Over a hundred years ago, a Republic was born. It was born amidst a era of nationalism. It wasn’t a unique idea. It was borrowed from Western thought. And a people, like many across the world wanted to self-govern. That Republic was short-lived and it became a Commonwealth of the Americans. But the dream never died. Filipinos wanted to self-govern.
Then came war. Filipinos and Americans shed blood on the field of battle, united, for their own reason, against a common foe. When both people stood atop the ruin of Manila, we cheered in union at victory. The ties would bind these two nations. And this brotherhood would forever tie two nations together. Then another Republic would be born. It would be a nation that borrowed heavily on the American standard. That legacy continues to this day.
Can’t you help but think that was the Dream?
There are two fundamental questions that the Filipino, consciously or not has been asking. First, why is the country’s politics is so broken? It therefore leads to the question, is the “Form of Government,” wrong? The second question: the government insist that the nation is on the path to growth and all the numbers indicate as much, yet clearly, it has not translated for many Filipinos.
The obvious response to the first question leads inevitably to corruption. While the infestation of corruption is a cancer that has spread across every strata of Philippine society, and continues to devour and gnaw at our society’s spirt, it isn’t the root cause of evil. The root cause is that Philippine politics is fueled by a closed elitist franchise. It can be likened to closed software development. Without new blood to fuel new ideas, to invigorate the system, it becomes stagnant and rot sets in.
The answer to the second question runs just as parallel. In fact, the Office of the Chief Economist of the World Bank published a policy research on “Rising Growth, Declining Investment: The Puzzle of the Philippines“. The paper noted that the Filipino economy is vibrantly open to trade and capital inflows. Market-based economic reforms were implemented. Liberalization of oil, telecommunications, domestic shipping, acceptance of foreign direct investment, the privatization of government assets and the strengthening of central bank independence were all done. Even as the numbers show that growth rate has been above population growth and though only average when compared to the Philippines’ neighbors, it has been the highest in 40 years, the paper noted.
Yet something is amiss. Why isn’t it translating for most Filipinos?
The answer according to the same policy paper is that while foreign direct investment has fallen since the 1990s, the local market has not picked up the slack. Big Business has refused to reinvest substantially. The World Bank blames the lack of reinvestment on lack of incentives to do so. Businesses are profiting now, so why go out of the way to reinvest capital more than necessary? The rot sets in.
Let’s take a leap: if this policy paper is true, then a call for “economic reform” in the constitution become moot. Because it isn’t foreign direct investment that needs to be driven, it is the domestic business that needs to be invigorated.
The policy paper recommended a three-prong approach:
To sustain development in the long term, the economy needs a competitive diversification: from the distortions induced by the oligopolistic conglomerates to a market-driven expansion of non-traditional products. To bypass the foreseeable resistance of the well-established rent-seekers, the government should follow a phased strategy:
a. First, promote the production and export of non-traditional manufacturing and services, by getting the economic zones to perform better (Box 1), and pursuing a competitive real exchange rate;
b. Second, increase revenues, to finance the needed boost in infrastructure and education spending; and
c. Third, implement gradual reforms to tackle the rent-seeking conglomerate economy, to lower the cost of strategic inputs.
Clearly the first suggestion can be done by government and well within its function. The second— to increase revenues to finance infrastructure development and education spending has utterly failed. The reason is that infrastructure isn’t being built at a faster pace. Education spending is years behind. The third, the government has failed utterly to reform in the conglomerate economy to lower cost of strategic inputs. The price of electricity is the highest in asia and remains a huge problem.
Before you continue, you might think of this as yet another attempt to say “problem”. Think of all these as… opportunities.
Let us talk about education.
In A case study of the decentralization of health and education services in the Philippines, Joseph J. Capuno recommended ten ways for the Department of Education to adapt a more decentralized policy of education based on what the Department of Health has learned:
Tenth, promote minimum service standards more than best practices. As another way to promote the quality of local health services, the DOH both tried to implementminimum service standards and to encourage best practices. Promoting best practices of course encourage innovations in service delivery and financing. Replicating the best practices in other areas however proved to be difficult partly because it is hard to standardize the practice so that they can be adopted elsewhere. In contrast, minimum service standards are more easily and widely enforced. This is what happened in the case of the Sentrong Sigla Movement. The Sentrong Sigla seal of quality proved to be enough incentive to many LGUs to upgrade their health facilities. In practice, however, the best among the SS certified facilities are also awarded and given cash gifts. Nonetheless, its unique design both raises minimum service quality and promotes outstanding practices.
With limited resources, there are ways for the government to improve services. And while that only goes so far, is there a grand strategic plan in place that uses heavily what the civil service already know that the grand scheme of the government can implement together?
Let’s talk about infrastructure development.
What exactly are we building again? The old fashioned, tried and tested “build farm to market” roads is of course most certainly on top of that list. And yet, infrastructure isn’t what it used to be. With the coming of the Internet, its penetration spreads information. New techniques in farming for example can be spread across. Businesses can be communicated online. Where once infrastructure is the providence mainly of government, telecommunication is a private enterprise. It goes without saying that that most certainly, “build it and they will come” does not apply to the farthest regions of the Philippines. Power and Water are scarce enough there, Internet and the devices that run on it, would likewise be utterly useless.
So where does this leave us?
Just as in politics, the Philippines needs to create an open, more free and enable that politics so that Filipinos can better engage in it, not just during an election but before it, the domestic economy needs to be invigorated. If this means, a reform of banks to help finance projects on the micro and macro level to spur innovation in the small and medium scale enterprise. These are the sectors that need invigorating. These are the sectors that need to be opened up to help fuel the services that government need to fund.
What’s happening now is that as government increases taxes (not necessarily make it more efficient), it squeezes too far. It becomes detrimental already to invest in building technologies in the philippines because of high cost of electricity and high cost of labor.
American CEO and Co-founder of Apple and Pixar (now Disney’s largest shareholder) Steve Jobs once gave a commencement speech before Standford University graduates. He talked about connecting the dots and how what he learned about typography in college was later applied to the mac. He talked about love and loss, how he got kicked out of the company he built, how character building that was. How he found love when he left Apple. How all the things he learned away from the company he built would later be the core of Apple’s renaissance. He talked about death and all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure fall away in the face of death and remembering you might die is the best way to avoid the trap of thinking there is something to lose. “If you’re already naked: there’s no reason to not follow your heart”, he said. That wasn’t the best advice he gave. He said:
“Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.”
When I was young, there was an amazing publication called The Whole Earth Catalog, which was one of the bibles of my generation. It was created by a fellow named Stewart Brand not far from here in Menlo Park, and he brought it to life with his poetic touch. This was in the late 1960′s, before personal computers and desktop publishing, so it was all made with typewriters, scissors, and polaroid cameras. It was sort of like Google in paperback form, 35 years before Google came along: it was idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions.
Stewart and his team put out several issues of The Whole Earth Catalog, and then when it had run its course, they put out a final issue. It was the mid-1970s, and I was your age. On the back cover of their final issue was a photograph of an early morning country road, the kind you might find yourself hitchhiking on if you were so adventurous. Beneath it were the words: “Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.” It was their farewell message as they signed off.
I gave the example of Jobs because, here is a guy who clearly keeps going. He’s a master of continuous innovation even when it isn’t obvious to innovate. That’s what our businesses— big or small need that in spite of the lack of incentive, it must find a way to profit and continuously change it. The same with politics.
More than a dream, we need an ideal: whether it is politics, or economics, the answer to the Philippines’ challenges is to surrender all our fears and our doubts, to design a nation that is liberal in what it receives and conservative in what it says. We have to be hungry. We have to be foolish.
*sorry forgot to give a shout out to @caffeinesparks and @mlq3 for the pdfs! Thank you for those links!
Popularity: 1% [?]
coy,
Thank you for this.
The challenge you’ve posited is most encouraging, and you did it without belittling the Filipino.
You inspire.
thank you. hope it does. i believe we have to help each other. who else after all?
First question: why is the country’s politics is so broken? It therefore leads to the question, is the “Form of Government,” wrong?
I don’t think there is anything wrong with the form of Government. It is how the constituents of said Government regard their role in it.
A democracy is necessarily participatory. You need to participate intelligently in order for said government to exhibit the properties of intelligence. After four decades of democracy, the landscape of political parties in our society have not converged or organised any semblance of ideology. Instead our political parties have progressively lost their ideological underpinnings and organised more around people and winnability machines.
