How PSEi member stocks performed — November 27, 2019
Here’s a quick glance at how PSEi stocks fared on Wednesday, November 27, 2019.
From City Hall to Malacañang
If memory serves me, only two city mayors so far have become presidents of the republic: Joseph “Erap” Estrada and Rodrigo “Digong” Duterte. But Erap, from mayor of San Juan, first became a senator, and then the vice-president (1992-1998). Digong, on the other hand, was mayor of Davao City when he resigned to run — successfully — for the presidency.
So, it was only Digong who went straight to Malacañang from City Hall. The question now is whether another city mayor will succeed to the presidency after President Digong. There has been lots of talk these days about the mayors of Manila and Davao both gunning for the top post in 2022. Add to the lot Vice-President Leni Robredo, and we have a three-cornered fight. At the very least.
Given this scenario, one cannot help but look back to the late, great Arsenio Hofilena Lacson of Talisay, Negros Occidental. Lacson was the 17th mayor of the City of Manila, although the first one to be duly elected. Previously, Manila mayors were appointed to office. Lacson defeated Manuel Dela Fuente in the first city mayoral election in 1951. He was reelected in 1955, and again in 1959.
It was said that Manila was deep in debt and was practically bankrupt when Lacson assumed office in January 1952. But, by the end of his second term in 1959, the city reportedly had a big budget surplus, and city workers were said to be getting higher wages than most. Lacson was only 49 years old when he died in office, from a stroke, in April 1962. He was succeeded by his Vice-Mayor, Antonio Villegas.
People old enough to have personally witnessed Lacson’s antics always have fond memories of him, and plenty of stories to share. They say he was popular, media-savvy, and was a showman. He would always be the last to speak in political rallies so that people would stay until the end. And, that he would always make a grand entrance.
Lacson was an amateur boxer, and had also played for the Philippine national football team in 1934. He became a lawyer in 1937 and joined the law office of Vicente Francisco (who later became senator). After that, Lacson worked for the Department of Justice as an assistant attorney. And just before the war, he was also a sportswriter. He joined the resistance during the war and had received citations for his service.
That Lacson knew how to use media to his benefit is a no-brainer. After all, he was a newspaperman before the war. And he went back to journalism after the war. He also had a radio program that was said to be popular enough at the time to win him a congressional seat in 1949 to represent the 2nd district of Manila. From there, he went on to become Manila mayor.
Lacson, obviously, was a great communicator. He knew and understood what appealed particularly to the common man. In today’s election standards, he would have been considered one with a high “awareness” rating, and one who knew how to translate that high awareness to actual votes in an election. That he won the mayoral elections three times is no easy feat.
The present mayor’s “playbook” doesn’t seem to deviate much from the Lacson “formula”: action + media = heightened public perception of effective leadership. As mayor from 1952 to 1962, Lacson reportedly prioritized peace and order, and good government: he fired city workers for incompetence, and city policemen for corruption; he led raids on brothels and illegal vendors; he removed squatters; and he reportedly patrolled the streets personally at night.
More important, he maintained his radio presence even while mayor and until his death. His radio program was the pulpit that he used to share his views on national issues, and to lambast and criticize national officials. Presidents Roxas, Quirino, and Garcia all received criticism from Lacson through his radio program. Only Magsaysay, whom he supported, was spared.
It is anybody’s guess whether Lacson could have made it to Malacañang in 1965. He was touted to be the presidential contender for the Nacionalista Party (NP) in 1965 had he not died in 1962. The NP nomination eventually went to Ferdinand Marcos, who defeated Macapagal in the latter’s reelection bid.
But Lacson had two opportunities to attempt to gain national office prior to this. The first was in 1957, against Carlos P. Garcia. He toured the country in April 1957 to test the waters, so to speak, to see if he could be a strong contender against Garcia for the Nacionalista nomination. However, despite his popularity nationwide, he realized he was unlikely to get his party’s nomination. So, without party machinery and no financial support, Lacson backed out.
The second opportunity was in 1961. But Garcia, his nemesis, was running for reelection. So, Lacson opted instead to support then Vice-President Diosdado Macapagal of the Liberal Party and be the latter’s national campaign manager. But soon after Macapagal was elected, Lacson returned to the Nacionalista Party and became the president’s critic. The 1965 election would have been his third chance for national office, but fate would not allow it.
There are lessons to be learned from Lacson’s political success, as well as from President Duterte’s experience in the 2016 election. For sure, the hits and the misses are not lost on Mayor Isko Moreno and Mayor Sara Duterte. It remains uncertain whether both city chiefs will actually gun for Malacañang in 2022. But some indicators already point to this possibility.
The country has toyed with the possibility of sending someone from City Hall direct to Malacañang since the time of Arsenio Lacson. And to date, there has been only one successful attempt: President Duterte in 2016. Are we going to witness another successful attempt in 2022?
Marvin Tort is a former managing editor of BusinessWorld, and a former chairman of the Philippines Press Council.
Vape control and brand control
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”
— John Stuart Mill,
On Liberty (1859),
Ch. 1 Introduction
We are now living healthier, wealthier, and longer. This despite people’s rising consumption of sugary food and drinks, fatty food and snacks, alcohol, tobacco, and vaping products. And there seems to be a problem with the narrative that more alcohol and tobacco and its substitutes like e-cigarettes, flavored vapor products, result in more sickness and by extension, more deaths. China and Indonesia have higher smoking prevalence (SP) than the Philippines yet they have higher life expectancy than us. The United Kingdom, United States, and Japan have higher SP than Thailand yet they have longer life expectancy than the latter (see Table).
Recently President Rodrigo Duterte gave a verbal order to ban or prohibit vaping in public places nationwide and to arrest the violators. This is on top of existing law on smoking ban in public places, allowed only in some designated places.
There is little or zero debate that smoking is bad for our health — it is generally accepted. The debate has shifted to whether to have more restrictions and prohibitions against smoking, or to allow “harm reduction” via e-cigarettes and vaping products.
I do not smoke, never smoked even a single stick in my 50+ years. But I drink. I have enjoyed drinking with friends for the past four decades. I prefer the “low octane” beer with just 5% alcohol content and avoid the medium to “high octane” drinks with 20% or higher alcohol content. In a sense, beer consumption is my “harm reduction” instead of consuming hard liquor, and I can still enjoy those alcohol molecules that go through our blood stream up to the brain, which tend to relax people and evoke lots of laughter, even singing and dancing.
From what I read, most of the vapers who were hospitalized in the US recently were using tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) oil cut with Vitamin E acetate thickening agent, not standard vape juice. Vapers may not admit it because THC is the active ingredient in cannabis and is illegal in many countries. Vitamin E acetate is also not safe to inhale and has been linked to lipoid pneumonia, which can be fatal. So the culprit here may not be those ordinary water-based, some nicotine-containing, juices but the black market THC cartridges.
Instead of looking at vaping as encouraging more harm, it should be considered as reducing harm, as a “smoking cessation aid.”
Looking at prohibitions, we have lots of those laws in the Philippines — bans on prostitution, bans on certain types of gambling, bans on harmful drugs, bans on unregistered guns, bans on smuggling, bans on corruption and plunder. And we have all of these around us.
More bans and prohibitions only encourage more corruption. More regulations and taxation further encourage more smuggling, the result of which is that more smoking, drugs, and drinking happen because the smuggled products are cheaper.
This happened in Australia. After they legislated plain packaging for tobacco products in December 2012 — no more colorful packaging, no logo, only huge graphic warnings of dilapidated tongues and lungs — illegal and smuggled tobacco has increased from 11.5% of total supply in 2012, to 13.5% in 2013, 14.7% in 2014, up to 15% in 2017 (source: KPMG, March 2018. Illicit Tobacco in Australia, 2017 Full Year Report).
Finally, vape control, brand control via plain packaging, (minimum) wage control, (ceiling) fare control, (maximum) drug price control, gun control, drugs control, etc. — they are more about state command and control and less about regulation.
With these ever-rising bans and controls by the state, soon we will have sugar control, salt control, chocolates control. Not good.
Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the president of Minimal Government Thinkers.