A sad, sad day for the Philippine left! Waking up on a gloomy
autumn day in this part of the world, then watching and reading news and
comments about a scuffle of two progressive groups who could've been allies....
I condemn in the strongest possible terms the attempt to
physically harm my teacher, AKBAYAN Representative Walden Bello, by protesting
youth/students of Anakbayan. The incident conjures up the horrible images of
the Communist Party-led left's past, and I'm afraid to say, its present and
future. Arguing verbally and in writing, yes! But physical harm is morally
intolerable in a civilized society. Those students, especially the adult who
attempted to slap Professor Bello, should be subjected to disciplinary action
in their/his school(s) and should spend some time in jail. Knowing the
sympathetic Professor Bello, however, those youth/students are most likely
forgiven.
And this reminds me of an old essay I wrote in 2004 — "The Nightmare of the Philippine Left: The History of All Dead Generations — uploaded in
several sites then in the Philippines and abroad, a nightmare that I would've
wanted to forget. I believe that the Philippine left has to realize that at
this crisis moment — of both the ruling class/system and the revolutionary
movement — the choice is, as the great Rosa Luxemburg has put it:
"socialism or barbarism"!
It is heartbreaking to agree with Marx's analysis on the
historical process and more painful to come to a realization that the same
applies to the position of the Philippine left movement at this point in time
in the ongoing struggle for social change:
The tradition of all dead
generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as
they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating
something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary
crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service,
borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present
this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed
language.
Tomorrow is another day, indeed. Nevertheless, the future is open-ended.
"Why Malaysian PM's visit matters".... I think that Najib's visit in the Philippines matters more for his and UMNO's political survival in the upcoming general elections in Malaysia than for the prospects for success of the GPH-MILF Framework Agreement.
There's really the need to shatter the dominant myth among Muslim Filipinos and many other Filipinos, including the media and analysts, about Malaysia's purported success story as a predominantly Muslim, developmental, and harmonious multicultural society. With due respect to the esteemed peace advocate and scholar Atty Sol Santos, with whom I'm in touch in 2003-2004 when I was working for peace and development concerns in Muslim Mindanao, I would like to put his statement in a proper context:
“There are lessons from the Malaysian experience relevant to a solution of the Bangsamoro problem: federalism, Islamic institutions, multiculturalism, the bumiputra (indigenous Malays) policy of affirmative action, and the sultanate as an institution,” he said.
We must realize that these so-called "Malaysian-style solutions" — federalism, Islamic institutions, multiculturalism, New Economic Policy (NEP) or the affirmative action of bumiputeraism, and the sultanate system — have been pursued for more than half a century now in Malaysia through conflict-ridden, socially unjust, repressive, and hierarchical ways and means within the system, norms, institutions, and practices of heavy-handed authoritarianism, scandalous elitism, excessive crony capitalism, gross racism, and hypocritical religionism. So what can the Philippine government and the Bangsamoro learn from the Malaysian experience? Well, nothing substantive on what-to-dos, but much more on what-not-to-dos!
Some of my modest reflections on "what not to do" so as to contribute to the success of the GPH-MILF Framework Agreement are:
not to regard Malaysia under the UMNO regime as an exemplar of peace and development with modern Islamic ethos and institutions for the planned Bangsamoro region;
not to imperiously deny the cultural capacity of our very own Muslim Filipino brethren and the peoples of Mindanao, including the lumads, to create humane, just, and sustainable (alternative) communities and economies toward what they perceive to be as a good life;
not to come up with policies or actions that are devoid of context, history, culture, and integrity; and
not to forget the lessons of the earlier Final Peace Agreement of the Philippine Government with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), in which many salient provisions have not been met by the government and in which many of the former rebels have become elites themselves in the mainstream society and unfortunately abandoned their old yet legitimate 'revolutionary' or 'reform' causes and ideals for the peoples of Muslim Mindanao and the entire Philippine archipelago.
(2) Here are excerpts from a sub-section of my thesis on "Najib's 1Malaysia: Political Doublespeak and the Economic Strategy for Global Competitiveness":
Najib
took over the premiership from Abdullah with, notably, [a] the party mandate to
regain UMNO’s dominance; [b] the ethnic Islam and Malay agenda for continued
political and socio-economic privileges; [c] the capitalist development
objective to immediately overcome the challenges of the global economic crisis
and to realize the long-term Vision 2020; and [d] a personal interest in
crafting his own legacy in Malaysia’s history. As a strategic step towards addressing
these demands and objectives, especially the attainment of the latter, Najib (2009b)
launched the concept 1Malaysia or ‘1Malaysia: People First, Performance Now’ as a key
pillar to his government’s agenda for ‘national transformation’. The methods by
which the 1Malaysia concept is being
articulated and executed as a socio-political, economic, and electoral project
evoke of the usual modus operandi of
authoritarian liberalism attuned to the regime’s interests in maintaining the
status quo vis-à-vis the current circumstances of the amplified social
conflicts and the exigencies of the global and domestic economy.
What is happening in the present
conjuncture in the post-Mahathir and post-Abdullah Malaysian political economy
under Najib is complex and can be epoch-making whether at: the level of
electoral politics; the attempts to revise or perhaps end the NEP; the further
entrenchment of reactionary, racist forces in UMNO; the increasing irrelevance
(except at an instrumental level) of the ‘Chinese’ and ‘Indian’ parties in the
BN coalition; an opposition with the huge advantage of the public’s perception
of the government’s hopelessness and yet fraught with its own internal
problems, and the impact of the global crisis for domestic restructuring. Nevertheless,
1Malaysia is intended and being
presented as a continuation of UMNO-BN hegemony since independence—which
includes the past development agendas of Najib’s father Abdul Razak, his
benefactor Mahathir, and his predecessor Abdullah. As Najib (2009c) has
asserted: ‘1Malaysia does not reject our past
in order to secure our future. Rather it is a clear reaffirmation of the
“documents of destiny” that have shaped this great nation and bound it together
since our Independence – the Federal Constitution, the Rukun Negara, the
guiding principles of the NEP, Wawasan 2020 and the National Mission’ (cf.
Chapter II). During the launching of 1Malaysia’s
Government Transformation Program (GTP) where both Mahathir and Abdullah were
present, Najib (2010b) proclaimed ‘that [his] government is not a new
government, but a continuity … because the ultimate objective is … to achieve
Vision 2020’....
.... A close examination of Najib’s ‘Special Malaysia Day
Message’ where he announced the repeal of the ISA, the lifting of emergency
proclamations, and the amendment of other undemocratic measures would reveal his political doublespeak as regards democratization whereby he
attempted to make a differentiation between the aspirations of the people for
democracy and the imperative of the state for social order. Speaking with a
Lincolnian rhetoric, Najib (2011) claimed: [a] to have realized ‘that the
reality in Malaysia has changed’, [b] to have been ‘feeling the pulse,
agitation and aspiration of the rakyat
[people] who clamour for a more open and dynamic democracy, where the opinions,
ideas and concerns of the masses are given due attention’; and [c] to have the
aim ‘to be at par with other democratic systems in the world which are
underscored by the universal principle from the people, by the people and for
the people’. However, to Najib’s mind and from the perspective of the state he
governs, the peoples’ aspiration for democracy has to be sidelined by post-9/11
security concerns and subsumed under the doctrine of the protection of
authority as the raison d’état. Najib
(2011) justifies the legitimacy of this authoritarian disposition by:
[a] arguing it as a ‘global truth’ (i.e., the objective of
national security ‘unavoidably … demands special measures which sometimes are outside
the democratic norms’ such as ‘preventive detention’);
[b] basing it on ‘Islamic law’ (i.e., the principle of Usul
Fiqah on ‘the need to prevent a wrongdoing from occurring’ and the
principle ‘that the decision of the ruler is a trust which must be implemented
for the people being governed for their general benefit’); and
[c] presenting it as a normally empirical reality (i.e., ‘not
something strange, unusual or alien’ because in the 9/11 aftermath ‘[i]t has
been proven that developed democratic countries such as the United States of
America and the United Kingdom had also enacted special legislative framework
to deal with terrorist threats’)....
.... The outcomes of the unfolding domestic political contestations against UMNO-BN hegemony and the ramifications of the global economic crisis for the domestic economy can be regarded as crucial determinants as to whether or not Najib’s 1Malaysia will succeed as an electoral-political, socio-economic, and crisis management project. What is clear at this moment based on the policies, actions, and pronouncements of the government of Najib for the period 2009-2011 within the 1Malaysia framework is that the regime of authoritarian liberalism is being maintained, managed, and deepened through state’s coercive politics to protect UMNO’s political dominance amid the strengthening of opposition forces and through the state’s commitment to a peculiar neoliberal economics for the perpetuation of capitalist accumulation strategies in the context of contemporary globalization’s crisis.
It's election time again in the US. By now, I have already watched and read a lot of news, debates, analyses, and documentaries about this hotly contested election between the incumbent President Barack Obama (Democrat) and the challenger Mitt Romney (Republican). So what do I think and feel about this 2012 election in particular and the US in general as a student of political history and based on the adage "the personal is political" (that my personal experience shapes my understanding of politics)? I can say that I have a personal love-hate relationship with America.
I love the US primarily because it is home to many of my family who have been American citizens for a generation or two now. The salaries they have earned through hard work have been translated into a kind of welfare for me and my families in the Philippines. In many developing countries like the Philippines, the most responsible for welfare provision is the family (especially, those families who have kins working abroad)—not the state/government like in Nordic and Western Europe, nor private insurance companies as in the US. Instead of the government or a private insurance company, my American citizen-worker family members look after our welfare in the Philippines, inter alia, to send us to schools/universities (education), to help us when a family member is sick (health care), and to give us additional financial support especially for our elderly and needy relatives (pensions and social security).
But I hate the US for its elitist politics and imperialist history of greed for wealth and power of the country's vested interests. I hate it also for the social system it promotes which does not observe the natural balance between life and work, which commodifies nature and human life itself, and which reduces human relations into mere money relations.
Given current realities, I can only make a wish: Good luck, US! Good luck, world! The choice is limited to Romney-Ryan (Republicans) frank in their money, corporate, and military interests and Obama-Biden (Democrats) involved in a rather smooth doublespeak. Two parties under one system. Both candidates are created and supported by particular factions of the power elite. Both are servants of the establishment. Both have to be representatives of the dangerous system which the late President Dwight D. Eisenhower has already warned us of on the very same day of my birth, January 17, in 1961: the military-industrial complex!
While I'd be curious to hear what Obama and Romney have to say about the military-industrial complex (i.e., the entrenched network of vested interests in business, military, and politics, and I'd like to add, religion) if asked about it in a televised debate, I'm also mindfully aware that these two men are eloquent politicians who are very good public speakers. So what for? The Democrats and Republicans may sound to be somewhat different, but they are fundamentally the same in the common objective of preserving, domestically and globally, what they perceive to as "America's national interest"—the material and ideological interests of the capitalist system and the US military-industrial complex.
Perhaps I can only sing with Norah Jones to express my sentiments toward the US and its recent elections: "I love the things that you've given me; I cherish you my dear country; But sometimes I don't understand; The way we play....".
"My Dear Country"
'Twas Halloween, and the ghosts were out And everywhere they'd go, they shout And though I covered my eyes, I knew They'd go away
But fear's the only thing I saw And three days later 'twas clear to all That nothing is as scary as election day
But the day after is darker And darker and darker it goes Who knows, maybe the plans will change Who knows, maybe he's not deranged
The news men know what they know, but they Know even less than what they say And I don't know who I can trust For they come what may
'Cause we believed in our candidate But even more it's the one we hate I needed someone I could shake On election day
But the day after is darker And deeper and deeper we go Who knows, maybe it's all a dream Who knows if I'll wake up and scream
I love the things that you've given me I cherish you, my dear country But sometimes I don't understand The way we play
I love the things that you've given me And most of all that I am free To have a song that I can sing On election day
Videos on the Military-Industrial Complex and Obama-Romney Debate:
PNoy and the Liberal Party (LP) have just lost their chance at this opportune moment to effectively contribute to the movement for political reforms! Very disappointing. I hope that the fear that I had expressed before won't happen: the possibility that PNoy and LP will just prepare the ground for the return of the trapos!
PNoy and the LP could have gambled on the fresh and young in the national elections, namely, Erin Tañada, Joel Villanueva, and Ruffy Biazon—all decent, competent, young politicians who have long been doing very well including in their current posts in the House of Representatives, TESDA, and Bureau of Customs, respectively—rather than the trapos whose names are not worth mentioning here. They have underestimated their political-electoral machinery (especially that the administration is a strong force in 'local' politics); they have overestimated the trapos in the opposition and, in effect, insulted the Filipino electorate (leaving us no other choice but the rubbish); and they have listened to SWS, Pulse Asia, and other polling firms (instead of following their hearts and doing their mission for a new epoch of progressive politics formation).
PNoy and the LP may not be realizing consciously that in the coalition they are forging now, they are actually engaged in the process of political 'class formation' that has tremendous implications for the country's prospects for social change. They are building a coalition of a potential ruling class—in the process of becoming itself—for the current and future Philippine society. Our political-economic history tells that the vested interests PNoy and the LP have allied with in this election are not credible and deserving of being part of a true 'reform coalition' for the so-called 'straight path'. One big fail here for PNoy and the LP leadership! Boo!
P.S.1. And this is why I'm against having personality-based surveys before elections. Again, who benefit the most from these personality-based results? Only the political parties whose decisions on who they should field in as candidates are determined by these surveys! In this sense, and in the context of contemporary Philippine money politics and electoral structure, surveys do not serve the interests of a kind of democracy where people are free to run for public office and where electorates are free to choose the best among willing and able servants of the people.
P.S.2. Of course, as a student of the social sciences, I am not to question the integrity and accuracy of surveys—especially of the SWS and Pulse Asia—simply because I believe in the science behind them or their proven scientific methodology.
P.S.3. But, time and again, a pattern of voting behavior has emerged among Filipino voters, a behavior that validates Keynes' 'beauty contest analogy' in the study of stock markets. In general, a Filipino voter has the tendency to vote for who s/he thinks the others will also vote for. In other words, they vote for who they think will win, and not necessarily the candidates with the best character, competence, intentions, and platforms.
P.S.4. Here's my wishful thinking for Philippine 'electoral reforms' and political democracy: that personality-based surveys should be banned before elections; and that only surveys asking preferred qualities/character of candidates be asked to respondents. In doing so, elections in the Philippines will be like a 'horserace' where candidates do not know how much is bet on them.
P.S.5. Oh yes, I acknowledge a philosophical point on how would I know anyway that horses in the horserace do not know who are llamados (leading) or dehados (trailing behind)! ;-)
Thanks PNoy and LP for denying us the liberal freedom to choose the best people for the government, for the country, for our future! And BOO, more BOOs, and much BOOs to the crappy senatorial slate of the opposition - same names, same faces, same trapos who are part of the country's elites that have stolen the hopes and dreams of Filipinos for a better and dignified life in the past and at present!!! But, hopefully, not in the future.
Thank you and farewell, the great Professor Eric Hobsbawm!
The other night I was just teased by my supervisor that I was discussing Hobsbawm with some friends in a farm north of Denmark during the wee hours. Sad, a great loss indeed, but Hobsbawm's ideas and contributions live on.
A moment of silence for you....
Here was Professor Eric Hobsbawm at 94, turning 95, still sharp and lucid:
" Once again it is evident that even between major crises, ‘the market’ has no answer to the major problem confronting the twenty-first century: that unlimited and increasingly high-tech economic growth in the pursuit of unsustainable profit produces global wealth, but at the cost of an increasingly dispensable factor of production, human labour, and, one might add, of the globe’s natural resources. Economic and political liberalism, singly or in combination, cannot provide the solution to the problems of the twenty-first century. Once again the time has come to take Marx seriously. "
One of the most unforgettable conferences that I attended was the 2009 Historical Materialism Conference where I presented a paper on the global capitalist crisis in Professor Hobsbawm's Birkbeck College at the University of London. I did not see him there but it is wonderful to think that it was in that College where the great historian had his initial struggles to be an academic—rising from being a lecturer to become its President—and where some of the most important works on world history was written: the long 19th century (The Age of Revolution: Europe, 1789-1848; The Age of Capital: 1848-1875; The Age of Empire: 1875-1914) and the short 20th century (The Age of Extremes, 1914-1991).
Two of my favourite classic British historians have now left us — E.P. Thompson and Eric Hobsbawm — ideas and analyses of both have contributed to my thesis. I would have wanted to be a historian myself; I believe socio-political and economic analyses would have been easier for me. I feel that our current generation of students are too young to remember history. Unfortunately, many teachers are also either uninitiated or totally disinterested about the importance of history in understanding the present in light of the past for the benefit of the future.
Long live, Professor Hobsbawm, and the history he has written!
Some classic video clips here of E.P. Thompson and Eric Hobsbawm:
A sad reality about the academic profession all over the world.... Here's a reflective note from my former teacher, Walden Bello, a respected academic himself and awarded Outstanding Public Scholar by the International Political Economy Section of the International Studies Association (ISA), regarding a lesson that can be drawn from the Amy Bishop incident:
" Being denied tenure often ends an
academic's career, and there are so many cases of denials being based on flimsy, questionable, and downright unjust grounds. There are so many capable and brilliant minds that are today part of the walking wounded, destroyed by the tenure process. It's time educational institutions ... review the tenure process so that it does not become a mechanism whereby the mediocre and non-productive defend their sinecures from younger, bright, and productive scholars. "
Sad that up-and-coming talents are often confronted with terrible personal insecurities of already 'tenured' (i.e., with job security) faculty members. Even sadder that there are many academics who need the energy that comes from bullying, senseless power play, and hating others intensely just to keep them going.
Luckily, whenever I encounter insecure and hateful academics, I just remember the most important teachers, professors, and mentors in my life who are very good—both professionally and as human beings—who have made me feel and experience an old-fashioned academic culture of generosity, encouragement, and inspiration. These are the academics with a sense of humility, not pride; philanthropy, not patronage; love, not hate.
Manny V. Pangilinan Source: Philippine Daily Inquirer
Listen to MVP.... Not necessarily to follow exactly his will or what he says; but to read between the lines. There appears to be a point to believe in that one of the major reasons why the Philippine economy is bad for investments is that its state functionaries listen more to politicians as well as (neoclassical) economists than to businesspeople. To be perfectly frank, even from a capitalist point of view, the Philippine state does not know how to manage and develop capitalism properly so as to create wealth for the nation.
I find MVP's business and politics a really intriguing case for a study of Southeast Asian political economy.... I hope I can find the time, energy, and opportunity to do this research in the coming months....
In the Philippines, MVP is considered a business magnate who has diversified interests, holdings, and portfolio and who has become a patron of the country's sports, arts, and education. But there's more....
MVP is one of those very rare seasoned Southeast Asian capitalists who has thrived on and know how to deal with a variety of capitalist regimes in East and Southeast Asia - broadly speaking, be it the 'free market capitalism' of Hong Kong, the 'state capitalism' of China, the 'predatory capitalism' of Indonesia, the 'crony capitalism' of Malaysia, or the 'unruly' capitalism (MVP's word) of the Philippines. MVP has recently expressed disgust about 'unruliness' in the conduct of political-business relations in the Philippines. And this is telling about a fundamental requirement of any capitalist: a high degree of predictability, certainty, calculability, and security for capital accumulation.
With the way things are shaping up these days, including in geopolitical and geoeconomic terms, and with the few years left of PNoy's presidency, it seems that the Philippines cannot expect much investments in the coming years from Chinese capital. Other analysts argue that the Philippine political tussle with China does/will not affect the two countries' economic relations; but I disagree with this opinion because it does not accurately comprehend how 'the political' and 'the economic' are inextricable in Chinese political economy. I think that China has not learned capitalism from the English classical political economy of Adam Smith and David Ricardo (which normatively separates 'the political' from 'the economic'), but from the critique of political economy of Karl Marx (which structurally understands 'the political' behind 'the economic'). While the Philippines should still try to reach out to China, maybe it would be more strategic for the government to look to other investors outside the ASEAN like Japan, which also has intensifying territorial disputes with China and which remains the Philippines' biggest investor. Current news in the business pages are saying that more and more Japanese manufacturing activity/production are relocating to the Philippines in recent and coming years. Well, who knows, the 'anti-China' projects in Washington (and, possibly, in Tokyo) might revitalize the postwar anti-USSR Marshall Plan and the mid-1980s Plaza Accord - i.e., two historic capitalist development moments and plans that have dramatically (re)industrialized Germany (and West/North Europe) and Japan (and the economies in East and Southeast Asia). The Philippines could be a showcase for a Marshall Plan 2.0 and/or a Plaza Accord 2.0.
South Korean capital also might be a good source of foreign investment especially that many of its citizens and businesses are already settled and in operation in the country for some years now. Just a thought, however.... When I asked Ha-Joon Chang about this prospect when he treated me for a drink in Italy two years ago, he told me that tapping South Korean capital is not at all a bad idea; but he warned me against the dismal record of these companies in labour and industrial relations. Indeed, Ha-Joon's reminder to me immediately conjures up the occupational abuses and hazards of the Hanjin Corporation in Subic recently, as well as the excesses of the Japanese Imperial Army-trained General Park Chung-hee during Korea's early industrialization experience. So consider this as a tip on how to do business with the Koreans in ways that protect and promote the welfare and a life of dignity of Filipino workers.
Other countries within the BRICS — particularly, Brasil, India, and South Africa have to be seriously considered as well as prospective investors. For instance, our neighbour Malaysia has laid out business plans with the BRICS, which mostly focus on China and India (i.e., the 'home' nations of about 40% of the country's multiethnic citizens).
And, of course, at this crisis moment, there are big opportunities to develop our own domestic manufacturing sector, local technological capabilities, national innovation system, and agricultural productivity with a view to food security. This must include alternative development strategies and the visions for ecological futures and sustainable communities. Big concepts and ideas, indeed, but we have a lot of brilliant, creative, and dedicated people in the Philippines who (can) make things happen. Hope!
To me, while there are many factors why Filipino food has not been on a par with our neighbours Thai, Vietnamese, and Indonesian cuisines in terms of international recognition, I believe that some of the important explanations have to do with [i] our generally very adaptive cultural disposition; [ii] the incompleteness of our nation-building process; and [iii] the absence of a national development strategy.
Points [i] and [ii] may be self-explanatory, yet [ii] and [iii] are interrelated. On point [i] I remember Anthony Bourdain's No Reservations feature on Philippine cuisine when he made a comment about Filipinos: "I think you are just too damn nice. I think this is a problem." Watch below that particular episode.
But I would like to emphasize on the importance of point [iii] here. It might have been ideal to make identity flourish 'organically', but at this historical moment of globalization I think food identity for the international market can be created. That is to say, politics can actually create a culture, an identity. Creating a food identity can be part of a nation-building process and outlined in a national development strategy - both of which orchestrated by a truly democratic state (we, the people). It is actually good that in the Philippines, unlike in many European countries, the principle of 'nationalism' has a positive connotation. However, sometimes I have a feeling that our nationalism is most articulated in sports - particularly every time that our national pride Manny Pacquiao fights in the boxing ring - but we have not extended a sense of nationalism to our polity and to our economy.
We should not forget that development - i.e., capitalist development - from Europe and the US to Japan, South Korea, and China (and even Malaysia) were not built on the invisible hand of the market but on conscious state policy, not on 'liberalism' but on 'nationalism'.
Finally, I very much disagree with these statements in the BBC report:
Mr Laudico believes the reason why Philippine food is not well-respected is because Filipinos themselves do not respect it. They might like to eat it, but they do not think others will.
"We have a lack of pride in our own cuisine," he explained. "For hundreds of years, when we've had guests in our homes, we've apologised and said to them: 'I'm very sorry, I can only serve you Philippine food'."
Sometimes I wonder if our mainstream media is really that naive, or simply incapable of reporting news on international relations, even just the affairs (particularly, political economy) of our neighboring countries in Southeast Asia....
The other day, I watched in the news featuring PNoy's meeting with Malaysia's Prime Minister Najib as if Malaysia is also supporting the Philippine territorial claims against China.... Our media may be underestimating how powerful and important (economically, at least) China is now in the region (in the world, indeed) and how ASEAN does not want to antagonize its relations with China....
Here are the facts: China is now the biggest trading partner of ASEAN and will soon become the biggest investor in all ASEAN countries; and by 2009, Malaysia has become the largest trading partner of China among ASEAN countries.
The point is: authoritarian-capitalist states of Singapore and Malaysia will never ever antagonize their authoritarian-capitalist counterpart benefactor and idol, China, at this point. And the truth is: not for the Philippines, which is really not that important for these emerging and industrializing economies.
There is a difference on the reception of China between PNoy and Najib when both assumed state leadership in 2010 and 2009, respectively: PNoy visited China; Najib was invited by China. The Philippines does not have a clear development strategy towards Chinese capital; Malaysia is more conscious of integrating Chinese capital into its accumulation regime. This is where having national industrialization as a development strategy (i.e., Malaysia) makes a startling difference in, among others, international economic and political relations.
I don't think that PNoy should have spent that much (PHP 15 million) for the attendance of his economic team in the APEC. PNoy only got a meeting with who - Chile and the three ASEAN countries Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam? Countries which PNoy's team could have met outside the APEC? The team was frustrated when they were not able to meet with China, whose appointment books must have been full as all APEC countries would like to secure a share of Chinese capital.
I would have hoped that even from a capitalist point of view, PNoy's economic team would be able to strategize a Philippine capitalism with Chinese characteristics. Aside from the well-recognized problem of the PNoy administration on the implications of the territorial disputes at the West Philippine Sea for Philippine-China economic relations and even though we are doing better now in 'good governance', I believe that a more fundamental structural problem why the Philippines is having difficulties in attracting Chinese capital has to do with our economic development strategy.
My sense is that, thus far, PNoy's 'de-Gloriazation' efforts have been limited to 'political' reforms - i.e., the restoration of integrity in our democratic institutions - but has not yet extended to 'economic' reforms. Here is my framing of PNoy's economic strategy: it's basically, neoliberalization à la Gloria with good governance. To be candid about it: PNoy's good governance is simply a thin icing on a largely neoliberalism-à-la-Gloria cake. Remember Gloria's formula to gain positive growth rate computation, mainly: OFW-dependence (labour-export strategy) + huge public spending + BPOs (call centers). And yes, lest we forget, add CCT initiated during Gloria's presidency as a central poverty reduction programme. But how about exports of value-added manufacturing goods - a big question mark???
I am not saying that these economic strategies of Gloria should be abandoned altogether, but it is to challenge PNoy to have some value-added on his development strategy that directly alters the economic structure. Our service-oriented economy is already a very depressed market that does not offer a great variety of labour specialization and which is not able to sustain, let alone increase living standards of, 90+ million Filipinos. No wonder that we cannot attract Chinese capital or generally increase FDIs and international private capital flows into the Philippine economy.
I have always argued that it's the 'mode of production' that should be the foremost concern of our development strategy. We have to produce things and ideas. Things and ideas with value - that is, technology-intensive and conducive to innovation. At this historical moment of global economic crisis and climate change, there are big windows of opportunity for alternative futures — towards ecological production systems, green technology, sustainable communities, etc. We have to produce wealth first for the nation before our promises of redistribution or redistributive justice earn credibility and legitimacy from the hopeful people of the Philippines.
The RH Bill is in peril of being killed by Senate leadership filibustering and other legislative delaying tactics. Both Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Majority Floor Leader Tito Sotto, known anti-RH legislators, are obviously engaged in this old trapo (traditional politician) trick. Another inconvenient truth: These were the senator-judges who we cheered on during the Corona impeachment trial and the same politicoswe jeered at this timeas regards the RH Bill.
Alas, such is the nature of our elitist political decision-making structure! But this also tells us exactly who we should not anymore vote for and against whom our opposition should be mounted.
Part and parcel of the political reform process towards social change is to stop electing these trapos. As we press on the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to ensure institutional integrity of our electoral decisions, we — the citizens — also have to make informed and wise votes.
Mar Roxas' political slogan these days is "Country above self". Ethically, as in the original Greek signification of a 'polis', it must be country (common good) over party (parochial interests). But in contemporary realpolitik, we have idiots or 'idiotes' (selfish, self-interested politicians) in the polity.
The deep sense of loss that Filipinos have felt with the untimely departure of Ramon Magsaysay Awardee Jesse Robredo is highly evocative of the sad reality of the corruption of the vocation and profession of politics as a supposedly noble art of public service. There has been a general expression of thanks and appreciation for the life of Mayor Pogi, Sec. Jesse, for reclaiming ethics in 'politics' and for bringing back the demos (we, the people) in democratic governance.
To continue with the reforms in local governance that Robredo had started off, the President has appointed his party-mate Mar Roxas as Secretary of the important and powerful Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG). Mar's presidential ambition might have been delayed for a while, but his appointment at DILG effectively makes him a 'little president' with executive powers, legislative clout from provincial governments down to barangay councils, judicial prerogative to discipline erring local government officials, and the security and coercive apparatuses of the police.
Mar is a seasoned politician. I would encourage a political biographer to consider him as a very interesting subject. Unfortunately, the Philippines does not have much political biographers these days, aside from politically-commissioned PR firms, academics, and writers.
I think Mar's career is a fascinating subject for students of Philippine politics. He comes from an elite political-business family. He has training in economics, finance, and business. He was a legislator in both the House and Senate. He's a technocrat who has survived and thrived the bureaucracies under the administrations of Erap, Arroyo, and PNoy — heading different departments from Energy (DOE) to Trade & Industry (DTI) to Transportation & Communications (DOTC), and now the DILG.
Arguably, Mar has worked in all these government agencies enthusiastically and professionally; however, his short stints in those offices also meant that the projects and reforms he had instituted had not been sustained, inhibiting them to take root and flourish. Mar is also a celebrity having been linked with some celebrities and now married to a media personality. With his education, Mar is ideologically a market-oriented 'neoliberal'; but he once succeeded in the 'populist' appeal of 'Mr. Palengke' (Mr. Market) in an attempt to mold ordinary people's consciousness into the legitimacy of market mechanisms and he had also fought for some 'protection' for the interests of the nation's local farmers and domestic industries against the rich countries and the WTO rules. And many more.... A curious case, indeed....
We cannot expect 'Mr. Palengke' (Mar) to be like 'Mr. Tsinelas' (Sec. Jesse). Mar is / has always been / will be Mar. There will never be a Jesse Robredo again, but there are important lessons that Mar or we can draw from Jesse's life experience and achievements. Congratulations and good luck to the newly-appointed DILG Secretary Mar Roxas! The people should watch over him and make sure that he lives up to his political motto: "Country above self."
