Of Gloria Arroyo’s political promises, on the same credibility level as those on December 30, 2002 that lied about ambitions, eradicating poverty within a decade is another for the books.
The promise was cast in 2002 at the Asia-Pacific forum of the Socialist International. It was one of four capped by the raising of the moral standards of government and society.
She said her “administration is infusing common sense, discipline, ACCOUNTABILITY and INTEGRITY in governance based on three principles. These are a SOUND MORAL FOUNDATION to guide our leadership at all levels, a philosophy of TRANSPARENCY in ALL government transactions, and an ethic of effective implementation throughout the bureaucracy”. (Caps supplied)
The allusion to moral standards founds a philosophical irony underlying a presidency stolen from a predecessor. It differentiates Arroyo from Joseph Estrada. One, an economist, the other, a drop out. One, an elitist, the other, a populist.
Admittedly, the labels are unfair, even misleading. Both are accused of corruption. But the irony cannot be denied. Estrada fashioned himself the president of the poor. Ironically, Arroyo said she would eradicate poverty.
The presence of one cockroach indicates an infestation. Similarly, one lie suggests an epidemic of falsehoods. To Arroyo’s misfortune, even her official statistics deny her declarations. The involuntary hunger index counts more than a fourth of the population starving while a third wallows below the poverty line.
The other component of Arroyo’s declaration was the modernization of agriculture. Another was to develop a bias towards the disadvantaged. Lastly she vowed the development of free and equitable enterprise.
On the eve of her deadline, each echo hollow. For one whose “bias towards the disadvantaged” means slapping predatory taxes to address unproductive fiscal overspending; one who defines agricultural modernization as the re-channeling of “fertilizer funds” to fatten a one-million votes margin; and one under whom free enterprise is marked by the IMPSA and ZTE-NBN contracts, including the privatization of utilities to friends – such belie an epidemic indeed.
Recently, a Singapore-based investment bank described Arroyo’s economy as one increasingly dependent on foreign debt. This dovetails the analysis of an astute reader who added that taxation is the other prong. Both – external dependence and internal debauchery -describe a stricken chicken ranch economy.
Note the degradation. Early in the year foreign borrowing limits were pegged at 25% of total funding. Three months later, this was altered to 30%. Last week the DBS bank noted Arroyo was relying increasingly on foreign debt despite policy limits.
Soaring costs of money are eloquent declarations of increasing risk. Domestic yields accelerate when the market catches wind that the government might tap the local market for additional debt. One factor is a local bank’s relatively intimate knowledge of domestic weaknesses. That prevailing rates are high reflects these. Already, rates range from 8% in the secondary market for ten-year treasury bonds to over 8.28% on fixed coupon outstanding peso debts.
Because comparable costs for third-party guaranteed Samurais are even higher, these forced a desperate scrounge albeit keeping the Samurai option open for the 2010 election year.
Such desperation impacts negatively on treasury auctions. Recently, the treasury had to reject all bids as these would have moved borrowing costs beyond 8.30% to as much as 8.375%.
The apprehension of the funding market is telling. The market is not stupid. The increasing dependence on foreign debt is our last card. With two months left in 2009, Arroyo continues to borrow over US$ 1 billion in addition to previous flotations of US$ 1.5 billion and US$ 750 million, including an aborted US$ 1.5 billion in Samurais.
In each, the justifications shift from a stimulus, to pre-emptive deficit funding for 2010, to disaster rehabilitation. Sources say government now needs to borrow another US$ 2 billion from foreign commercial creditors and US$ 1.8 billion from multilateral lenders. These result in a pathetic dependence on the kindness of strangers and the prostitution of economic independence.
Because unbridled foreign debt inflates relative peso values thus dampening demand for domestic goods and adversely affecting an already adversely affected manufacturing sector, added to internal debauchery, we are virtually screwing ourselves.
Far from eradicating poverty and even farther from upholding moral uprightness, Arroyo has buried us deeply in debt. From Gilbert Teodoro to Hermogenes Ebdane and Bayani Fernando, should Arroyo’s 2010 bets represent a perpetuation of her policies, then they might each share a third of Teodoro’s pitiful one percent. That’s not a ranking. That’s an indictment of her promises and her vaunted economics.
Popularity: 1% [?]
How can anybody believe that GMA had meant the “…eradicate poverty!” blabber when the United Nations goals the Philippine government committed to were about reducing (reduce, not eliminate) poverty?
And just to make it clear —- the Pinas goal is 22% by 2015. Not zero-percent by 2015. Not two in a hundred by 2015; not even one in 10 by 2015. Pinas goal for 2015 — only one in five Pinoy in Pinas will be surviving on a dollar-a-day.
[Actually, Erap committed to the 22% on a dollar-a-day. When the surge-the-gate folks showed up, GMA inherited the 22% target, and 22% is 22%.]
UP n grad,
Thanks for that. Actually when numbers are thrown into any rhetoric, these turn the rhetoric into a lie. That also makes the photos specially applicable and appropriate.
Weren’t these the same when she said ” I am sorry” despite the numbers?
Regards,
Dean
Arroyo is just being used as a scapegoat for the systemic defects of the Philippine economy.
Dependence on foreign loans is endemic to the Philippine economy for the following reasons:
1 – There is not enough domestic private and public capital to provide jobs and create new industries.
2 – Of the available public capital, there is revenue leakage due to unchecked corruption.
3 – Foreign capital could have been infused to cover the lack of domestic capital – BUT the domestic elite have institutionalized anti-foreign investment provisions in the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
These three factors exacerbate an already lousy economy. Clearly, there is not enough domestic capital and new capital is not coming in. Meanwhile, there are services to be rendered and maturing obligations as well.
Given these circumstances, any sitting president (who is beholden to his campaign’s bankrollers – mostly oligarchs) will resort to foreign borrowings.
The indictment does not lie on Gloria’s head – it lies on Philippine society which can’t pass muster to remove the local economic elite’s chokehold on the economy.
I suppose infestation is the key word. When one sees no checks and balances being put into play, it is easy to draw the conclusion that the whole pack of legislative players is in on the take. Or there is no forum for checking and balancing, no active judiciary, no impartial ombudsman. No where for justice to be found. No brakes on ill intention, imprudent judgment, or incompetence. All is hidden behind unpublished accounts and glory hallelujah manipulation of public trust.
Makes one want to open a savings account denominated in dollars. Do they have “oil” savings accounts at my local bank. Maybe even better.
Joe
Joe,
All the more reason to set up a mechanism to rectify the bastardization of gov’t institutions by prosecuting Arroyo’s sins after she steps down.
When the constitution is re-written, there should be a stipulation that the President, within 3 months at the end of their term (or when they are ousted, or when they die in office) should go directly to Bilibid for at least a year jail-time.
After 12-months imprisonment, the ex-president automatically gets released from jail unless the new Congress passes a law for more months of penance.
Dean a well written piece as it speaks the truth. Now how about pushing these idiots who are running for President to include a bailout clause in the Constitution when they do decide to amend it.
The U.S.A has a bailout clause in its constitution. It called then in the 18th century mind you for uniform bankruptcy laws in the New Republic.
The country is in a dangerous phase. We borrow money now to support our payment of interest and principal and also to import food and oil.
A country with a savings gap has a systemic and structural problem. That structure exists from a very low tax base. A land based economy produces a very shallow , narrow and hollow division of labor.
Bong V has listed the effects of the problem and not the cause.
Changing a country’s history is a messy business. First thing is you have to destroy wrong perceptions about the root of the problem. Corruption is an effect of a weak state stemming from weak economic fundamentals.
Minimizing it requires increasing the number of people who can pressure representative government to act in the interest of the vast majority. Participatory government requires numbers who can pressure the state.
But first people will have to learn the true nature of the problem.
We have created this system ourselves by sheer lack of interest and inaction.
Hence we have the wolf guarding the chicken ranch.
Jag:
As I previously mentioned – Arroyo is just being used as a scapegoat for the systemic defects of the Philippine economy. – …. These three factors exacerbate an already lousy economy.
Appreciate your elaboration on systemic defects as
Very low tax-base. Too many people are giving up on their personal responsibility to bust their tails to get a higher income 12 months from now, and then even much higher 30 months from now.
The personal responsibility is not diminished even if the government programs to create better-paying jobs are weak.
UP n grad once again based on the numbers people are having to make do since 70% of the participating labor force is so labeled “employed” in the informal sector.
The so called definition of unemployment here in the country uses the Ricardian theory that the economy is always at full employment.
That means there is voluntary unemployment. Exactly your take on what you label personal responsibility. If one does not have a job then it is ones fault.
But you see the criminals, drug business, prostitution and illegal gambling business are all counted as economic activities too.
So you see people actually do work. But that does not mean they are engaged in fruitful and productive economic activities.
I guess those guys who stand in the rain and hot sun all day trying to sell a stick of cigarette are personally responsible for their situation.
Well, J_AG, you don’t see DSWD taking care of these people selling the cigarette sticks, do you? And the OFW’s still say that they already pay too much in taxes!!
If that be an authoritative account, PGMA is deemed to have miserably failed in her much “vaunted economics” – from the ideal economic dependence to that of vicious economic over-dependence.
Thus, in the score board, we wish to know in which part of the entire economic ledger did a Ph.D. in economics took the better of her, please tell.
All of the presidential spokespersons must have done a great disservice for projecting her as “too busy with work” as to shrug off politics as a mere “popularity contest”.
PGMA is a cause of shame.
We’ve always been dependent on all things foreign — capital (foreign investment), income (OFW remittances), and debt (the subject of this blog entry). This is not even mentioning our dependence on foreign stuff to define ourselves and add substance to what is essentially a vacuous culture. The fundamental principle that underlies all this is an utter lack of any capability to create capital indigenously (whether this be financial, cultural, or social) from which income — or in more general terms — recurring added value can be derived domestically. An ability to source/create capital internally and (as a direct consequence) generate income (and therefore jobs) domestically is a basic hallmark of a strong society. This requires a strong cultural predisposition towards exercising:
- foresight;
- imagination; and,
- efficiency
All of which we have strongly demonstrated over most of our history to be utterly lacking any faculties of consquence to exhibit. This lack of cultural aptitude for basic disciplines that are CRITICAL to achieving prosperity are consistent with what defines us as a people:
- Impunity
- Bahala na (come what may)
- Pwede na yan (that’ll do)
We can see from a straightforward comparison between…
(a) the latter three-point framework of what defines us as a people; and,
(b) the earlier three-point basic qualities that enable a strong predisposition to achieving prosperity;
… that Filipinos as a people are an absoltue ANTI-THESIS of anything that describes an inclination to prosper mightily.
What is being highlighted in this blog specificaly is the increasing proportion of the debt component of our dependence on foreign stuff. Not only that, we are trapped in that poverty spiral — increasing reliance on expensive sources of capital.
Sad indeed, considering that many candidates trumpet “truth and justice” when the key to our prosperity lies in stuff far more fundamental to human survival (survival and not thriving is what we really aspire for at the moment).
Such is the cancer we now know as Da Pinoy Condition.
“Such is the cancer we now know as Da Pinoy Condition.”
benigs,
You kept on blaming the Da Pinoy as a people for all the ills of our country. While we, on the other hand, are blaming bad governance as the cause for all the problems.
And yet you kept on asking for the platform of the presidential candidates. There is some loose connection somewhere in your brilliant logic. If it’s the people’s fault, what’s the relevance of whether the president has a brilliant or lousy platform?
Can you enlighten us, ples?
Bert:
Learning to distinguish a “President” from a “Presidential Candidate” is a good start.
Then look at the chronological sequence:
1. People review the “Presidential Candidates” .
2. People choose the “Presidential Candidates”.
3. The “Presidential Candidate” with most People choosing him becomes President.
4. The President delivers to the People.
Every step of the sequence, involves People.
Every step is affected by the results of the previous actions.
Pinoys tend to focus on Item 4 only, and negate their responsibility in Items 1,2, and 3.
bert,
if i may butt in, it might help to understand that our way of life here sucks because of government that we of voting age have repeatedly populated with people of selfish bent. then when we’re displeased with the people we put in power, we take to the streets, which is okay, we’re a democracy. but the problem is in the bigger picture that you’ll see when you step back:
magmula nung maibalik ang demokrasya sa pilipinas noong lumikas ang mga marcos, naging magic solution na para sa mga pinoy ang magpatalsik through people power kapag ayaw na natin sa nakaupo. nakagawian na natin yan. it’s part of the pinoy psyche now. we keep failing at meaningful prevention because we have a cultural leaning for remedies, countermeasures after the fact.
i wanna see platforms from candidates so i’ll have a clearer idea whether they offer anything different, or kung puro nonsense ang plano nila, and kung sino ang makikinabang sa mga plano nila. whether what they write as their platform is true or not is something we can’t be certain of, pero since the platforms are commitments that are documented, we hold them accountable. a written platform serves as memory tool also, kasi maraming pilipino maikli ang memorya.
bad governance is bad governance, absolutely! if it is the people’s fault then the people can and should own up and rectify it. on may 2010 we actually have a chance to apply “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.”
BongV and Parralax,
Platform are promises meant to be accomplished, or, be broken.
1. If broken, the platform was useless.
2. If accomplished, that means that the president is a good person who cared for his people and country and so would have done what he/she has done just the same even without publishing his/her platform before the election. Therefore the platform was irrelevant and useless too.
3. Now, if the candidate for president is known by the electorate to be clean, and his/her records and platform indicate that he/she indeed is clean, then the people will surely vote for him/her, and she/he will win the election and become president. If, after sitting on the throne in the palace by the Pasig River, the new president become dirty, the platform he/she published before the election was useless as well.
4. Therefore platforms are useless.
Need I say more?
O’, ikaw naman, benigs.
it also means, there was no due diligence in evaluating the candidate’s platform for consistency with the candidate’s past actions, and present performance. lack of due diligence does not lie on the candidate, it lies on the person doing the evaluation. the presence of a platform would reveeal consistency.
if inconsistent, reject, do not elect – or elect at your own peril.
if accomplished, it not only means that the president is a good person, it also means that the candidate is able to optimize use of resources due to a comprehensive, relevant, well thought out platform, in contrast to the extreme waste brought by unplanned, incoherent, scatter-brained approach to governance – the impact would be something like the Ondoy aftermath. Need I say more?
On the contrary, the presence of the platform will show exactly how far the candidate has deviated from the platform which serve as basis for his election. such deviation will also serve as focal point for withdrawal of political support.
Therefore, platforms are very useful. If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
I totally agree with BongV on this.
siempre! anti-pinoy of a feather, stick together, ahayhehehe.
you’re absolutely right about that one, bert, though you seem more active than your buddies.
Thank you for the compliment! Pero, hindi naman siguro. We of the patriotic types here in FV have equal passions to do what is right and proper in the name of country and people, the Filipino people.
By all means proper (or foul, hehehe), we are ready to defend our people and country against the onslaught and attacks coming from the bad dudes…the anti-pinoy group.
Thanks anyway.
That’s a lovely speech but as expected, subtlety tends to be lost on faux patriotic types. If choosing to watch a movie over registering for the 2010 elections isn’t an indication of this warped “patriotism,” Lord knows what is. Without repeating what Bong has more than adequately explained a few clicks above, I simply reiterate that platforms are important, especially to those who plan to peruse them. For those who don’t see any use for them, pasensyahan na lang kung wala kayong pinanghahawakan sa kandidato nyo when he/she turns out to be a complete disappointment. Heck, if you like buying medicine without labels or consultations or clues whatsoever then go ahead and apply that same logic to everything else. Your loss, but you could still play patriot.
patriotic types?
Hi Filo,
You and your tsewarewarewap maybe good in grammar and spelling but a little weak in other things, heheh.
If you’re me, and a registered voter already way, way months back I’ll bet you’re still going to do what manuelbuencamino did not do…stay in the queue the whole day.
And, Filo, you better explain to the reading public why you think seeing a good movie is unpatriotic.
Watching XXX movie more patriotic you think?
Awww, did the truth hurt the feelings of the faux patriot? There there now.
What could NOT be explained in any rational sense is how picking that (i.e., watching a good movie) over persisting to register makes one a quote patriot unquote like you so proclaim. Malarkey reply not necessary.
It really doesn’t matter what you prefer to watch, Bert. You’re the “patriot” around here. :-D
Politicians want votes. So, they can act as if they are working for
your interest. Erap Estrada is an Actor. He is also a Politician.
So, it is natural for him to act, as if he is working for your interest.
The test of the pudding is in the eating. Same way on all Managers.
If a Manager cannot deliver and perform. He is not fitted for the
position. Presidents are just Big Managers. If they have no good
education; good background, good experiences and good common sense.
Then, no matter what they do and say. Or what gimmicks they may use to promote themselves. They cannot deliver what they have promised.
If you are in search for a good Big Manager. You begin with a
resume (Platforms & biodatas for Politicians). Then , the interviews (debates, dicussions and deliberations). If you elect him. Watch how he or she will perform or deliver.
Interesting.
And here I was seeing her good side as an economics graduate.
She was proud to announce that the Philippines was resilient because of funds from increased taxes and here we are borrowing funds to accommodate requirements.
What about someone who will
1. Restructure BIR.
2. Put more confidence in the government.
3. Reduce tax loopholes.
4. Announce tax shrinkage.
If perfomance does not match up the statements you release on
the press. Then, there are issues of Truthfulness and
Credibility. You cannot fool all the people all the time!
Just look what typhoon “Ondoy” has shown to us. Too many Filipino squatters living like animals. And you tell us the economy is booming? I use my eyes, not my ears!
Hyden,
Use your ears too. And hear the wails of people and the silent rumble of their stomach making do with one or two meals a day, eating noodles and some spoonfuls of plain cheap rice.
Well this reality tells us that her academics wasn’t really that significant. And her speeches describing a rosy picture of the economy wasn’t reliable. I wasn’t really implying that the economics was booming.