When political parties are organised this way, and when voters vote this way, how on Earth can we expect a Government that functions on the basis of national objectives? What we see today — a Government that functions mainly around personal interests, simply reflects the participation of the constituents around personalities.
Indeed as you say Cocoy: “More than a dream, we need an ideal[...]“. To that I might propose that we need our political parties — and politicians — to have ideals. More importantly though, we want our voters to have the intelligence, attitude, and ethic of habitually sinking their teeth into the evaluation of said ideals. This latter one is where the REAL challenge lies — developing the collective character to respond in an intelligent manner when presented with IDEAS.
If by some miracle our politicians become ideas people and our parties start organising around ideals, all that will count for NOTHING if the people do not respond in kind by stepping up in the way they respond to these (for that matter that miracle will not happen if they do not see that wherewithal to think in their constituents either). Chicken-and-egg.
Second question: the government insist that the nation is on the path to growth and all the numbers indicate as much, yet clearly, it has not translated for many Filipinos[...]
I wrote once in this piece:
(last sentence in bold and some words capitalised for emphasis)
Our society is not lacking in industrialists and capitalists. The trouble lies in the reality that the output of the exceptionally productive minority has to be shared by a sub-standardly productive majority.
It’s like a rich family whose fortunes are accounted for mainly by the enterprising father. Unfortunately his kids have not inherited his enterprising ethic. And so, though the household is wealthy, and the kids drive around in nice shiny cars, the actual production and wealth-creating capability remains disproportionally distributed.
Perhaps in the above example, this is by no fault of the kids. After all, wealth creation and a knack for making money is a talent or aptitude. In the same way that not everyone can be great musicians or artists, perhaps not everyone can be great money-makers.
But then skills can be learnt. Maybe not raw talent, but definitely skills.
Do we as a people aspire to be great badly enough to acquire the wherewithal to learn the skills needed to prosper? ;)
yep. i understand where you are coming from. i also know that it is easier said than done. lots of hard work ahead.
A gem.
very interesting.
i rememeber that steve jobs speech from a blog or two by benign0.(living by the results of other people’s thinking)
The worse thing that a Doctor can do to a patient is to cure the
symptoms; instead of the disease or illness. We have a lot of
ills in our country. One of this is too much politics. The Constitution is just a Document. Its provisions are nothing, unless
they are implemented correctly. You can put the best sounding
provisions there. But, if the Mindsets of those in power are still:
What are we in power for? Eveything is defeated.
The illness is not in the Document. It is our Leaders, our politicians and us.
This is pure baloney.
First, there is no pestering calls. The elite took on the default role of amassing and/or cornering political and economic wealth and power with nary a peep from the masses.
Second, what acts of heroism? To be more responsible and just is a social obligation. To whom much is given, much is expected. That is not a call for heroism, that is a call for responsibility. If we erect the barometer of heroism on our current crop of elite it would certainly fall on the scale.
Third, you are here taking to task the poor ignorant masses but it is exactly because they are poor and ignorant that they wouldn’t know any better. It is a weakness inherent in their being poor and ignorant. Would it not be the right approach then for a responsible government to rectify this aberration instead of adopting and creating a cultural norm of exploiting this same weakness to perpetuate the ruling elite’s hold on power and wealth? What we are seeing here instead is the systematic bastardization of human life. No thanks to the elitist policy and imposition of a culture that keeps the masses motivated by nothing more than the need to eat and have sex, a primal motivation we share with cockroaches and dogs.
Certainly Benigno, you should know better than this.
Superb point of view.
Happy PhilAm Day. Heard two firecrackers in my neighborhood last night, and following protocol for such untoward noises, I dove under the bed.
My perspective usually offends, I am learning (thanks for the Onion Skin reference Benign0, it helps me understand where at least some of the brickbats are coming from). But what the hell . . .
Somewhere else on FV I compared US racism and Philippine corruption, both cultural flaws deeply ingrained, and both defended to the hilt by those we would consider offenders, the racists and the corrupt. The US has a body, the Civil Liberties Union, a group of progressive lawyers that that attacked the government relentlessly about racism and other wrongs (and still does). Eventually, laws were written to rectify things (equal opportunity employment, affirmative action, etc). And soon, “culture” adjusted to the laws. The Philippines appears to have no such recourse, as the courts seem horribly inefficient at addressing controversial cases, and especially cases where the offenders are the government folk, proper. And the lawyers, I am told, are from time to time a part of the corruption, too.
