In the particular order they come, the best leader to succeed the president are – Noli de Castro, Loren Legarda, Manny Villar, Chiz Escudero, Ping Lacson, Erap, Mar Roxas. Or to go a little bit down more, we have – Jejomar Binay, Bayani Fernando, Miriam Santiago, Francis Pangilinan, GMA, Vilma Santos, Ralph Recto, Trillanes, and Zubiri. This is in so far as SWS is concerned.

Pulse Asia, on the other hand, registers in the same ranking order – Escudero, Legarda, Roxas, Villar, Lacson, Binay, Estrada, De Castro, Arthur Yap, CJ Puno, and Speaker Nograles. This survey, in particular, distinguishes between ‘big trust’ and ‘small trust’ over the candidates listed therein and their corresponding scores on the chart. Limited to the choices voters can have – everyone in the pack has his or her own share of dug up negativities and therefore makes less perfect to be the next to succeed.

Confined to these names, we could have wanted new entrants or we just have to share Tony Abaya’s fear of having to add another name to the Guinness Book of World Records in terms of outstanding individuals in the field of corruption. So why do we always end up with a president who will only prove to have enriched herself or himself in office as if to tell us – it is all part of our political DNA?

For lack of better choice, why indeed will we have to vote for a Noli de Castro who may have shown the highest tolerance threshold against the ills that beset Philippine society in what appears to be an entirely enclaved status – not a sign being affected nor afflicted – by our shared if collective experience under the Arroyo regime?

Voters might more likely have to list out offhand – Villar, Lacson, Erap, Puno – for commonly-held public perception bordering on negativities. Whereas, a relatively young pack of presidential wannabes might cater well to the taste of the voting public and these may include such names as – Loren, Chiz, and Mar. Without let up, Mar appears to be doing an all-time offensive in terms of media blitz to add more wheels to his cart. Where signs indicate – Villar would have been sidetracked by the C5 double-fund entry, Lacson by the old stain in the Kuratong Baleleng rubout, and Erap by conviction of plunder.

It is of uncertain validity whether apparently good lawyers make good presidents as in the case of a Chiz Escudero whose performance in the House of Representatives along with Allan Cayetano may have built a good jumping pad to the Senate. Now, we heard nothing about their well-stated anti-GMA advocacies. For one, Cayetano is not known to have done a good work in so far as legislation is concerned in terms of number of bills authored-co-authored as if he were no longer goal-driven. Not few think they have been duped, shortchanged for having voted them in the Senate. Candidly enough, two Cayetanos would add neither more nor less.

The manner the campaign drive of Mar Roxas is being run, it seems to meditate on old tricks in the book. His TV ads appear to be well-timed, rich in content, and captures popular imagination – but an approach entirely too seasonal to be true. From the all-too successful ‘Mr. Palengke” to that of Mr. Botika to Mr. OFW – take your pick. Most everyone is trying to discover what could bring a bandwagon effect in so far as the viewing audience is concerned that it must take a lot of genius to capture one. This reminds us how one Pichay may have done the extreme overdrive in exchange of nothing.

Chiz did try the cheese and didn’t juice out the milk. For him to go around in just a shirt as though he is some rock and roll buff might no longer be indicative of his youth. He does not have to come like his father did – a fashion statement – with the KBL idea in it. When he talks those rather kilometric ideas than they should come cryptic, it might bore a less-than-intelligent voting segment. Neither does he carry the Obama magic in him, however maybe eloquent he is as a speaker.

It might be wished that Loren will not be haunted by her rather dim marital past – having been married to an old politician who has been jailed and released from prison to the dismay of the families of his victim. She, however, probably enjoys a sweet acceptance level from those who view her only through the boobtube. Beyond the screen, other stuff can be unclosed and we deemed she is not corruptible as most in the pack.

Come 2010, we hope presidential bidders (or bribers) appear in the landscape reduced to only a three person scramble with at least the inclusion of a ‘dark horse’ – whoever that maybe. Meantime, grandstanding will have to be a normal thing in the Senate front from which they come. With about P3 to P5 billion to burn to run a sound campaign, what governance would be clean?

Senator Mar Roxas, as if to confirm suspicion, knew that RP is no longer getting the financial package it gets from US except by another round of negotiation in what would be the same dog with a different collar. If that little attempt will find fruition, then maybe RP can again, get a shot in the arm from Uncle Sam but Roxas shares strong misgiving that US will grant this country another loan package. Reason is a government tainted with corruption. Call to mind how Mar uttered the words – ‘P…. ina. Ano ba to?’ – in a crowd?

