If you’re one of those who feel suffocated in the age of social media, you must be cheering every time you detect even the faintest sign of life in the arts, particularly literature. In a time when hardbound tomes have given way to inane memes, and discerning essays to click-bait garbage, just the feel of physical paper is enough to give some of us an orgasm.
If, at this point, it still isn’t clear to you that I’m talking about books, you may go back to your Facebook page now. I understand and will not judge you.
If, on the other hand, you salivate at the mere mention of published writing, let me tell you that the Woodstock (Coachella for those who share OOTD pics on Instagram) of bookworms is in town. Now, there’s a possibility you haven’t heard of this, as news about the event has gone viral online. Like I said, many of those who will greatly appreciate what I’m about to share wisely stay away from the Internet, so there’s little to no chance you will have gotten wind of this.
I’m referring to the Big Bad Wolf book fair from Malaysia, which opened its doors in the Philippines — World Trade Center in Pasay City, to be exact — on Feb. 16 and will be here until the midnight of Feb. 25. I say “midnight” to underscore the fact that this massive book sale is open 24 hours a day. I went at 2 a.m. last Sunday and the place was packed with people who presumably detest social-media influencers.
I’m sure you’ve been to a book sale. Heck, we even have a store called Booksale. But Big Bad Wolf is another kind altogether. For one, the items are really cheap, discounted at 60-80% of their original selling prices. Many of the books you’ve been eyeing at Fully Booked or on Amazon may be had here for just half or even a third of the price.
For another, the venue is vast. As in car-show-hall vast. If you’re visiting and you only have an hour to spare, forget it. Just go another time. You can easily kill three hours here and not notice it at all.
Because the location is huge, there are enough sections to confuse and infuriate a benighted Internet troll. You have kids? Bring them. They’ll get lost in the Children section. For the corporate executive? There’s the Business and Leadership section. For the homemaker? There’s the Cooking and Baking section.
Ah, of course there’s a two-table Transportation section for car enthusiasts. Most of the books here are from British publishers, and many are admittedly old, but quite a number of them are still worth a place on your motoring bookshelf. There are dozens of car- or motorbike-related titles that are so affordable you’ll immediately regret not bringing enough cash.
But to spare you the agony of having to decide which books to take and which ones to leave, below are my top 10 picks from the motoring titles. There are many more. I have no doubt you can come up with your own favorite list.
Just a tip: Please avoid taking selfies. It’s irritating to those who are there to actually buy books.
1. How To Drive: The Ultimate Guide, From The Man Who Was The Stig (P480);
2. 50 Cars That Changed The World (P290);
3. Car Design Asia: Myths, Brands, People (P1,150);
4. The Limit: Life And Death In Formula 1’s Most Dangerous Era (P230);
5. The Encyclopedia Of Formula 1 (P390);
6. Car Emblems: The Ultimate Guide To Automotive Logos Worldwide (P230);
Reflecting on the French Revolution, British Philosopher Edmund Burke warned against the dangers of radical change. For him, gradual reform is always preferable to violent departure from status quo, and for a good reason.
This isn’t to say that he was a reactionary conservative, a stubborn defender of contemporary state of affairs irrespective of its demerits. If anything, the Irish-born statesman promoted change, since a “state without the means of some change, is without the means of its own conservation.”
Stagnation and mediocrity isn’t an option, especially since that means susceptibility to, overtime, anarchy or, in other cases, predation by more dynamic societies. The story of European colonization is precisely the failure of our ancestors in the Orient was to come up with “the means of some change” for “the means of its own conservation.”
Instead, Burke believed in the preservation of the best elements of the existing order, while incorporating much needed reforms in order to serve the society’s evolving needs. Well-designed and effectively implemented reforms are like supplements that keep the body politic healthy and eject the reservoir of toxins that inevitably arise from structural contradictions of any modern society.
For him, the mistake of radicals and revolutionaries was to throw out the proverbial baby of order with the bathwater of political decay. If anything, Burke argued that any radical change — no matter how noble the nature of its intentions — carries the inevitable risk of chaos and violence.
