Home Blog Page 12075

DTI expects wet market prices to mirror decline at farmgate level

THE Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) threatened wet market vendors with closure or price controls if retail prices do not more closely mirror the decline in farmgate prices.
“If prices do not all, then we will start issuing notices of violation,” Trade Secretary Ramon M. Lopez told reporters Thursday.
“We can even close the stores as a last resort. I don’t want to do it because they are small retailers and buy-and-sell entrepreneurs, but we have to exert the government’s influence on the market. If we don’t get cooperation we may be forced to close stores. But we will observe due process.”
He said a notice of violation will be issued for failure to address issues identified in a show-cause order, which serves as a first warning.
Mr. Lopez said the DTI and the Department of Agriculture have agreed “in principle” that his department will be in charge of market enforcement action.
He said he intends to pressure vendors in order to curb profiteering among middlemen.
Asked how the DTI will identify violators, Mr. Lopez, in a text message, said one standard is sellers charging “20% more than the typical margin.”
To support enforcement efforts, the DTI may also operate its own stores and imposing price controls, as a “last resort.”
Under Republic Act 7581 or the Price Act of 1982, the President, on the recommendation of the DTI, can impose price ceilings on any basic necessity or prime commodity.
Conditions triggering price controls include calamities; emergencies; widespread acts of illegal price manipulation; and “unreasonable” price levels for any basic necessity or prime commodity.
Mr. Lopez said farmgate prices of certain commodities like poultry have been on a downward trend but have not been followed downward by retail prices. — Janina C. Lim

Stocks up as market awaits US-China trade talks

LOCAL EQUITIES rallied on Thursday, as investors looked to the resumption of talks between the United States and China on their ongoing trade war.
The 30-company Philippine Stock Exchange index (PSEi)jumped 2.25% or 171.77 points to 7,804.03 yesterday, while the broader all-shares index also chalked up gains of 2.35% or 108.97 points to 4,732.58.
“I think the resumption of talks between the US and China lifted market sentiments today. Today’s strong close is more of a continuation of the momentum yesterday as the two biggest economies hold a face to face discussion to avert the escalating trade tension between them,” Timson Securities, Inc. trader Jervin S. de Celis said in a mobile message on Thursday.
Officials from China and the United States are scheduled to meet this week to initiate a new round of trade talks. US President Donald J. Trump, however, said he does not “anticipate much” from the negotiations.
The two economies yesterday slapped new tariffs on each other, after the US imposed dues on $16 billion worth of Chinese goods. China retaliated with new tariffs on the same amount of American goods.
Meanwhile, Papa Securities Corp. trader Gabriel Jose F. Perez attributed the increase to foreign investors coming back to the market.
“A fresh round of net foreign buying propelled the index 171.77 points, past the 7,800 level, to close at its high of 7,804.03,” Mr. Perez said in an e-mail.
Foreign investors logged net purchases of P514.21 million on Thursday, higher than the P62.13 million posted in the previous session. This is the highest net foreign inflow recorded for the month of August.
Most sectoral indices stayed in positive territory, led by property which soared 2.85% or 109.24 points to 3,942.26.
Holding firms rose 2.02% or 150.92 points to 7,592.74; financials climbed 1.95% or 34.94 points to 1,823.03; services firmed up 1.82% or 27.84 points to 1,555.64; while industrials added 1.31% or 146.65 points to 11,315.91.
Only the mining and oil sub-index declined, dropping 0.23% or 23.02 points to 9,839.36.
Some 810.37 million issues valued at P7.97 billion switched hands, higher than Wednesday’s P6.48-billion turnover.
Advancers outpaced decliners, 130 to 69, while 50 issues ended flat.
“I guess investors will retest the 7,800-8,000 area despite the absence of local fresh catalyst. So, this sharp upward move of the PSEi after finding support at 7,500 is mainly driven by external news from China and western markets,” Timson Securities’ Mr. De Celis said.
Meanwhile, Wall Street indices ended mixed overnight, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average losing 0.34% or 88.69 points to 25,733.60. The S&P 500 index was flat with a decline of 0.04% or 1.14 points to 2,861.82. The Nasdaq Composite index, meanwhile, went up 0.38% or 29.93 points to 7,889.10. — Arra B. Francia

Peso weakens further on hawkish US Fed minutes

THE PESO weakened further against the dollar on Thursday following the minutes of the latest meeting of the US Federal Reserve and amid trade negotiations between Beijing and Washington.
The local currency closed Thursday’s trading session at P53.48 versus the greenback, 5.5 centavos weaker than the P53.425-per-dollar finish on Wednesday.
The peso traded weaker the whole day, opening the session at P53.46 per dollar. It declined to an intraday low of P53.51, while its best showing for the day was at P53.45 per US currency.
Dollars traded climbed to $576.45 million from the $385.15 million that exchanged hands the previous day.
“The peso weakened after the August minutes reinforced the hawkish policy direction of the US Federal Reserve this year,” a foreign exchange trader said in an e-mail on Thursday.
Federal Reserve officials discussed raising interest rates soon to counter excessive economic strength but also examined how global trade disputes could batter businesses and households, minutes of the US central bank’s last policy meeting showed.
The Fed, which released the readout from its July 31-Aug. 1 meeting on Wednesday, has been raising rates gradually since 2015 and is now concerned the economy is so strong that inflation could rise persistently above its 2% target.
Fed policy makers left rates unchanged at their last meeting, but their discussion made it clear they are considering another rate hike soon. The Fed has raised rates twice this year and is widely expected to tighten policy again next month.
“[The minutes] also increased expectations of a likely Fed rate hike in September and another in December,” the trader added.
Meanwhile, another trader said the peso moved within a tight range during the trading session even as the dollar recovered against major and Asian currencies.
“The pair seems to be trading within the range for almost a week now. It doesn’t want to go beyond the P53.50 level, although we’re seeing demand at that level,” the trader said in a phone interview.
“We saw the minutes of the Fed but there’s no surprise to it. The Fed had the same rhetoric.”
The trader also noted that investors are still monitoring the trade negotiations between the US and China as well as the economic situation in Turkey.
For Friday, the first trader said the peso will move between P53.30 and P53.50, while the other gave a P53.40-P53.60 range. — Karl Angelo N. Vidal with Reuters

Energy dep’t seeking stakeholder comment on draft EPIRA IRR amendments

THE Department of Energy (DoE) is soliciting comment on draft amendments to the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of the law that restructured the energy sector, which privatized power generation, transmission and distribution.
In its draft IRR of Republic Act No. 9136 or Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) of 2001, the DoE set down a more defined role for the department, the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) and other energy-related government agencies, including the National Electrification Administration (NEA).
The amendments are intended to prepare electric cooperatives (ECs) for an environment of open access and retail competition, adding to the responsibilities of NEA, the agency that oversees the ECs.
“For this purpose, NEA shall: Assist the ECs in developing proposals… regarding policies and regulations of the electric cooperatives such that the same would allow ECs to operate efficiently and be able to recover prudent cost of services and operations including guarantees and enable ECs to achieve and maintain viability,” the draft states.
The NEA is also mandated to review and endorse for DoE approval the distribution development plan of each EC containing programs for capital expenditure, full energization of unserved and underserved areas, and rehabilitation plan for ailing cooperatives.
The agency is also mandated to prepare and submit for DoE approval an annual report on the performance of electric cooperatives.
The DoE sought to strengthen the technical capability and financial viability of ECs by conducting an annual institutional, technical and financial audit of all electric cooperatives, and require and enforce a compliance plan.
NEA is also to ensure compliance by the electric cooperative board of directors and management to the performance standards approved by the DoE and enforce sanctions and penalties for non-compliance.
A new provision called for the NEA, as guarantor and loan institution for the electric cooperatives, to ensure that all returns for such undertakings be devoted to activities necessary to achieve the objectives of EPIRA, primarily the total electrification of the country.
In the 23-page draft amended IRR, the DoE added “services” as among those for ERC approval in terms of expansion or improvement of transmission facilities by National Transmission Corp. (TransCo), with due regard to the TDP (transmission development plan) duly approved by the DoE and integrated in the power development program.
The DoE said the ERC approval should correspond only to prudent cost recovery by TransCo or its buyer or concessionaire.
On rate applications or petitions for rate adjustment, the DoE said that if no provisional approval is applied for or issued, the ERC should decide on the merits of the filing not later than 15 months from submission.
“If no decision is issued within the 15-month period, the application or petition shall be deemed approved,” the draft states.
The ERC is also directed to promulgate rules and regulations governing electricity suppliers on their conduct of abuse of market power, cartelization and other anti-competitive and discriminatory behavior.
For TransCo, the draft IRR allowed the company to operate, maintain and development the transmission system in any small power utilities group (SPUG) area that has been identified by the DoE as viable. The area should be connected to the main grid subject to the approval of the ERC.
TransCo may also directly or indirectly engage in any related business that maximizes the use of its assets, provided that 50% of the net income derived from such undertaking should be used to reduce wheeling rates as determined by the ERC. Wheeling rate is the charge for transporting electricity from an electrical grid to an electrical load outside the grid. — Victor V. Saulon