The way things are, the ruling cliché in Congress can have their cake and eat it too. After all, the rule of majority in this country has long been distorted to actually mean, mere numbers game and its tyranny. And Congress keeps on growing as more bills – to divide a province into two, to divide a town or city into two, to divide a barangay into two – come as vicious practice. It is still gerrymandering by any other name – to spread the loot – doesn’t it?

PGMA felt rather reassured though when the Chief of Staff of the AFP emphatically pointed out on the occasion of the AFP’s 73rd Anniversary that ‘politics in the AFP is dead’. But is it really dead? Would it
be correct to say that EDSA 2 were a mistake? Where signs indicate, the reason Senator Trillanes will never be allowed to function as a regular member of the Senate is born out of that fear that the AFP is, after all, reasonably politicized.

The menu in the charter change proposal is one that claims not to include term extension as officially advocated by GMA’s political operatives in Congress. But there are tricks in the book later on. There is no barrier big enough not to be confronted in favor of what Congress wills it to be since – voting is a vicious malpractice – whenever an issue has to be settled even without debate. That is what may be called as ‘summary execution’ – they kill anti-GMA bills in Congress, don’t they?

Suppose that indeed charter change will push through even before 2010? What will happen to us all? Central to the original charter change proposal is for foreigners to own the lands under some concessionaire
agreement. In other words, they can’t take away the lands they own out of the country – only that they will control production and all that Marxist stuff to the possible peril of the Filipinos given the chronic rapacity of a capitalist system. The more conservative segments of body polity equate that as tacit commercialization of our sovereignty, or is it?

Elections 2010 is far more exciting than charter change, it’s fiesta. It seems that it is only GMA who is interested in charter change knowing pretty well that it is the only vehicle she can hold on to power if she
cannot be possibly elected sans the props of ‘Hello Garci’. But all other politicians would rather opt that an election be held in 2010 since that would not be violative of the Constitution. So necessarily, no-el scenario is not to come about.

The GMA administration is probably the luckiest presidency we ever had. At least three coups failed to dismantle it. And just as how many impeachment moves have already been registered in the failure chart? Even People Power attempts fail to invade Malacanang when it is virtually made as a container yard whenever rallyists gather around its radius. The AFP and PNP are too in tact to disintegrate as other sub-centers of power are like the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, et cetera.

There is no way to boot out GMA, just no way at the moment. Serious observers of trends knew too well that in spite of net satisfaction and trust ratings of GMA gliding down to historic negative ebbs (if there be a
word), she still will finish term and the post-GMA scenario may be such that she will not follow the fate of Marcos or of Erap when she leaves Malacanang.

Contributing Writer: PRIMER C. PAGUNURAN
UP Diliman, Quezon City
(Email: nielsky_2003@yahoo.com)

The senator shouted, “Putangina, ano ba ito?!?” after he enumerated the scandals involving Mrs. Arroyo and her government.

Newspapers re-spelled “Putangina” as “P_____ina” and translated it to “SOB!” so the impact and import of the senator’s rhetoric was lost.

Everybody knows s.o.b. in capital letters is an abbreviation for “son of a bitch!” so “Putangina!” is not the same as “SOB!” The Pilipino term refers to a certain type of mother while the English word refers to the male offspring of a bitch.

A “bitch,” according to one definition, is a female “dog, wolf, fox or otter.” In an informal and derogatory way, bitch is also “a woman whom one dislikes or considers to be malicious or unpleasant” as in: “she’s the luckiest bitch around” to describe a malicious and unpleasant woman who gets away with high crimes. “Bitch” is also used for “a thing or situation that is unpleasant or difficult to deal with” as in: “Life’s a bitch under this gangster regime.”

The difficulty in finding an English expletive equivalent for “Putangina!” is understandable because none exists. The word is Tagalog for the Spanish exclamation, “Puta madre!” Translating it into English will produce a ridiculous oath, “whore mother” or “prostitute mother.” Some words just don’t translate well.

At any rate, “SOB” is the wrong term because it does not approximate what the good senator wanted to convey: his utter disgust with the Gloria Arroyo administration’s crimes.

A better translation for the senator’s outburst would have been “What the (your preferred curse word) is going on!?!” because it would make clear that he was not describing the mother of Charter change or characterizing Charter change as a male born of a bitch.

“Putangina, ano ba ito!?!” is actually the most logical reaction to just about anything this administration and its allies say or do.

Things have so gotten out of hand I wouldn’t be surprised if some of Arroyo’s most loyal henchmen are thinking what Senator Roxas said out loud.

Take the case of selective justice. An administration congressman, Bienvenido Abante, learned that National Police deputy chief for operations Geary Barias and several police superintendents went on an 11-day trip to Munich, Germany on the invitation of Rohde and Schwarz, an electronics specialist company.

Consequently, the congressman wants to know, “Was it an official trip? If it was, then the trip should have had an authorization from the Department of the Interior and Local Government and spent for by the government. If spent for by a private person, then who and for what purpose?” Abante believes the lawmen could be liable for graft if a private person or entity “with interest in the National Police” shouldered their travel expenses.

Abante also believes there was nothing wrong with Mrs. Arroyo accepting an invitation to golf and lunch with officials of ZTE, a Chinese company bidding for a huge government contract. Those poor unfortunate cops must be asking themselves, “Putangina, ano ba ito?”

Going back to Senator Roxas’ speech… there is something there the Palace can legitimately bitch about: “Patayin ang Gloria-Forever Cha-cha! (Kill the Gloria-Forever Cha-cha!)”

That rallying cry is a personal attack, it goes beyond debating Charter change purely on its merits. It paints an unflattering portrait of those in the Charter change movement.

But in fairness to the senator, he has never said he is against the idea of improving the Constitution. All he said was he is against Gloria-Forever Cha-cha.

Well, who in his right mind would want Gloria to rule forever? And who would be crazy enough to entrust Charter amendments to a con-ass composed of, for lack of a polite term that does not sacrifice precision, SOBs?

“Putangina, ano ba ito!?!”

In a meeting with the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines today, Liberal President Senator Mar Roxas stressed that lasting peace in Mindanao must be pursued in line with the national interest and by a sincere government.

“Peace must be pursued in line with the universal interest of all Filipinos–whether Muslim, Christian or Lumad. Peace cannot happen with disunity, with a people partitioned according to race or belief,” he said.

“And this peace must be pursued by a government that rules with the consent of the governed, that gives all citizens equal protection under the law. But what has happened that lead to our quandary right now is due to a government that tends to fragment our nation rather than lead it to one common aspiration,” he added.

Roxas lamented that with its recent acts, the government has shown either gross incompetence or something else: a gross disregard for the common interest.

“This government has managed to divide and fragment our nation through the years, and now by bungling on the peace process with the MILF. Ineptness and impatience prevailed, and deception to all–Muslim, Christian or Lumad–was employed to pursue an invalid memorandum of agreement with the MILF,” he said.

“And the result: more than a hundred innocent lives lost and more than 200,000 evacuees struck by hunger and disease,” he stressed.

The government, Roxas said, must accept responsibility for its actions and bring the peace process back on track, following Constitutional standards and transparency.

“It must, first of all, bring all lawless elements to justice. All those who violate human rights and rule of law�be it MILF splinter groups or other vigilantes–must be brought to justice. The government must smother Mindanao with the rule of law,” he said.

“The MOA between the government and the MILF must be torn apart, and we want the Supreme Court to do so through a definitive decision so it will no longer be used as leverage in peace negotiations and diplomatic discourse. On the part of the government, it must revamp the peace panel now,” he added.

Roxas advised the government to implement the rule of law forcefully and equally, with no ethno-linguistic or religious prejudice. Else, the scenario of conflict will escalate when civilians start taking the law into their hands.

“If the government fails to strengthen its presence in Mindanao now, it will eventually have to go in between the crossfire of warring vigilantes,” he said.

Further to my earlier post, the encounter with Filipino bloggers Senator Mar Roxas had yesterday gave me the distinct sense that this was a different Mar from the one this writer met, and had the honor to work with, when he was secretary of trade and industry serving President Arroyo in the immediate post EDSA 2 years.

Here was a man still cautious with his words but certainly more certain about his conviction that reforms must come now and be made to grow deep roots if the Philippines is to get out of the ecomic, and political, morass it is stuck in.

Here was a Mar Roxas ready to seek the highest office of the land wearing not rose-colored glasses but with eyes that have seen and continues to see the mass povery that stalks the land, even as there are Filipinos who can afford to buy, and drive Benzes and gas-guzzling Ford Expeditions for 3 to 5M a pop.

Truly “a statement about the wide gap between rich and poor Filipinos.” which he said makes him ask “just what does GMA have to show for the yearly national budget of one trillion pesos her government has spent since 2001 since she first took power?”

Through the more that two hours he spent yesterday with the bloggers, Mar showed himself to be a ‘listening’ politician, taking notes as he heard how Filipinos are harnessing blogging to share information and distill their aspirations as a people, regardless of where the politicians are taking Philippine society.

To be sure Mar will have to bring his message out more and he apparently recognizes the awesome power of new media.

Mar is launching his own blog. His handlers promise the blog will try to remain current and responsive with Mar himself, time permitting, doing the actual posts along with special contributors who reflect his thinking and positions on issues.

And as Mar, we hope, learned from yesterday’s session, he will come under closer scutiny once he joins blogosphere with his eye on 2010.

(Among those present at the session with Senator Mar were contributors from FilipinoVoices.com and ScoutAreaOnline (represented by senior writer Paolo Florenda) plus personalities like Ellen Tordesillas, Manuel Quezon III, Ricky Carandang, Noemi Dado, Gail Villanueva, Lester Cavestany, and the-jester-in-exile.)

Postscript:

Blogger ‘marocharim’ was also at the encounter and I missed his exchange with Senator Mar about Dark Knight and Mar’s responses were gems given the duality or multi-faced ‘balimbing’ character of many Filipino politicians:

“I’m not a very political blogger (and if that was a lie, let lightning strike me), and I sort of got confused with all that had to do with my question about E-VAT. My theory is that a lot of politicians can answer a VAT question unfazed. So I decided to ask the Senator a “cute” question (as Ma’am Noemi puts it)…

Sir, you watched The Dark Knight, right? Who would you want to have dinner with: Joker, Two-Face, or Batman?

Now let me just say that this is not a profound philosophical question, I just wanted to know his answer…

I’d really like to talk to Two-Face and ask… “What happened to you?”

Marochim also reports this important angle thst I missed:

“It was also the launch of VirtualRally.net, which is a virtual form of EDSA where you can speak your mind about issues like VAT.”

Excerpted from http://www.marocharim.com/2008/08/02/marocharim-meets-mar-roxas/

Second Postscript:

A quick peek at that site at 4:10 am Manila time today the 2nd of August shows 39 rally participants, about two-thirds a bus-load so the government will not yet be fielding its own ‘virtual’ anti civil disturbance unit’ much less shout virtual ‘destabililization’.

At this very early phase of VirtualRally.net this look like a potentially ground-shifting e-nnovation to the blogswarm mechanism.

Wasn’t able to stay for the dinner presumptive presidential candidate Mar Roxas had last night with Filipino bloggers at Annabel’s in Quezon City.

But the initial 90 minutes with the good senator over peanuts, kropek and light beverages were enough for him to share with us his take on where the Philippines has been these past 7 years with Gloria Macapagal Arroyo at the helm and his take on recent events.

Am still chewing on my notes so am sharing these initial bullets:

• Mar asks what the government of the day has to show for the 7 trllion pesos it has spent these last 7 years (give or take ‘systems losses’ from graft and the generous P500,000-a-pop ‘gifts’ to palace visitors);
• Mar proposes the establishment of a ‘People’s Fund’ within the national budget where there will be a clear itemization of monies to be allocated, and spent, on contingent events;
• Mar will vigorously pursue his call for E-VAT’s reform;
• Mar questions the wisdom of Romulo Neri’s selection as ‘super secretary’ and points out the it is not the mandate of the Social Security System to be lumped among the government’s so-called pro-poor agencies.
• Mar points out the the SSS is the pension fund of its 24-million-plus private sector employee-members and Neri’s legal responsibility, assuming he understands it, is to make that pension fund grow;
• Mar understands that Filipinos are looking for change they can believe in (my paraphrase);
• Mar believes the next 20 months can and should be devoted to lay down the blueprint for the reforms necessary all within the framework of the Constitution.

Note: Our thanks go to the the media team of Senator Mar led by Ms. Susan Ople and Mr. Carlo Ople for organizing the event.

This post will serve as an online Q and A for Senator Mar Roxas, hopefully the questions will be answered. The meeting is supposed to center on The SONA and VAT, other questions will be discussed too. Without further ado, here are the questions that have been submitted thus far.

1. Please outline in precise terms in 3-5 points what he proposes to do differently if given the power. ( from Benign0)

2. what will his policy be with regards to population and reproductive health law. (from Jon Limjap)

3. given that his family is among the Oligarchs of Philippine Society, how does he feel about the need to address the issue of inequality in the distribution of property and wealth? In other words, in his view, what role, if any, do the Oligarchs have in transforming the Philippines into a more equal society? If he can cite concrete proposals, then so much the better. (from Chuck aka CVJ)

4. Mine is a simple question, but a tough policy to implement. Health Care, what are your plans? I know that The Cheaper Medicine’s bill is a start, but what about other aspects of a health care that will see to it that families do not have to worry about finding help when they face a medical problem or crisis. And how will he pay for such a comprehensive plan? If he has a plan, does he have a copy of it? (from Nick)

And the following is from Cocoy,

1. nobody likes taxes. the issue of oil and vat seam to revolve around exuberant price of oil. everyone hopes it’ll go back to US$80, but US$200 isn’t a farfetched thought these days either.

in a recent post, energy blog The Oil Drum linked to a recent published report by the Dutch energy institute, the Clingendael International Energy Program (CIEP) (http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4358)

“that the floor price of oil is now 110 dollars per barrel, that supply will not rise beyond 100-105 million b/d in the coming decades, that there will be an oil supply constraint for most of the next decade, that there are insufficient quantities of alternative fuels available and that thus demand destruction is inevitable. CIEP is especially important because it is endorsed by amongst others BP, Shell Netherlands, Total E&P Netherlands, three Dutch Ministries, Wintershall, Vopak Oil Europe Middle East and several Dutch energy companies.”

Would any reduction in Oil VAT be cosmetic?

Would it be best to earmark taxes collected on oil to say— preferential treatment for the development and marketing and use of alternative fuels— for example, solar, wind just the tip of the iceberg? Maybe even give preferential treatment to the sale and use of non-fossil-fuel based vehicles. Maybe send this money as a grant to institutions to come up with alternative uses of energy— even maybe the set up of eco communities?

1b. what other ways do you think we should do to reduce our oil dependence?

1c. what do you think should be done going forward— in terms of our country’s energy need.

1d. what is your stand on the notion that today’s answer to oil should be in leap ahead ideas?

2. The president spoke against critics of her government’s policy on importing of rice. She cited that this has been the norm since the Spanish were here. She also cited that our rice fields are perennially on the path of storms and typhoons even as she cited She cited that during her term we’ve increased rice production per annum.

2a. Do you agree with her? If yes, why? What is she doing right?

2b. If you disagree, what do you think should be done instead?

2c. What is your stand on Agrarian reform? is it working? if it isn’t what do you think should be done instead?

3. The President failed (i’d say turned a blind eye entire) to touch on the recent Sulpicio tragedy. Not to mention the perennial cost of floods and storms and rain not just in Manila. I’m talking about the cost of classes being canceled on account of weather. i’m talking about the delay and loss in business transactions because of floods. i’m talking about the cost in lives that could be averted had we have better information. Does the government have figures on annual cost of such waste?

3a. It seems our ability to predict the weather is surprisingly stuck in the 20th century. Would it be possible to simply outsource our weather bureau?
3b. What do you think should be done to improve its present state?
3c. it is outside your current job description but i’d like to know your opinion on our water pumps seem to be filled with garbage and what ought to be done with it..

4. On Mindanao. It is a beautiful place, rich with possibilities and opportunities. The President seem to lean heavily on peace talks, instead of guns. Yet time and time again, the Armed Forces has forced these “terrorists” close to extinction, then we pull back. Would you agree with the assessment that these groups ought to be named bandits, and neither terrorist nor even Muslim extremist?

4a. In your humble opinion, what should be done with the political problem that is Mindanao? How can this country pull that area out and have it firing on all cylinders?
4b. Is federalism the answer?
4c. in a slightly out of topic discussion:

(i’m good if this isn’t answered)— a recent discussion over at a blog— Jon Taplin, on the Cost of Empire (the American empire) link is here: http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/the-cost-of-empire/

critiqued the Americans, saying “War on Terror” shouldn’t really be called a war. that it fools people to thinking Terror requires a military solution. he says that these groups ought to be named bandits. That the problem is a counter-terroristim/law enforcement one, rather than a Military solution.

everyone seem to be going through metal detectors as a precaution. but mall inspections are hardly useful in detecting threats.

4d. what is your opinion with regard to terrorism and what do you think should be done with it in the country?
4e. have we cultivated a culture of fear?

5. Do you think deregulating the transport sector to be a wise move? Let every jeep, taxi, bus operator determine for themselves what they ought to charge their passengers.

6. Graft. Everyone hates it. We all agree it is the elephant in the room that prevents development. Policing it seem to be a shot in the dark, what would you say, if we made graft legal? legislate that commissions and “for the boys” be official government policy— top it at 10% and make it all taxable.  Every consultant, every government official will be allowed to receive a commission for a job well done. it also leaves a clear cut playing field for corporations dealing with government to appropriately price their offer.

7. The president seem fond of intervening in the market place.  take her recent deal with the telecoms— text at 50 centavos. and her push against meralco. what is your position on this? Do you think government should intervene in the market place? How much, or how far should government be an active participant?

Lastly…

8. The country has a lot of hope— i’d like to think in spades. Given our recent political problems and the low trust rating given to the President—- there is also a lot of apathy with regard to government.  In my humble opinion, it isn’t hope we need it is Courage. Given your position as a legislator and maybe something else entire in the future—- and knowing the challenges facing this country going forward, what would you do? what would you do differently?

The Mar who would be the Man

By Abe N. Margallo

If someone is looking for certain specific actionable programs of governance in “A Fresh Start on the Filipino Dream,” he is likely to be disappointed.

What appears to be a policy speech that bears the upbeat title above was delivered “during this continuing crisis” by Senator Manuel (“Mar”) A. Roxas on the occasion of the “Fourth Jaime V. Ongpin Annual Memorial Lecture On Public Service in Business and Government” at Ateneo de Manila University on October 12, 2005.

The rhetoric on leadership was aplenty in the speech, no doubt. But we hear them too every so often from run-of-the-mill Filipinos who do not have any ambition for high office, as some political junkies or bloggers like us, for instance, or even from the high-flying student who graduated at the top of the class during commencement exercises. And Mar Roxas is none of them not only that he is a top-notch senator of the Republic (the total votes he garnered during the last senatorial elections were unprecedented), but also because many believe he is the one Filipino who is most likely to win the next Philippine presidential elections.

Hence, despite the notion, obviously thematic in the speech, of leadership as “all about taking personal responsibility,” it is fair for his countrymen to expect from him as a leader to tell something more concrete about how “to deliver us out of this quagmire” and achieve the elusive Filipino dream.

Exclusive of the variable of individual hard work, self-sacrifice or initiative that Senator Roxas has thoroughly touched upon in his message, the great debate on how to attain the Filipino good society is also focused, as the Wharton-educated politician is certainly supposed to be familiar with, on whether the vehicle to rely upon on the whole would be the government or the market.

Recall that President Arroyo had been straightforward on this issue at the very outset of her presidential career. “During my administration,” she announced at her first Vin D’Honor on January 21, 2001, “democracy and the market will be the guiding principles of my domestic and foreign policies” (although two years later, Arroyo flip-flopped in a dramatic way saying that “unbridled globalization is no longer in vogue,” globalization being meant, it would seem, as the agency that will carry the ball towards the utopia of the good society built around a free market).

On the other hand, presidential timber Mar Roxas showed his state-interventionist bent as a congressman at least as regards one critical piece of legislation, the Retail Trade Liberalization law: he was accused of inserting protectionist clauses in the law.

As Trade and Industry Secretary, Mar Roxas allowed another glimpse of where he could be on the ideological divide during a brush with then Finance Secretary Alberto Romulo on the question of giving government incentives to investors. Roxas saw “jobs generated,” as well as “foreign exchange” and “technology transfer” created by the incentives whereas Romulo decried the “foregone revenues.” And when Roxas perceived that the Philippine tuna has been subjected to tariff discrimination (by the US) in favor of the Latin American package, still as DTI Secretary he threatened (indeed a gutsy move by a former Wall Street investment banker) to withdraw Philippine membership from WTO.

Is there something more discernible about Mar Roxas’ predilections from his Jaime Ongpin memorial lecture? Let’s vet closer what he said:

Our social compact is premised on the basic idea is (sic) that if people put something into their life, they should get something reasonably gainful out of it. We all “bought” into this bargain and we look to the government as the chief implementer of the same. This is a simple but basic bargain that seems to work in meritocracies like the US and Singapore, but here in the Philippines, the gap between effort and output has steadily widened.

The first sentence I believe is a nuanced manifesto of economic liberalism (which argues that since men are the best judge of their own limits and capacities, it follows that the most rational use of the resources available to them will happen if they are allowed to follow their pursuits under conditions of free competition). This also dovetails with Mar Roxas’ conception of “leader and leadership (being) within us.” The second sentence which “look(s) to the government as the chief implementer of the (bargain)” is therefore a non sequitur (italics mine); it smacks of protectionism (or the old policy of mercantilism, the granting of special privileges to merchants and manufacturers to encourage the development of commerce and industry).

Shouldn’t the suggestion that the meritocratic system in the US and Singapore are normative bother us too? (In the US government subsidies to wealthy farmers or aircraft manufacturers are mind-boggling and Singapore, as is well-known, is a single-party government.)

What else did we learn from and about Mar?

Everywhere else in the world today, governments are gearing up to meet the challenges of the 21st century: the challenges of globalization, of integration, of achieving economies of scale. Nations are identifying and building up their comparative advantages—whether these be in agriculture, in manufacturing, or in high technology or science.

…

Or we can decide to truly make the domestic industry competitive: this will mean overhauling our thinking and premises on our economy. This will also mean adjusting our tariff policy, our energy policy, and our agriculture policy, among others.

Now, we are getting the point: government must meet the challenge of globalization in order “to truly make the domestic industry competitive ….”

If we haven not realized it yet, the phenomenon of globalization is the engine of turbocapitalism that is running over the traditional role of government in domestic affairs by the ascendancy of transnational forces erected around free market. Globalization sees the “withering away” of nation-states that surrender their powers to non-elected technocrats and rationalistic global actors like the IMF, WB, WTO and multinational players such as the TNCs. Globalization is therefore the antithesis of Rostovian developmentalism which relies upon governmental intervention “to provide the enabling, nurturing and invigorating environment within which private initiative and industry, meaning people taking responsibility for their lives, can grow and be properly rewarded,” to borrow the language of Senator Roxas.

But with Mar’s belief in government as chief implementer of the bargain, doesn’t this one rather sound contextually oxymoronic just as the first quotation above?

Let government heed and respond to the people’s natural willingness to do the best and the right things for themselves and their children. Instead of telling people what to do and what not to do, the national leadership has to listen—to suffer criticism, if need be—if only to repair the floor upon which we all stand as a nation.

Or maybe just a safe political rhetoric from the Mar who would be the Man.

_____

NOTE:

In response to Dean Jorge Bocobo in the comment thread, I have further written the following:

I guess unstated in the above piece is my perception of Mar Roxas as possessing the tribalism of a leader as shown by his outburst against the WTO during the tuna controversy and the cosmopolitanism of a manager when he saw government perks to investors as net gains instead of “revenues foregone.”

Also, Mar took his time seeking a senate seat and he was the first in the cabinet to abandon the Estrada ship. These rare behaviors (rare among political hacks in Philippine politics) make me think he can distinguish power (the ability to attain goals) from domination.

A Wharton education could be as disarming (to Big Uncle) as a West Point attendance, hence that places him at par with FVR. And if I remember correctly, Mar was one of the few senatorial candidates who looked at People Power with reverence (and that too is disarming to the activists).

Here’s what I think places him ahead of the whole pack (which means including FVR). He recognizes that incrementalism “during this continuing crisis” is not enough. And if US thinks extreme poverty among Filipinos is as bad to RP as to US, then Mar is the Man. Here’s what Mar on this score said in his speech:

“But here in the Philippines, we remain hobbled by an incrementalist, piecemeal frame of mind that will have spent more than P4 trillion over the last 5 years and will spend a trillion pesos next year without making any appreciable impact on society. We have amassed more than 4 trillion pesos of public debt for all kinds of programs and projects, and yet we hardly feel like a country striding forward into a bright new future.

“Beyond the politics of the moment, we need a common objective that we can all rally behind as a matter of national survival and as our strategy for leaping forward in this century.”

Against the above standard, FVR, GMA and other presidential wannabes are incrementalists.

It is up to US too to meet Mar’s challenge, because like GMA, Mar could turn to the awaking giant in the neighborhood to partner with for his country’s sake, with one big difference between the two: the China card would be an economic decision for him, not a gambit for sheer political survival.

So, please RSVP, hopefully someone can Video Blog the session too. Any volunteers welcome..