Today’s most successful nations such as China took Burke’s lesson to heart, preserving the best elements of their Confucian past, while incorporating capitalist principles with distinctly Chinese characteristics.
Decades earlier, Japan and Newly Industrialized Countries such as Taiwan and South Korea took a similar path. In Burke’s logic, what made China a superpower isn’t Mao’s violent revolution, which reduced a once proud civilization into a Gulag, but instead Deng Xiaoping’s adaptation in the shape of calibrated reforms, which awakened a sleeping dragon.
Burke warned against change for the sake of change, and those who mindlessly seek destruction of status quo without contemplating the implications of imposing new order. In today’s lexicon, he shed light on the law of unintended consequences, a reality that should be central to our discussion of Charter Change in the Philippines.
On paper, all constitutions tend to look majestic. Our 1987 constitution, for instance, is widely considered as one of the most well designed liberal documents ever created by mankind, drawing on the best elements of enduring democratic constitutions, especially in the Anglophone episteme. Or, at the very least, that’s how the framers of our existing constitution put it with a touch of biting persuasion.
Yet the 1987 Constitution is far from perfect, even in its very design. My main concern with it is the fundamentally anti-Marcosian nature. It’s more an anti-thesis, namely a negation of a preceding order, than an affirmation of evolving realities that a mid-sized nation faces in an age of globalization.
In the attempt to prevent another Marcosian nightmare, marked by ballooning debt and human rights calamity, our existing Constitution deprives the opportunity for competent leaders to enact a long-term vision for the Philippines, while enabling a protectionist economic environment to the detriment of our overall productivity.
A cursory look at democratic practices around the world shows that, for instance, six years is too short for a competent leader, but too long for a terrible one. This is why most advanced democratic nations have reelection for their heads of state.
This creates a strong incentive for good performance in first years in office, lest one fails to secure reelection, while giving sufficient time to leaders to think and act across longer temporal horizons.
It took well more than six years for Barack Obama to get most of his major initiatives, from health care to marriage equality, passed constitutional hurdles. Anyone familiar with development planning also knows that it often takes a decade for major economic transformation to crystallize and take root.
Thus, another perverse effect of our single, six-year term in office is that newly elected presidents tend to shamelessly take credit for all the good reforms of their predecessors, while conveniently laying all the blame for their failures on them too.
Our excessive constitutional restrictions on foreign investments are another point of concern. Sure, econometric studies show that legal restrictions are not primary drivers of investment flows, but they matter nonetheless, especially when the Philippines is up against rival neighbors, which are willing to relax all forms of restrictions on foreign investments.
In its bid to joint the World Trade Organization (WTO) and now-defunct Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), Vietnam, for instance, completely overhauled its legal structure vis-à-vis trade and investment matters.
On top of that, they offer more competitive labor, geographical proximity to the Pearl River Delta industrial complex, and a wide range of incentives to attract foreign capital. There are of course other concerns with the existing constitution that exceed the scope of this column.
In short, our Constitution hasn’t been designed to accommodate these emerging realities in the 21st century. Thus, in principle, like Burke, I am for certain forms reforms to preserve the best elements of the existing order, even if this means certain constitutional amendments.
But seeking a complete Charter Change carries a wide range of unintended consequences, which we should take into consideration.
The problem, however, is that the defenders of the existing constitution fail to appreciate emerging realities that tend to render some aspects of law obsolete, while advocates of Charter Change tend to downplay if not completely ignore the inevitable risks that accompany radical change.
Richard Javad Heydarian is a non-resident fellow of the Stratbase ADR Institute.
In a moment of pique, I recently posted on social media that I always thought Harry Roque, spokesman of President Rodrigo Duterte, was “marunong” (intelligent). And I added: “Bobo pala (It turns out, he’s dumb).”
I’m taking that back. I don’t think Roque is dumb. His academic credentials are impressive and so is his track record as a lawyer.