Draft circular addresses operations of embedded generators

DoE
THE Department of Energy (DoE) has drafted a circular covering embedded power generators and self-generating facilities, or entities that augment the supply of electricity in the power system.
In coming up with the framework for the operation of these entities, the DoE said several issues have been raised by electric power industry participants on the operations and requirements of embedded generators, or generating units that are indirectly connected to the grid through the distribution utilities’ system.
The same issues were observed for self-generating facilities or those owned and constructed by an end-user its own consumption or internal use excluding generation facilities for use by households, clinics, hospitals and other medical facilities.
The DoE said the framework was drawn up because of the potential impact on grid reliability and security.
As such, the department said these facilities should operate within the framework of provision of central dispatch by the grid operator of all generation facilities connected directly or indirectly to the transmission system. It said their dispatch should be in accordance with the dispatch schedule submitted by the market operator.
The department also said regulating the facilities was meant to comply with laws and regulations, including those issued by the DoE and the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) and “other government instrumentalities” having authority over them.
It also pointed to the market share and bilateral contracts limitation and other relevant regulations issued by the ERC concerning abuse of market power and competition. — Victor V. Saulon

DA to lift controls on onion imports to force prices lower

THE Department of Agriculture (DA) said it will suspend special safeguards (SSG) on onion imports to stabilize prices.
Agriculture Secretary Emmanuel F. Piñol told reporters on Thursday that the SSG will be lifted in two weeks to allow onion sellers to deplete their remaining stock.
“Two weeks from now we’re expecting the price for imported onion to go down.”
According to DA data, the landed cost of onion is around P33 per kg. An SSG can be invoked at a trigger price of P74.21 per kg, to protect domestic farmers.
The DA also estimates the prevailing price of red onion in Metro Manila at P100 per kg as of Aug. 22, up P10 higher from a month earlier, while white onion was at P120, up P40.
In a letter addressed to Customs Commissioner Isidro S. Lapeña, the DA said that the temporary lifting of the SSG will “cushion the impact of rising prices and mitigate the impact of soaring inflation.”
He also noted that chicken prices of P120 per kg are still high and have failed to mirror the decline in farmgate prices to P70 from P90. — Anna Gabriela A. Mogato

Super Mario creator warns gaming industry: Don’t be too greedy

The legendary video-game designer who created Super Mario and Donkey Kong has a word of advice for today’s industry: stop nickel-and-diming users.
Shigeru Miyamoto, 65, said Nintendo Co. is exploring different ways of charging people for games, shunning the free-to-play model that’s become a moneymaker in the $140 billion gaming sector. Instead, he called on his peers to deliver titles at fixed prices without over-charging players, which will create more sustainable businesses over the long term.
“We’re lucky to have such a giant market, so our thinking is, if we can deliver games at reasonable prices to as many people as possible, we will see big profits,” Miyamoto said at the Computer Entertainment Developers Conference (CEDEC) on Wednesday in Yokohama, Japan.
Miyamoto’s criticism comes as the free-to-play model — including loot boxes and microtransactions — drives record profits. Instead of charging an up-front one-time fee, publishers are increasingly giving games away or selling them at discounted prices, and then nudging players to continually buy in-game products such as virtual outfits or encouraging them to bet money on winning rare items. The revenue model is especially common among mobile and personal-computer games.
Proponents of the free-to-play model say that it increases the longevity of individual titles and creates more predictable businesses, which attracts investors and boosts employment. But opponents say it stunts creativity in game making and promotes gambling-like behavior, which resulted in lawmakers in Belgium and Netherlands banning loot boxes this year.
“I can’t say that our fixed-cost model has really been a success,” the usually candid Miyamoto said. “But we’re going to continue pushing it forward until it becomes entrenched. That way everyone can develop games in a comfortable environment. By focusing on bringing games to the widest range of people possible, we can continue boosting our mobile game business.”
The comments come almost two years after Nintendo unveiled Super Mario Run, the first smartphone game it developed in-house. The title charged a flat fee, which many users criticized as being too expensive for the amount of content provided. The company then switched to free-to-play for the next two titles. One of the games, Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp, has received criticism for being too focused on profits over fun gameplay.
Miyamoto also said game developers should heed lessons from the music industry, which is still struggling to recover after consumers learned to consume music for free through MP3 file sharing, as well as YouTube and streaming services. He said subscription-style services should play a bigger role in games, but said the key is to develop a culture of paying for good software.
“It’s necessary for developers to learn to get along with” subscription-style services, Miyamoto said. “When seeking a partner for this, it’s important to find someone who understands the value of your software. Then customers will feel the value in your apps and software and develop a habit of paying money for them.”
Nintendo will soon roll out two more mobile games. Dragalia Lost is slated to debut soon and is being co-developed with CyberAgent Inc., a publisher that’s been criticized for using aggressive tactics in monetizing games. The second title, Mario Kart Tour, will be released by March. — Bloomberg

Free co-working space dedicated to IoT opens in Ortigas

The line between the real and virtual worlds gets blurrier as technology grows at an exponential rate. Inventions from classic sci-fi movies are starting to show up in real life – keyless car, connected fitness tracker and face recognition door lock system. Even toys and ordinary home appliances are becoming “smart,” connected to the Internet and other devices.
The Internet of Things (IoT) has already infiltrated the everyday human life. And by 2020, about 50 billion devices — smartphones, tablets, computers, watches, pipelines, trucks — are expected to be connected via the Internet.
In the Philippines, Packetworx, an IoT network operator providing a full suite of easy-to-use solutions, from software, hardware to network connectivity, has been leading the adoption of this next Internet revolution, with the aim of making the Philippines an IoT-ready country.
Packetworx, as a social enterprise, strives to help Filipino communities by providing innovators and IoT enthusiasts with IoT opportunities. As part of this initiative, the company recently opened the first IoT Technology Hub in the country.
Located in iSquare Building on Meralco Avenue in Pasig City, the IoT Technology Hub allows interested IoT enthusiasts to explore and create different IoT devices, applications and solutions of their own, with the help of tools and equipment available in the facility.
In addition to its accessibility, the hub is completely free and open to anyone who wishes to turn their ideas into reality. It is equipped with computers, soldering stations, test equipment, pick and place, and reflow oven.
Packetworx’s IoT Technology Hub will be storing and documenting the different IoT projects that will be created by the community. All creations will be displayed and acknowledged to serve as inspirations to other aspiring innovators.
Partners may sponsor and invest in the projects that may potentially serve as IoT solutions for their companies.
Besides building a free co-working space dedicated to IoT, other Packetworx’s initiatives include: giving of free devices and network connectivity, such as flood sensors and air quality sensors, to local government units for disaster preparedness and community health safety, and distributing free hardware kits and IoT curriculum to schools to encourage students to create IoT products.
Arnold Bagabaldo, Packetworx founder and chief executive officer, believes that IoT, just like the Internet, will have a profound difference on how individuals live and do business.
“This is the chance for us, at the ground level, to develop this knowledge – equip our young generations, our engineers, to capitalize on this technology; export devices, export the technology to other countries. That’s our vision: to have a connected Philippines and to be able to equip Filipinos to improve efficiencies,” Mr. Bagabaldo said in a program held after the opening of the IoT Technology Hub early this month.
At present, Packetworx has a total of 31 gateways up and running in Metro Manila. By the end of August, the company’s goal is to cover most of the region with at least 250 gateways.
“What does it mean? If you have full coverage in Metro Manila, IoT devices that will run on batteries for years, will work anywhere within Metro Manila,” Mr. Bagabaldo said.
Packetworx’s goal by the end of the year is to deploy 2,500 gateways across the Philippines that will cover the country’s major cities. And, by end of 2019, the company aims to roll out 10,000 gateways that will cover even the remotest parts of the country.
“If we can be the text capital of the world, I think we can also be the IoT capital of the world,” Mr. Bagabaldo said.
From 2019 to 2021, Packetworx is forecast to expand its operations to Indonesia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Myanmar and Vietnam.

Saying no to federalism

THERE is the persistent misconception about federalism being merely a division of governmental functions: essentially one layer but of two levels. This is not true. That’s what we have right now with the present Constitution and the Local Government Code. It can be mostly top-down or bottom-up depending on how Congress formulates implementing legislation.
Federalism actually creates two layers of government. Or to be precise: two parallel authorities each equally exercising sovereign power over the citizenry.
Each “State” (i.e., province or region) is left to its own devices to generate income and is responsible in providing basic governmental services. It has the capacity to make its own laws, as well as judicial and law enforcement. Business permit or driver’s license requirements, for example, would be different in Makati from Davao.
Any legal document, say, a marriage license or marriage contract, would only be valid as to the issuing “State.” Other States are not compelled to recognize such marriage unless reciprocity arrangements are made with the issuing “States.”
By right, citizens are free to leave poorly managed “States” and transfer to those providing a better way of life: lower business taxes and less government regulation, as well as better health care or education.
Remember that, as we have regions rich in fish, marine resources, and minerals, but depend on “Imperial Manila” for their survival (e.g., Masbate, Samar, Ifugao, Bukidnon, Bicol, Negros Oriental; for ARMM, that amounts to 98%, which in 2014 reportedly amounted to P24 billion).
In a true federal system, the national government cannot logically be obliged to help failing “States.” Otherwise, what is the point of shifting to a federal system?
Which leads us to the ridiculous “Imperial Manila” charge.
What is Imperial Manila? When the current president is a Davaoeño? And before him were a Caviteño, Rizaleño, Ilocanos, Batangueño, Zambaleño, Pampangueños, Pangasinense, Cebuanos, Capizeño, and Boholano. Only one president came from Manila and he didn’t even finish his term.
Congress, the Supreme Court, the Cabinet — all have a healthy representation from the provinces. Manny Pacquiao is a Senator from the South. And Muslims have the privilege of exclusive recourse to Sharia law.
As discussed here previously, MindaNews (02 June 2014) reports: of the 234 elected representatives to the House of Representatives, Mindanaoans themselves chose 59. Add to the foregoing the 9 Mindanaoan party-list representatives who were voted nationally. Notably, as further reported by MindaNews, of the 68 Mindanao members of Congress, “one is a billionaire, 66 are millionaires and only one has a net worth of under a million pesos.”
Is it about seat of government? But nothing in the Constitution says that the government offices, even the presidential residence, should be in Manila. The offices can be scattered all over the country, and this is immensely allowed now by transportation and communication developments.
Is it about so-called concentration of powers? The fact is, Congress can delegate taxation and tariff powers to the LGU’s. Along with giving the education, health, welfare, public works authority and responsibilities to the LGU’s.
There may be an ensuing debate on the source of power, whether it be from national to local rather than the simultaneous holding of powers that the federal system brings, but this is more a constitutional/intellectual discussion rather than pragmatic or practical. It would also entail a debate on the tug of war between the federal and state government powers.
Frankly, this federalism matter boils down to money. Particularly the Internal Revenue Allocation. LGU’s currently remit 60% of taxes collected to the national government. The proposed federal system reduces that to less than 30%. But flexibility under the current Constitution is certainly there, as demonstrated by the Supreme Court in Mandanas vs. Executive Secretary (GR 199802): “The basis for the ‘just share’ of local government units under Section 6, Article X of the 1987 Constitution as being based on all national taxes and not only national internal revenue taxes.”
Which is why the aims of federalism can be achieved by simply amending the Local Government Code (and without changing the Constitution). The LGC can be amended so as to give greater powers to the LGU’s, with greater share or even 100% of their earnings retained by LGU’s. The power to make investment, trade, and customs regulations, and provide education, welfare, and health services can be devolved to, with primary responsibility in the hands of, the provinces. The national Departments for Trade, Education, Welfare, and Health can be relegated to mere coordinating agencies.
The LGU’s shall be solely responsible for raising domestic revenue and developing export markets, with the national government focusing on national security issues. As their entire earnings remain with the LGU, the hated national government is no longer expected to help destitute regions/provinces, the latter being now left to fend, sink or swim for themselves.
Which is the essence of federalism.
Otherwise, as mentioned above, we’re just fooling ourselves in federalizing but retaining dependence on the national government.
 
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

Property rights and political lefts

PRIVATE property rights is among the cornerstone of a free and dynamic economy. If people have no sense of control and ownership over their house, car, cellphone, appliances, savings, they will not work hard, invest, and accumulate wealth both at the household and macro or country levels. They will be in perpetual stress and fear that some bullies can claim and expropriate such properties away from them.
There is a measurement of global property rights protection worldwide being done regularly by the Property Rights Alliance (PRA), a Washington DC-based think tank. It is the International Property Rights Index (IPRI) annual reports.
PRA partners with 100+ independent and market-oriented institutes and think tanks worldwide in producing and propagating this report. In the Philippines, PRA partners are Minimal Government Thinkers and the Foundation for Economic Freedom.
The IPRI is composed of three major areas: (1) Legal and Political Environment (LPE), (2) Physical Property Rights (PPR), and (3) Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

LPE is composed of judicial independence, rule of law, political stability, and control of corruption. PPR is composed of physical property rights protection, registering property, ease access loans, while IPR include the protection of patents, copyright, trademark and brand, trade secrets and control of piracy. The highest score is 10, meaning high protection of property rights.
IPRI 2018 was released and launched two weeks ago and out of 125 countries covered, the Philippines ranked 70th, a decline of six notches from 64th in the IPRI 2016 and 2017 reports out of 127 countries covered.
Complementing the results of IPRI report is the Global Innovation Index (GII) 2018 report that was released about two months ago. GII is jointly produced by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), INSEAD, and Cornel SC Johnson College of Business.
GII is composed of seven pillars — Institutions, Human capital and research, Infrastructure, Market sophistication, Business sophistication, Knowledge and technology outputs, and Creative outputs.
The Philippines continues to rank low, 73rd out of 126 countries, in the GII 2017 and 2018 reports.
Let us focus on the IPRI 2018 report. The main reason for the decline in the Philippine score and ranking this year is the big drop in the country’s score in LPE, only 3.81 vs 4.14 in 2017. Which means there is a decline in the rule of law, decline in control of corruption, and more political uncertainty.
Countries that are strong on rule of law (the law applies equally to both governors and governed, administrators and administered, little or no exemption) are also the more developed, less-corrupt economies.
The Philippines seems to be moving away from more property rights protection as the current administration veers towards political leftism — rising taxes, rising welfarism, rising corruption, arbitrary closure of businesses like those in Boracay, and disrespect of certain provisions of the Constitution.
Government should focus on improving the legal and political environment, making the rules more stable and predictable. Property rights protection is inconsistent with political leftism.
 
Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is President of Minimal Government Thinkers, a member institute of Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.
minimalgovernment@gmail.com

Philippine train wreck

LIVING in the Philippines has always been challenging and difficult for many Filipinos. But never since the Marcos dictatorship has it been more dangerous than today for Lumad, dissenters, women, human rights defenders and the poor.
In response to life’s daily perils, some 20% of the population — or roughly 20 million men and women of the over 100 million residents of these isles of uncertainty — want to leave. These numbers are in addition to the nearly 11 million Filipinos scattered all over the globe from Angola to Zanzibar, of whom 47% are permanent immigrants, and 43% Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs), according to data from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
But it isn’t just construction workers, seamen, nannies, and domestics who’re heading for the nearest airport — and who were most likely among the thousands whose flights were canceled or delayed because of the 38-hour shutdown of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) last weekend.
Engineers, doctors, nurses, teachers, even lawyers and other professionals are also among them. In the mid-1980s, the surge in the number of Filipinos leaving for alien shores alarmed those who saw in the exodus the irreparable loss not only of the brains but also of the brawn that are both crucial to the country’s development.
In the 1990s, the alarm turned into condemnation of those abandoning the country of their birth, accusing them of being unpatriotic and of being solely focused on earning as much as they could.
The critics ignored the fact that for many OFWs, working in another country had become, and still is, a matter of survival, there being hardly any job opportunities at home that would assure them and their families lives of dignity in a society that over the decades has become more and more impoverished.
As for professionals, some do leave in search of relative luxury abroad. But others are also in search of the certainty, order and predictability of life that are absent in the Philippines, which in their minds would assure their children brighter futures. The meritocracy that governs the professions and trades in developed countries — the system based on the principle that what you know rather than who you know should decide personal advancement — is also among the lures of emigration. Filipinos generally excel in other climes, thereby proving that it is the system they’re born into that hinders both their advancement and the realization of their potentials.
The long and the short of it is the common conviction that being elsewhere is preferable to being here. “Here” is the Philippines, where, despite its having been under fascist rule from 1972 to 1986 and being once again under a despotic regime, the trains still don’t run on time. (The trains’ supposedly being on time, the fascist government of Italy’s Benito Mussolini claimed during World War II, was symbolic of the efficiency of the dictatorship.)
The Philippines is instead rapidly turning into a total disaster, a metaphorical train wreck whose brutal reality is pushing even more and more Filipinos into leaving for whatever country will accept them as workers or immigrants — or at least enable them to evade being deported as undocumented aliens.
TRAIN, the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion Law and the unprecedented surge of inflation in its wake that has almost literally made prime commodities worth their weight in gold, are not the only components of that wreck. Above it all is the gross inefficiency, incompetence, corruption, violence, and sheer madness that’s endemic in what passes for governance today.
The monopoly of a handful of families since Commonwealth days, political power has been used to keep those few in pelf and privilege in the seven decades since their United States patron recognized Philippine independence in 1946. Every administration since then has been run by the dynasties earlier “trained in self-government” by the US colonial regime and later nurtured and protected by their US patrons. Every one of them has been committed to keeping the country the way it has always been for over a century: a backward agricultural country and a US economic, political, cultural and military dependency.
Rather than address the poverty and its attendant ills rooted in the semi-feudal and semi-colonial character of Philippine society, they use and have always used State violence and repression against the movements, individuals and groups that have tried to work for the changes that have eluded this country and its people for centuries. The rebellions, uprisings and revolutionary wars that have haunted Philippine society for over 300 years are the consequences of both the reality of poverty and injustice as well as of the repression the ruling cliques — whether Spanish, American or Filipino — have used in response to the demand for the democratization of political power.
Since its collapse, the Marcos terror regime (1965-1986) had seemed the worst expression of the dynasts’ limitless appetite for power and plunder. But at least two of its successor regimes have come close to challenging that dictatorship’s dubious distinction.
The Macapagal-Arroyo regime (2001-2010) tried, but despite its sordid human rights and scandal-ridden record, didn’t quite make it as a Marcos regime clone during the near-decade it was in power. Instead, it is the current regime that in the brief span of twenty-five months is well on the way to becoming a worse version of the Marcos kleptocracy.
Not only has his regime amassed a record of human rights violations way above that of Ferdinand Marcos’s 19-year occupancy of Malacañang. President Rodrigo Duterte is also presiding over the complete return to power of the Marcoses via the siblings “Imee” and “Bongbong” and their unrepentant kin and cronies. In patent violation of the Constitution, Mr. Duterte has gone as far as to express his preference for the latter rather than for Vice-President Maria Leonor “Leni” Robredo to succeed him should he resign, and to even invite a military junta to seize State power to prevent a Constitutional succession.
But it’s far from surprising. The regime’s lawlessness and contempt for the Constitution are by now close to the stuff of legend. The Duterte police force, acting above the law and with total impunity, has slaughtered thousands including women and children in the course of the selective “war” on illegal drugs, and arrested and detained thousands more for such “offenses” as loitering, some of whom have been killed while in custody.
Should he survive the remaining four years of his term, Mr. Duterte is likely to be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity. But before the advent of that moment of historical retribution, the regime war against the poor and the future is continuing to ravage entire communities.
The debasement of democratic discourse he has achieved through his rants, profanities, ravings and encouragement of hate speech and the use of State violence against dissenters and regime critics has made the reform of Philippine society through peaceful means impossible. Instead of the sustainable peace he promised the electorate in 2016, the country today has never been more divided and in peril of even worse conflicts since Ferdinand Marcos erected a dictatorship on the ruins of the Republic.
Only the willfully blind, the intellectually dishonest, and the mercenary will mistake for progress the ruin of Philippine society Mr. Duterte and company have completed. More and more Filipinos are thus leaving for foreign lands, compelled by need and concern for the future to look elsewhere in this planet for a refuge from the terrors of the man-made disaster the country has become.
 
Luis V. Teodoro is on Facebook and Twitter (@luisteodoro). The views expressed in Vantage Point are his own and do not represent the views of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility.
www.luisteodoro.com

Why we need the WTO

By Roberto Azevedo
GLOBAL trade is under threat. Whether or not you call the current situation a trade war, certainly the first shots have been fired. This calls for our attention, and most importantly, our action.
WTO data show a marked escalation of trade restrictive-measures over the last six months. A number of import-facilitating measures were also recorded during the same period, but crucially the value of trade covered by these measures is falling, whereas the coverage of the restrictive measures is rising rapidly. Restrictive measures can include tariffs, quotas and stricter customs regulations.
The situation is extremely serious. Reciprocal trade restrictions cannot be the new normal. A continued escalation would risk a major economic impact, threatening jobs and growth in all countries, hitting the poorest the hardest.
There is a responsibility on the whole international community to help resolve these issues. I have been consulting with governments and leaders around the world, urging dialogue and exploring steps to unwind the current situation. But I have also been talking to a wider range of contacts across civil society — including parliaments, businesses, think tanks and the media — to raise awareness of what is at stake. I am calling on everyone who believes in trade as a force for good, and that global trade rules are an essential foundation for economic stability and prosperity, to speak up. Silence could prove as damaging as actions that lead to a trade war.
There have been some signs of progress. People are beginning to raise their voices. Business leaders and associations are calling on governments to refrain from putting up new barriers. They are asking for governments to negotiate and find solutions. We are seeing a wider understanding that higher tariffs mean higher prices and lower salaries in real terms, and that greater uncertainty risks investors pulling back and jobs being lost. And from leaders around the world, we are seeing much greater engagement in the WTO. Instead of tearing it up, they want to strengthen the system and improve it. This could potentially help us to defuse tensions and find a path out of the current crisis in global trade.
In some ways this conversation about strengthening the WTO isn’t new — I have been working with members over recent years to achieve exactly this, and we have made real progress. In recent years we have struck major deals like the Trade Facilitation Agreement, the abolition of agricultural export subsidies and the expansion of the Information Technology Agreement. This work must continue — and indeed discussions are ongoing on a range of issues which are vital for growth and development in today’s economy.
Notwithstanding this progress, clearly many feel a wider debate on reform is needed. Conversations are already underway and some have been floating ideas, but we still don’t have a common view on where discussions should lead and what areas may be more promising or more necessary to address. Whatever the answers may be, there’s no doubt that we need to redouble all our efforts to ensure that the global trading system is more responsive both to members’ needs and to the challenges of a changing global economy
As WTO members discuss all this, they will also have to deal with the threat to the dispute settlement system of the WTO. The 164 economies which make up the WTO’s membership account for 98% of global trade — and all of this is underpinned by the WTO’s dispute settlement system. This is the mechanism through which members hold each other to account for perceived infractions and which prevents trade disputes escalating into much more serious confrontations. As such, it is one of the fundamental pillars of global economic governance — and it is highly effective. Many disputes are resolved before they reach the litigation stage, but when they do proceed to that stage compliance with rulings is very high, at around 90%.
Despite its effectiveness and the fact that it is in higher demand than ever, the dispute settlement system faces a serious challenge. The appointment process for the Appellate Body — the body of jurists which hears appeals to dispute cases — is blocked, due to certain concerns held by the US about the Body’s rulings and procedures. As jurists’ terms come to an end, we will soon reach the minimum number needed for it to operate. WTO members are ready to sit down and resolve the matter but at the moment this conversation is not advancing. We need real commitment from all sides to solve this impasse.
These threads must come together in the conversations ahead about improving the WTO. The world needs this organization more than ever. Without it, we would face a future of uncertainty, trade war, lower growth, lower salaries and diminished job opportunities everywhere — in both poor and powerful countries alike. We have to use this moment to strengthen global cooperation on trade, which ultimately is in all of our interests.
 
Roberto Azevedo is Director-General of the World Trade Organization.
@WTODGAzevedo

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT