whats wrong with the China ‘elitist’ model? why it or it wont work here?
anthony scalia on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 3:02 pm
‘why it will or it won’t work here’
cvj on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 3:04 pm
The elites, especially in the Philippines, are normally self-appointed by virtue of their proximity to wealth and power. Owing to the fact that Philippine Society is not, and has never been, a meritocracy, these people are hardly the cream of our society. However, they fool themselves into thinking they are and look down on the majority who are not part of their circle. They are therefore very efficient in packaging arrogance and ignorance. That’s why we got the economic debacle that was Virata and Jobo.
Yes, though they usually rely on thugs to do the dirty work for them and the less they know about the messy details, the better they sleep at night.
The original elite (or what was left of it) retreated to China, learned their lesson and granted land reform to the local population. The new elite are the grandson and grandaughters of the revolutionaries who threw the previous generation of elites out. It is human nature for those who are born to privilege (in this case, of being part of the Communist Party) to have a sense of entitlement. That’s one of the reasons why periodic spring cleaning may be needed.
The successful economic program of China (and Vietnam, Taiwan and South Korea) was implemented after they took care of the problem of inequality. None of these countries, at the outset, practiced trickle down economics. By contrast, the local elite wants to govern on the basis of retaining the status quo.
If you want to follow China’s model, you have to implement it whole and not cherry pick the part that is self-serving to those in power. Going to stage 2 market reforms will not result in economic takeoff unless we first accomplish stage 1 which is to address inequality. Market reform alone is not the ‘China model’.
cvj on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 3:06 pm
Sorry, the above should read ‘The original elite (or what was left of it) retreated to Taiwan…
Jeg on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 3:13 pm
Marcos, on paper at least, also said the same thing about addressing inequality first. I think he called it ‘democratization’ of the land. That’s why land reform was one of the first proclamations after 1081. If you want to look for a SE Asian style democracy, perhaps a study of the pre-Martial law Marcos writings is in order. Forget about the reality of his implementation of his ideas first and focus on the theory. He might have had something there.
cvj on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 3:17 pm
Jeg, i think Marcos appropriated the zeitgeist, i.e. ideas that were originated by Recto (i.e. the Nationalists) and fought for by the old Philippine Left (i.e.the Huks among others). If anything, his original contribution is the idea that this can be accomplished via a ‘Revolution from the Top’ via a coterie of the best and brightest technocrats. We know how that turned out.
BrianB on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 3:20 pm
JEQ,
Marcos is one of those shallow intelligent people. bet most of his “theories” were borrowed or filched from advisers. He had no principles, he liked power and he like being smart. He could’ve have written a book one day and totally for got everything in it the next. Just like some academics I’ve encountered lately. All their arguments are ad hoc. No meat into the words.
Jeg on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 3:27 pm
cvj: If anything, his original contribution is the idea that this can be accomplished via a ‘Revolution from the Top’ via a coterie of the best and brightest technocrats. We know how that turned out.
Not well, I know. But perhaps it was a failure of implementation, and not a failure of the idea itself. Im all for the best and the brightest running things. That’s what’s supposed to happen anyway. You yourself point to the China and Vietnam experience, and it was bloody. A ‘revolution from the center’ as Marcos called it, would be less bloody since this revolution would be implemented in theory by someone whom the people voted for in an election, much like what happened in Venezuela. Perhaps we might have to go through ‘birth pangs’ like China and Vietnam did before we become a democracy in the real sense.
Jeg on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 3:31 pm
Brian: Marcos is one of those shallow intelligent people.
I wouldnt know about that, B. From what I gather, he was a rather forward thinking man who foresaw the energy crisis and the traffic mess in Metro Manila. That’s where the plans for the geothermal, hydro, and nuclear power plants came from, as well as the MRT/LRT, circumferential roads, and the Pan-Philippine hiway with all the Ro-Ro’s Gloria is claiming as hers.
cvj on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 3:38 pm
Jeg, even if we grant the proposition that the ‘best and the brightest’ should run things (something i would dispute), do you know where they are? Do you the current elite represents the concentration of the best and the brightest? Or could most of them be mired in poverty, unable to contribute their talents because they never got the opportunity?
As it is, i wouldn’t trust leaving my wallet with the current ‘best and the brightest’.
Devilsadvc8 would be pleased that you think that way.
BrianB on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 3:39 pm
All popular ideas of his day, just as CVJ mentioned.
cvj on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 3:40 pm
Do you = Do you think
BrianB on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 3:40 pm
cvj,
I think the people should decide in “general” terms and the best and brightest be given the responsibilit to expedite the essence of these “general” terms and make them practicable. This is the righteous way to delegate democratic power.
cvj on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 3:44 pm
BrianB, i agree. Modern Society, because of its degree of functional decomposition, operates on the basis of generalists and specialists working together. There is no place for the pre-modern elite and commoner hierarchy.
Jeg on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 3:47 pm
cvj: Devilsadvc8 would be pleased that you think that way.
Haha. Not that kind of birth pangs, cvj. I meant the kind Venezuela is experiencing now with their ‘revolution from the center.’ Devils wants a helter skelter type of birth pang.
Jeg, even if we grant the proposition that the ‘best and the brightest’ should run things (something i would dispute), do you know where they are? Do you the current elite represents the concentration of the best and the brightest? Or could most of them be mired in poverty, unable to contribute their talents because they never got the opportunity?
Youre still on elite = [self-proclaimed] best and the brightest. Im talking of an objective ‘best and brightest’ who could come from any strata, masa, middles, old and new rich, and the leadership of the country’s job is to make sure that they get positions of leadership if they want to. These are the people they should be attracting.
Brian: All popular ideas of his day, just as CVJ mentioned.
Again I wouldnt know, B. Maybe you could provide links to the zeitgeist in the late 60’s? Were the best minds already talking about the energy crisis then and the gridlock in the Metropolis?
cvj on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 3:54 pm
In that case, we’re in agreement. That’s what i told afd in the previous thread ( http://www.quezon.ph/?p=1653#comment-698327 ).
(On the best & the brightest thing, my comment at 3:44 pm is still awaiting moderation.)
BrianB on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 4:00 pm
you know how the site works. Try wikipedia on Korea, Malaysia, Singapore. The USA entry probably wouldn’t mention the economic approach but decades before the sixties, just after the depression, America was building “hard” infrastructure, e.g. dams, bridges. Connection the islands through a combination of bridges and boats would’ve been obvious. Geothermal energy? That must have been all over the science journals including Nature and National Geographic. If you’re argument is that he was more visionary than other Filipinos, I’ll grant you that. He was well-read for sure. These ideas were definitely in the air. The green revolutio was quite original, I admit. It was an exercise in self-reliance and perhaps the idea was to make every Filipio self-sufficient. All Marcos’s ideas where just the Filipino re-statement of all the good ideas, good and uncrontroversial, ideas of his time. He might have even put up a rocket science lab for future space exploration by Filipinos.
His regime should’ve been peaceful and progress a no-brainer. Unless, he really believed that the comunists in his time posed a significant threat.
BrianB on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 4:03 pm
sorry about the superfluous commas. I’ve been adding commas even when it isn’t appropriate… as if anyone noticed or cares.
BrianB on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 4:05 pm
JEQ:
in summary, Marcos had an unobstructed view of the future of our country and he had the power to make his vision real but he chose the path the more complicated (masalimuot) path.
Jeg on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 4:19 pm
If you’re argument is that he was more visionary than other Filipinos, I’ll grant you that.
More visionary than other Filipino leaders, yes. Who were they anyway? The Lopezez, Roxases, Osmenas… the old oligarchy. Da Apo wasnt from these clans.
(And I dont mind the commas. In editing, I sometimes find I could eliminate half the commas I use.)
nash on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 4:20 pm
@BrianB
You ask why Marcos’ regime was the way it was given some of his bright ideas. Having grown up in the Ilocos Region where Macoy was much revered, the oldies tend to blame La Imelda…as in “Magaling si Marcos, si Imelda may diperensiya…”
Although when you think about it now, hmmm, there is also nothing wrong with Imelda’s wonderful idea “Beautify the Philippines by only building Beauty….” ek ek to that effect.
LOL.
Well, South East Asian Democracy has its idiosyncracies. Kaya naman ang standard model of democracy hindi pwedeng -i-export kahit ipinagpipilitan ni Bush.
cvj on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 4:37 pm
Wasn’t that Rafael Salas’ idea?
manuelbuencamino on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 4:56 pm
I think Sycip’s wants to infect our democracy with a lethal dose of syciphilis.
A technocracy? Fer crissakes!
BrianB on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 5:42 pm
“Wasn’t that Rafael Salas’ idea?”
See? Marcos was no original.
Jeg on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 6:05 pm
While I have very little energy to spare in the defense of one Ferdinand E. Marcos, I would have to say that he was an ‘original’ in the sense that he dared defy the central dogma that American-style democracy is perfect for the Philippines, and the way in which he did it. With the inequality in Philippine society at the time, an American-style democracy in our country was a gross parody of the real thing. Benigno Aquino Jr. was on record as saying he wouldve done the same thing as Marcos did had he been given the chance. He said this in an interview with Teddy Benigno published in the Philippine Star (the link to a copy of which I can’t find). To me that’s quite an endorsement.
cvj on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 6:21 pm
Jeg, i agree with both Marcos and Aquino that American-style democracy and Philippine-style inequalities don’t mix well. The question is, which of the two would we rather live without? (Also, among the Left of that time, American-style democracy was not considered ‘perfect for the Philippines’. So even in this sense, he was not original.)
stuart-santiago on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 6:28 pm
“the communists do not alone make up the Philippine left” – miriam ferrer
i agree with you, manolo, about limited public acceptance of the left. this is mostly because of the government’s anti-left anti-communist rhetoric that the media echo without distinguishing between left and communist.
say ni randy david in a column back in june 18, 2006:
‘”THE fight against the Left remains the glue that binds,†Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo told her Cabinet the other day, after ordering the budget secretary to release an extra P1 billion to boost the renewed effort to crush the communist insurgency. Whoever fed Ms Arroyo this wrong and dangerous line is setting the stage for fascist rule. In equating the “Left†with armed rebellion, she effectively sanctions the use of death squads to silence political dissenters.
‘Though the likes of Gen. Jovito Palparan pretend not to know it, there is a huge difference between being Left and taking up arms against the government. To be Left is to be constantly concerned with the basic issues of justice and human freedom. It is to question the existing social order, to assail its assumptions, and denounce its oppressive outcomes. To be a leftist is to be committed to the long-term goal of structural change. In contrast, to be a rightist is to find nothing fundamentally wrong with the structure of society; it is to justify and defend its rules.
‘To take up arms in the pursuit of one’s political beliefs is an altogether different matter. The armed option is employed not only by leftists and rightists, but also by religious rebels and some millenarian cults. Not all leftists advocate the violent overthrow of the State, and not all armed groups are leftist. To be Left is to think and speak radically about social problems; to be an armed rebel is to participate in the forcible overthrow of government. Our Constitution outlaws armed rebellion, but it resolutely protects freedom of thought and of speech.
‘Having once flirted with leftists when she was a graduate student, Ms Arroyo ought to know these distinctions. That she has uncritically permitted herself to mouth a Cold War mantra betrays the dominant influence of militarists in her administration. These militarists are not just the former generals in the Arroyo Cabinet; they also include former leftists who, having tasted power, now disdain their ideological past. Former Party members usually become the most virulent rightists. Only the ideology has changed; the dogmatism remains.’
Jeg on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 6:30 pm
The question is, which of the two would we rather live without?
Honestly, I have to mull over that first. It’s a very tough call. You seem to favor eliminating inequality first and sacrifice some freedoms with your citing of the China/Taiwan/Vietnam model. Ironically, this sounds like “We are prepared to give up some of our freedoms just to move this country forward.” How is the China/Taiwan/Vietnam model different from Austero’s?
PDubSpEditor on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 6:41 pm
The things that killed the Marcos regime are his health, our distinct hate for being disciplined too much and our love for everything foreign (including some of the policies and law that still exist today, from the American Era)
A federal Philippines would have flaws to handle, but then again, most any system, such as a failure in Philippine Democracy, has its downsides. Maybe its time to have it federalized, no matter how scary it might be. Who knows, it might work, since we prefer the barrio-barrio system, instead of getting organized with one leader.
cvj on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 6:43 pm
As i mentioned above at 3:54pm above, in numerous comments, and in previous entries in my blog ( http://www./cvjugo.blogspot.com/2007/04/authoritarianism-what-is-it-good-for.html
) my first preference is for genuine democracy because i think our people will eventually manage to elect a leader that will genuinely serve the masses (as has happened in Latin America with their electoral revolutions).
However, if it has to be a an authoritarian system, then we might as well put it to good use by directing it against the entrenched elite and oligarchs. Austero’s bargain by contrast was made in the context of preserving the status quo (aka “let’s move on”) which to me is the worst possible combination.
cvj on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 6:44 pm
Corrected link:
http://www.cvjugo.blogspot.com/2007/04/authoritarianism-what-is-it-good-for.html
Jeg on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 6:52 pm
cvj: [a] my first preference is for genuine democracy because i think our people will eventually manage to elect a leader that will genuinely serve the masses …[b] However, if it has to be a an authoritarian system, then we might as well put it to good use by directing it against the entrenched elite and oligarchs.
I would have to agree. But [a] could lead to [b]. And [b] is a dangerous proposition as you have made clear in our other comment section back-and-forth’s. Authoritarian Gandhis are rare.
nash on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 6:55 pm
@stuart
where have you been? there is no such thing as ‘left’
kasi nga as mentioned, as long as you rally against the administration (whoever it is) you are labeled ‘left’. Kaya tama si Erap “weather-weather lang yan”.
PS. There will be a thanksgiving dinner at Manero’s house. Food includes dinakdakan, bopis,
Marcelo on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 7:01 pm
Oh well, where to start?
Too much time has gone by and too much water has flown past. Never mind the Roman Empire. It’s too late for us to try even the more recent lessons of “how did they do it?” nation-building.
We cannot follow the old European conservative ancien regime model of state consolidation employing the Church, the School and the Army.
We cannot use the later liberal (yes liberal) method of reaching democracy through industrialization by opening the bureacuracy to all talents, regimenting farmers in factories, and using the Army as “the school of the nation.”
We are temperamentally unable to follow our neighbors who chose technocracy and the “iron rice bowl.”
(By the way, in every major case of successful Asian development, except perhaps for India, the technocrats were the architects of positive change while the political leadership provided the stability that allowed them to work whether the systems were unabashedly authoritarian or relatively democratic.)
Politics will decide our future. And it will be in the end a question of trade-offs. Not between us, the ordinary citizens, but between the powerful, greedy and self-serving political factions that move behind the scenes.
The trick will be: which of those factions to rally behind and when and in exchange for what?
I suspect that the alternative will be even more unpleasant. Some guy in uniform who either thinks he’s Jesus Christ or Karl Marx incarnated (or maybe even both).
Then life will be simple. Parades. Military music. And the Secret Police.
cvj on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 7:08 pm
I agree. In fact you can see that tendency in Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela where he’s trying to implement his own Charter Change via referendum (which thankfully he lost). That’s why i believe that it is important for the middle forces not to squander the moral high ground because it’s power of moral suasion is all it has against any potential tyranny of the majority. Sad to say it chose to act foolishly by squandering away its values in defense of Arroyo. The thing is, with unequal societies, things are bound to come to a head at some point.
DJB Rizalist on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 7:20 pm
MLQ3,
In 2005, the backlog of the Judiciary was estimated at 800,000 unresolved cases. By 2010, this number could easily be a million. In Mexico, the history of amparo has not exactly fulfilled the promise. What we have in amparo and habeas data are major new sunrise industries for corrupt judges and fiscals. After all the gushing headlines about human rights there is no reason to expect that we will do any thing different with amparo and habeas data than the Mexicans. Which means bloated court dockets and escape from arrest for the most nimble of criminals. Heck you can get amparo from RTC judges, thousands of them! Ugh! No wonder the Constitution explicitly prohibits the Supreme Court from increasing, decreasing or modifying substantive rights through its Rule making power. But from the looks of it, the Supreme Court can do no wrong while the Public takes their activism for granted. As if Courts and unelected Judges have not in the past been the source of the worst depredations on democratic freedoms. Oh no, we have to go after the practically illiterate police for that.
No greater destroyer of constitutionalism exists than the Philippine Supreme Court, nor a greater peril to democracy.
Fear Puno. Not Razon.
cvj on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 7:22 pm
Jeg, last year i tried to think of the different scenarios between democracy and dictatorship which i think is relevant to this discussion:
http://www.cvjugo.blogspot.com/2007/03/state-chart-of-philippine-democracy_07.html
DevilsAdvc8 on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 8:21 pm
DJB, aww ‘cmon!
cvj & jeg, pleased abt what? revolution? like Chavez’s?
and jeg, it’s not helter-skelter. there is at least some order to it. kill or be killed. fence-sitters all die.
cvj on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 8:25 pm
Devils, the ‘birth pangs’ although Jeg later clarified that he meant differently.
vic on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 9:58 pm
I think I could agree with DJB about the Supreme Court making the rules instead of rendering decisions on cases on Appeal..It is not for the SC to change the law or just lately even modified the Penalty for Libel cases. It is the duty of the Law Making body the congress and the Trial courts to impose Penalties based on the Merits of the Cases brought and decided upon before their courts as per guidelines and in accordance with the Penal Code…
Now if the SC wants the Penalty changed or modified, they can ask the congress to amend the law or change(i’d rather see the Libel and Slander Law taken off the criminal code)and change the penalties…Think the SC is biting more than it can Chew…Makes more rulings in a week than ours in a year…
supremo on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 10:45 pm
1 state, 5 states, 10 states, 8 states. What’s the difference? As long as there is a ‘Sa akin ang Tondo, sa iyo ang Cavite’ mentality, going federal is a waste of time.
manuelbuencamino on Fri, 25th Jan 2008 11:15 pm
DJB is on a crusade to place limits on the press and to lift restrictions on the police power of the State.
Sig heil!
Karlo Mikhail on Sat, 26th Jan 2008 2:50 am
MLQ3, thanks for the mention here and in another recent blog entry of yours.
A sad development – I only hope we do not see another spike in political killings and abductions aimed at the Left and its marginalized constituencies.
hvrds on Sat, 26th Jan 2008 3:01 am
Wash Sycip should very carefully read the laws that legislated the creation of the Federal Reserve and the Congressional mandate that defined its policy objectives. – Full employment and price stability + together with the Comptroller of the Currency oversight of the banking institutions. They have the power to be proactive about downturns in the business cycle because they have a mandate to do so under oversight of the Congress.
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve is obligated to report to the Congressional oversight committee, on a set time frame. There is no independent government sponsored enterprise or government agency that operates outside the oversight of the Congress. Someone should remind Wash Sycip that what his accounting company here gets away with would not be tolerated in other more advanced economies.
The IRS (fiscal policy) and the Federal Reserve together with all the law enforcement agencies in the U.S. have the right to subpoena bank records of everyone including the President of the U.S.
The Enron fiasco took down Sycip’s main accounting correspondent Arthur Anderson. The state filed criminal charges vs. the corporation itself.
With weak state institutions the accountants and lawyers very easily overpower state agencies.
Pump priming to a technocrat makes the economy simply a mechanism to move forward. They almost always forget the human part. However in more advanced economies the state will always also intervene in labor markets to mitigate the suffering.
Wash Sycip wishes the Philippines to be more like a Confucian state where the head employs technocrats to help him run the country. His version of the Singaporean model still dwells on the merchant character of the Chinese community in the Philippines. Hence the success of the Chinese business communities that operate like merchant banks of old.
Karlo Mikhail on Sat, 26th Jan 2008 3:03 am
I think a call for “resign all†was not tenable at the time of EDSA Dos.
For one, it would isolate the organizers of the mass uprising from possible support coming from the anti-Erap politicians (who of course would not want to resign) and more importantly, other possible allies whose only point of unity is for the removal of Estrada from power.
Second, a “resign all†call presupposes the holding of a national snap election in order to replace all those who resigned. Either that or the “resigned†authorities are replaced by appointed officials like in the first EDSA. Both options will definitely face stiff opposition from the affected sectors.
In this, I agree with sir Bencard when he said in a previous comment that a “resign all†call could have only led to unnecessary instability.
On the other hand, I’m sure the “resign all†slogan was formulated on the basis of the belief that the traditional politicians (be they from the opposition or administration) do not represent the aspirations of those massing up in EDSA; that Erap should not be replaced with more of the same type of morally bankrupt politician.
Coming from a narrower segment of the Left (Sanlakas, BMP, et. al.), the framers of the “resign all†slogan may also have seen the situation from the line of intervening at a certain point during a crisis in the system to seize power or gain a share of it for themselves.
However, what they fail to see (if indeed they also saw it that way) is the fact that their meager organized forces (even if combined of their possible allies from civil society) cannot constitute a basis for the staffing of emergent institutions of a new revolutionary government. (How can they, in their relatively small numbers, replace all the vacated positions in a national scale?)
justice league on Sat, 26th Jan 2008 3:44 am
BrianB,
Regarding your first post here; I’m not sure if this is the kind of info you are referring to but you might find the actions of Cebu Mayor Tomas Osmena interesting.
He has a well known tiff against the city of Talisay and correspondingly seems to have executed several acts against that city or the Talisaynons.
It concerns the SRP road, the cebu city market etc…..
And all that under the present set up that we have (or inspite of it).
supremo on Sat, 26th Jan 2008 4:11 am
brianb,
‘He might have even put up a rocket science lab for future space exploration by Filipinos.’
There was a program to build missiles during the time of Marcos. I don’t know what kind. The materials for the fuel is still stored in Corregidor. The US of A asked Marcos to stop the program.
DJB Rizalist on Sat, 26th Jan 2008 10:01 am
MB,
It’s none of my doing. The Media are pissing in the Wind, befouling themselves in Public and wondering why no one seems to care. Just watch, we should see another frantic blooming of the poem “When they came for the communists…” But since you are off goose-stepping with a black feather duster on your upper lip again, perhaps I should explain my fascistic ways…
Have you read the Franchise of ABSCBN (which is largely identical to any other broadcast franchise)? It’s truly scary, mein Herr! It is essentially a claim that the State owns and controls the electromagnetic spectrum and grants franchises with exception clauses that would tickle Josef Goebels heart. But there it is. It’s the Law!
If I were ABSCBN, I would pray the Supreme Court junks the amparo petition for their own good. The Justices would be doing the Journalists a kind mercy by sparing them from a dangerous escalation of the konfrontasi that they cannot possibly win.
What I am struck by is the realization that the once omniscient Power of Media is derived not only from their sensationalistic news or sparkling views, but mainly from the privilege granted to them by the State to use the Laws of Nature for the commercial enterprise of buying and selling information. Perhaps that was not such an awesome concept or so obviously magnanimous and privileged a grant of access in 1935, but in the 21st Century Age of Information, it is the true physical and legal basis of broadcast Media’s “power”.
Now it does raise an interesting question for the Philosophers on the thread to chew on: WHY are all media not created equal?
cvj on Sat, 26th Jan 2008 2:24 pm
DJB has re-discovered Al Gore’s critique of broadcast media…
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/5/14301/6133
…although DJB’s reformulation is more of a caricature.
BrianB on Sat, 26th Jan 2008 2:37 pm
“And all that under the present set up that we have (or inspite of it).”
The present situation you are talking about is the state of our constitution being constantly undermined by people in power. Imagine when we become a federalist country. Such acts would be clothed with enough legitimacy to make the idea popular. How many provinces would want to prevent residents of other provinces from finding work there and competing with the natives? Filipinos will not have 7,900 islands anymore.
qwert on Sat, 26th Jan 2008 3:27 pm
“No wonder the Constitution explicitly prohibits the Supreme Court from increasing, decreasing or modifying substantive rights through its Rule making power” -DJB
__________________________
DJB,
What specific provision in the Constitution are you referring to?
qwert on Sat, 26th Jan 2008 3:53 pm
“I think I could agree with DJB about the Supreme Court making the rules instead of rendering decisions on cases on Appeal” – Vic
_________________________
Vic,
Kindly consider the provision below:
Article VIII, Section 5, The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
…(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
… “It is not for the SC to change the law or just lately even modified the Penalty for Libel cases.” – Vic
Revised Penal Code Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. —
“A libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.”
The penalty of libel is discretionary on the part of the judge, the Supreme Court is not changing the law nor is it usurping the powers of Congress, it is the abovementioned discretion that the Supreme Court is pointing out to the judges of the lower courts.
justice league on Sat, 26th Jan 2008 8:35 pm
BrianB,
Your suggestion to me to imagine us as a Federal country is well taken but is unnecessary. You can glean my sentiments on Federalism for this nation in my long neglected blog.
Nevertheless, regarding your issue on the cloth of legitimacy (I specifically center on the Cebu city markets matter on this one); it would depend on the interpretation of the Market code that Osmena wants to cite, the Local Government code and whether they indeed are consistent with the Constitution.
Didn’t you get the idea behind “And all that under the present set up that we have (or inspite of it)â€?
anthony scalia on Sat, 26th Jan 2008 10:08 pm
I was hoping you would be specific as to SyCip. It seems that you have this concept of ‘elites’ and then include SyCip with this ‘elite’ concept of yours.
The hands of Virata and Jobo were tied by two words – Ferdinand Marcos (or should it be Imelda Marcos). They were not independent enough
Again, please be specific on SyCip. For instance, how did SGV trample on the rights of the ‘non-elites’. Or worse, how it destroyed the sense of self-reliance of other people?
Look what happened to Taiwan now, courtesy of the non-native ‘elites’ from the mainland. Still, ‘elites’ pervade Chinese society at present. The Communists know they aren’t businessmen, so they just let the capitalists do their stuff.
After they took care of the problem of inequality? that their societies by that time were close to being ‘classless’ or flat? How then did their governments lick the problem of inequality? Thru western style democracy?
As you said, none of these countries, at the start, practised trickle down economics. Something similar to what your beloved gloria is doing now.
one thing is sure – for China, in stage 1 western style democracy is non-existent.
Market reform alone not the ‘China model’? China’s wake-up call came when old man Deng decided that China should follow the capitalist path.
Im still puzzled on your insistence on the addressing of ‘inequality’ by China. The nearest thing to equality China ever got to was when almost all of the Chinese are equally poor!
I’ll mention it again – only 25% of Chinese belong to the middle class up (but a very huge market). What happened then to the ‘equality’ that was supposed to exist at the start of China’s take-off?
Bencard on Sat, 26th Jan 2008 10:09 pm
brianb, on federalism, you said: “how many provinces would want to prevent residents of other provinces from finding work there and competing with the natives?”
the rights, privileges and immunities of each citizen under the federal system are good, effective and secure in every nook and cranny of the federated territories. in the u.s., the greatest model of federalism, you are no less a citizen if you reside in washington d.c. as you are as resident of ketchican, alaska. each federated state, while entitled to self-government, its own local constitution and statutes, must conform its laws and action to the federal constitution (except for certain reserved powers).
the country needs a thorough education on the concept of federalism. a lot about it is misunderstood.
vic on Sat, 26th Jan 2008 10:24 pm
brianb, if you are wary about the Mobility right of every citizen, check this provision in our charter and maybe have similar provision in the Philippine Charter and for the sake of everyone Abide by it..
Mobility Rights
Mobility of citizens 6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
Rights to move and gain livelihood (2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
Limitation (3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
(b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.
Affirmative action programs (4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.
BrianB on Sat, 26th Jan 2008 11:01 pm
Hi all, just a brief rejoinder:
Know your country and your people. Justice league, didn’t you mean that politician such as the one you mentioned have been doing those thing that I feared they’d do under a Federalist government?
Bencard. We’re also a democracy, right? You can cite any provision after we’ve become a Federalist state and that would have less of an impact on people’s behavior, especially powerful people, than the idea of “states” being independent of one another and having the power to legislate their own laws, even laws contrary to the constitution.
I think it was the people of Negors Occidental who first suggested the idea of Federalism, during Cory’s time. Agrarian reform was a serious threat to their way of life and so they broached the idea of a Federalist Philippines where, they thought, they would be immune from CARP, which is in the constitution.
cvj on Sat, 26th Jan 2008 11:10 pm
Actually, they tied themselves to the IMF. Besides, even if we grant your point, won’t other technocrats be similarly tied by the current political leadership? Look at Romulo Neri today.
Yes, but that fact in itself is unremarkable unless you can translate it to a model of development. All you (and Sycip) is saying is bahala na ang technocrats. That doesn’t inspire confidence.
That is because defeat in the mainland struck fear in their hearts. As per Amsden…
““The potential threat of an impoverished peasantry had been driven home to the Nationalists on the Mainland, and they were concerned with restructuring agriculture accordingly.” – Alice Amsden, The State and Taiwan’s Economic Development (1985)
At the point of its economic takeoff in 1978, China’s society was more equal. There were no big landlords and oligarchs getting in the way of business activity. Businesses were then able to compete on more equal terms (perhaps subject to local party leadership’s discretion)
By its nature, economic growth in China (and elsewhere) tends to increase inequality. That’s unfortunate but something that cannot be helped. (It is up to the State to mitigate its effects via welfare.) In China, as far as i know, it’s not yet an issue because the economy is moving along. It would be a problem if growth were to slow down and i believe the Communist Party is aware of this.
cvj on Sat, 26th Jan 2008 11:25 pm
Your flogging a strawman. I’m not advocating a ‘classless’ society. That’s not possible. I am advocating removing the thin layer of oligarchy that has been stifling Philippine Society for most of its history.
As i told Jeg above, the only time a dictatorship will be ‘worth it’ is if it is used to address the problem of inequality. If you (or Sycip) advocated a dictatorship in order to address inequality, then maybe i would have been more sympathetic. Instead what Sycip recommends is to put more power in the hands of the status quo, which as i told Jeg above, is the worst possible combination.
Your use of ‘Western style’ in conjunction with ‘Democracy’ is a weasel word designed to evoke something alien. Far from being alien, the love of freedom and democracy lie at the heart of the Filipino psyche. The problem has been that our political and economic elite has time and again subverted democracy because of their own misplaced sense of superiority. Elitists like Sycip have to learn to be more humble and respect the vote of the ordinary folk.
Bencard on Sat, 26th Jan 2008 11:45 pm
that’s exactly what i mean, brianb. many of us have a weird understanding of federalism, i.e., that each province would be an “independent” state unto itself with the capability of disregarding the federal constitution if it wanted to. that’s not federalism. that’s balkanization.
btw, i get what you mean. indeed, we are not the most law-abiding, or legal-minded people in the world. we can put all the safeguards in our legal framework but somebody could always find a way to circumvent it by hook or by crook, mostly by crook.
the ultimate solution is the strict adherence by everyone to the rule of law, a strong-enough institutions, and a will to do right rather than the popular.
manuelbuencamino on Sat, 26th Jan 2008 11:46 pm
DJB,
Hahaha. Why”
Because from cvj:
“DJB has re-discovered Al Gore’s critique of broadcast media…
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/5/14301/6133
…although DJB’s reformulation is more of a caricature.”
And because you really don’t need to cloak your resentment of media in aprez-legalese.
One doesn’t need a reason to express an emotion because emotions are outside the realm of reason.
Follow that advise and you will save yourself the trouble of having to explain anything using reformulated arguments.
Bencard on Sat, 26th Jan 2008 11:57 pm
mb, originally-formulated argument is a rarity in this blog. ask cvj, the master of quotations from foreign sources.
hvrds on Sun, 27th Jan 2008 1:27 am
The country would be very well served if someone in the nature of Davao’s Duterte would initiate a seccession from the so called Republic. Gather all th governors from Mindanao and secede. It would be easy to start a new state with the resources of Mindanao. Initiate free trade and move to establish a separate currency immediately. Cancel all taxes paid to the national government and instead these should accrue to the new state.
One can dream can’t one.
The adminsitrators of the state will always try to define what people will see and hear from the media.
The new rules on media gathering are nothing new in the age of the GWOT- (Global War on Terror) Pre-emption.
The government came up with pre-emptive calibrated response and now pre-emptive censorship so to speak. An abstract rule which retroactively would be similar to what the Burmese soldiers did in Burma when they shot the cameramen point blank as part of collateral damage in protecting the state.
The Reichstag model gave Adolph absolute powers to go after the states enemies then. The left and the Jews and anyone who questioned the new government. The German parliament then gave him emergency powers.
For a lot contructionist followers of constituional laws, the ideology of slavery was embeded with the framers of the U.S. constitution. For all the heavenly idealism that Jihadists of Americanism portray it to be it had to take blood, guts and education to try to upend that ideology that still permeates a large sector of America. Racism is alive and well not only in the States but in many parts of the globe.
Justice Thurgood Marshall and his band of men who were responsibile for Brown v. the Department of Education and eventually LBJ proded by the Civil Rights movement ended the Civil War. Affirmative action, busing were all seemingly unconstitutional to constructionists. But something had to be done to cure the imbalances in human opportunities.
Sadly though it is said that the issue of the removal of Erap still stands not as a failure of the SC but as a failure of leadership of GMA. There can be no partly constitutional President. There can be no such thing as a semi-coup, semi- constitutional transfer of power. She was given the opportunity for radical revoltuionary change and she reversed the whole process to hide behind a de-facto constituional process. No matter what she continues to be a de facto President.
She wasted so much time to initiate constitutional changes. People forget the history of the 83-86 crisis. The country had already defaulted on its foreign debt before Ninoy was killed in 1983. Cory came to power in 1986 and in 1987 a new constituion was formed.
GMA lost whatever political and ecopnomic capital she had by making hay for herself while she had the chance. The Asian crisis happened in 1997 and by 2001 the economic crisis was serious. However during those first three years she borrowed like a drunken sailor and instead of working out a debt restructuring of NAPOCOR she subsidized rates to remain popular and by 2004 it took the U.P. School of Economics to inform her that government revenues were no longer sufficient to pay for debts of principal and interest. That Asian crisis then forced more pinoys to leave. Then she rams through higher taxes and higher electricity rates adding to the miseries of the domestic economy and today she prides herself on being called an economic miracle worker. She singlehandedly deepened the economic crisis. Future governments will be hard pressed to recover from this debt driven government. In Davos she reminded the world that the military establishment in the Philippines is on her side. A sad commentary on the state of a “constitutional republic”
It is too bad that most of the young in the country are driven mostly by their hormones.
This while she is in Dubai trying to convinve pinoys there to lend her government some money instead of sending all of it to their families.
“After all, it is leaders who set the tone of their organizations through values they choose AND THE BEHAVIORS THEY DEMONSTRATE.” Jack Welch
anthony scalia on Sun, 27th Jan 2008 1:37 am
so the problem’s not with the set-up, its with the people behind the set-up.
Just because the earlier technocrats failed, it doesn’t mean the later ones will.
Lets hear your better alternative to a ‘technocracy’
For you it doesn’t inspire confidence because the idea comes from an ‘elite’ like SyCip
still, its the ‘elites’ who caused the difference!
oh really? there are no landlords and oligarchs in China now?
let me get that straight – at the onset, there’s no inequality. yet as the economy progresses, the inequality increases?
what thin layer of oligarchy are you talking about?!? stifling Philippine society? what if someone tells you the country is poor because the population growth rate is faster than its GDP growth rate? and that the growth ironically comes from that sector which badly needs family planning?
‘elites’ will always be there, theres nothing you can do about that. and what made you conclude that Sycip is for the status quo?
you can’t point to a particular act of SyCip that makes him a member of your preconceived notion of an ‘elite’
if Cabinet secretaries and technocrats like the people from BAP are free from that annoyance and disturbance called “inquiries in aid of legislation” they can do their job well.
look who’s talking. you equate ‘democracy’ with ‘western style democracy’ thats why you react negatively to the notion of a SEA variety of democracy for SEA. (you are also allergic to SyCip’s declaration that the Philippines suffers from too much democracy!) for you, a democracy that is not western style is no democracy at all. for sure you don’t consider Singapore a democracy.
what type of democracy does the Pinoy love?
a love of freedom is not inconsistent with self-restraint.
what has SyCip done specifically that you want him to be ‘humble” and respect ‘the vote of the ordinary folk’?
(take note of the word ’specifically’)
and how did ‘vote of the ordinary folk’ come into the picture? we are talking about SyCip’s suggestion for a powered-up ‘technocracy’ – people who are appointed
hvrds on Sun, 27th Jan 2008 1:51 am
“Arroyo told participants that she has instructed the Department of Labor and Employment to “review the contracts between foreign employers and Filipino workers so that such contracts will stipulate that they will be paid in pesos or dollars, whichever is stronger.” Jay Goteras Saudi Gazette
This statement from a woman who prides herself in having a PHD in economics.
She will say anything to satisfy her audience knowing fully well that this process she intends to intitate is only that, a process for process sake. Nothing will come of it. That is pretty much how her government operates.
Yesterday she was featured on the front pages of the Philippine Star with the chairman of Citibank who was labeled the Chairman of Citigroup. William Rhodes is a co chairman of Citigroup and is pretty much on his way of out operations of the bank.
It was simply a PR photo-op
hvrds on Sun, 27th Jan 2008 1:59 am
The heavy hitters of Citigroup and their compensation. They still made money last year in spite of their heavy loses that necessitated capital infusion and was one of the partial reasons that forced the U.S. Central Bank to drastically lower interest rates. You have to save capitalists from destroying capitalism for the common good. Yup that is the power of the state. Collectively the people. That is the main componenet of freedom, democracy and free makets. Retroactive state power. Proactive state power are command economies. In times of crisis it will succeed but then you will have to move to freeing markets to develop. The East is an example of pro-active states moving to become reactive states.
In the case of the Philippines it is not yet even a state.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ax89iWcIHJpQ&refer=home
Citigroup Awards Vikram Pandit $26.7 Million in Stock (Update1)
justice league on Sun, 27th Jan 2008 2:24 am
BrianB,
While some of the Mayor’s other actions seem to be that of a child having lost his candy; there seems to be basis for the action on the City market issue.
Heck, I’m not saying that it’s right or moral; I’m just saying there is basis.
Particular to note however is the selective enforcement.
The Cebu city Market Code doesn’t seem to be available online so I’ll make do with a news story. (Most Bolds are mine)
Article is titled “Drop claim on SRP, Talisay City advised” dated July 28, 2004.
It states that “City Market Administrator Elpidio dela Victoria said Section 12.1 (b) of the code provides that a vendor is qualified to lease a market stall ONLY if he is a resident of Cebu City.”
Under the Local Government Code, one of the basic services and facilities to be endeavoured to be provided by a city (and exercise power over)is/are public market/s. Hence a city can adopt its own local market code (I’m guessing this is for the public markets).
Now again in the Local Government Code; it states:
SEC. 5. Rules of Interpretation. – In the interpretation of the provisions of this Code, the following rules shall apply:
(a)
(b)
(c) The GENERAL WELFARE provisions in this Code shall be liberally interpreted to give more powers to local government units in accelerating economic development and upgrading the quality of life FOR PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY;
Further down the LGC, it states:
SEC. 16. General Welfare. – Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, ENHANCE ECONOMIC PROSPERITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE, PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT AMONG THEIR RESIDENTS, maintain peace and order, and preserve the COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE OF THEIR INHABITANTS.
Take note that the general welfare provision is for people in the community. Not to mention the term “their residents” and “their inhabitants”.
If you base the Cebu city market code on the Local Government code; it would seem to fit in.
But still you have the Constitution. Is the Market code and the LGC in accordance with the Charter?
Depends on the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, notably:
ARTICLE XIII
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political INEQUALITIES, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its increments.
Section 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES based on FREEDOM OF INIIATIVE and self-reliance.
If someone thinks that they are in accordance with the Charter; then you have it at “And all that under the present set up that we have”.
We are still a unitary state yet things like that are allowed so those with Tommy Osmenas’ mentality need not press us to federalize for that.
If someone thinks it’s not; then that’s where my “(or inspite of it)” comes in.
justice league on Sun, 27th Jan 2008 2:49 am
HVRDS,
I’d like to clarify your dream.
Is Duterte a member of the MILF or Abu Sayyaf?
If so then he can most likely rein them in.
If not; what is he going to offer so they won’t continue to try carving out their own portion of Mindanao?
cvj on Sun, 27th Jan 2008 2:50 am
Anthony, it would be foolish to propose a set-up without taking into account the “the people behind the set-up“. Sycip’s proposal to bypass an elected legislature is an attempt to escape transparency and accountability. Without legislative oversight, how do you propose making the ‘powered-up’ technocrats (aka people who are appointed) accountable to the voter? What makes Sycip think that technocrats know best? What makes Sycip think that technocrats care for the welfare of the people?
Like you, i believe that the ‘elite’ have the power to make a difference if only they go beyond the interest of their class. Chiang Kai Shek realized (or was forced to realize) that what is good for the masses also makes sense in terms of political survival. It also makes good economic sense.
On the phenomenon of economic growth leading to more inequality, you can verify that by looking at the Gini coefficient of China in 1978 and their Gini coefficient today. (Gini coefficient is used by economists to measure inequality.) As i said, it’s not necessarily a bad thing (since it is in the nature of growth to be uneven) as long as the State looks after the welfare of those left behind.
So you actually consider Singapore a democracy?
vic on Sun, 27th Jan 2008 3:14 am
qwert, now the argument is between the Chief Justice and the Palace Legal Counsel and also Justice Secretary (he always wants to join in)that he may impinge on the power of congress and the Chief is trying to clarify himself that he is not trying to influence the judges and he also mentioned that Libel is not that serious offense anyways and why can’t he make that ruling when the case comes in his court and make a precedent as the nullify the penalty of imprisonment for Libel and eventually send the Statute back to Congress for Revision or maybe decriminilization.
My comments all just from my own observation the way our SC works..They wait until the case comes before them, either on appeal, or any process and they make a ruling..could be different in the Philippines SC in that case i may have reached the same opinion as the Secretary of Justice which I seldom Agree on anything..but the Secretary is known to be biased, so I could be Very Wrong..no harm done…
grd on Sun, 27th Jan 2008 2:07 pm
actually, Duterte did made an unveiled threat already. that is, if people in imperial Manila keep on staging this “people power†mania, Mindanao will secede and declare a separate republic. now, that’s interesting. indeed, Mindanao can survive having those rich resources. Duterte has no problem cohabiting with the muslims as well (he has been supportive ever since on the issue of giving autonomy to the muslims). and if this Dream happens, I don’t see any reason why Visayas will not follow suit. so, I pray that this narcissistic movers of “people power†keep this fiesta going (people power 1,2 3, 4…) and see what happens when people outside imperial manila who are dragged into this chasm of despondency get feed up.
justice league on Sun, 27th Jan 2008 2:51 pm
Grd,
But do the secessionist groups have no problem cohabiting with him with JUST autonomy on their table.
How about the New People’s army’s front in Mindanao?
Will the secession of Mindanao appease them into giving up their armed struggle in Mindanao?
cvj on Sun, 27th Jan 2008 2:53 pm
grd, it is expected for those in power to instigate regional rivalries as a method of divide and rule (like in the former Yugoslavia or in Rwanda). Conflicts along the lines of Davao vs. Cebu vs. Manila is fine with them as long as they maintain their position of dominance in Philippine Society.
vic on Sun, 27th Jan 2008 2:56 pm
Are we invisioning smaller Republics within a Nation or the Breakup of the Nation into smaller Republics?? I think if that ever happens, we will not have just the insurgency and the separitist rebellion in the south, but an all-out civil war, a free-for-all perhaps?
cvj on Sun, 27th Jan 2008 2:56 pm
…or its dismembered subset.
cvj on Sun, 27th Jan 2008 3:03 pm
Vic, you know how desperate beleaguered ruling elites can get. That’s what caused the carnage in Rwanda and Yugoslavia, the division of India (which Gandhi tried to stop) as well as the expulsion of Singapore (over which LKY initially despaired over). It has proven an effective tactic in distracting the poor majority from who their real enemies are.
DevilsAdvc8 on Sun, 27th Jan 2008 4:39 pm
vic,
if Mindanao secedes successfully, you can bet Visayas will follow suit. What will happen next is the cannibalization of the Philippines. Secession won’t be confined to the 3 main islands. It will spread regionally.
What is to stop Cebu itself from separating with the rest of Visayas? After all, Cebu can survive as a stand-alone state. And so can Davao, Makati, and Quezon.
All’s well with this set-up until leaders of this states starts to desire neighboring cities and/or regions.
Then you’ll see civil war as the next step.
BrianB on Sun, 27th Jan 2008 6:01 pm
Thanks Devil and CVJ for voicing your agreement with my fears.
Every one remember that this idea Federalism is not a mood that has been developing in the hearts of our population. The vast majority of Filipinos do not understand what it is and others couldn’t care less. If we become a Federalist state, it will strictly be the idea and the will of very few people. This is a very crucial point I am trying to make.
Have you stopped and asked yourself why the advocates are so eager about the regional autonomy that federalism brings to their respective regions? If property distribution of government spending is the only problem, can’t Congress make the adjustments on their end?
Wlang kinalaman buong bayan dito, sla sila lang may interes nito.
BrianB on Sun, 27th Jan 2008 6:35 pm
Devils. Visayas will only secede if they get Manila.
justice league on Sun, 27th Jan 2008 7:35 pm
Devil,
Civil war might not be an appropriate term since it will be a war of conquest between separate states already.
But should you happen to be the same DevilsAdvc8 in Mukamo; you might remember my piece on your similar sentiments there a long long time ago.
nash on Sun, 27th Jan 2008 9:09 pm
..wow, are we going back to the set-up similar to the greek city-states?
whatever the set-up and the pros, we already know the cons: the dynastic families will be ready to take over these local fiefdoms: ie the zubiris, the angaras, the escuderos, the cojuangcos….
tipong:
osmenas: cebu is our city state
zubiris: maguindanao is ours
angaras: et tu zubiri?
i love. we can start reading greek tragedies and cicero again….
PDubSpEditor on Sun, 27th Jan 2008 10:34 pm
“vic,
if Mindanao secedes successfully, you can bet Visayas will follow suit. What will happen next is the cannibalization of the Philippines. Secession won’t be confined to the 3 main islands. It will spread regionally.
What is to stop Cebu itself from separating with the rest of Visayas? After all, Cebu can survive as a stand-alone state. And so can Davao, Makati, and Quezon.
All’s well with this set-up until leaders of this states starts to desire neighboring cities and/or regions.
Then you’ll see civil war as the next step.” -Devil’s Advocate
How scary a thought… I mean, I’m a Manileño, but I have a certain love for Davao. If these guys just separate each other more, instead of unite… Those Self-serving politicians will have Filipino blood on their hands.
Ancient Greece all over again, how ironic a thought, since Ancient Greece was the seat of democracy and reason, but deteriorated with the battles of the city states.
If Federalism is conducted, then brace yourselves for another civil war.
nash on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 12:31 am
why should you be so negative.
so what if provinces secede?? why should that lead to a civil war? why should I (from the cordilleras) force those who live elsewhere (ie mindanao) buy into this concept of ‘the philippines’? they should decide that for themselves.
i mean, surely, we can have a visa/passport free zone the same way that an englishman can go to scotland (devolved) and wales (thinking about devolution from the UK too) without a passport.
in my humble opinion, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the philippines breaking up.
sadly, the reality is we need each other to survive.
and going back to cebu, there was an article out recently about scotland should it finally want independence (and no violent reactions from the rest of the UK of course because that is scotland’s prerogative)…anyways, it was shown that scotland doesn’t have much going for it. and scotland being bigger than cebu, i’d do a bit of hand waving and say that contrary to one’s assertion above, cebu cannot live on its own…
vic on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 12:58 am
nash,
any member of the union or confederation or federalism formed from autonomous states or provinces to start with, unless stipulated during the Union that breaking up is hard to do, or meaning, will be stopped by force, or can only be done by force, any member can peacefully separate by the agreed process.
Not some other countries, but the Soviet Republic did breakup into several sovereign states, although their Union were not that peaceful..Quebec twice attempted to Separate, and the second time the referendum result was 51% to 49% or very close of succeeding..Now Quebec is recognized as a Nation within a Nation (nobody really knows the difference between the new designation from the Old One, The Distinct Society)and has clearly defined powers distinct to that of the rest of Canada, and the Québécois just love their new Nation within the Nation.
But who knows, another return of Parti Québécois in power and maybe we will say goobye Québec and welcome la république de Québec.
cvj on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 1:08 am
Nash, i guess that depends on how much we trust the politicians to do the right thing.
BrianB on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 1:33 am
“in my humble opinion, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the Philippines breaking up.”
Nash, populations in provinces are not homogenous. Some provincials are present in many provinces no of their birth. Prejudice is present in all parts of the country. It is entirely reasonable to expect expulsions of non-natives from provinces. Especially since iba-iba ang ugali nang mga Pilipino. Filipinos have tolerance issue especially, and most probably exclusively, towards other Filipinos. I’m sure you’ve noticed this too.
Conside this: Federalism isn;t really a popular topic among ordinary Filipinos. Only a few people in politics, mostly people from political clans who are interested in Federalism. Them and intellectuals who are desperate for change.
justice league on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 2:23 am
Nash,
For one, there is the possibility of border or territorial disputes.
And these disputes tend to be far far uglier than a dispute like that between Cebu city and Talisay city.
nash on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 4:33 am
True.
And I agree with you all.
That’s why the pragmatic thing is to keep our Beloved Philippines intact.
As to the form of government, I am of the firm belief that it’s the people who run government and not the form that matters. There are as many successful presidential systems as parliamentary as fedeeral… There are also very unsuccessful ones (no one is praising Mugabe’s parliamentary…)
Pero this is good thought experiments for all of us.
We have to see if Kosovo does secede, hopefully there will be no expulsions.
Pero sa akin lang, dapat i-expel na from the republique ang Maguindanao. Ayaw ko namang sila lang pumili ng leader natin sa 2010. Tutal sinimulan na nila secession by electing the first regional senator (Zubiri)
nash on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 4:34 am
True.
And I agree with you all. 100%
That’s why the pragmatic thing is to keep our Beloved Philippines intact.
As to the form of government, I am of the firm belief that it’s the people who run government and not the form that matters. There are as many successful presidential systems as parliamentary as fedeeral… There are also very unsuccessful ones (no one is praising Mugabe’s parliamentary…)
Pero this is good thought experiments for all of us.
We have to see if Kosovo does secede, hopefully there will be no expulsions.
Pero sa akin lang, dapat i-expel na from the republique ang Maguindanao. Ayaw ko namang sila lang pumili ng leader natin sa 2010. Tutal sinimulan na nila secession by electing the first regional senator (Zubiri)
anthony scalia on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 10:10 am
cvj,
My goodness, SyCip does not want to do away with the legislature altogether. He just wants the legislators to keep their hands off economic matters.
well what makes you think the electorate knows best? we have to live with the choice of the majority, whether we like it or not. For example, Erap. And gloria too. I wonder if the UP School of Economics is mulling to take back her PhD.
SyCip is only floating the idea of giving more power to appointed technocrats. Are you suggesting that even Cabinet secretaries be elected as well?
Agreed. Yet the solution may be for more people to ‘graduate’ up to ‘elite’ status, without them forgetting their humble origins.
anthony scalia on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 10:20 am
cvj,
oops, the 2nd to the last quote should have been in default mode
anthony scalia on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 10:35 am
cvj, manuelbuencamino, and all fans of more ‘people power’ please take note
Marcelo on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 10:52 am
Since some are making illusions to ancient Greece, it might be timely here to remind ourselves of who unified ancient Greece: a part-Greek autocrat, considered a Barbarian by both the refined citizens of Athens and the soldier-citizens of Sparta, namely, Phillip II of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great. And when all the carnage that that father-and-son team unleashed was over, and the Greeks were still not unified, one of those idiotic…but no doubt heroic and philosphical…Greek rulers made the colossal mistake from which his world never recovered. He invited the Romans to come in and help him. The Romans obliged….and never left. The Romans stopped all the petty intra-Greek quarelling by restoring “order” and crusing every last glimmer of Greek independence.
So be careful what you wish for!
Marcelo on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 10:54 am
Oops! I meant “allusions” not “illusions” in the first sentence of the previous post. Sorry. Hard to type on a bumpy surface, especially with slight dyslexia and astigmatism…ha ha!
cvj on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 1:25 pm
I understand where you’re coming from but i don’t think ‘expelling Maguindanao’ would do justice to Musa Dimasidsing’s sacrifice. Look at the results of Pagalungan which was under his responsibility:
http://www.cvjugo.blogspot.com/2007/07/mama-mary-vs-musa.html
What we should do is to help others like him to work for fair and clean elections.
cvj on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 1:42 pm
Anthony, i don’t think Sycip or you have any right to deprive the rest of the Filipinos of their democratic rights. Just because you (or Sycip) think that the electorate has made inferior choices does not change that. Put another way, even if I happen to think that you have made inferior choices, it doesn’t give me the right to take away (or diminish) your rights.
In tackling the challenge of economic development, the primary task is to identify and follow the right policies. The question of whether to arrive at those policies democratically or whether to have it dictated is a separate matter. We should study what policies China, Vietnam and/or India implemented and arrive at a consensus. What Sycip wants is a blanket authority without having any track record to show for it and without worrying about accountability. He doesn’t want the inconvenience of having to defend their policies in Plaza Miranda. That’s the arrogance inherent in the elitist mindset born out of a misplaced sense of superiority over the ordinary folk.
anthony scalia on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 4:16 pm
cvj,
“i don’t think Sycip or you have any right to deprive the rest of the Filipinos of their democratic rights. Just because you (or Sycip) think that the electorate has made inferior choices does not change that. Put another way, even if I happen to think that you have made inferior choices, it doesn’t give me the right to take away (or diminish) your rights.”
ay juskoday! ano ba yan!?
i started with – SyCip doesnt want to obliterate legislators – just keep them away from economic matters, and let the technocrats worry about economic matters
then you’re giving the impression that even technocrats should be elected because the electorate knows better – so i responded with taking issue with the electorate knowing better. can you expect the electorate to choose the best guys for NEDA, DOT, DOTC, DOE, etc.?
what we’re talking about, my friend, is the thought of an empowered technocracy!! technocrats are never elected!!
“In tackling the challenge of economic development, the primary task is to identify and follow the right policies. The question of whether to arrive at those policies democratically or whether to have it dictated is a separate matter. We should study what policies China, Vietnam and/or India implemented and arrive at a consensus. What Sycip wants is a blanket authority without having any track record to show for it and without worrying about accountability. He doesn’t want the inconvenience of having to defend their policies in Plaza Miranda. That’s the arrogance inherent in the elitist mindset born out of a misplaced sense of superiority over the ordinary folk.”
thats where the technocrats come in!!
you want technocrats to defend policies in plaza miranda?!? are you serious?!? aren’t you aware that populist policies often turn out to be disastrous in the long-term?
may i remind you – populism only works to get the votes. once a person is elected, he must do the right thing. And there are times the right thing isn’t the most popular thing
my goodness, SyCip just wants to empower technocrats!! what accountability are you talking about?!? by the very nature of their job, public service, they’re already accountable to the people!
matanong nga kita – ano ba ang nagawa ni SyCip sa iyo at ganun na lang ang pagkulo ng dugo mo sa kanya?
hope you’re not an ex-SGV guy with a not-so-pleasant experience working there
nash on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 6:18 pm
@marcelo,
ah yes those romans. now THEY knew how to party. How I wish we’d be under them (pre-Christianity, after conversion they were no fun). Although I’m not too keen on the communal toilets.
nash on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 6:21 pm
@cvj,
yes, collective punishment is a bit harsh. i think we should give the citizens of maguindanao guns so they can defend themselves against the intimidation of their corrupt politicians and warlords.
i understand why they did not stand up to their leaders, allowing this to happen in broad daylight.
oh well, we’ll have to learn to live with Maguindanao Senator Zubiri. Maybe he will put forward electoral reforms in the senate.
cvj on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 6:30 pm
I did not recommend that even technocrats should be elected. However, they should not be exempt from legislative oversight. This is to ensure that they are not oblivious to whatever pain their policies might cause. That’s part of being accountable.
Policies may turn out to be disastrous whether they be populist or not. Of course the technocrats must be able to defend their policies in Plaza Miranda. What they do will most likely affect the livelihood of millions of Filipinos. Sacrifices must be clearly explained and should be seen to be fair. In any system, the ability to take in feedback and adjust is important, so insulating technocrats in their Ivory Tower is counterproductive. The problem is, technocrats have a superiority complex and believe that they should not even be bothered to explain to people whom they think are not as smart as them, which is the typical elitist attitude.
Nothing personal about Sycip. I never met the person though my late Professor in Accounting did have a high regard for him.
cvj on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 6:36 pm
Nash, in other countries, a corrupt periphery can be counterbalanced by justice coming from the Center. The problem is, the Central Authorities (Gloria Arroyo, Abalos and their military) are the ones who are working hand in hand with the local warlords to subvert the system. They are all in cahoots with each other. The sad thing is, the cosmopolitan middle class doesn’t think this is an important enough matter.
anthony scalia on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 7:34 pm
cvj,
“The problem is, technocrats have a superiority complex and believe that they should not even be bothered to explain to people whom they think are not as smart as them, which is the typical elitist attitude”
there goes that familiar anti-’elitist’ chant again. thats why they are technocrats in the first place – they are free to do the right but unpopular thing, not beholden to an electorate.
typical elitist attitude? if the technocrats themselves would have to do the explaining, they can never do their job well! the explaining can be delegated.
in the name of ‘check and balance’ the present technocrats could not function properly as they have to go through meaningless and time-consuming ‘inquiries in aid of legislation’. just educating the ‘concerned’ legislators on what technocrats are doing is already time-consuming
cvj on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 7:54 pm
Everyone in public service must be beholden to the electorate. That comes with the territory. I can understand the necessity of doing the unpopular thing, but it is the responsibility of the technocrats to explain why such pain is necessary and to get buy-in from the public. As it is, the technocrats seem to care only for what is popular with credit rating agencies, the IMF-WB and foreign investors.
mlq3 on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 7:54 pm
anthony, a productive discussion might be for you to point out where, if any, a publicly-listed corporation allows management to run the show on faith, without the intervention either of a board, or of the board in turn being subject to a stockholder’s annual meeting. a board can remove a ceo at any time and a stockholder’s meeting can theoretically shake up a board. both involve voting. and both hold the threat of instant dismissal over those tasked with leading a corporation.
now what is the difference between that system and representative democracy? in fact there isn’t even the guarantee of a fixed term beyond the interval between meetings.
Silent Waters on Mon, 28th Jan 2008 10:49 pm
mlq3
I think the whole CVJ-Scalia discussion veered away really from what is getting Scalia miffed…it’s really CVJ’s anti-rich, anti elitist stance ever since I’ve been reading this blog of yours. The way he writes these, it seems to me that the elites are the scourge of the universe and they should be gotten rid of like flies.
Just my opinion….
Bencard on Tue, 29th Jan 2008 12:03 am
silent waters, it seems to me that cvj is anti-elite, anti-rich, anti-american, anti-arroyo, anti-democratic (except his own, homespun version), anti- legal, anti-conservative, anti-capitalist, and he dislikes people older than him.
cvj on Tue, 29th Jan 2008 12:04 am
Bencard, looks like you saved the best for last.
Bencard on Tue, 29th Jan 2008 12:37 am
mlq3, pardon me for barging in but i think the basic difference between corporate business governance and representative government is that the former is controlled by the number of voting shares (held by an individual or group of individuals with the most money), whereas the latter is controlled by the majority of the people (regardless of wealth, education, or physical attributes).
both abide by a pre-set constitution and sets of laws or by-laws. a ceo favored by a single holder of majority shares can stay in office over the opposition of a thousand individuals holding the minority shares. even a corporate charter can be changed by that single individual/group majority shareholder so long as it doesn’t violate the corporation law and the rules of the s.e.c. in contrast, it is not as easy or simple to change a president of the state outside of his/her fixed tenure, or change the constitution of the land.
Bencard on Tue, 29th Jan 2008 12:44 am
now, cvj, are you admitting you ‘dislike’ your own father and mother? i don’t think they are ‘younger’ than you, are they? (lol).
anthony scalia on Tue, 29th Jan 2008 6:28 am
mlq3,
“anthony, a productive discussion might be for you to point out where, if any, a publicly-listed corporation allows management to run the show on faith, without the intervention either of a board, or of the board in turn being subject to a stockholder’s annual meeting. a board can remove a ceo at any time and a stockholder’s meeting can theoretically shake up a board. both involve voting. and both hold the threat of instant dismissal over those tasked with leading a corporation”
in the US, that scenario is already commonplace! There are lots of listed companies who have unaccountable management and a rubber stamp board. That usually happens when the CEO is also chairman of the board.
But in the past decade reforms have been made. I think a non-CEO chairman is required now. And there are many activist boards ready to drop the CEO in a heartbeat.
Too bad such events happening to local listed firms are not big news here
“now what is the difference between that system and representative democracy? in fact there isn’t even the guarantee of a fixed term beyond the interval between meetings”
the difference? let me mention some:
- its easier to remove CEOs and board members. even for no reason, they can be removed. that can’t be done with elected public officials
- elected LGU officials can be recalled, but the process is slower
- the president can be impeached, but impeachment complaints can only be filed once a year
- elected officials can be removed before their term ends, provided the conditions set by law are met
- voters are not required to hold annual meetings
- for the rest, I am adopting bencard’s comments
cvj on Tue, 29th Jan 2008 8:49 am
Manolo, i think businessmen (and other market-oriented individuals) are more responsive to one-peso one-vote more than one-person one vote hence the different attitudes when it comes to accountability and oversight.
Silent Waters on Tue, 29th Jan 2008 9:27 am
CVJ
*sigh* here we go again….you certainly have it in for the people who were able to parley their talent into becoming rich. You never fail to imply the evilness that lurks amongst the rich and the elites. It really makes me wonder now if you were “inapi” by the so called rich/elite as a child.
Now, as for the difference in attitude…guess what….the Filipino voter has the same attitude, don’t you think? Nagpapabayad naman sila kung gusto nila, di ba? Asus. As usual, it takes two to tango, you know. Walang babayaran kung walang magpapabayad.
In your analysis, you always, always forget the factor of the human heart. You’re probably one of the those technocrats you hate so much. And that’s why you work in Singapore.
Marcelo on Tue, 29th Jan 2008 12:01 pm
Everything in life, including politics, rests on the ability to find sensible balances. Sometimes those balances rest on points as sharp as the tip of the knife. OF COURSE technocrats (reasonably positive description)/bureaucrats (negative description)/civil servants (neutral description) have to be accountable. The trick is how to make them accountable without POLITICIZING them. Also, when you select a group by competitive examination, constant assessment through the ranks, or through political appointment on the basis of outstanding qualifications (whether in the real world of business or NGO work or the Ivory Tower — horrors)the members of this group are OF COURSE going to be an elite. That’s why they were recruited. In my view, there is nothing wrong with an elite service so long as it is built on talent and experience. The trick is how to ensure that such an unelected group supports national policy set down by our elected government. The civil service recommends, based on its best professional judgement. It does not (or should not) make political decisions. Decisions of that nature are the final responsibility of the political arms of government (the President, the Cabinet, and the Congress). Finally, many civil servants or elite technocrats were not recruited/appointed because of their political savvy in dealing with Mendiola. Theya re not supposed to win elections. Many of them are incapable of communicating outside of a policy brief. Advising the people what has to be done rests, again, with the political arms of government.
Silent Waters on Tue, 29th Jan 2008 2:27 pm
Marcelo
A sane discussion, for a change. At least a basis for a discussion. Unlike yung iba diyan na ideya lang nila ang tama. Yung sa iba, mali.
cvj on Tue, 29th Jan 2008 5:31 pm
I agree. That’s something Washington Sycip wants to bypass.