But the Presidential elections may present an opportunity for “voters “ – at least loud, abrasive ones – to put their agenda before the candidates, and try to wring a commitment out of candidates for certain achievements. Most candidates actually listen during elections because they want votes.
In the case of corruption, something like “get rid of corruption” is so horribly bland, it becomes like Ms. Arroyo’s “GMA cares” slogan. Meaningless. It is everywhere, it is understood, it is boring. It will be recited by every candidate in bland, boring ways. Motherhood and apple pie, we say in the US. Who can argue?
I think the issue needs to be made more specific, more tangible. Like the book blockade bust-up was. But it has to move the country a notch forward. Or a stride, even better. As an example, pursue “equal opportunity employment”, with a twist different than the US race twist. Seek to gain a commitment from candidates to put in place a law that says hiring must be on the basis of demonstrated capability, period. And friendship and family are not an appropriate basis for hiring. Get it simple, black and white, and get the candidate’s commitment to make it law.
Maybe you can come up with a better one.
But a fundamentally hard-working people demanding fair and just and equal “opportunity” for those good workers? That is righteous. Who can say no, in the heat of election, if it is demanded loudly and clearly enough?
It would be a BIG stride forward to bust up culturally entrenched corruption.
Joe
Participatory democracy.
When the time comes when a constituent can write his/her congressman or even mayor and that said letter is to be acknowledged publicly, that would be the day.
Others are even proposing for a direct democracy= no congressmen.
We are not short of ideas and proposals,some good ideas get shot down,or some ideas get tried but not really tested.
We have a good model in gawad kalinga that got killed by an internal squabble.
Gawad Kalinga is not just about building houses, it also has a bottom-up up governance model.
For administrations, we are supposed to have continuity plans by NEDA that continues from administration to administration,but after every election we are back to the drawing board, as if nothing was proposed before hand.
Or we fix what is not broken, a good program out of a good idea
gets killed because some one will claim , that his idea is better, so what happens again is a wasted “good program” from “good ideas”.
i have to say that comment above by benign0 is one of his best. bravo.
And this brings us all the way back to an earlier “discussion”. It would be great if the opposition parties come up with more than an anti-GMA stance. They need, I propose, to construct an actual platform with a vision, goals and specific policies for achieving them.
That would be good for everyone.
there are platforms aplenty but no common one.
mlq3,
Really? I remember looking at the LP’s platform from 2004 (written by Abad, if I remember correctly) and it was a long rambling series of contradictory motherhood statements.
A platform really isn’t much without specific policies which fit together in order to attain certain goals.
In your opinion, mlq3, which party do you think offers that right now?
I just read the LP’s platform — “The Liberal Vision”. Nothing once again. No tangible goals; no specifics at all.
I could barely find anything from the NP. “Economic independence” was briefly uttered by Remulla.
The NPC? According to Legarda, she will deliver a vision of “good governance, sustainable development, transparency and accountability to the people.”
UNO? I didn’t see anything.
Am I just not looking in the right places?
reality, possibly, though i myself don’t pay much attention to the party platforms because really there’s only one party with a real platform, and that’s the communist party. all the rest among the mainstream political parties are iterations of the big three: jobs, education, and health.
i am not sure if you can put together a party or political action platform heavily laden with specifics because government and governance isn’t a business. personally i’ve only been involved with NGO efforts such as that for Black and White,
http://www.blacknwhite-movement.com/alpha/reform.php
And also for One Voice. This is only to point out that the political parties no longer exist in a vacuum, and that the political sphere now includes besides the political parties, other associations, whether explicitly partisan or not.
A helpful set of documents are the following, which were compiled for a conference undertaken by the Ateneo School of Government to help put together a reform constituency and consensus, with 2010 in mind.
the first is the discussion guide presented to participants:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8745654/RTD-Guide
the second, is a matrix comparing the positions and advocacies of different groups with regards to proposals for political reforms:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8745660/InventoryPolitical-Reform-Agenda
the third, concerning, specifically, electoral reforms:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8745657/Inventory-Electoral-Reform-Agenda
the fourth, a specific rundown of the proposals put forward by former chief justice davide and presented to the president:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8745659/Recommendations-Bills-and-Government-Agenda-on-Political-and-Elect
for background on reform of ghe bureaucracy, here’s a report put together by the research staff of the senate:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8747335/Reengineering-the-Bureaucracy-Issues-and-Problems
and finally, from the conference, edna co’s presentation on where all the various reform efforts were, as of last year:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8745650/Edna-Co-Presentation
you might be able to glean the answers to some of your questions concerning the mainstream parties from the above documents.
mlq3,
Before digging through all of that, let me respond to your statement:
“i am not sure if you can put together a party or political action platform heavily laden with specifics because government and governance isn’t a business.”
—————
Wait. The US Democratic Party’s platform you linked earlier had a lot of specifics. Why do you think that can’t be replicated here? I can name some relevant issues just off the top of my head….
Taxes — VAT? If yes, at what %? If no, how to pay for gov social programs? Corp tax rate? Any plans like the Lateral Transition Act?
MILF — Seek peace or get tough?
ChaCha? ConAss? ConCon? Parliament? Federalism? Foreign ownership?
Family Planning Bill?
Less or more incentives for foreign investment?
Mining and Ecology issues?
And so on…….
Reality:
Joe’s platform, based on your questions:
VAT stays the same; budget is enhanced by steps to make sure moneys are spent well, on the highest PUBLIC need, returning the greatest long term value (no leakage to bloated construction contracts)
MILF: 60 days to receive issues from MILF; 60 days for my Gov to respond; violence will be met 10 fold (get tough)
A Constitutional Assembly or whatever you want to call it that includes scholars and elders to draft a nice, tight, profound constitution that will last for years: form of government: parliamentary federalism of the corporate form
Yes, Family Planning Bill. Definitively no abortions.
More incentives for foreign investment; reduced paperwork, less harassment, but clear control to keep money in the Philippines; nationalize PLDT and similar companies abusing their public service charter
National Mining company; high focus on global warming and resource management.
Keep them coming. This is easy.
Joe
Umm, Joe…we’re talking about whether or not the parties can develop THEIR OWN platform……not whether or not we like YOUR platform.
SecCom Reality,
Ah . . . maybe it is too early for them. Maybe they argue too much and can’t agree. I suspect that is one drawback of a “party of personality” over a “party of principle”. A party of principle would have almost “automatic” stances on issues that favors, for instance, bigger government over smaller (US democratic), or helping companies vs helping workers (US republican).
Well, it seems to me an easy thing to do, but you know me, charging off half-baked when others want the full cake, nicely iced, pretty candles.
But thanks for reining me in. Glad you are working holidays.
Cheers.
Joe
Yep, exactly what I said, but I also said that we need to build a real Conservative party. Ito yung kailangan talaga. Marami nang silent constituents, madali pang ibenta.
incidentally, though, it would do good for our parties to have documents like these:
http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1945/1945-labour-manifesto.shtml
or
http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html
Yeah, I’m anticipating that this will be an election where the voters will be more demanding and more careful.
If they indeed are, it would be a pity if the parties don’t give them some solid differentiation but remain personality-oriented only.
If the parties do a good job at laying down the specifics, it would be a pity if the voters don’t discern much and fall into the same old patterns/traps.
And that is basically what Benign0 and several others at FV have written recently in various shapes and sizes.
Might it be that we are all on the same page? Is that possible? Is that ALLOWED? :-) LOL
Hindi dokumento. You just need to see the obvious–what is the Filipino–then find people to represent the obvious. Sabihin natin, anti-premarital sex, anti-foreign influence, anti-gay LIFESTYLE (though pro-gay human), pro-censorship. For example lang. Imagine how many people will vote for you, even if you are an unknown.
Our representative government doesn’t work simply because the people aren’t truly represented. The POV of the masses has been labeled as irrelevant since the beginning of the republic. Lack of accountability in politics, therefore, only a symptom of this most fundamental political disconnect.
“…the people aren’t truly represented.”
Umm…how did Erap win again?
This is going to be a clean election. People’s votes DO count. Just look at the recent US Presidential results to see how much each and every vote counts.
reality, in a sense, yes, it does seem there’s the potential for being on the same page.
Real elections. Real issues. Real choices.
Tama na. Sobra na. Aral na.
reality, we differed on definitions of specifics. i’d assumed you;d have thought the democratic or labor platforms weren’t specific enough.
mlq3,
The Democrats organize the issues well and delve into the specifics — committing $50 billion for roads and other basic infrastructure, health coverage for every person, insurance portability, getting out of Iraq immediately, etc. These positions are the opposite of those of the Republicans.
Anyway, the point still stands — the opposition parties would do themselves and the public a big favor by offering a vision, tangible goals and specific policies. Running on “I’m anti-GMA” is empty rhetoric and leaves open the possibility of simply changing from one bad choice to another…without using the power of votes to establish a meaningful national direction into the future.
The aspired for platforms are surely ideal with the premise that Philippine electoral politics will have voters ‘tuned in’ on the issues and the imperatives for genuine and equitable development with the long-marginalized segments of society being reintegrated into the socio-economic body-politic.
But so long us Filipino themselves are drawn simply by personalistic attachments and ‘panandaliang-aliw’ inducement and ‘promising’ (good at motherhood-promises) politicos the “hungry and the foolish” cannot hold their breath.
Lahat kailangang malinawan, at magbago.
Ding,
You sound like Benign0 then, no? The voters aren’t tuned in or contemplative, the politicians just need to BS and spend during elections and thus the nation gets what it deserves. Is that it?
Following that line of resoning, then why not have the LGU’s, the House and the Presidency all under one leader and one party? At least they can all move in a unified direction? Why are people complaining about GMA and Lakas?
Or…Pinas is better off with a dictatorship, because the people aren’t bright enough to vote for themselves then, right?
————–
I guess I’m an optimist, because I think change is possible. I don’t see why the parties can’t be pressured by a noisy minority to develop real platforms.
But gee…where are we going to find a small noisy group that likes to scream??? :-)
RC,
It’s a cool rainy Sunday so I’ll go my your closing smiley that you don’t mean to insult me by making that comparison. :)
But seriously it is not about screaming and surely not about being part of “a small noisy group.”
While we have tangled on issues, I still respect you.
Don’t give me reason to think otherwise.
Ding,
No, I have no intention nor reason to insult you. I have no problem if we disagree on anything…I’m even willing to consider things from your point of view. I only dislike the guys who won’t debate but resort to ad hominems. You are not one of those types from what I know.
My joke (yes, hence the smiley) is that I always complain about a core anti-GMA group which I think yells too much…and I was acting like I don’t know of any “small noisy group”.
If you have to explain a joke, it’s a bad one. Sorry.
But there was meaning behind the comment as well. Basically I am hearing excuses from some anti-GMA corners about why a good platform (with specifics) can’t be done (or it’s not worthwhile). Some even got angry with me because I said that being only “Down with GMA!” might lead to election losses.
Anyway, I DO want the opposition parties to get their act together and I DO believe that it can be done and that it will help everybody.
You will note I’ve posted by story on that so-called August Moon ‘plot’.
RC,
Unless GMA insists on landing in the Parliament her subalterns are thinking of conjuring up and become PM “to retain immunity from suit,” as is being pointed out today by retire SC Justice Isagani Cruz here:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20090705-213907/Plans-for-her-legal-immunity ,there should me no valid reason for anyone to continue villifying her.
Immunity from what?
There will have to be solid evidence. I haven’t heard of any. Meanwhile, the FG isn’t immune…but he hasn’t been successfully pursued. And he has been accused of many more things than GMA.
What should GMA be so afraid of that she has to go through all of this rigamarole?
Knew you’d say that, and to be ‘fair’, you are technically correct. That’s also why I gave you the link to Justice Cruz’s column.
Care to write PDI a letter?
You think the jurist is just being “noisy”?
Incidentally, and I say this with a :) , you know where good blinders can be had?
Ahh-yuk-yuk-yuk.
Listen, I didn’t say whether or not GMA is guilty…I’m just saying that there’s no imminent threat that anyone can see/name.
If there is no threat, why are people asuming GMA feels threatened? It’s illogical. (Unless one is wearing blinders, that is.) :-)
You should go out more often :)
I hope your bed-weather Sunday is going well.
BTW,
In the mood to youtube?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxP1K0kzU_Q
So that’s her crime? She didn’t even reveal details — to her male spokesman — about her private body parts?
Really, Ding, what’s the answer to the serious question: Why will GMA need immunity?
We’ll see how the dice rolls after she steps down, won’t we?
Ding,
That doesn’t answer the question: If there is no credible threat from criminal prosecution — since there is no specific case with any hard evidence (that we know of)…
…then why would GMA have to go through so much effort to obtain immunity??? It’s illogical.
——————
Now, if some of the rumors floating around are based on the speculation that GMA is manipulating events to obtain immunity, then it follows that those rumors are baseless.
So then why do these rumors exist in the first place?
reality, i don’t know if the mainstream parties would even run on a anti-gma issue per se; or put another way, they’d be pragmatically inclined against it. escudero for one has been trying to argue that gma will be finished as an issue come 2010. 2010 after all is when all the parties would need the president most. but as some members of lakas have been showing, the question of collaboration with the president is simply too juicy to let go, for many of the same reasons the issue of collaboration with the japanese took 20 years to die down and so did the issue of collaboration with marcos.
if the slight cases of disengagement you see happening with lakas leaders is any guide, nograles and defensor, for example, who have to look to the succession in their districts, have been showing signs of looking forward to gma stepping down, if only because their putative successors aren’t as entrenched or they or they actually consider there might be some sort of fallout, locally, in the general realignment everyone expects, then nationally there is the inconvenient scenario where national candidates, particularly from the administration, might end up tarred and feathered with the collaboration issue.
this is where your question of what gma has to fear comes in. personally i think the public is pretty straightforward with ex-presidents; they generally ignore them and the instincts of people are to let things be -but that is, in ordinary times. these have not been ordinary times. the president broke a cardinal rule of national politics, which is that as much as possible todays ins let yesterday’s outs alone, so they can focus on getting things done. that era is gone forever. each president will now be haunted by the anti-plunder law, which is non-bailable, and so to be charged is to go to jail, whether or not you end up acquitted in the end or not. that is the problem, politically, for the president: whether she is confident of eventual acquittal is beside the point; to be charged is to go to jail and she has caused enough of a ruckus to ensure she will definitely be charged. and it would require spending political capital, early on, for a new president to find an unembarrassing way out for his or her predecessor, and i don’t know if any president would think it worthwhile to start sinking, popularity-wise, and get bogged down in refighting the divisions of 2001 to the present, for the sake of the most unpopular president this country has every had.
mlq3,
I’m not sure I can link your points together.
Because some Lakas types might get hit during the elections (and even afterwards, regradless of victory/defeat) for “colloborating” with GMA, then this will raise the chances of her being charged???
What do the Congressmen have to do with the Sandiganbayan?
————-
And plunder is non-bailable so GMA will go to jail as soon as someone yells “j’accuse!”??? I would think there needs to be some strong evidence included with any accusations. Which charges do you foresee and with what evidence?
—————
Also…are you saying that since GMA put Erap on trial, that broke a rule of some sort…and now each Prez will jail the last Prez?
Manolo,
Your patience in explaining this to someone with blinders on is most admirable.
Either I must be getting old or my BS meter is finely tuned. :)
psssst, Ding, you still haven’t answered the simple question: Why should GMA be worried about getting immunity when there hasn’t been enough evidence gathered to even successfully charge her?
The fact that you keep making jokes and have started accusing me of wearing blinders…rather than just answering the simple question directly…..well, what does that say? Why don’t you answer?
BS is to disregard, dismiss or distort facts. Where is the BS to which you refer?
Alam mo, and this is my last reply given your blinders:
There were 4 – FOUR impeachment complaints all killed off by GMA’s congressional minions, with the 4th supported by journalist bloggers, mlq3 gallantly among them.
If you care to see the congressional archieves you will find the case briefs there.
But I guess you’re not interested.
Yes my BS meter is working.
Be well.
Ding,
I hope a good night’s sleep has reinvigorated your brain.
As you know, I am unaware of the impeachment charges. I am also aware that they lacked much supportive evidence other than hearsay.
Trying to use the theory that GMA was ultimately in charge and thus responsible for evil doings during her tenure (“command responsibility’) is a very difficult rope to climb.
As far as I know, there is no direct evidence against GMA for election fraud, Northrail, ZTE, agricultural funds, the baseline bill, oil exploration rights, etc.
Again, I can’t say whether or not she is guilty. My point is that — without some new solid evidence (where is it? Why isn’t it out yet?) — she probably doesn’t need immunity.
Meanwhile, can’t the Ombudsman go after her anyway if she is a Congresswoman?
The whole theory that GMA is going to take great pains to obtain immunity requires that she thinks there is a solid case against her. The theory may be faulty.
——-
By the way, you are starting to be a bit rude. I didn’t expect that from you. I have treated you as a gentleman. There is no need for “BS meter”, “blinders”, “wink, wink, Manolo…some people kasi…”.
Just demonstrate that there is significant evidence to construct a solid case vs GMA and I’ll concede that she may well then be trying to get immunity. If you can do this, there’s no reason to make any dramatic effects or snarky comments.
Sorry…it should be: “aware of impeachment charges…” (anyway, who in Pinas is NOT aware?)
ding ;)
Thanks Manolo :)
Some people kasi…
RC,
If you detect rudeness… perhaps… borne of exasperation. I wonder why.
Anyways…
Ok, you say she has no reason to seek immunity.
Assuming without conceding…. so there’s also no reason for her to run right?
Advise her not to.
http://midfield.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/filipinos-filipino-leaders-and-their-heirarchy-of-values-and-needs/
Ding,
You didn’t have to get exasperated, you could have just pointed out the existence of some solid evidence.
Now, assuming there’s no such evidence, and thus no real threat against her, then all the speculation that she is trying to obtain immunity (which only protects from criminal prosecution, but not from the Ombudsman) is baseless.
So why is she running for Congress?
Who said she is? Only those people who are also saying she is seeking immunity.
Do you remember the following?
“Some rumors have come out — from anti-GMA quarters citing un-named sources — which have not been substantiated. But they have been repeated in various media. The rumors predict a series of events which, to date, haven’t happened. They might or might not be accurate.”
Like I said, this quote can be used again and again.
Joe,
Not sure if the “specifics” of a platform can be implemented thoroughly. Majority of the members in Congress don’t even have a notion to implement the very basic. I don’t think they are working/acting together to deliver a unified result. I don’t find many skills nor talents even just watching them on TV or even travelling around the country. I hear it and I see it. They are all conspiring against the people , negligently allowing majority of all public schools with 600 students to settle for one or two bathrooms (specific ). This type of specific is an old issue. A Congressman may look at this issue as a national issue, HE will then wait to make it worst. The other members may go along followed by State borrowing and debt financing from the World Bank and other financial institutions. Financing the “platforms ” by DEBT has been the country’s first and last resort.
When rule of law cannot punish, any platform will never work. :)
Any platform can be broken down to its specific and manage it according to NECESSITY and PRIORITY but if the LAW and its personnel say it’s OK to buy votes , it’s okay to steal from projects, and it’s okay to have crimes in high places , this country will further confirm to the world as the most corrupt. :)
Leytenian,
I think the President, as an executive, has a chance to execute a “platform” of specific accomplishments, and GMA has done this regarding a lot of infrastructure projects. It is just that those projects are not always the highest and best use of funds, and are evidently susceptible to skimming from contractor bid to legislative pocket.
The legislative parties, seem to me, largely fractionalized and helter-skelter, I suppose that being that they are formed on personality rather than ideology. This is what Reality Check is asking for with his request for a platform, and it is a reasonable request. In the US, with two main parties, the platforms are generally consistent, and often opposed. So people know generally what they can expect.
Here, anything goes it seems . . .
Hope you had a good Independence Day.
Joe
Yes Joe I had a wonderful independence day in siesta key.
The abstract of the study mentions:
What is Elite capture?
*
BV Comments:
The capital-intensive LOCAL private sector does not find it convenient
to raise investment at the economy’s pace. HOWEVER, the FOREIGN private
sector may have an angle that the LOCAL private sector does not
provide. As the local private sector is able to capture the local
market and exclude FOREIGN participation, prices can be changed at will
without improviing service, and without fear of competition. The local
private sectors’ lack of investment implies that local
customers are not getting the best service available and have to put up
with mediocre services. “growth” is exhibited, given minimal
investments – and without reducing the disposable income disparity.
LOCAL/Domestic investments are not enough and need to be augmented by
FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENTS (FDI). Given the abundance and
competition of ecozones in ASEAN, China, Brazil, India attracting FDI
stills boils down to the FDI policy environment. Restrictions on equity
and real property ownership are seen by foreign investors as
rent-capturing regulations which benefit only the local elites while
leaving scraps to the rest of the population. These regulations are
seen as a disincentive. This is supported by the fact that the
Philippines has the lowest rates of FDI in the ASEAN.