Post by seacid on Nov 24, 2007 13:31:35 GMT 8
Pauperized by Politicians
By Antonio C. Abaya
Written on Nov. 21, 2007
For the Standard Today,
November 22 issue
The Philippines, which was the second most prosperous country in Asia –
second only to Japan – until the late 1960s, was overtaken by one after
another of our neighbors starting in the 1970s and 1980s when we did not
follow their example of gearing their economies to the export of
manufactured goods.
This was the start of their industrialization which created millions of jobs
for the broad mass of their people, lifting them from poverty into the
middle class prosperity which is very evident when one visits any urban
center in South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and
China. The same process is being replicated in India and Vietnam.
By the time the Philippines woke up from its self-absorption with its navel
– during the 1990s under President Fidel Ramos – the global marketplace had
become crowded, especially with the entry of China. There is a penalty for
being late, and our penalty for being late is the diaspora of millions of
Filipinos who were forced and are being forced to seek jobs abroad that they
could not and cannot find at home.
Compounding our failure to industrialize at the same time and to the same
extent as our neighbors was our premature and accelerated embrace of free
trade and globalization, ironically also under President Ramos, with the
legislative support of then Sen. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, both under the
influence of Opus Dei economists Jesus Estanislao and Bernardo Villegas.
There is something obscene, even comical, about a country that cannot even
produce its own door hinges, enthusiastically embracing free trade and
globalization even ahead of such emerging industrial giants as South Korea
and Taiwan.
Whatever industries we managed to establish during our delayed and nominal
industrialization were inevitably put at risk as we naively opened our
economy to the products of other countries, forcing thousands of domestic
producers to close shop or reduce their operations, thus throwing hundreds
of thousands of Filipino workers out of work
To make matters worse, the Roman Catholic Church continued and continues to
forbid the use of artificial methods of birth control, a diktat that is
largely ignored by the upper and middle classes, but still carries weight
among the lower classes, who are multiplying like tilapias, even though they
are the least able to afford the many children that they continue to have.
In the 1970s, Thailand and the Philippines had almost exactly the same
population size , about 45 million. Because Thailand had and has an
aggressive population management policy and the Philippines did not and does
not, in 2005 the population growth rate in Thailand was 0.68 percent,
compared to 1.95 percent in the Philippines. In 2007, there are an estimated
66 million Thais, compared to 88 million Filipinos.
By any yardstick of commonsense, and all things being equal, it is easier to
feed, house, clothe, educate and find jobs for 66 million people than for 88
million.
And because of its correct (and our flawed) economic strategies, Thailand's
exports in 2005 totaled $105.8 billion, compared to the Philippines' $42.7
billion. In 2006, Thailand attracted 13 million foreign tourists, the
Philippines less than three million.
As I did in my article titled *Malaysia's Success *(Oct. 25), I venture the
opinion that Thailand's surpluses over the Philippines, of $63 billion in
exports and 10 million in tourist arrivals, can be translated into millions
of jobs that Thailand generated and the Philippines did not, in these two
sectors alone.
So whose fault was all this? Obviously, much of the blame rests on the
shoulders of the chief executive officers, the presidents who have led (or
misled) this country since Ferdinand Marcos, and must include him, since our
decline in relation to our neighbors started during his presidential watch.
But because in our American-style governmental set-up, the legislative and
the judiciary are co-equal with the executive, they must also share in the
blame for the failure of our government since the 1970s to give the people
the minimum goals of governance: a secure present and realizable hopes for a
better future.
In this article, I will argue that aside from having failed to give this
country these basic minimums, the legislatures of the past 30 years, but
especially of the present – meaning the politicians from both administration
and opposition parties – have actually helped to pauperize us through the
extravagant compensations that they have given themselves.
I thank Reynaldo O. Arcilla for having sent me a copy of his column (in *
Malaya**) *last Nov. 1, titled "The Perks of being a Congressman." He tells
us that every congressman or woman in the Lower House gets much more than
the P35,000 monthly (or P420,000 yearly) salary, plus his or her yearly pork
barrel allocations amounting to P70 million.
The last is divided into P20 million in Priority Development Assistance Fund
(PDAF) and P50 million as congressional allocation for public works
projects. (To be fair, the P50 million are not given out to them in cash. It
is the value of the public works projects that they endorse to the public
works department for their electoral district. The crooks among them extract
kickbacks from the contractors, who are sometimes their relatives or
cronies.)
But aside from this, according to Arcilla, using data from the Commission on
Audit, each congressman or woman gets the following amounts each year: P220,
867.70 for foreign travel; P650,000.04 for district staff allocation; P120,
000.00 for consultants on a contractual basis; P396,000.for "research':
P788,763.71 for consultative local travel; P129,600 for communications;
P120,000 for supplies; P308,400 for public affairs fund; P1,982,033.58 for
central office staff; P21,537.84 for equipment, furniture and fixtures; and
P600,000 for other maintenance and operating expenses. Or a total of
.P5,757,202.43 a year for each of the 230 members of the Lower House, as of
2005.. Or at least P1.324 billion a year to keep the Batasan trough fully
stocked.
These figures do not include what they pay themselves for being officers and
members of committees, which in 2005 amounted to another P92 million.
Arcilla also quotes from the Philippine Center of Investigative Journalism
(PCIJ) that the annual upkeep of every congressman or woman has been
climbing from P2.83 million in 1994 to P5.77 million in 2005.
The average amount paid by the government for the foreign travel of
congressmen and women each year has climbed from P98,444.80 in 1994 to P220,
867.70 in 2005. In 2005, the top 10 spenders on foreign travel among members
of the Lower House were: Antonio Cuenco, P1,294,058.05; Roque Ablan Jr.,
P1,014,006.90; Monico Puentevella, P960,789.66; Emilio Espinosa Jr., P806,
904.43; Ernesto Nieva, P795,350.89; Juan Miguel Zubiri, P787,582.99 ;
Abdullah Dimaporo, P777,886.88; Hermilando Mandanas, P741,172.72; Arnulfo
Fuentebella, P733,777.65; and Reylina Nicolas, P731,196.50. The above list
does not include the foreign travel expenses of House Speaker Jose de
Venecia.
According to the PCIJ, the congressmen and women "are not expected to submit
a payroll of their district staff or report their function, salaries and
withholding taxes. No one starts asking if they do not produce a report on
the research their offices are supposedly undertaking. There is no demand for
them to produce the list of consultants they have hired, as well as the
contracts they draw up for those whose services they need. As far as the
current (lack of rules) go, how the legislators spend their public affairs
fund is their business and (theirs) alone."
Says Arcilla: "The generous perks do not end there. The House Speaker is
himself a source of funds with a vast discretionary largesse at his
disposal. From this are mostly drawn the representatives' monthly
allowances (which can range from P50,000 to P100,000 each), Christmas
bonuses (P100,000 to P200,000 each), as well as 'payoffs' for votes during
speakership contests and 'appearances fees' (P50,000 each as minimum) for
attending plenary sessions to vote on crucial national bills…."
And, I hasten to add, bags full of cash (P200,000 to P500,000 each)
distributed to them by mysterious individuals in Malacanang or elsewhere
whenever the President needs their undying support, such as to block an
impeachment motion, or to push (again) for a shift to the parliamentary
system before 2010.
Considering that, according to the World Bank, 15 million Filipinos live on
less than one dollar (P45) a day, and 43 million live on less than two
dollars (P90) a day, the P5.7 million-plus each that the House politicians
pay themselves each year is a criminal, immoral and obscene extravagance
that is a slap on the faces of 58 million pauperized Filipinos
No wonder so many Filipinos want to become politicians, no matter what their
qualifications (or lack thereof) may be, even if it involves lying,
stealing, cheating or killing. It beats working in a 9-to-5 job, or
practicing a profession, or running a business. It is the fastest way to
fabulous wealth and the first step towards the inevitable family dynasty.
It is also a possible passport to the ultimate political plum, the
presidency, even if it involves even more lying, more stealing more cheating
and more killing, and even if it involves pauperizing much of the rest of
the country.
No wonder that when a bomb killed one congressman last week, the general
sentiment in cyberspace was mock sorrow that it eliminated only one of
them..
If SWS or Pulse Asia were to conduct a survey on how the public views our
government, 'abolishing Congress' would likely be in a dead heat with
'declaring the Presidency vacant.' Either of which can be seen as a tacit
endorsement for a revolutionary government. *****
By Antonio C. Abaya
Written on Nov. 21, 2007
For the Standard Today,
November 22 issue
The Philippines, which was the second most prosperous country in Asia –
second only to Japan – until the late 1960s, was overtaken by one after
another of our neighbors starting in the 1970s and 1980s when we did not
follow their example of gearing their economies to the export of
manufactured goods.
This was the start of their industrialization which created millions of jobs
for the broad mass of their people, lifting them from poverty into the
middle class prosperity which is very evident when one visits any urban
center in South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and
China. The same process is being replicated in India and Vietnam.
By the time the Philippines woke up from its self-absorption with its navel
– during the 1990s under President Fidel Ramos – the global marketplace had
become crowded, especially with the entry of China. There is a penalty for
being late, and our penalty for being late is the diaspora of millions of
Filipinos who were forced and are being forced to seek jobs abroad that they
could not and cannot find at home.
Compounding our failure to industrialize at the same time and to the same
extent as our neighbors was our premature and accelerated embrace of free
trade and globalization, ironically also under President Ramos, with the
legislative support of then Sen. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, both under the
influence of Opus Dei economists Jesus Estanislao and Bernardo Villegas.
There is something obscene, even comical, about a country that cannot even
produce its own door hinges, enthusiastically embracing free trade and
globalization even ahead of such emerging industrial giants as South Korea
and Taiwan.
Whatever industries we managed to establish during our delayed and nominal
industrialization were inevitably put at risk as we naively opened our
economy to the products of other countries, forcing thousands of domestic
producers to close shop or reduce their operations, thus throwing hundreds
of thousands of Filipino workers out of work
To make matters worse, the Roman Catholic Church continued and continues to
forbid the use of artificial methods of birth control, a diktat that is
largely ignored by the upper and middle classes, but still carries weight
among the lower classes, who are multiplying like tilapias, even though they
are the least able to afford the many children that they continue to have.
In the 1970s, Thailand and the Philippines had almost exactly the same
population size , about 45 million. Because Thailand had and has an
aggressive population management policy and the Philippines did not and does
not, in 2005 the population growth rate in Thailand was 0.68 percent,
compared to 1.95 percent in the Philippines. In 2007, there are an estimated
66 million Thais, compared to 88 million Filipinos.
By any yardstick of commonsense, and all things being equal, it is easier to
feed, house, clothe, educate and find jobs for 66 million people than for 88
million.
And because of its correct (and our flawed) economic strategies, Thailand's
exports in 2005 totaled $105.8 billion, compared to the Philippines' $42.7
billion. In 2006, Thailand attracted 13 million foreign tourists, the
Philippines less than three million.
As I did in my article titled *Malaysia's Success *(Oct. 25), I venture the
opinion that Thailand's surpluses over the Philippines, of $63 billion in
exports and 10 million in tourist arrivals, can be translated into millions
of jobs that Thailand generated and the Philippines did not, in these two
sectors alone.
So whose fault was all this? Obviously, much of the blame rests on the
shoulders of the chief executive officers, the presidents who have led (or
misled) this country since Ferdinand Marcos, and must include him, since our
decline in relation to our neighbors started during his presidential watch.
But because in our American-style governmental set-up, the legislative and
the judiciary are co-equal with the executive, they must also share in the
blame for the failure of our government since the 1970s to give the people
the minimum goals of governance: a secure present and realizable hopes for a
better future.
In this article, I will argue that aside from having failed to give this
country these basic minimums, the legislatures of the past 30 years, but
especially of the present – meaning the politicians from both administration
and opposition parties – have actually helped to pauperize us through the
extravagant compensations that they have given themselves.
I thank Reynaldo O. Arcilla for having sent me a copy of his column (in *
Malaya**) *last Nov. 1, titled "The Perks of being a Congressman." He tells
us that every congressman or woman in the Lower House gets much more than
the P35,000 monthly (or P420,000 yearly) salary, plus his or her yearly pork
barrel allocations amounting to P70 million.
The last is divided into P20 million in Priority Development Assistance Fund
(PDAF) and P50 million as congressional allocation for public works
projects. (To be fair, the P50 million are not given out to them in cash. It
is the value of the public works projects that they endorse to the public
works department for their electoral district. The crooks among them extract
kickbacks from the contractors, who are sometimes their relatives or
cronies.)
But aside from this, according to Arcilla, using data from the Commission on
Audit, each congressman or woman gets the following amounts each year: P220,
867.70 for foreign travel; P650,000.04 for district staff allocation; P120,
000.00 for consultants on a contractual basis; P396,000.for "research':
P788,763.71 for consultative local travel; P129,600 for communications;
P120,000 for supplies; P308,400 for public affairs fund; P1,982,033.58 for
central office staff; P21,537.84 for equipment, furniture and fixtures; and
P600,000 for other maintenance and operating expenses. Or a total of
.P5,757,202.43 a year for each of the 230 members of the Lower House, as of
2005.. Or at least P1.324 billion a year to keep the Batasan trough fully
stocked.
These figures do not include what they pay themselves for being officers and
members of committees, which in 2005 amounted to another P92 million.
Arcilla also quotes from the Philippine Center of Investigative Journalism
(PCIJ) that the annual upkeep of every congressman or woman has been
climbing from P2.83 million in 1994 to P5.77 million in 2005.
The average amount paid by the government for the foreign travel of
congressmen and women each year has climbed from P98,444.80 in 1994 to P220,
867.70 in 2005. In 2005, the top 10 spenders on foreign travel among members
of the Lower House were: Antonio Cuenco, P1,294,058.05; Roque Ablan Jr.,
P1,014,006.90; Monico Puentevella, P960,789.66; Emilio Espinosa Jr., P806,
904.43; Ernesto Nieva, P795,350.89; Juan Miguel Zubiri, P787,582.99 ;
Abdullah Dimaporo, P777,886.88; Hermilando Mandanas, P741,172.72; Arnulfo
Fuentebella, P733,777.65; and Reylina Nicolas, P731,196.50. The above list
does not include the foreign travel expenses of House Speaker Jose de
Venecia.
According to the PCIJ, the congressmen and women "are not expected to submit
a payroll of their district staff or report their function, salaries and
withholding taxes. No one starts asking if they do not produce a report on
the research their offices are supposedly undertaking. There is no demand for
them to produce the list of consultants they have hired, as well as the
contracts they draw up for those whose services they need. As far as the
current (lack of rules) go, how the legislators spend their public affairs
fund is their business and (theirs) alone."
Says Arcilla: "The generous perks do not end there. The House Speaker is
himself a source of funds with a vast discretionary largesse at his
disposal. From this are mostly drawn the representatives' monthly
allowances (which can range from P50,000 to P100,000 each), Christmas
bonuses (P100,000 to P200,000 each), as well as 'payoffs' for votes during
speakership contests and 'appearances fees' (P50,000 each as minimum) for
attending plenary sessions to vote on crucial national bills…."
And, I hasten to add, bags full of cash (P200,000 to P500,000 each)
distributed to them by mysterious individuals in Malacanang or elsewhere
whenever the President needs their undying support, such as to block an
impeachment motion, or to push (again) for a shift to the parliamentary
system before 2010.
Considering that, according to the World Bank, 15 million Filipinos live on
less than one dollar (P45) a day, and 43 million live on less than two
dollars (P90) a day, the P5.7 million-plus each that the House politicians
pay themselves each year is a criminal, immoral and obscene extravagance
that is a slap on the faces of 58 million pauperized Filipinos
No wonder so many Filipinos want to become politicians, no matter what their
qualifications (or lack thereof) may be, even if it involves lying,
stealing, cheating or killing. It beats working in a 9-to-5 job, or
practicing a profession, or running a business. It is the fastest way to
fabulous wealth and the first step towards the inevitable family dynasty.
It is also a possible passport to the ultimate political plum, the
presidency, even if it involves even more lying, more stealing more cheating
and more killing, and even if it involves pauperizing much of the rest of
the country.
No wonder that when a bomb killed one congressman last week, the general
sentiment in cyberspace was mock sorrow that it eliminated only one of
them..
If SWS or Pulse Asia were to conduct a survey on how the public views our
government, 'abolishing Congress' would likely be in a dead heat with
'declaring the Presidency vacant.' Either of which can be seen as a tacit
endorsement for a revolutionary government. *****