So, how do you explain such naïve (at best) or idiotic (at worst) statements in a media interview concerning China’s construction of “artificial islands” in the West Philippine Sea? I’m quoting the news item verbatim:
“MANILA, Philippines — While China’s island-building in the West Philippine Sea may be worrisome now, one day, the Philippines will ‘thank’ China for them.
“This was what Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque said during an interview with Franco Mabanta, a supporter of President Rodrigo Duterte, on Wednesday, Feb. 7.
“‘There will come a time when China’s might has ceased, when we will have to thank them for those islands,’ he said.”
“‘Clearly, eventually, those artificial islands will be ours if we can ask China to leave,’ he added, maintaining that only the Philippines can legally build artificial islands.”
The hope that China can be asked to leave territory it has grabbed couldn’t possibly be the opinion of someone who used to teach Constitutional Law at the University of the Philippines and finished his Master of Laws degree at the London School of Economics.
Sen. Grace Poe’s remark that Roque’s statement was “wishful thinking,” was rather benign. Idiotic is not even a good enough description of such gross naivete.
There can only be one explanation for this seeming lapse of lucidity on the part of Roque. He was simply echoing the opinion of his boss, Duterte.
In that context, hoping that China might someday willingly walk back on its territorial grabbing is not as bizarre as Duterte’s recent “joke” that China might want to make the Philippines one of its provinces.
In this Chinese Year of the Dog (in Tagalog, Taon ng mga Tuta), one can almost see poor Harry Roque asking his boss how he can explain the latest presidential foot-in-mouth gaffe.
“Sir, what do I tell the media? Shall I say you were just joking?”
“Of course, I was joking, p– ng ina!”
PHILIPPINE STAR/KRIZJOHN ROSALES
“Pero sir, that joke may not have been politically correct!” protests Roque.
“Gago! Anong korek-korek? Basta’t sabihin mo joke only, tapos!”
And so, poor Harry Roque, as a loyal presidential spokesman, may be expected to translate into more respectable language the mindless profanity of his boss, as follows: “While there are clear advantages in closer bonds between the Philippines and China, it was obviously in the spirit of friendly and harmless good humor that President Rodrigo Duterte made that statement about the Philippines becoming a province of China.”
Hopefully, in giving that official explanation, Roque will not commit a Freudian slip and mutter under his breath: “Dati na naman, eh (It already is).”
At any rate, what choice does Roque have? A job is a job and as spokesman of the President, he is, in effect, only a microphone or a megaphone, magnifying and making public the words and thoughts of his current employer.
Do official spokespersons have a right to express their own views? Technically, no. If they want to do that, they must first resign. Of course, they can argue or reason with the boss, but the latter has the final say.
“Hoy, gago, pagagandahin mo lang ang salita ko para maging disente, pero huwag mong babaguhin ang ibig kong sabihin, intiendes (Hey, idiot, just make my language more decent but don’t change the meaning, understand)????”
Well, maybe I’m giving Duterte too much credit for all the inane statements of Roque. I frankly suspect that his recent rationalization for China’s assigning Chinese names to certain features in Benham Rise, sounds too much like vintage Roque.
Roque reasoned that such Chinese terms as “mami,” “siopao,” and “hototay,” are generally accepted by Pinoys but that hasn’t given the Chinese exclusive ownership of the Binondo edibles.
Sen. Ping Lacson was obviously having difficulty holding his temper when he chided Roque for the analogy. Said Lacson: “It’s probably a matter of time before we see Chinese structures on more artificial islands. Damn us! Are we this helpless?”
Honestly, Senator Lacson?
The President of the sovereign Republic of the Philippines thinks so. He thinks we are this helpless. Kaya, bow na lang ng bow, to use “Swardspeak.” (Incidentally, I believe the senator’s surname, Lacson, is also Chinese in origin).
But the travails of Roque are normal for anyone who would echo the thoughts of a boss who runs his mouth before his brain is in gear.
In a TV interview, former US vice-president Joe Biden described President Donald Trump as “having difficulty with precision in his statements.”
Biden was struggling to be politically correct, of course. What he really meant was that Trump has difficulty telling the truth.
But being untruthful is only half of the problem that Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has to cope with. Trump also flip flops like a pair of rubber slippers, shifting his position on issues based on what his supporters on Fox News urge him to say, think or do.
In her daily White House press briefings, Sanders has to struggle to make sense of the specious rationalizations made by Trump, as well as those that she apparently has to conjure by herself. When the members of the White House press corps keep getting back at her on a sticky issue, she snaps at them, pivots, passes the blame on to other parties, or shifts the topic away from the issue at hand, or simply ignores the questions and moves on to other topics.
Many times, the equivocation (at best) and the lies (at worst) are glaring. Concerning the resignation of accused wife-beater, Rob Porter, the assistant of Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly, Sanders had difficulty reconciling the facts with the White House fiction that Porter was asked to resign “within a few hours” after reports on his legal problems had been found out.
In fact, according to the FBI, the complete report on Porter had been submitted by the agency to the White House months earlier but certain individuals in the White House had chosen to ignore them. When confronted with this, Sanders pivoted and accused the FBI of not doing its job. That, of course, was an outright buck-passing lie. The FBI only submits its findings and leaves it to the government department concerned (in this case, the office of the chief of staff) to act on them. But Sanders, confronted with her weaseling, brazened it and then changed the topic.
You can almost see Sanders arriving home at the end of the day and being asked by her husband: “How was your day, honey?”
“As usual, dear. I had to take the bullet for President Pinocchio.”
But the bottom line is that both Roque and Sanders are probably very well paid. In the case of Roque, I believe he has his eyes on the Senate and will therefore take any bullet (virtual) for Duterte, in order to be well-positioned.
But he had better hope that his friends in China do not also decide to assign a Chinese name to him. Something like, Hally Loque.
Greg B. Macabenta is an advertising and communications man shuttling between San Francisco and Manila and providing unique insights on issues from both perspectives.
United Nations-sponsored studies have concluded that Filipino women are among the most empowered of their kind in the world. So, I really cannot understand why many of our male national leaders have such a penchant for attacking our strong women leaders: Senator Leila de Lima has been in jail for a year on charges testified to by long-term convicts. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno is under threat of impeachment even though after weeks of hearings in the House of Representatives, no impeachable offenses have been cited. Ombudswoman Conchita Carpio Morales is being criticized by her rumored aspiring successor Solicitor General Jose Calida despite the fact that she retires in just a few months. CHED Secretary Tatti Licuanan was pressured to resign just a few months before she was retirable.
Why does our President not want Vice-President Leni Robredo to sit in Cabinet meetings? Is it because his concept of leadership given his own statements about his high regard for Vladimir Putin, is based on belief in male superiority? And why does he make fun of rape stories? Is it to demonstrate that he is not afraid of women, to prove that he is better than they are?
All these make me conclude that many of our male politicians have not yet grown up; in fact, that they are insecure and need to assert their supremacy at the expense of women, who happen to be in the minority in national leadership positions.
Perhaps these are just symptoms of a national problem that we have to take a look at, seriously. Some of my friends in the fields of psychology and cultural anthropology are beginning to advocate studies on and advocacy for enabling Filipino boys to mature earlier than they seem to. Of course, they also recognize that Filipino mothers have a role to play because there seems to be a tendency to allow boys to just play and hang around with their gangs, and to spare them responsibilities at home, which are delegated instead to the girls, which contributes to their earlier maturity. One study is cited that indicates that boys tend to mature at the age of 30; and that therefore, they should not marry before then. Well, from the behavior of many of our politicians, who are well beyond that age, perhaps they may never grow up.
The sad thing is that somehow, like President Duterte who told his macho rape jokes when he was running for the presidency, they get elected to leadership posts!
I remember when as a college freshman I had a chance to sit in the Senate gallery and watch gentlemen politicians like Lorenzo Tañada, Jose Diokno, Emmanuel Pelaez, and their contemporaries behaving and speaking with so much dignity and gentility. Today, I often have to turn off the TV when I watch our ill-mannered politicians grandstanding with foul language, perhaps to demonstrate their machismo? Do we still teach good manners and right conduct in our elementary schools? I remember how instructive a course on civics was for me.
President Duterte doesn’t seem to realize that how he speaks and behaves in public sets the tone for other leaders and our citizenry, especially the young. Obviously, Speaker Alvarez has picked up from his boss on how to speak and behave. Bad manners and foul language seem to be turning endemic. This is not only worrisome. It can actually be tragic if it continues far into the future.
If it is not yet being done, now that we have extended basic schooling to K-12, perhaps more than just enhancing skills and knowledge, we should emphasize, as a key part of education, the need to orient our youth on right values and citizenship, how to parent, how, as parents to be conscious of the need to ensure boys grow into men and not “man-child” (or “puers,”as my psychologist friend terms them), how to be mature and responsible men and women before it’s too late.
We are in danger of electing more and more immature leaders in our future; and thus turning more of our people into barbarians if we go on like this.
Teresa S. Abesamis is a former professor at the Asian Institute of Management and an independent development management consultant.
Constitutions are the fundamental law of every nation. They put in place basic tenets and forms of government to be observed in the country. The Philippine Constitution is no different. One of the vital portions of our Constitution provides us with the three branches of government: the legislative department, there to pass laws; the executive department, to enforce laws; and, the judiciary department, to interpret laws. The doctrine of separation of powers ensures that neither branch encroaches on the powers of the other. Each branch is considered as a coequal of the other two in hierarchy but is considered supreme in matters which pertain to that branch.
While these branches have distinct powers and functions, there is also an interplay among them to ensure that their roles are properly being carried out. This system of checks and balances ensures that each branch is still acting within the parameters set for it in the Constitution.
The system of checks and balances is manifest in the exercise of passing, executing, and interpreting a law. A law begins by it being proposed, discussed and passed in Congress. Thereafter, the bill is passed to the executive department, specifically the President, so that he may act on the bill. Acting on such bill would mean either approving the bill, letting it pass into law or vetoing the same.
This veto power was granted in the Constitution through Article VI, Section 27 (1). Generally, when a President disapproves a bill, he or she exhibits such disapproval by executing a veto to invalidate the whole law. The power must generally be exercised in its entirety.
However, an exception exists under Article VI, Section 27 (2) when the bill is an appropriation, revenue or tariff bill. When any of these bills are involved, the President may execute a line or item veto. Such veto will not invalidate the whole bill but only the particular item under consideration. The other items to which the President does not object shall not be affected by this veto.
An example of this exercise can be seen in recent events. Republic Act 10963, also known as the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) law, was passed on Dec. 19, 2017. This law amended certain provisions of the old tax law, the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Section 6 of the TRAIN law amended Section 25 of the NIRC, which pertains to the entitlement of employees of certain qualified companies to a fifteen percent (15%) preferential tax rate.
The TRAIN Law added a subsection to Section 25 of the NIRC, which provided that regional headquarters (RHQs), regional operating headquarters (ROHQs), offshore banking units (OBUs) or petroleum service contractors and subcontractors registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) after Jan. 1, 2018 would no longer be eligible to avail of the preferential tax rate. This Section ended with the proviso which stated, “Provided, however, That existing RHQs/ROHQs, OBUs or petroleum service contractors and subcontractors presently availing of preferential tax rates for qualified employees shall continue to be entitled to avail of the preferential tax rate for present and future qualified employees.”
President Rodrigo Duterte vetoed certain provisions of the TRAIN law including the proviso under the proposed Section 25 (F). In his veto message, the President explained that the proviso violates the “Equal Protection Clause under Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, as well as the rule of equity and uniformity in the application of the burden of taxation.”
However, in the same veto message, he also states, “Given the significant reduction in the personal income tax, the employees of these firms should follow the regular tax rates applicable to other individual taxpayers.”
The Bureau of Internal Revenue has interpreted this to mean the complete withdrawal of the preferential tax rate, regardless of the date of registration of the RHQ, ROHQ, OBU, etc. with the SEC.
However, there is a contrary interpretation that the intention of the President was only to remove the proviso, and not the preferential rate altogether. This would mean that only future qualified employees are prohibited from availing of the preferential tax rate, but present qualified employees may still avail of such rate. Indeed, when only a part of the law is amended or declared unconstitutional, the rest of the law stands and is enforceable. The same may hold true for an item veto.
In the end, the proper understanding would be best determined by the judiciary department, in exercise of its power to interpret laws. The court with appropriate jurisdiction has the authority to rule on what the law should actually be, based on principles of law.
These circumstances exhibit the confluence of the three branches and the roles that all of them play in order to pass laws in the land. The principles of separation of powers and checks and balances maintain the stability and efficiency that our government still holds today.
This article is for general informational and educational purposes only and not offered as and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion.
Madelene Ruth F. Salazar is an Associate in the Litigation & Dispute Resolution Department of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRALAW).
PRIVATELY OWNED National Grid Corp. of the Philippines (NGCP) said it had reached a “mutual decision” with the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) on “the way forward” for the use by third parties of the fiber optic capacity installed within the country’s power transmission system.
In a statement, NGCP said DICT officer-in-charge Undersecretary Eliseo M. Rio, Jr. had committed to partner with the grid operator on the use of the power transmission backbone for the national broadband program (NBP) for the duration of the company’s concession.
It said the commitment was reached after Henry Sy, Jr., NGCP president and chief executive officer, met with Mr. Rio.
NGCP’s statement is the latest development in the continuing issue involving the use of the fiber optic cable network, which enables real-time communication between transmission facilities, and with power generation companies and distribution utilities.
National Transmission Corp. (TransCo), an agency attached with the Department of Energy (DoE), previously asked to audit the network but was turned down by NGCP.
On Tuesday, NGCP said it would enter into an agreement up to the life of its concession, which it placed to be in 2034, “provided that in the event that the Concession is extended, the bilateral agreement will also be extended.”
NGCP will not object to any separate agreement DICT signs with TransCo “for so long as the exclusive rights of the company in relation to transmission and related businesses, for the entire duration of its concession are upheld.”
It quoted Mr. Rio as saying: “The core of the matter is who owns the dark fiber of NGCP/TransCo. When it is turned over to TransCo, whatever agreement was done with NGCP may be modified, changed, or reviewed by TransCo.”
NGCP’s franchise stems from the passage of Republic Act 9136 in 2001 or the “Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001” (EPIRA), which paved the way for the sale of government energy assets.
The law separated the different components of the sector, including power transmission, which was spun off to state agency TransCo ahead of its turnover to the private sector through concession.
Unlike outright sale, the concession agreement allowed the government to keep ownership of the transmission assets through TransCo. NGCP started operating the grid in 2009.
In its statement, NGCP said the fiber optic capacity to be leased out by the company uses transmission facilities. It said allowing the government or third parties to “piggy-back” on this transmission communication backbone would be critical in the immediate implementation of this government’s national broadband program.
“We are not interested in entering the telecommunications business. Transmission operations remain the primary business of NGCP. The lease of available fiber optic capacity is specifically allowed under our concession as a ‘related business to maximize the utilization of its assets.’ Such lease agreement is contemplated by our concession and franchise and is not considered our primary mandate,” it said.
NGCP said its available fiber optic capacity could support both the needs of the government and a private party.
“Should the government use only a portion of the fiber optic capacity available for use of third parties, NGCP may also enter into other bilateral contracts with interested telecommunication companies based on the contract with government, for the use of the remaining capacity.
Under the EPIRA, 50% of the net income from these bilateral contracts will be used to reduce transmission rates. But priority use remains with NGCP’s internal communications purposes and the government’s NBP.”
Separately, DoE Secretary Alfonso G. Cusi he was amenable to a tripartite contract among NGCP, TransCo and DICT for the national broadband plan to move forward.
“Tripartite na lang para wala ng gulo. ’Yan na lang ang solution. Then I called for a meeting here [DoE office]. Unfortunately, Mr. Sy was not able to attend in the meeting,” he told reporters.
“Unable for me to ask the question, I wrote him later . . . I raised three questions there, sinagot ako ‘no’ lahat. So I referred that back to TransCo,” he said.
Mr. Cusi said as the owner of the transmission facility, TransCo should be involved in the project because after the end of the concession, ownership reverts to the government agency.
He said NGCP has 16 remaining years on its lease, which may not be attractive for any interested third-player in the local telecommunications industry.
“TransCo is supposed to get back the facilities,” he said. — Victor V. Saulon
THE NUMBER of people just above the poverty line remains high, putting that demographic at risk if economic growth should stall, the World Bank (WB) said in a briefing yesterday.
In the annual “Prospects for the Philippines” conference hosted by the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines (FOCAP) yesterday, Mara K. Warwick, the country director for Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand, noted that the region served as “the biggest poverty reduction machine” in recent years because governments pursued “export-oriented” and “labor-intensive” growth strategies, as well as high investment levels in education and health.
She warned, however, that these strategies “that worked so well in the past might not work going forward” due to the slowing growth of global trade, the declining demand of labor brought by technological innovations and the region’s high income inequality: “Concentration of wealth has grown faster than in other regions of the world,” she said.
Another set of risks, Ms. Warwick said, are specific trends “that are turning opportunities into challenges.”
“First, is urbanization. Urbanization promises a better life, better jobs, and better services. But if urbanization is not properly managed, living conditions in cities can be very difficult, especially for the poor and the most vulnerable,” she said.
“Second, and this is certainly true for the Philippines, a huge number of young people are bursting into the work place and there are not enough good jobs on offer. Many of these young people need better education and skills to work in twenty-first century jobs.”
In the case of the Philippines, she noted the strides made in decreasing poverty as those living below the international poverty line accounted for just less than 7% of the population compared to 13.3% two decades ago.
“In addition, the percentage of economically secure and middle class has grown in the last 20 years with almost 35% of the population now economically secure, and a middle class that has grown from 7% in 2002 to almost 10% today.”
On the other hand, she cautioned the continued high percentage of those just above the poverty – or those “who are not yet economically secure and still at risk of slipping back into poverty.”
“These groups have not changed very much in the Philippines in the last 20 years: the total for the moderate poor and economically vulnerable combined has remained constant at 50% of the population,” she said.
According to the World Bank, the people who are classified as moderately poor and economically vulnerable are those living on $1.90-$3.10 a day and $3.10-$5.50 a day, respectively.
The World Bank advised the Philippines to promote inclusive growth by increasing “economic mobility.”
“For the Philippines, the best strategy is to meet those different needs by fostering economic mobility – which in layman’s terms is essentially the ability to improve one’s lot in life… At the core of economic mobility are jobs and livelihoods,” Ms. Warwick said.
Specifically, these include increasing the quality of jobs, addressing disparities in education, providing job opportunities for the poor as well as greater access to financial services.
“The country should maintain its social assistance programs for the poor and social insurance should be extended to cover all workers, not only those in the formal sector. Resilience to shocks, including natural disasters, is also a priority. This requires a broad range of interventions, including resilient infrastructure, social safety nets, and insurance to deal with these shocks,” Ms. Warwick said.
“Not surprisingly, there also needs to be stronger revenue mobilization so that the tax system can raise more resources to support these measures.”
Late last year, the World Bank released a report, “Riding the Wave: An East Asian Miracle for the 21st Century,” where the Philippines, together with Indonesia and Cambodia were classified as “out-of-extreme-poverty” countries, characterized as those where extreme poverty levels are low, but where the middle class remains small.
In that report, over 5% of Filipinos were found to be “extremely poor” or living on less than $1.90, accounting for around 13.8% of the extreme poor in East Asia and the Pacific. — Jochebed B. Gonzales
