twigs and fun

mlq3:

Benigno S. Aquino III’s opening remarks during the Philippines Maritime and Seafaring Industry Presidential Forum (each candidate was given five minutes for their opening remarks)
January 28, 2010, Thursday, 2PM to 5PM
Fiesta Pavilion, Manila Hotel, Bonifacio Drive, Manila

Before I begin, let me tell you about a conversation between my partner, Mar Roxas, and Bill Gates. When Mar met with Bill Gates in California a few years ago, Bill Gates told him that in his view, there were two industries where the Philippines had the potential to be number one: information technology and seafaring. Do we need a Bill Gates to tell us how good we are in seafaring? My friends, you and I know - we are number one in seafaring.

Our challenge today is how do we keep ourselves in this position?

Today I know that I am not only speaking to those in the seafaring industry, but the domestic and international shipping sectors as well.

In the domestic sector, everybody is talking about our very old and perhaps also very tired fleet of secondhand vessels coming from Japan and other parts of the world. In many parts of the country, wooden hulled vessels are still used to ferry passengers even in this modern age of ours. You and I agree that safety is a major issue in our country today.

If our fleet is not being modernized, perhaps we can attribute this to the fact the fact that investor confidence is quite low. This is compounded by a lack of political will on the part of government to make this happen.

When tragedies happen, such as we have seen in the last two years, causing the loss of many lives, we are told time and again that it could have been due to a host of factors: a) an act of nature; b) the incompetence of officers and crew, or c) the lack of enforcement of safety regulations by either the Coast Guard or MARINA.

However, the question in our minds remains: could any of these have been prevented? More importantly, what can we do to prevent them from happening again in the future?

Ensuring safety is our obligation to the riding public. If we cannot prevent sea tragedies from happening in our own country, our status in the seafaring industry will be at risk.

The shipping companies that employ our sailors have to deal with laws going back to the era of my grandfather, and agencies that have a tendency to work at cross-purposes with each other.

Therefore, let me tell you, in my first 100 days, I will submit to both houses of Congress as one of my priority bills, a new Maritime Code.

I assure you this will not reach Congress without thorough consultation and discussions between you and our new team.

Now, let us talk about international shipping.

The question in the minds of a lot of us who do not understand your sector is - how can an archipelagic country said to be number one in the seafaring industry not have a very strong maritime fleet? How did there come to be only 169 Philippine flag vessels in a sea of 45,000 vessels roaming all over the world? Can you imagine what benefits can accrue to our country if we had an expanded Philippine flag? To make this happen, we need to craft the laws that will put in place policies and incentives for an environment conducive to progress, and provide a government machinery that will be the partner of industry rather than its obstacle in making this happen.

You will be consulted before I make any decision that will impact your industry significantly. I hope and pray that you will be ready because we have to work hard and fast if we are to play catch up with the rest of the world.

Now to our seafaring community - so often called the heroes of the Philippines - I agree with this completely - and I salute you.

The numbers show that there are 300,000 of you so well spread over the world that every time we hear about a ship that is taken over somewhere in Somalia, the probability of having a Filipino on board that ship is very high.

Out of the 16 billion dollars in OFW remittances that came into the Philippines last year, around 3 billion dollars were contributed by your sector. In order to preserve our dominance in the world as seafarers, and sustain our growth momentum, we need to be competitive - in terms of knowledge, technical skills and cost of deployment - with the least burden on our seafarers.

In our country, the seafarer and the deployment agencies have to deal with about 14 agencies of the government before they can complete their papers. This takes countless hours of agony. Other countries have one-stop shops. If they can do it, why can’t we?

Some quarters in your sector are suggesting that we pass a separate law that will deal purely with the needs of the seafaring sector rather than be covered by the Migrant Workers Act. To be honest with you, this is a proposal that I would have to study in detail before I can assure you of my commitment. Your thoughts as experts in this field are most welcome.

In almost every industry that I have had the opportunity to meet with, everybody seems to be well versed about the problems as well as the solutions to those problems. Why then are we not able to do anything about them?

Well, in so many cases, they blame government - and maybe, rightfully so. What I can promise you is that in my presidency, this will change.

As chief executive, I will ensure that government’s regulatory powers are used to favor the public and the progress of your industry, rather than special interests. There will be no regulatory capture.

When there are cases such as, but God forbid, accidents or sea tragedies, you can expect that our regulatory agencies will be fair but firm in the implementation and enforcement of our laws. However, the main occupation of these agencies will be to prevent such incidents from happening. If they are found to be remiss in their duties, you can expect that swift action will be taken on our part.

Let me make an appeal for us to work together instead of continuing the present atmosphere of mistrust and finger pointing. We appeal to everybody: do not pass the buck. In my presidency, the buck will stop with me. Do your part, and I will do mine.

A few years ago, I read about this migrant worker who, after having worked for years to ensure that his family could buy a house, his children could go to school, and accumulate some savings for livelihood, came home to find that no home was bought, his children had been left unattended, and that his wife had run off with another man. After such a homecoming, this man committed suicide. How many other stories similar to this are there? Is this the price that our hero, Juan Dela Cruz, has to pay to save his country? If only we who are left at home - whether it is the deployment agency, or the government’s welfare agencies - worked together to provide support for families to ensure that this does not happen, perhaps these cases would be lessened, if not eliminated altogether.

In closing, let me say that I did not come here to pretend to know everything that I need to with regard to your industry. You are the real experts here. I am here today to listen to your concerns and share with you my views on how we can work together to create public value and to move this industry forward.

Thank you.

mlq3:

Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines (FINEX)

Economic Briefing, January 20, 2010

Hotel Intercontinental Manila

The socio-political landscape in 2010: The unending quest for political stability

Randolf S. David

Professor, University of the Philippines

Perhaps it is because we are a relatively young nation-state, it has always seemed that we are more burdened by politics than served by it, more preoccupied with responding collectively to recurrent political crises than with attending to the regular tasks of governance. Indeed, as a people, we have probably devoted more time to politics than to the other things that usually make a nation great – science, the arts, education, the economy, etc. More than ever, we are convinced that unless we get our politics right, we will not move forward on the other things that matter. In other societies, the solution has been sought in the erasure of politics itself through authoritarian means. In my opinion, the solution must be sought within politics itself — not through its authoritarian dissolution, but by hastening the evolution of politics into an autonomous sphere – distinct from the family, the Church, or the economy. The theory states that this differentiation of the political system from the rest of society is best achieved when it undergoes its own internal differentiation. Just to cite a quick example – politics is best conducted not by political families but by political parties. But where political parties have not matured, their function tends to be taken over by families.

But, what does it mean to get politics right? Basically, I think it means that a society is able, through its political system, to entrust to a group of people the right to make decisions that are binding to all. Such decisions are presumed to be valid — and thus freely accepted by most everyone — when they are made by legitimate authority. Legitimacy is a key term here, and I shall define it simply as the uncoerced acceptance, for whatever reasons, by the governed of a given system of authority. In short, we regard a government as legitimate when it is freely accepted.

Anything can go wrong in a country’s politics. But the most severe problems – the ones that lead to persistent instability – arise when political power is gained other than by fair and peaceful elections or lawful means. Thus, when voting outcomes are highly disputed, and the procedures for resolving the dispute are not trusted for any number of reasons, the competition for power can easily degenerate to armed conflict. Persistent political crisis burdens the legal system, and, in the long term, all the institutional spheres of society – the economy, religion, the armed forces, etc.

So important is institutional stability to the functioning of a democracy that one of the greatest achievements of any government is the peaceful and orderly transfer of power to a new set of leaders. That is why the election of a new president is always a milestone in the life of a democratic polity, and it is especially significant after a society has gone through a long period of instability.

A brief history of instability

Our first taste of sustained political instability in the post-war years came with the declaration of Martial Law. Marcos’s second term as president would have ended in 1973. But, having hijacked and interfered in the work of the ongoing Constitutional Convention to enable him to continue exercising the powers of the presidency while the emergency supposedly existed (which meant indefinitely), Marcos did not transfer the reins of government at the end of his term in 1973. From that point, it became uncertain when and how his regime would end. Hardly anyone expected the so-called “New Society” to end in a non-violent way. Having installed itself by arms, it was logical to think that it could only be ended by arms. Thus it was not surprising at all that the armed struggle led by the New People’s Army gained its largest following during this period.

No one believed that the Marcos regime could be removed in the way it was actually removed. The snap election called by Marcos in February 1986 paved the way for Cory Aquino’s rise to the presidency in a completely unexpected way. Having officially lost the election, Cory did not draw her mandate from the snap election. She drew it rather from the peaceful People Power revolution that broke out in the aftermath of that stolen election. That is what justified the declaration of a revolutionary government under a Cory presidency. Wielding the absolute powers of government, she appointed a Constitutional Commission consisting of members especially handpicked by her. Nobody questioned her right to do so. She was the de facto legitimate president. The first regular elections under the new government were held after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution.

Elections did not end Cory’s political troubles however. Seven failed military coups, including two very serious ones, challenged her right to govern and prevented her from focusing on the regular tasks of governance. It is sometimes said that Cory’s biggest achievement was her survival. I will modify that a little by saying that her biggest achievement was presiding over the transfer of state power to her duly-elected successor, Fidel V. Ramos. There were 11 candidates in the presidential elections of 1992, and though he won the presidency, FVR obtained only 23% of the votes, the smallest mandate in the nation’s history. The margins separating the three front-runners in that election were so slim that, under a less credible Comelec, and under a distrusted presidency, the results would have been violently contested. Yet the Ramos government went on to enjoy the benefits of political stability, the seeds of which were planted by a supremely credible predecessor. There were attempts to change the Constitution towards the end of Ramos’s term to enable him to continue beyond 1998. These did not prosper, and it is a testimony to the country’s growing stability that the winner in the 1998 election – Joseph Estrada – who was not the choice of the elite nor of the Edsa I forces – would be sworn to the presidency without a hitch. What happened after that, however, is another story.

Approaching the third year of his 6-year term, Estrada became the subject of a well-publicized impeachment trial that threatened to strip him of the presidency. It is unfortunate that the trial was aborted before it could be completed. The whole process seemed to be going well until the matter of the second envelope cropped up, triggering a moment of confusion in the impeachment court. An extra-constitutional transfer of power was the last thing the nation needed at that point, but something like that happened. It put the Supreme Court in an extremely delicate situation. It politicized the armed forces once more. It made the Catholic Church again play a role in the political system that was way beyond its legitimate function in a modern society. It brought the country close to a civil war, with the arrest of the ousted president, which prompted Edsa III. We continue to reap the bitter fruit of that moment of political recklessness.

The Supreme Court had to promulgate three decisions in its valiant effort to legalize Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s succession to the presidency on January 20, 2001, exactly 9 years ago today. This political crisis strained the credibility of our legal system, but more than that, it set the political system on a destabilization course by installing a president who felt compelled to spend almost the entirety of her presidency fighting for political survival.

Instead of treating the remaining three-and-a-half years of Estrada’s aborted term as a transitional period, Ms Arroyo exacerbated the crisis when she decided to run for a full six-year term in the 2004 presidential election. Encouraged by the Church, big business, civil society and the military, who feared another political catastrophe with the possible election of the popular movie icon Fernando Poe Jr, she charged ahead, like someone with a blank check to do anything or buy anyone, just to prevent the election of someone they thought was no more than the deposed president’s proxy. Against a popular FPJ, GMA deployed everything within the powers of the presidency: state funds, the police, the military, Comelec officials, etc. in order to ensure victory. This is exactly what the framers of the 1987 Constitution had feared and sought to avoid when they banned the re-election of a president. But not having been previously elected to the position, GMA was not, technically speaking, seeking re-election. In any event, the high court would have ruled that the ban did not apply to her. The dark campaign period for the 2004 election gave us characters like Joc-Joc Bolante, Virgilio Garcillano, and the Ampatuans of Maguindanao. It recruited soldiers for functions they were not trained or meant for – like falsifying election results. Not since Marcos have the top officials of the AFP and the PNP been as politically compromised as they were in that campaign. The imperatives of presidential survival made the police and the military once more the fulcrum of politics. The more GMA felt threatened, the more she turned to the armed forces for support. The more she bought military and political support, the more unpopular and illegitimate she became in the eyes of the public.

Edsa III in May 2001, which was triggered by the arrest of the ousted President Estrada, was not to be the last instance of open defiance against the GMA regime. This was followed by the July 2003 Oakwood Mutiny, the February 2006 aborted walkout of the Rangers and Marines, the July 2005 open resignation of Cabinet members belonging to the so-called Hyatt 10, and the November 2007 Manila Peninsula siege. There were less dramatic, but no less significant, events like the NBN-ZTE Senate investigation that further polarized the political situation, making it almost impossible to bring the contending groups under an agreed institutional framework. Throughout this period, the Supreme Court alone stood as the last remaining support of a brittle legitimacy. It became the arena of political combat waged in legalese. The few times the Court stood up to the power of the presidency by issuing decisions castigating presidential excess and abuse gave hope to those who had contemplated more drastic actions against the regime.

The political restlessness of the past four years only began to simmer down when the public started to draw fresh hopes from the prospects of change through the 2010 elections. As soon as GMA’s allies stopped talking about Charter Change to effect a shift in the form of government before the elections, a semblance of stability quickly took shape. Despite the uncertainties brought about by delays in the automation program of the Comelec, Filipinos do look forward, with enthusiasm, to participating in the elections. I do not think that many of our people can imagine at this point a failure-of-election or a no-proclamation scenario. This, of course, does not mean they will stand by and do nothing if any of these should happen.

In that sense, we Filipinos are incurable optimists. We prefer to see the bright side of things. We trust too much. But we don’t like being deceived; and so we tend to react impulsively when we feel betrayed. Thus far, we have been lucky; we have been able to avoid the kind of armed confrontation in politics that in other societies have directly led to unending civil war or military rule. Always, at the last minute, someone has been able to tap a connection that averted a bloody resolution. Our culture is rich in these types of resources. But we may not be so lucky the next time around.

What happened in Maguindanao province on Nov. 23 last year must give us pause. It could be a portent of things to come. Where people are prepared to kill to stay in power or to get it, no stable political order is possible. Here is a local warlord who was allowed to accumulate so much wealth and power he practically annexed the state to his family empire. National politicians coddled him and turned a blind eye to his corruption and murderous ways. Nothing could restrain him anymore – neither culture, nor law, nor a higher power. All he knew is that he must stand his ground, because without power, he becomes a sitting target.

GMA, of course, is not an Ampatuan, although she was never above dealing with his kind. But neither is she a Cory Aquino who could not bear staying a minute longer in the presidency. We don’t know what GMA is planning to do exactly after she leaves the presidency. But of two things we are sure: First, that she does not intend to be out of power after June 30, 2010 when her presidential term ends. Second, that she is running for a congressional seat – and she will get it – for reasons other than to quench a burning desire to remain in public service.

Is there anything wrong with this picture?

Legally, perhaps none. Politically, everything. When you have an incumbent president who intends to remain an active political player by moving to another public office as soon as her present term expires, chances are high that there is going to be no smooth transfer of power to the next government. We are already seeing this in the concerted effort to preempt appointments to important positions in the judicial system and the armed forces even before the vacancies have actually occurred.

A congressional seat by itself may not mean much politically. But an incumbent president can certainly do much during the campaign period to shape the political probabilities so as to ensure that she will have enough allies in the next Congress to elect her to the Speakership. Some commentators say that perhaps that is a long shot. I do not think so. It really depends on how many of her allies are returned to Congress using foul or fair means. Yet, by itself, the Speaker’s position may not mean much either without the support of the new president. Indeed, under our present system, while the Speaker can make things difficult for the president, the latter has all the weapons at his disposal to counteract and undermine the power of the Speaker. But that is assuming there is going to be a new president.

The fact of the matter is that anything can happen when you have an incumbent president who is prepared to do everything to remain in power. That, to me, is the most important given in the present political landscape. It is the one factor that fuels continuing instability. It colors everything. It forces us to take a second look at events which, at first blush, may seem innocuous, unintended, or insignificant. It makes us ask questions that, under different circumstances, we might feel too embarrassed to entertain. Such as – is the automated election being deliberately programmed to fail? Is a failure-of-election scenario or a no-proclamation scenario possibly the premise of GMA’s congressional bid? One is prompted to ask questions like these after reading and listening to various analyses of the vulnerabilities and the state of current preparations for the automated elections.

Consider just two items to illustrate the formidable challenges facing the Comelec. There are 1,630 municipalities in the country which will require 1,630 different types of ballots, which in turn will require 1,630 different ways of customizing the PCOS machines. As Ramon del Rosario noted in a recent Inquirer commentary (1/16/10), “The customization of the machines is scheduled for completion by April 18, a mere three weeks before election day.” Each of these machines has to be delivered to the right town before election day, because if mis-delivered anywhere else they would not be able to read the ballots. A second point deals with the so-called “shading threshold” of the machines. Instead of writing the names of candidates, voters will be asked to shade an egg-shaped space across a candidate’s name. Del Rosario writes: “On Jan. 6, Commissioner Gregorio Larrazabal reported that of 600 filled ballots inserted in the PCOS machines being tested, only 30 were properly read! He attributed the failure to a ‘high shading threshold,’ which he said could be easily corrected.” I understand the machines were subsequently calibrated to lower the shading threshold, and these made them so sensitive that they are now likely to pick up any form of discoloration on the spaces to be read. These may be minor points, but, as anyone who has dealt with a new machine for the first time can attest, they could set off major problems on election day itself. Such problems could compound the usual problems we have faced in all previous elections –unscheduled power interruption, voting precinct confusion, long lines, voters taking too much time to fill up the strange-looking ballots, etc.

There are election-related scenarios worth pondering which could exacerbate the political instabilities that have prevented us from attending to our more basic problems as a people. I will take up four such scenarios here starting from the riskiest to the most benign.

Scenario # 1: Failure of Elections

Instead of a last minute decision to shift to manual election, the automated elections proceed as scheduled. But on election day itself, the system breaks down in many areas, preventing the holding of elections. Comelec fails to put manual voting in place to meet such contingency. Long lines of voters feel frustrated and, sensing sabotage, they vent their fury on election authorities. Spontaneous protests break out everywhere, threatening to turn violent. The military and the police step in to quell lawlessness. Martial law is declared by the President, who holds on to power beyond June 30, and proclaims the formation of a Transition Council to restore order and prepare the country for a fresh round of elections.

Scenario 2: No Proclamation of National Winners

The automated elections proceed as scheduled. But the PCOS machines break down in many precincts in some regions of the country. The results are however sufficient to immediately declare the winners in local races – councilors, mayors, congressmen and governors. But the winners for national positions like senator, vice-president, and president could not be proclaimed because the slim margins could be offset by awaited results from the other regions. The House of Representatives is able to convene, but not the Senate. The Speaker is chosen by the newly-elected House, but not the Senate President. The results for the national level remain inconclusive even after June 30. In the meantime since a Speaker has been chosen by the new House of Representatives, that person can validly assert a claim to serve as acting President. That person could well be GMA.

Scenario 3: Wholesale automated cheating

The automated elections proceed as scheduled. Votes are counted, and the winners are proclaimed. But the results appear to contradict popular expectations. Charges of systematic rigging of the results through control of the source code gain credence as evidence of a pattern of automated adding and subtracting of votes piles up. With no parallel manual precinct count to validate the automated results, voters become agitated. Protests and demonstrations erupt in many parts of the country. The troops are called in to suppress violence and disorder. The President declares Martial Law to save the Republic. GMA holds on to the presidency until June 30, and then gives way to a multi-sectoral Transition Council to be led by her.

Scenario 4: A new government is in place

The automated election is successfully held. The results are accepted. A new government is elected. GMA gains a seat in Congress, and is elected Speaker. Or, at the very least, she controls a large enough block to be able to determine the agenda of the House. A law convening a Constitutional Convention is passed, and the election of delegates to the Convention is held simultaneously with the barangay elections scheduled for October 2010. A new Constitution changing the form of government from presidential to parliamentary is ratified in 2011. Speaker GMA becomes the first Prime Minister under the new Constitution, while the Presidency is transformed into a largely ceremonial role. Before all this can happen, of course, GMA will have to face many cases for corruption committed during her presidency. It will not be very easy to pin her down given the way she has handpicked the members of the high court and the Office of the Ombudsman. The ensuing battle will be protracted and will be fought on various fronts. Once again, political conflict will burden the judicial system. We cannot discount the intervention of the military at any point, especially if civilian authority is deadlocked and is unable to govern and respond effectively to emergencies triggered by natural calamities.

Clearly, what these scenarios suggest is a political horizon that will continue to be characterized by recurrent crisis. In addition to those factors specific to the Arroyo regime, other problems that have remained unresolved through the years are bound to crop up in an opportunistic way: the Mindanao problem, the communist insurgency, vulnerability to natural disasters and global epidemics, and changes in the global economy that may displace our OFWs from their present jobs and undermine the only steady source of foreign exchange we have at the moment.

Political instability is the last thing we need — especially after a national election. Without a clear mandate to rule, it will be very hard for any government to attend to the complex problems that all nations must face in this era of globalization. Even more so in a society like ours where the basic social institutions have all been weakened and compromised by excessive politics.

GMA has stayed in power long enough to be able to privatize and distort the functioning of our institutions. It is difficult to see how her influence can be erased overnight, or how she can be effectively made answerable for her past actions as president without a decisive change in the leadership of our government.

The situation we face today is very reminiscent of the dying years of the Marcos regime when the nation, propelled by the hope of finally terminating a despised regime, could not wait to start anew. No one expected to see Marcos leave government peacefully, nor that a new democratic government could be put in place without resistance from the forces of reaction. But, we can draw a lesson from the fact that, instead of being deterred by the doomsday scenarios that were swirling around at that time, the Filipino people in 1986 responded to every challenge that came their way. After Marcos announced the holding of a snap election, they gathered themselves around Cory, campaigned and protected their votes even when they knew that Marcos would steal the elections. In so doing they created a momentum that carried the whole nation forward to Edsa I. No one expected that Marcos would be hounded out of the country just like that, and that the Filipino nation would be given such a chance to redeem itself in the eyes of its children and of the rest of the world.

Those of us who were lucky to become part of those precious events can never recall those moments without feeling that somehow we had failed to do justice to the greatness of those events, that we had been handed a gift on a silver platter and we did not know what to do with it. I still often feel that way today. But over the years I have also learned to take a more philosophical view of those events. I like recalling what Marx once said: “Men make history, but they do so under circumstances not chosen by themselves.” As important as interpreting what we do to change our way of life is understanding the circumstances in which we act to rebuild our society.

Let me end by briefly describing what I think these circumstances might be. They are not unique to us. They are found in all societies, although the manner in which they manifest themselves may vary because of the contingencies of every nation’s history. But, in general, the problems we have gone through and are going through – the multiple crises, the almost unending instability, the cycle of confusion, despair, hope, disenchantment, and cynicism — that have accompanied our evolution as a society are part and parcel of the often wrenching transition to a modern society. A transition is a particularly confusing stage – marked by what Gramsci once called the dying of the old and the inability of the new to be born. The old habits of our culture are quickly vanishing, yet the ways of modern society have not fully taken root. In the interim, our people suffer from a surplus of dependence. They are subservient even when they no longer need to be. They slide into the easy habits of the powerless even when the tools of emancipation may already be at hand. They seek patronage even where it is not necessary.

Our leaders and rulers, on the other hand, suffer from a nobility deficit. A sense of honor, drawn from tradition, no longer deters or restrains them. The poverty and ignorance of the masses brings out the predator rather than the hero in them. They take advantage of the weaknesses of the legal system and the persistence of the old habits of an unequal society, even as the old values like delicadeza no longer compel them.

But all this will pass as our society slowly moves from a hierarchical order to a more democratic one. There are many drivers of modernity in our midst, not the least of which is the migration of millions of our countrymen to various parts of the world. Working abroad, they are no longer just improving their material lives; they are also discovering new values, developing a work ethic appropriate to modern settings, and building a strong sense of self that had been denied them in a traditional society.

In the near future, inherited status will no longer be an asset. Occupations and public office will become more accessible to those born without privilege. Politics will be more accountable to the general public, to the citizens, rather than to a few dominant centers of influence. Kinship will decline in importance as a passport to economic or political mobility. With universal education, which has so far eluded us, citizens should be in a better position to distinguish between roles like entertainment and governance, between public service and profit-seeking, and between the quest for spirituality and the quest for justice.

What I am describing here is the trajectory of the transition to modernity. Our political institutions, modern as they are, came as a legacy of American colonialism. They were grafted onto a feudal social order and culture defined by the values of a patron-client system. The disconnect became apparent to us only after the generation that had been schooled in colonial America’s modern ways had left the stage. We are just starting to grasp the logic of these institutions. Our hope is that the next generation can make them a reality.

I began these remarks by noting how much time and attention politics seems to demand of us as a nation. We need to harness it back to its institutional moorings, and make it less spectacular, so that we can use our collective energies for other worthwhile pursuits. I mean, just enough to give us respite from crises. For, I do not think we would want the opposite extreme – where life has become so predictable and politics so boring that people no longer bother to even cast their votes in elections. There is an advantage to being a young nation: change, for us, is a religion, and we’ll never run out of reasons to look to the future with hope.

mlq3:

A PHILIPPINES THAT WORKS:

ECONOMIC VISION AND PLATFORM

Senator Benigno S. Aquino III

January 21, 2010

Officers and members of the Makati Business Club, Management Association of the Philippines, Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines, Your Excellencies of the diplomatic corps, ladies and gentlemen, my friends and countrymen:

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to address you. I trust your asking me first is not based on alphabetical order, or based on age, but perhaps, based on who you think will most likely win the coming election.

As managers, you recognize that one of the necessary skills of an effective manager is time management. Is it possible that you have invited me to determine if there is still a necessity to spend time with the others?

Baka naman inuna niyo ako upang malaman kung sapat na ako at hindi na kailangang pansinin yung iba?

I think we are all aware of the problems facing our country. We share the same statistics. We probably even share the same conclusions about the need for better governance. To rehash all of these problems at this forum would be a waste of your time. But what we have now is an opportunity for you to get to know me, to find out the advocacies that I champion, the perspective and philosophies I bring to the equation and some of my proposed solutions to give an insight into my inner persona.

Levity aside, the political exercise that we will engage in this May is a crucial one. It will be, as it is for every fledgling democracy, a test of the strength of our political institutions. The peaceful transition of power has become a symbol of political maturity across the world, with many still failing to achieve the credibility that is the cornerstone of a genuine political mandate. With the electoral scandals that have stalled our democratic progress as of late, it is not a test that we can afford to fail.

We have an administration whose mandate is clouded in doubt and overshadowed by allegations of fraud because it refused every opportunity to clear the air and be held to account. Its choices have limited its decision-making to seeking ways to ensure day-to-day political survival and self-interest. We must now become a government committed to accountability. A government that works with the people in achieving long-term change.

We must make the shift from bare economic survival to robust economic growth. We must make the change from treading water to keep afloat, to reaching that promised shore where we can all stand tall as healthy, happy, educated and responsible fellow citizens.

But why does transformation seem like such an impossible dream?

Isa sa mga tema ng ating kalaban, yung “ang pagbabago, madaling sabihin yan pero mahirap gawin,” is probably echoed by a lot of Filipinos. The oft-repeated question is, why can’t we advance? Why can’t we progress? What is it in us that limits or prohibits our growth as a people and as a country?

All of you are aware that most of the contenders have had years, possibly even decades, of preparation for this electoral exercise. I had no such ambitions to run in the 2010 elections but I responded to the people’s clamor. I am but the face of what we believe is the overwhelming demand of our people to repudiate everything wrong in the current administration.

Given that I only announced my decision to seek the presidency on September 9, and I only came to that decision the day before, I have not had logistical time comparable to our opponents. What is perplexing is that viewing the same problems, and having access to the same data for the most part, we believe the solutions have been there all along, and necessitate only clear political will to execute. But most of our opponents seem to indicate the contrary opinion that there is very little that we can do to change the situation. One has to wonder: did they overstudy the problem, or are they committed to preserving the status quo?

If the leader is not convinced that change is not only necessary, but extremely possible, how does he lead us to the promised land?

What is it that we want to change?

We want to repair the damage that has been wrought on our democratic institutions by those who have sought to manipulate them for their own selfish ends.

We want to improve the situation of our people, who have suffered years of neglect because of a self-absorbed leadership obsessed with political survival.

They are poor. Many of them are homeless. Each year, we add some 2.5 million mouths to feed to our already hungry population. Of these new additions, one third were the result of unplanned pregnancies. We have a growing underclass that statistics tell us have given up looking for work. A permanent underclass that includes the five million of our countrymen that are illiterate, which means their opportunities in life will always be limited to living hand-to-mouth.

We want to give our young the opportunity and means to improve their lot in life. It can only begin if our children and their parents are assured that money spent on education is money well spent. Unfortunately, students are at the mercy of our decrepit education system that allows double shifting, erroneous textbooks and substandard nursing schools to exist. No less than DepEd officials admitted that students in Grade 1 take three subjects in one class period. We have a procurement program so heedless of the need for excellence that it doesn’t care if it produces a textbook series riddled with 500 factual errors. For every hundred kids that start grade school with the hope of achieving their dreams, only fourteen will graduate from college and possess a tangible means to materially improve their lives.

To my mind, the crucial, lacking element in all these is a government committed to a transformation: from a society overwhelmingly poor to one overwhelmingly middle class. In every developed, progressive, prosperous democracy, it is the middle class that is the biggest class. Government, for one, has failed to make the conceptual leap from patronage to development. Efforts at feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, providing basic care to the sick, and offering a quality education aren’t only the people’s rights; they are the essential tools for individual self-improvement

In 1998, when I first campaigned for office, one lady bluntly told me that regardless of who is elected, things would remain the same for her.

What did she mean?

That she was poor to begin with; that she would remain poor, and in fact, she would be lucky if she didn’t end up poorer, after the candidates leave office.

This brings up the question at the forefront of the minds of our countrymen still undecided on whom to vote for, and pursued by my critics. If this is a time that calls for national transformation, am I qualified to be that transformative leader? Having answered the call of duty, can I ask you or anyone to entrust me with your vote, on faith alone? Never having sought the presidency, I preferred to do my duty and not seek the limelight. Now that I have been thrust in the limelight, it is only fair to answer the question: before you tell us what we can do, what have you done?

I have always believed that the job of an effective legislator goes beyond merely proposing laws, for what are laws but written agreements entered into by members of society on how to harmonize their mutual relations? In fact, I do not believe that we suffer from the problem of too few laws. One of my proposed measures was the recodification of laws, in response to an appeal from the legal community to put some order into our laws, their amendments and those that have been repealed, because even our lawyers are at times confused.

Consider the recent controversy over who gets to appoint the next Chief Justice. We maintain that there are no ifs and buts in Article 7 Section 15 of the Constitution where it states that the current President cannot appoint anybody within two months prior to a presidential election up to the end of her term. An exemption exists, but it applies only for positions in the Executive Department. Yet you have two retired justices arguing exactly the opposite. How can former justices of the Supreme Court be so seemingly confused, when the fact is that the provision regarding presidential appointments is stated clearly in the law?

Our problem is the lack of political will to faithfully implement the many world-class laws that our legislature has passed. A preference for ambiguity even when times call for clarity, leads to artificial controversies. Insecure or overly ambitious leaders need to create a climate of doubt, because it’s in the grey areas that its ambitions thrive.

It is in addressing this problem that I focused on the fiscalizing aspect of a legislator’s job – on Congress’ oversight and investigative functions.

Consider intelligence funds. In the proposed 2010 budget, a total of 1.4 billion was allocated to confidential and intelligence funds.

Woodrow Wilson once wrote that oversight is always preferable to investigation, which is like putting out a fire instead of preventing one. We proposed that if the Executive wants orderly transactions, at least a few members of Congress should be privy to all of the details to determine if they were spent properly. However, this proposal was dismissed out of hand without even a single hearing for the reason that they undermined the Executive’s privileges.

And yes, the investigations were a vital part of my functions, too. I don’t think anyone will begrudge me my efforts in this regard. From Hello Garci and the impeachments, to NBN-ZTE and the fertilizer scam, I did my duty at the forefront of these issues.

The original design of the NBN-ZTE project required a BOT agreement between government and the supplier, not a government loan. But during the NBN-ZTE hearings, we learned that the project was entered into through a government loan despite instructions to the contrary from no less than the President herself. The cost of the intended government loan was P40 billion, (in which P16 billion was for the backbone and P24 billion was for the CyberEd project.) Jun Lozada belied this when he cited P5 billion as the actual cost of the entire project. Ito yung sinasabi niyang kalakaran ng gobyerno, kung saan sa sobrang laki ng patong bubukol na.

Serious irregularities in building infrastructure did not escape our attention either. SCTEx took around 8 years to construct before it finally opened. Projects of this scale normally require two years to complete. Furthermore, when SCTEx finally became operational, it was found that the central hub, which was Clark, did not have an exit, excluding Clark from the Subic Clark Tarlac expressway itself. How can one justify these kinds of delays where opportunities are lost, costs have escalated and the people’s burdens instead of being reduced end up being compounded?

My active role in these congressional hearings has put me at odds with the administration. In 2005, it cost me my post as Deputy Speaker. It continues to put me at odds with the coalition of self-interest that currently holds power. It puts me at odds with other candidates for the presidency.

To lead transformation, you cannot be part of the problem. As I said when I accepted the people’s draft, the job of chief executive is about the efficient allocation of resources. If you have hogged those resources for yourself, if you have lied, cheated, and stolen to gain power, how can you be trusted to lead the transformation our country needs?

Going back on the issue of appointing a Chief Justice prior to the forthcoming elections. If we are to transform the country, it begins with doing what we can, now, to limit the damage and give our people a fighting chance to rebuild our damaged institutions. The Constitution imposes a blanket prohibition with few exceptions concerning midnight appointments. A candidate cannot ask for the people’s mandate, pledging to improve the situation tomorrow, if he becomes complicit in worsening the situation today.

Hindi naman mahirap gawin ang tama. Alam naman ng lahat yan eh. Wala namang magic, wala namang sikreto. Pero bakit pilit pa ring ginagawa ang mali?

There is a widespread perception that success in the business milieu can almost be directly correlated to your closeness to the powers-that-be. Because of this, some players in the industry are forced to focus their activities on maintaining relationships in order to retain the favors that they receive in exchange for cultivating that relationship. This has fostered the wrong kind of competitiveness. While it may work, locally, for now, it has not enabled these players to become competitive in the world market, where the rules of the game do not take special relationships into consideration.

We will encourage free and fair competition in a level playing field. One not need be a crony in order to succeed in the field of business. More importantly, government will not compete with business. Nor will government use its regulatory powers to extort, intimidate and harass.

We will transform our systems to foster service to the public instead of making citizens jump through hoops. We will streamline the approval process, not only for setting up new businesses but also in the regular day-to-day transactions with government, such as the payment of taxes. We will do this on a national as well as the local level.

In 2010, our next President will inherit a continually bloating deficit. As of November 2009, the deficit of the national government already reached P272.5 billion, or 4.1% of GDP.

In addressing the looming fiscal crisis, good governance and the drive against corruption are critical components in our strategy. We will refrain from imposing new taxes or increasing tax rates.

I strongly believe that we can collect more taxes at the BIR and higher duties at Customs if we become more serious in curbing and punishing tax evasion and smuggling. The BIR’s collection dropped by 5.5%, while that of Customs declined by 16.6%. This is the first time in recent history that absolute revenues have actually declined.

Our initial focus then will be to capture a good part of the revenue leaks caused by smuggling and evasion. In this effort, we will not be starting from zero. Be assured that those smugglers and evaders are not faceless and unknown entities. The ideas to improve tax administration and to control smuggling have been there for some time and some programs have been initiated in the past. One of these successful programs was the RATE or Run After Tax Evaders. In fact, some of the people at the Department of Finance and the BIR who have tried to implement reforms before are with us now, and together with reform-minded career executives, we intend to put their commitment and talents to good use under my administration.

My vision is to transform our country into one where we have lower tax rates enjoyed by all, rather than have some enjoy absolute tax exemptions while we burden the rest of the economy with very high tax rates. I believe that markets are better than government in spotting where the growth opportunities are, and, with universal low tax rates, we will encourage entrepreneurs and enterprises to invest and create jobs in any industry. We will, therefore, pursue the rationalization of fiscal incentives early in my administration.

There is a lot of room for our revenue base to grow. Our tax effort has gone down from 17% at its peak to a worrisome 13% today. If we can only bring this back even to just the 15% level, that will translate to P150 billion in additional revenues, which would make a significant dent in cutting our deficit.

My budget team estimates that for 2009 alone, around P280 billion of our national budget was lost to corruption. If we take the years 2002 to 2009 the total estimates exceed one trillion. Estimates vary, but everyone agrees that the numbers are huge.

If we agree that change is necessary, how can a Presidential aspirant, whose own financial and political ethics are questionable, be effective in leading transformation as the head of the bureaucracy? How can a leader, who is benefiting from the status quo, be able to restore a civic sense and pride in our citizenry? The leader, who has used public office for private gain, will always be the most committed enemy of change.

Rich or poor alike, we have a tangible experience of the sorry state of public infrastructure at present: traffic, which eats up time, which as the saying goes, is money. Every day, we consume an estimated P2 billion in fuel. Imagine the savings if we reduce traffic jams and make commuting speedier. Railways are built at bloated cost; urban transport is constructed, but not enough trains are on track. Our people are the first to experience the effect of something that works and conversely, something that is badly done because bad intentions handicapped the project from the start.

It is time that our infrastructure agencies and LGUs transform into cooperative ventures with the private sector by bringing forth an agreed public infrastructure program, based on a cohesive plan that optimizes the value of the entire network. In our conversations with members of the private sector, there has been a lot of positive feedback about possibly working with government on this endeavor.

To transform infrastructure projects from sources of waste and scandal into examples of cooperation and efficiency, we will set objective criteria for different types of projects and develop a scorecard that will assess various projects against benchmarks transparent to the public.

Initially we want our infrastructure program to transform from being the means to enrich a few, to being labor-intensive and biased for employment as a means to pump-prime the economy.

When I read about countries that have invested in their agriculture sectors and succeeded, it always pains me to find that these countries - Vietnam and Thailand, to name just a couple - had started by sending their experts to be educated in the Philippines. It seems that we cannot implement among ourselves the lessons we successfully imparted to experts from elsewhere. This will have to change. We must be able to harness our homegrown talent in order to further our local industries.

When we change administrations, there must be a complete review of all the programs in the Department of Agriculture. We can do a lot for our farmers given the present budget of the Department if we eliminate the leaks and focus on the efficient use of resources. For example, we must stop eating up millions in mere administrative costs as in the case of NABCOR, which charged our government P60 million because it served as a useless conduit to regional offices. We will also support efforts such as supply chain management that minimizes losses, creates jobs, consults with stakeholders, and capitalizes on our competitive advantage.

Our core belief is that the current approach to governance and power must change. That is why our terms of reference always begin with the present government, what it has done, and how different our institutions and our nation must be six years from June 30, 2010.

I’ve always used the analogy of a small panaderya to demonstrate how our approach must change.

In a small-scale operation it is easy for everyone involved to visualize that entity as the combination of their collective efforts. As opposed to, say, when you are a bigger firm, and there is the management side and there is the labor side. In Tagalog, it’s even more dramatic. Kayo at kami, sa halip na tayo.

We must find a unity that transcends the divisions of today, based on a shared commitment to transforming our country into one that works: One where traffic flows well, garbage is collected efficiently, crimes are solved, justice is served, and our kids are educated properly. It works in the sense that you do not have to flee the country to move up in the world, improve your lot in life, and rise to the highest level your personal merits can achieve.

We are a nation of sacrifice, of diligence, dedication and, idealism, because we are a people imbued with compassion even when we have officials who lie, cheat, and steal. Our faith teaches us that we are our brother’s keeper. Our logic should tell us that in taking care of others, their growth equals our own.

In the movie “Invictus,” Nelson Mandela says, “In order to rebuild our nation, we must exceed our own expectations.” It requires us to insist, always, that we are not a nation of crooks, of thieves, of murderers who get off scot-free and where justice is won by the highest bidder.

In May, you will be asked to make a choice. Will you choose transformation and change or will you choose to uphold the status quo?

We have already made our choice. Ours is a journey towards transformation. I ask you today to join us in this journey now.

Thank you.

katarinanolte:

http://www.rense.com/general51/chsup.htm

“The sample size of 300,000+ DNA tests a year suggests that, as an upper limit, 30% of all children are conceived by a man other than the one named by the mother. With ~4 million children now born each year in the United States, 1.2 million men are likely victims of paternity fraud each year.”

Who Knew I Was Not the Father?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html

“Over the last decade, the number of paternity tests taken every year jumped 64 percent, to more than 400,000. That figure counts only a subset of tests — those that are admissible in court and thus require an unbiased tester and a documented chain of possession from test site to lab.

Other tests are conducted by men who, like Mike, buy kits from the Internet or at the corner Rite Aid, swab the inside of their cheeks and that of their putative child’s and mail the samples to a lab. Of course, the men who take the tests already question their paternity, and for about 30 percent of them, their hunch is right.

Yet as troubled as many of them might be by that news, they are even more stunned to discover that many judges find it irrelevant. State statutes and case law vary widely, but most judges conclude that these men must continue to raise their children — or at least pay support — no matter what their DNA says.

The scientific advance that was supposed to offer clarity instead reveals just how murky society’s notions of fatherhood actually are.”

Beijing: 30% of men not father of their children

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90782/90872/6765744.html

Quote:

The Forensic Science Center of Beijing Genomics Institute, which has 19 offices across China, said there had been a 20 percent annual increase of paternity tests since it was founded in 2002.

A clinic worker surnamed Wu said 30 percent of tested men at the clinic had not fathered their children, and that the real proportion could be higher.

“Actually, some couples coming here for the tests are not married in real life. The ‘husband’ that confirmed a biological father of the child is indeed the woman’s lover.”

lets party!