Home Blog Page 11359

DA’s Piñol warns against heavy dependence on rice imports

AGRICULTURE Secretary Emmanuel F. Piñol warned against heavy reliance on imported rice amid plans to liberalize imports and doubled down on his earlier support for rice self-sufficiency.
“It is as certain that 10 years from now, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, Pakistan and India will no longer be able to export the same volume of rice that they ship out today. They have to feed their growing population as well,” Mr. Piñol said in a social media post on Thursday.
“The point I am raising here, which I have raised in many occasions in the past, is: Yes, let us allow imported rice to come in to fill up the supply shortfall. But the policy to just rely on imported rice and ask our rice farmers to diversify to other crops is a death trap. This is a shortsighted view which will kill the rice industry and drive away farmers from the rice fields,” Mr. Piñol added.
Mr. Piñol said El Niño can hit any country without warning, and every country needs to be prepared.
“What if Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia suffer from harvest losses because of climatic disruptions including El Niño?” Mr. Piñol said.
“Even if we have the money to buy, there will be no available rice supply on the world market and assuming the availability of supply, can we outbid China?” Mr. Piñol added.
He called proposals to rely on imported rice as a “Short-sighted view which will kill the rice industry… The next generation of Filipinos will surely curse us for this misjudgment prompted by a myopic view which focuses on fleeting and changing economic numbers,” Mr. Piñol said.
University of Asia and the Pacific (UA&P) Center for Food and Agribusiness Executive Director Rolando T. Dy said that even with the removal of quantitative restrictions (QR) in the country in line with the implementation of the upcoming rice tariffication law, farmers will continue to plant rice.
“Most rice farmers will continue to plant rice under with income support. Some will eventually diversify,” Mr. Dy said in a mobile message.
“Rice farmers comprise 30% of the total rural folk. We have coconut, fisherfolk, upland farmers. They too need poverty alleviation attention. Coconut farmers and fisherfolk have been neglected for decades,” Mr. Dy added. — Reicelene Joy N. Ignacio

Consumer group contests water rate hike’s inflation assumptions

CONSUMER GROUP Laban Konsyumer, Inc. (LKI) said on Thursday it will continue to contest the water rate increases imposed on the east and west zone of Metro Manila as it claims the move from the water regulatory office was done without the required public consultation.
“The Chief Regulator took it upon himself to answer our pleading without conducting the much-needed consultation and hearing from the stakeholders. Our group pleaded to reduce the 5.7% inflation assumption adopted by the system for 2019,” LKI said through Victorio Mario A. Dimagiba, its president.
He was referring to Patrick Lester N. Ty, chief regulator of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), who in a letter to the consumer group rejected LKI’s letter contesting the rate hike.
The increase took effect on Jan. 1, 2019, at P0.64 per cubic meter for Manila Water Co., Inc. and P1.48 per cubic meter for Maynilad Water Services, Inc.
In a subsequent letter to MWSS Board of Trustee Chairman Franklin J. Demonteverde, LKI and its president said that “there is a need to mutually agree on the fundamental matter.”
LKI said under section 3(h) of the MWSS Charter under Republic Act No. 6234, the agency “shall fix water rates as the System may deem just and equitable.”
“Mr. Chairman, we concede that the fixing of rates by the Government through its authorized agents involves the exercise of reasonable discretion, but the Government has no power to fix rates that are unreasonable or regulate them arbitrarily,” it said.
He said it is the group’s belief that if the regulator’s discretion is to search for a reasonable and equitable formula to temper the price increases, the Philippine Statistics Authority’s core consumer price index (CPI) for the relevant period should have been an inflation rate of 4% for 2019 instead of the adopted 5.7%.
LKI cited the relevant periods as July 2017 at a CPI of 110.6 and July 2018 with a CPI of 115.6.
“Be that as it may, however, we maintain that the 2019 inflation can be a much lower figure from 3.3% to 4% contained in our letter,” it said.
Mr. Dimagiba said his group is requesting the intervention of Mr. Demonteverde to call a public consultation for a just an equitable interpretation of the agreement with the water concessionaires on the definition of the “C” factor of the rates adjustment formula. The “C” factor is percentage change in the CPI that is used as one of the components in computing the rate increase. — Victor V. Saulon

Output of industrial crops mostly higher in fourth quarter

PRODUCTION of abaca, coconut, coffee, rubber, and tobacco increased while sugarcane production decreased during the fourth quarter of 2018, according to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA).
According to the recently-published Major Non-Food and Industrial Crops Quarterly Bulletin, the PSA said that abaca fiber production rose 6.7% year-on-year to 18.06 thousand metric tons (MT).
Bicol was the top producer of abaca at 7.39 thousand MT, accounting for 40.9% of total output, followed by Eastern Visayas with 16.7% and Davao Region, 12%.
Coconut output rose 2.7% year-on-year to 4.03 thousand MT, with the Davao region accounting for 12.8%, followed by Northern Mindanao at 12.2% and Zamboanga Peninsula at 10.8%.
Output of coffee in dried berry form was 29.60 thousand MT, up 0.8% year-on-year.
According to PSA, SOCCSKSARGEN was the top producer of coffee at 10.70 thousand MT or 36.4% of the total, followed by the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) with 21.6%, and Davao Region 16.7%.
Robusta coffee was the most-produced variety, composing 71.3% of the total, followed by Arabica with 23.7%, Excelsa 4.1% and Liberica 0.9%.
Rubber output in cup lump form was 142.72 thousand MT, up 3.2% year-on-year, with SOCCSKSARGEN accounting for 42.7% of the total, followed by Zamboanga Peninsula with 41.4%, and ARMM with 6.7%.
Tobacco output rose 14.9% year-on-year to 1.10 thousand MT despite fears that new taxes will depress production with Virginia tobacco accounting for 60.1% and native tobacco 39.9%.
Output of sugarcane, which may also come under pressure because of proposals to liberalize imports, declined 2.2% year-on-year to 7.03 million MT. — Reicelene Joy N. Ignacio

Anti-red tape body may exempt some agencies from EoDB deadlines

THE Anti-Red Tape Authority (ARTA) will now allow government agencies claiming to be covered by special laws to be exempted from the timelines for processing transactions under the Ease of Doing Business (EODB) law.
Trade officials have said previously that the law allows no exemptions, citing the language of Republic Act (RA) 11032 or the EoDB Act of 2018 which said it covers “all government agencies including local government units.”
However, ARTA Officer-in-charge Director-General Ernesto V. Perez said Thursday that the agency will now allow for exemptions particularly for those agencies requesting waivers due to their being covered by special laws which provide for separate timelines in processing certain transactions.
The intention is to achieve a balance between due process and ensuring that government services are delivered promptly, according to Mr. Perez.
Agencies with quasi-judicial functions have raised concerns about the EoDB law, noting that the three, seven and 21-day processing rule respectively for transactions classified as “simple”, “complex” and “highly technical” do not suffice for the nature and magnitude of the cases they handle.
“As a general rule, everybody is covered. Now if you claim to be exempted because you are covered by a special law then you say so,” Mr. Perez said, noting ARTA is now writing to remind agencies to classify their transactions as “ simple”, “complex” and “highly technical” or whether they are claiming to be exempt from the EoDB law.
The classification will still have to be approved by ARTA’s director-general who has yet to be appointed by President Rodrigo R. Duterte. Meanwhile, those transactions not classified will be deemed “simple,” requiring completion within three days.
However, he said ARTA will not stipulate in the EoDB’s implementing rules and regulations (IRR) any exemption provisions.
“It should be treated on a case-to-case basis in order not to encourage agencies covered by special laws to claim exemptions. What we would like to highlight is the possibility of expediting processes through automation,” Mr. Perez added.
“If we highlight exemptions in the IRR, many might claim they are exempt,” he added.
Adding a provision to exempt some agencies may also highlight the “conflict” between a general law and a special law, rather than the essence of the law, which is to expedite government processes, according to Mr. Perez.
In principle, a general law supersedes a special law if the enactment of the former comes after the latter and if the special law is incompatible with provisions stated in the general law that followed it.
However, on Wednesday, during the news conference that followed the public consultation on the EoDB IRR in Pasay City, Mr. Perez said: “There is no question that RA 11302 is a general law. So that when there is a conflict between the general law and the special law covering a particular agency, then that special law will prevail.”
He added that the law “will really depend on the agency’s interpretation or study of their existing rules and regulations.”
Mr. Perez added that the preparations for the promulgation of the EoDB law, via the release of the IRR, complements ongoing efforts under Project Repeal.
Launched in 2016, Project Repeal aims to review old regulations and special laws which technological advances may have rendered irrelevant or replaceable by automation.
Since its launch in 2016, the project has reviewed 5,850 issuances, with 1,921 since repealed, 57 amended, 67 consolidated, 3,346 delisted; and 459 retained.
The most recent review resulted in recommendations for the repeal and amendment of 31 laws while 299 department/agency level issuances were proposed for repeal, amendment or consolidation.
Signed in May 2018, the EoDB law penalizes government officials who fail to meet its prescribed deadlines with suspensions and fines up to dismissal, perpetual disqualification from the service, and forfeiture of retirement benefits, depending on the number of times the law is violated.
The IRR will be promulgated once signed by the ARTA DG, whose appointment can be expected to be made official soon, Mr. Perez said.
But Mr. Perez, whose official appointment is as the Deputy Director General of the agency, encouraged another agencies to start moving and acting even without the IRR.
“Because the law says its already effective June 17, 2018, we are already encouraging all government agencies to do their own studies and evaluation of their existing rules and regulations without waiting for the promulgation,” he added. — Janina C. Lim

Half of LGUs around Manila Bay violate anti-pollution laws — DILG

MORE THAN HALF of the local government units along the Manila Bay watershed have been found non-compliant with environmental law, the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) said.
The DILG said that 53% or 95 of the 178 LGUs from the various regions along the bay failed a checklist that gauges their compliance with environmental laws, with 16 of the worst performers targeted as priorities.
“Based on our assessment, we still have a lot of work to do, and we intend to start with these 16 LGUs as we go along assisting all of the 178. We will help them, hindi namin sila pababayaan,” Interior Secretary Eduardo M. Año in a statement Thursday.
Of the 95 LGUs that failed the assessment, 56 are from Central Luzon, 37 from Calabarzon, and two from Metro Manila.
The DILG performed the assessment to measure the LGUs’ compliance with the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, the Clean Water Act, the Urban Development and Housing Act, the Water Code, and other such laws.
The Interior Secretary also warned LGUs that do not cooperate with the government’s rehabilitation of Manila Bay.
“We can also file cases against them with the Ombudsman or recommend disciplinary action to the President, if warranted. So we challenge all LGUs to shape up. We need them to fight and win the Battle for Manila Bay,” Mr. Año said.
The DILG also offered assistance to LGUs in order to comply with environmental laws.
“If the problem of the LGU is to create a drainage master plan to upgrade their liquid waste management, we can hold capacity development programs para for them,” Mr. Año said. — Vince Angelo N. Ferreras

House forest-management bill requiring sustainable practices passes on 2nd reading

A BILL requiring the protection and sustainable management of forests has been approved by the House of Representatives on second reading.
House Bill No. 9088, or the “Sustainable Forest Management Act,” which was approved via voice vote, also proposed to establish a Sustainable Forest Development Fund.
House Majority Leader Fredenil H. Castro of the 2nd district of Capiz said he expects third-reading approval of the bill before the 17th Congress adjourns on June 7.
“I am confident that it can be approved on third reading if we have a quorum,” Mr. Castro, who is among the authors of the bill, said in a phone message Thursday. Its counterpart measure, Senate Bill No. 402, written by Senator Loren B. Legarda, however, remains pending at the committee level.
If enacted, it will establish Forest Management Units under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to formulate management plans for forests.
The plan covers the sustainable management of mangrove resources and forest land considered mined-out or abandoned fishpond areas, and the utilization of forest resources, including those within ancestral land.
It will also allow the DENR and any natural or juridical person to enter into a Forest Management Agreement for the exploration, development and utilization of forest lands and resources.
“The Forest Management Agreement shall have a duration of 25 years and may be extended for another 25 years,” as stated under section 24 of the bill.
The agreements may be for the purpose of agroforestry plantations, forest plantation development, ecotourism development and other special uses.
The measure also hopes to establish the Sustainable Forest Development Fund to finance proposals for the FMU. It identified the DENR as the preferred government financing institution to invest 75% of the net interest income from loans extended for forest development.
The SFDF may also be sourced from at least 70% of imposed forest charges and collected government share as well as local and international grants, donations, and endowment.
Further, the bill will ban illegal practices such as utilization or possession of forest resources from protected forest land, the illegal harvest of forest resources, and unauthorized grazing of livestock, among others. Violators may face up to 20 years’ imprisonment and face fines of up to P1 million. — Charmaine A. Tadalan

A bad omen? Emerging markets ‘most crowded trade’ for first time

LONDON — Investors made a U-turn on emerging markets, naming them the most crowded trade, in Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s survey for the first time in its history.
This marked a big reversal from last month, when fund managers said “short EM” was the third most-crowded trade — showing how fast the mood can shift in an uncertain market.
It could prove to be a bad omen for emerging markets, though, as assets named “most crowded” usually sink soon afterwards.
Previous “most crowded” trades have included Bitcoin, and the U.S. FAANG tech stocks, which led the selloff in December.
Emerging-market stocks are up 7.8% so far this year, and flow data on Friday showed investors pumped record amounts of money into emerging stocks and bonds.
Emerging-market assets had a torrid 2018. Crises in Turkey and Argentina ripped through developing countries already suffering from a strong dollar and rising U.S. yields pushing up borrowing costs.
But a dovish turn by the Fed at the start of the year, indicating the world’s top central bank would not raise interest rates as quickly as previously expected, sparked fresh enthusiasm among investors.
Major asset managers and investment banks such as JPMorgan, Citi and BlueBay Asset Management ramped up their exposure to emerging markets in recent weeks.
The Institute of International Finance (IIF) predicted a “wall of money” was set to flood into emerging market assets.
However, there are some indications momentum may be waning. Analyzing flows of its own clients, investment bank Citi noted that it turned cautious on emerging-market assets over the last week, with both real money and leveraged investors pulling out funds following four weeks of inflows.
BAML did not specify whether the “long EM” crowded trade referred to bonds, equities or both.
Outside emerging markets, investors’ main concern remained the possibility of a global trade war. It topped the list of biggest tail risks for the ninth straight month, followed by a slowdown in China, the world’s second-largest economy, and a corporate credit crunch.
Overall, BAML’s February survey — conducted between Feb. 1 and 7, with 218 panelists managing $625 billion in total — showed investor sentiment had hardly improved. Global equity allocations fell to their lowest levels since September, 2016.
“Despite the recent rally, investor sentiment remains bearish,” said Michael Hartnett, chief investment strategist at BAML.
Investors remained worried about the global economy, with 55% of those surveyed bearish on both the growth and inflation outlook for the next year.
“Secular stagnation is the consensus view,” BAML strategists wrote.
Following this theme, investors were most positive on cash and, within equities, preferred high-dividend-yielding sectors like pharmaceuticals, consumer discretionary, and real estate investment trusts.
As investors added to their cash allocations, the number of fund managers overweight cash hit its highest level since January 2009.
The least preferred sectors were those sensitive to the cycle, like energy and industrials — which BAML strategists see as good contrarian investments if “green shoots” appear in the global economy.
Worries about corporate debt were still running high, with this month’s survey showing a new high in the number of investors demanding companies reduce leverage.
Some 46% of fund managers find corporate balance sheets to be over-leveraged, the survey found, and 51 percent of investors want companies to use cash flow to improve their balance sheets. That’s the highest percentage since July 2009.
Europe, one of investors’ least-favoured regions, showed a slight improvement. A net 5% reported being overweight euro zone stocks, from 11% underweight last month.
But investors’ reported intention to own European stocks in the next year dropped to six-year lows as the profit outlook for the region continued to lag.
Allocations to UK stocks increased slightly from last month but the UK remained investors’ “consensus underweight,” BAML said. It has been so since February 2016. — Reuters

Representing themselves

On July 23, 2016, President Rodrigo Duterte signed Executive Order No. 2 mandating public access to information held by the agencies and offices of the executive branch. The nongovernmental organizations that had been campaigning for a freedom of information (FOI) act for decades welcomed it with cautious optimism. The Executive Order (EO) encouraged the legislature and judiciary to do the same, but the FOI advocates nevertheless pointed out the need for a law that would cover all three branches of government.
Access to information is both a public right as well as an indispensable means of checking corruption by enabling citizen monitoring of government. But the Benigno Aquino III administration and its allies in the House of Representatives resisted the enactment of any FOI law during its entire six-year watch (2010-2016).
Mr. Aquino III said at one point that the press was already “too powerful” and did not need an FOI act. He was mistaken in assuming that it would serve only the media. Such a law would benefit the citizenry most by making readily accessible information on what government is doing and plans to do as a means of uncovering and checking wrongdoing and corruption.
A Senate version passed that chamber, and several FOI bills were filed in the House during the past administration. But most of the latter contained so many exemptions to what information could be accessed that if passed they would have limited rather than enhanced the public’s capacity to obtain government-held information. Other versions not as flawed were prevented from being passed by such obviously contrived barriers as lack of quorum, and some congressmen’s introducing unacceptable riders in the bills, among them right of reply provisions.
FOI advocates initially welcomed the Duterte EO as an indication of the regime’s departure from the Aquino III administration’s opposition to a freedom of information act. Within months after the signing of EO No. 2, however, hope had turned into disappointment.
Not only was there no indication that the House would ever pass an FOI bill into law, the Duterte EO itself also made it even more difficult to obtain information from the agencies and offices of the executive branch. Requests for information from the media were either rejected outright because the requested information was among those that Malacañang had decreed may not be released, or they were given the run-around with the argument that the information being requested was in this or that office rather than in the custody of the agency where the request was originally filed. Some offices also devised complicated processes that made getting information from them extremely difficult.
The long and the short of it is that the Duterte regime, despite EO No. 2 and Mr. Duterte’s repeated claims of a commitment to reducing, if not ending, government corruption, eventually demonstrated that it is as opposed to freedom of information as its predecessor.
Make that even more opposed. Instead of an FOI bill, Mr. Duterte’s House allies passed on Jan. 30 a resolution making it nearly impossible for the public and the media to access their Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), which contain information crucial to monitoring corruption among members of the House of Representatives.
House Resolution 2467 pays lip service to the Constitution by citing that document’s requiring every government official and employee to file a SALN on or before April 30 every year, but in reality violates it by undermining the people’s right to information.
The resolution imposes severe restrictions on accessing the SALNs of the so-called representatives of the people. The restrictions were put together by the SALN Review and Compliance Committee that Speaker Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo created, with some of her closest accomplices in that body as members.
Its most obviously repressive provision is Rule V, Section 14, which makes the release of information on any congressman or woman’s SALN possible only with the approval of the House plenary — meaning the majority of its current membership of over 200.
The congressman or woman whose SALN has been requested can also object to its being released. Only copies of the latest SALNs can be provided. Requests for previous statements will be granted only if considered “justifiable” by the SALN committee and the House Secretary General. Comparing the past and present SALNs of a government official is of course one way of establishing by how much his or her assets have grown and whether they can be explained or not.
The requesting party is also required to submit a form containing personal and employment information, the purpose of the request, and why copies of previous SALNs are being requested. It specifically mentions the media, and imposes additional requirements on any media person’s request, among them proof of his or her media affiliation and the media organization’s accreditation to establish the legitimacy of the media practitioner.
The same resolution imposes a number of other conditions and threatens the requesting party with criminal, civil and administrative liability in case he or she violates any of them.
Once a request is approved, copies of the SALN will cost P300 each — which means that a request for several SALNs can be costly. But in addition, the copies will be released only after they have been edited by the House’s Director of Records Management, specifically by blacking out the address of the SALN declarant, the names of his unmarried children below 18, the locations of his real estate properties, the names and addresses of his business and financial connections and those of his relatives in government, and other data.
These restrictions do not only make it difficult, they make it practically impossible to get a copy of the SALN of any member of the House because of the requirement that it be approved by the plenary and its release allowed by the subject concerned. But even if a request is granted, the SALN copies would be practically useless, since they have been redacted prior to their release.
Meanwhile, the provision that requires a media person to provide proof of his or her media affiliation effectively prevents freelance journalists from even filing a request for a copy of a House member’s SALN.
Equally disturbing is the SALN Review and Compliance Committee’s being empowered to question and evaluate the purpose of the request. A journalist who is doing research to determine if there was a suspiciously huge increase in a House member’s assets, which may prove that he or she may have personally benefitted from, say, the construction of a bridge or roadwork by a company owned by a relative, would be prevented from getting that information by the restrictions imposed by HR 2467.
What is glaringly evident is that the resolution is meant to conceal wrongdoing by preventing the information to which citizens are entitled from getting to them either through their own efforts or the media’s.
Those responsible for this latest outrage — almost the entire House membership passed it — against good and honest governance are not representatives of the people. Like their co-conspirators in the executive and judicial branches of government, they represent only themselves and their personal, familial, and class interests to the detriment of the people’s own. That is the message HR 2467 is loudly and clearly sending to the entire citizenry.
 
Luis V. Teodoro is on Facebook and Twitter (@luisteodoro).
www.luisteodoro.com

Everyone should be a populist and nationalist

I attended a Philippine-US relations forum in Makati last week. During one Q&A, the discussion drifted on the rise of so-called “authoritarian” regimes worldwide, particularly Asia.
The usual tropes were mentioned: the rise of populism, the return of nationalism, and xenophobia.
Bottomline, of course, what most wanted to say was: blame Trump (or Duterte).
But that’s being overly academic.
First of all, what is wrong with populism? Properly defined, a populist is “a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people” (see Merriam-Webster).
That pretty much sounds like a person in favor of a democratic form of government. One tweeter notably declared: “everyone is populist to some degree because elections are a popularity contest.”
Indeed. Hence, the popular (but ultimately vapid) slogan of Barack Obama: “Yes, we can.” Also his equally narcissistic: “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.” Which CNN later on adopted by employing Gandhi’s “Be the change that you wish to see in the world.” The leftists have their own particular chant built on people power: “The people, united, will never be defeated.”
So, deferring to “the people” didn’t seem to be a bad idea, even for the Left. Noynoy even referred to the Filipino as “his boss.”
So what changed?
Why is it that policy makers and academics that seem so enamored with the idea of “people empowerment” are now all of a sudden so against populism?
Trump and Duterte happened.
And with them policies crafted not from the halls of government or academia but from the grassroots: peace and order, jobs, income.
Executed by people who are not considered policy or academic experts but people with lives outside politics: businessmen, soldiers, and other various professionals.
With that, the elite political class, the class that thinks they know all the answers, were sidelined.
And now populism is suddenly a dirty word, associated with demagoguery (when a few years ago, Noynoy and Obama actually substituted oratory for governance) and intellectual mediocrity (considering that it is now that inflation is manageable, jobs are back, and — as far as the US is concerned — global security seems to be on the right track).
Yet what is being ignored in all this is that our constitutional system is based on populism. Our Constitution was authored by “the sovereign Filipino people.” A constitutional system described as “of the people, by the people, for the people.” And a citizenry, mind you, that loves invoking the phrase: vox populi vox dei.
And, as the Washington Post’s Marc Thiessen puts it, conservatives have long been populists “because we believe that millions of individuals can make better decisions about their own lives than a cadre of elite central planners ever could. As the founder of the modern conservative movement, William F. Buckley, Jr. famously declared, ‘I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the… faculty members of Harvard University’.”
In any event, with the rising distaste for populism comes the aversion to nationalism.
Again, people hate the word because Trump once said: “I am a nationalist.”
But if one — particularly a president — cannot love his country then what’s he to do?
For some, the answer be a “patriot.”
But this ridiculous word game is something only the most vain of globalists can say with the straightest of faces.
Merriam-Webster again: Nationalism: “loyalty and devotion to a nation”; Patriotism: “love for or devotion to one’s country.”
There is nothing wrong with being a nationalist, at least in our own particular Philippine system: it is recognizing that we are bound together not by blood, tribal loyalty, race, or even faith. We are not a country founded on religion. We are a secular country, respecting each other’s beliefs and differences, with a reliance on the rule of law, democracy, and human rights.
This nationalism is further bound to a territory, of fixed identifiable borders. As Roger Scruton puts it, our fellow citizens are our “neighbors,” who we identify with and share common beliefs, history, and tradition.
Which thus leads to this point: perhaps countries have not shifted to authoritarianism. Perhaps leaders have not become more dictatorial. Perhaps instead what happened is that policy makers, media, the academe, shifted so far to the Left, along with it their entire intellectual framework, that what was commonsensical yesterday is now considered Right or hard-Right. Hence, almost everyone they disagree with is authoritarianism.
Effectively, yesterday’s “defenders of democracy” are todays “authoritarian strong men.”
Rubbish.
Rubbish, considering the displaced members of the chattering political class are actually free anytime and anywhere to happily accuse their governments of being authoritarian.
What citizens should do is make their voices even louder. Be heard. Ignore the derogatory labeling of policy makers and academics.
Be confident in knowing that the people are often more right than the experts will ever be.
 
Jemy Gatdula is a senior fellow of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence.
jemygatdula@yahoo.com
www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
facebook.com/jemy.gatdula
Twitter @jemygatdula

The freedom to fly

“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.”

— Leonardo da Vinci (Italian polymath, 1452 — 1519)

While I have been to many ASEAN countries, it was only recently that I have visited some South Asian countries like India (Mumbai only), Nepal, and Bhutan, all related to attending the Asia Liberty Forum (ALF) or the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia conferences.
The big cities in our ASEAN neighbors are modern and developed, starting from their big and modern international airports. Flying from Manila is also easy because of (a.) the short distance, maximum four hours direct flight; (b.) lower fares due to many competing airlines; and, (c.) visa-free entry for ASEAN visits of less than 30 days.
The South Asians have a different environment. Bhutan and Nepal are very cold as they are up in the high Himalayan mountains — Mt. Everest can be seen from a distance when flying to Paro or Kathmandu. There are also no direct flights from Manila so the cost of travel is high, and there is a visa fee to pay.
All of my past trips to attend ALF and/or EFN conferences were sponsored by EFN Asia and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF), except for the Nepal trip in 2015 where I was sponsored by Media 9 and Business 360 magazine, where I was a contributor for free market topics.
airplane airport
I will attend the ALF 2019 in another South Asian country, Sri Lanka, from Feb. 28 to March 1. One thing that is weird going there is that almost all airlines from East Asia — Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Hong Kong, South Korea, etc. — arrive in Colombo airport in the late evening to early morning. Only the Sri Lankan airline flying from these countries arrives in Colombo at day time. For me this is indirect local airline protectionism.
I checked the tourism numbers — South Asia is not exactly a favorite destination for many international visitors, unlike many ASEAN countries. India, with its population of 1.3 billion, attracted only 15.5 million foreign visitors in 2017, nearly comparable with Singapore’s (population 5.7 million) 13.9 million visitors (See Table 1). I did not include in the list countries with very small numbers of foreign visitors in 2017 like Brunei (0.26 M), Bhutan (also 0.26 M) and Nepal (0.94 M).
International Tourism in ASEAN and South Asia
Next, I wanted to know how many of those international visitors in the Philippines and its neighbors are from the ASEAN. The numbers are a bit surprising — less than half a million of the Philippine’s international visitors are from our neighbors in the ASEAN. We are not attractive to our neighbors, like Myanmar (See Table 2).
Intra- and Extra-ASEAN International Arrivals, Millions
Malaysia, Laos, and Cambodia are attractive to their neighbors — partly because one can travel from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur by car or bus in five hours or less, with no need to fly; and partly because Malaysia has huge competing airlines that cater to all visitors, from the rich to poor travellers seeking budget airlines and landing in budget airport terminals.
Thus, the Malaysia experience can be a model for the Philippines in attracting more foreign travelers. Indonesia too — it is expanding its airports to be bigger, more modern. I saw the new Soekarno Hatta Airport last year when I attended ALF 2018 in Jakarta and I was surprised by its modernity. The airport’s passenger traffic rose from 57.8 million in 2012 to 65.7 million in 2018.
More big domestic airlines, more regional airline competition, more budget terminals alongside main terminals to attract more budget airlines local and foreign — we need them. The freedom to fly for more Filipinos and more foreigners seeing the Philippines should increase.
 
Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the president of Minimal Government Thinkers.
minimalgovernment@gmail.com

Finding the ‘Next China’ will confound investors

By Shuli Ren
Bloomberg Opinion
THERE’S an old Polish saying that when two people quarrel, a third will benefit. And so global investors are now looking for the country best positioned to gain from the US-China trade war.
China has been good to foreign investors over the past decade. Since the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. in 2008, the MSCI China Index has offered an annualized 8.6% return.
But last year was bruising. China staged one of the world’s worst stock routs, with the benchmark MSCI index tumbling about 20%. Meanwhile, the yuan flirted dangerously close to the psychologically important seven-per-dollar, a level that hadn’t been reached since the global financial crisis, fueling concerns that Beijing may weaponize the currency.
Is it time to ditch China and look elsewhere? With the higher tariffs that China, Inc. faces, US companies will be tempted to buy semiconductor parts from Malaysia, data storage units from Thailand, or cotton from Pakistan. Indeed, some asset reallocation is already taking place. Vietnam, for instance, was the only emerging Asian nation outside of China that received net foreign stock inflows last year. Many investors in the region have been betting the Southeast Asian nation will be the big winner out of the US-China spat. Multinationals including Samsung Electronics Co. relocated factories there even before the trade war started.
Still, if you’re investing in dollars, moving assets out of China is nice only in theory. The devil is in the execution.
Any savvy global investor deciding where to deploy money at the beginning of the year has exchange-rate risk on their mind, as emerging-markets currencies are volatile and protecting against sudden movements can be expensive. For instance, in the first week of 2019, hedging the Indonesian rupiah or the Indian rupee with a one-year forward would set you back 5.4% and 4.2%, respectively. If you add the fact that stocks in those two nations already trade at elevated multiples of 16.8 times and 21.6 times earnings, this means any capital gain would likely need to come from earnings growth instead of from multiple expansion. Suddenly these hot emerging markets no longer look so appealing.
Hedging the yuan, on the other hand, is cheap this year. Using one-year forwards would cost you only 0.2 percent, peanuts compared with 5.6% or 2.2% at the beginning of 2017 and 2018, respectively. What’s more, China stocks now trade at only 11.5 times earnings, 28% cheaper than a year ago. From this view, China doesn’t look so bad, even with a trade war and economic slowdown.
Pressure on the yuan was in part helped by the US Federal Reserve’s sharp dovish turn in early January. The implied rate of December 2019 federal funds futures fell from 2.93% in early November to 2.37% in the first week of 2019. In other words, futures traders see no further tightening whatsoever this year.
It can’t be stressed enough how important a stable currency is for emerging markets. If you doubt the yuan, compare it with the Turkish lira, Russian ruble, or Brazilian real, which have all been on roller coaster rides. Foreigners that rushed into those markets over the past decade could only groan with envy as China’s stocks outperformed.
In the currency space, the most fragile economies are the ones suffering from twin deficits, in the fiscal and current accounts, which are indicators that governments can’t balance their budgets and populations consume more than they earn. Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Turkey fall into this category. Even if smaller nations such as Vietnam follow China’s export-oriented model, boosting economic growth by shipping apparel, electronics, and toys to the world, a current-account surplus is likely to be short-lived.
China’s path illustrates that point. Just a decade ago, the nation was the root cause of global payment imbalances, with a current-account surplus exceeding 10% of its 2007 gross domestic product. But the surplus dwindled to 0.4% of GDP last year, and the nation may well dip into a deficit in 2019, reckons Morgan Stanley. This is because, contrary to President Trump’s perception, China is no longer a frugal nation that sells a lot abroad and buys little in return. In the third quarter of 2018 alone, China’s middle class spent about $63 billion on overseas travel, eating into the exporters’ hard-earned surplus.
Indeed, China would have dipped into a current-account deficit a lot earlier if not for its heavy industries. Like in other nations, the defining features of a middle-class family in China are home ownership, a car, and a few credit cards. Nowadays, Chinese buy more than 20 million passenger vehicles every year — but more than 90% of them were manufactured at home. As a result, China’s net imports remained stable at about $42 billion a year.
Consumer products such as cars and household electronics are scale businesses, and thanks to its one billion-plus population, China can support such industries. But the economics don’t make sense for smaller nations, which have to import goods including cars.
To maintain an account surplus, smaller countries could try to remain frugal, exporting and not spending overseas. But that won’t produce another China, where billions of dollars of wealth has been created over the past decade. A China 2.0 requires young, eager workers who’ll build manufacturing hubs and, in turn, use fatter paychecks to buy their first cars or designer bags.
Forty years after Beijing embraced capitalism, the yuan remains heavily managed. But it’s not a bad thing for foreigners. As for the entire emerging-markets asset class, an alternative to China hasn’t materialized yet. Investors better get used to the notion that China is here to stay.
 
Shuli Ren is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist in Hong Kong covering Asian markets.

Choosing a new World Bank boss is a chance to rethink

Bloomberg Opinion Editorial
PRESIDENT TRUMP has nominated David Malpass, a senior Treasury official and former Wall Street economist, to succeed Jim Yong Kim as next leader of the World Bank. Rather than rubber-stamp the US nomination, as the bank’s other member governments are generally inclined to do, they should ask whether Malpass is the best available candidate — and, even more important, start an open discussion about what the job should entail.
By longstanding agreement, the US chooses the head of the World Bank, and Europe’s governments choose the head of the International Monetary Fund. This arrangement is increasingly irksome to other countries, and ever harder to justify. The US is the largest shareholder in the bank, with roughly 16% of the votes; Europe’s governments have 26%. Acting together, they’ve been able to exert control. But it’s in the interests of all concerned to find the best qualified leader, and that requires a genuinely competitive process.
Malpass is coming in for criticism, partly no doubt just because he is Trump’s choice. It’s also true that he’s expressed doubts about globalism in general and the role of multinational institutions in particular. He’s been roundly rebuked, in addition, for dismissing concerns about the economy in 2007, just before the crash. He was hardly alone in that, however. For what it’s worth, his experience as a finance professional and high-ranking economic official make him a lot better prepared for the role than his predecessor was.
What matters more than credentials, though, are the ideas that the next president will bring to the job. The World Bank’s proper role is indeed in doubt. Frequent reorganizations — including the one undertaken by Kim — have been heavy on turmoil, recrimination, and movement of office furniture, but not so potent when it comes to envisioning what the bank should be doing.
Malpass has asked whether the bank should continue to lend to China and other non-poor countries, for instance — and that’s a good question. The bank describes China as an “upper middle-income country.” It has $3 trillion in foreign reserves, a handsome surplus of domestic saving over investment, and a far-reaching foreign-lending program of its own. It shouldn’t need to tap a taxpayer-supported development institution for cash.
This is not just about China. The acute shortage of capital for development that justified the bank’s creation more than 70 years ago no longer exists. Private capital markets can do all the lending the bank was originally designed to do.
All this has been well understood for years, if not decades. But the radical repurposing the bank requires still hasn’t happened. The World Bank needs to move away from outmoded development lending toward supporting programs that the private sector cannot adequately finance — including programs to supply global public goods, especially efforts to mitigate climate change; programs that prioritize knowledge and information over money; and initiatives to improve the lives of the poor in the countries that global markets have left behind.
None of these ideas are new. Indeed, they are drearily familiar. They need to be recognized as urgent. The process of naming a new World Bank leader should provoke a public debate about ends and means, and demand a detailed plan of action from each of several strong candidates. It’s entirely within the power of the bank’s board to insist on this. The governments concerned owe it to the taxpayers who support the institution.
 
Editorials are written by the Bloomberg Opinion Editorial Board.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT