Don't blink, PNoy
Solita Collas-Monsod
I READ with great pleasure the May 22 newspaper accounts of PNoy's
reactions to a) yet another move to change the Constitution (Cha-cha)
and b) China's (Taiwan not far behind) bully tactics. I agree with him
completely on these two issues.
With respect to Charter change, the most-used grounds for seeking it
have been economic. The claim is that the economic provisions of the
present constitution -- mostly the restrictions on foreign ownership --
have closed the door to foreign direct investment (FDI), thus resulting
in lost employment and growth opportunities and therefore increasing
poverty. This claim has been dusted off and presented every four or six
years. And the biggest advocates have been, not surprisingly, the
foreign chambers of commerce in the Philippines as well as those who are
legal and/or business advisers/consultants of foreign firms. Their
stance is not surprising because obviously they are profit-seeking.
What may be surprising, at least at first glance, is that a number of
legislators also use the need to change the economic provisions of the
Constitution as the reason for Cha-cha. But a very quick second glance,
pardon the cynicism, will show that a lot of these so-called advocates
actually have another change in mind: the change from a presidential
system of government to a parliamentary system. This change will not
only allow the political dynasties to be more firmly entrenched (a
parliamentary system will do away with term limits), but will afford
them more power -- they don't need to have the backing of the majority
of the Filipino people to become head of government, all they need is
control of the parliament which means an agreement with other political
dynasties.
How will the parliamentary-presidential issue come in? Simple. Once the
door is open for Cha-cha, it will be well-nigh impossible to limit the
change to economic provisions only.
What must be emphasized, again and again, is that neither the need to
lift the economic restrictions on foreign ownership, nor the advantages
of a parliamentary over a presidential system, have any basis in fact.
And as often as these claims have been dusted off and presented, I have
dusted off and presented the empirical findings which belie them.
Just for the record, let me summarize them once again.
With respect to FDI: (1) macro-level data may show an association
between FDI and higher levels of income, but do not establish causality;
(2) micro-level (project) data show positive effects on national income
in a majority of projects, but a sizeable minority -- 1/3 in two
studies, anywhere from 25% to 45% in a third -- had deleterious effects;
(3) historically, FDI played only a minor role in the growth of most
high-performing Asian economies; (4) the factors affecting FDI have been
found to be adequate infrastructure, skill levels (human capital),
quality of the general regulatory framework, clear rules of the game,
and fiscal determination -- note that restrictions on foreign ownership
is not one of them.
Focusing on the Philippines, (5) the restriction on ownership of land is
neutralized by leases up to 75 years on land, and condominium laws on
housing; (6) it is not unusual that companies are controlled with less
than 40% or 20% of the common stock, while "supermajority" requirements
on key decisions protect foreign shareholders.
In brief, therefore, foreign investors may be in happy control or in
beneficial ownership, either by liberal interpretation, or by
redefinition through legislation, or by use of creative financial and
other instruments. Cha-cha is not likely to open any new doors to FDI,
because for all intents and purposes, they are already open. Nor will
Cha-cha be sufficient to bring in FDI, because FDI will not come in
unless the factors affecting FDI enumerated above are addressed.
On the parliamentary-presidential issue, here's: (1) There is
conflicting empirical evidence as to which form of government will lead
to lower corruption; (2) the evidence is pretty strong that presidential
regimes have smaller government spending as a percentage of GDP than
parliamentary regimes (a parliamentary system is one huge pork barrel
system, after all); 3) a parliamentary system, while systematically
correlated with structural policies, has no significant effect on
economic performance.
What is so galling is that the advocates of Cha-cha pretend to be doing
it for the good of the Filipino people, particularly the poor. But they
actually are doing it for their own private benefit. No altruism
involved here. PNoy should unmask them once and for all.
What about China's bully tactics? The Reader should be reminded that
since last year, Bajo de Masinloc/Panatag Shoal/ Scarborough Shoal,
which, as we all know is well within our territorial waters, has been
placed off-limits to Filipino fishermen over a 15-(nautical) mile
radius. By the Chinese government, with Chinese surveillance ships
enforcing the rule. And recently, in the Kalayaan Island (Spratly to the
rest of the world), a Chinese warship chased and otherwise harassed the
40-meter supply and utility boat of Kalayaan town, trying to get it to
sail toward shallow waters and be grounded. How's that for bully tactics?
We obviously can't face them on military grounds (whatever happened to
our mutual defense treaty with the United States), where they have the
obvious advantage. But we are using to the outmost our diplomatic
weapons in the United Nations, where we have the distinct advantage. And
the louder the Philippines protests against the bully tactics of China,
the more difficult it will be for the international community to pretend
that there is nothing amiss.
Taiwan, which is smarting from the one-China policy adopted by most of
the international community, is at the same time trying to apply the
same kind of bully tactics on us -- is that a cultural thing, one
wonders? And worse, has allowed our citizens in Taiwan to be harassed.
The Philippines seems to be retaliating in kind with Taiwanese citizens
in the country, which may be deplorable in principle -- but if that is
the only kind of tactic that will be effective (to give as good as we
get), so be it. In any case, Taiwan will soon be reminded that its
attempt to blackmail us economically by refusing to grant visas to OFWs
is going to boomerang. Why? Because, those OFWs most probably are more
productive than the other foreign OFWs, given their greater educational
attainment; moreover, Taiwan sells more to us than we sell to them (it
has an export surplus with us). So that if push comes to shove, they
will suffer more than we will. And the Taiwanese businessmen are going
to have something to say about that, to their government.
Don't blink, PNoy.
- See more at:
http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Opinion&title=Don%E2%80%99t-blink,-PNoy&id=70631#sthash.jD9YuJJu.dpuf
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS ANI - Consultant
Chairman of the Board - SEEDFINANCE Corporation
Mailing address: PO Box 90 UPLB Los Banos Laguna, Philippines 4031
Emails:
carlosani@gmail.com ,
carlosani@seedfinance.net
Landline Phone: +63495010127 (PLDT)
Cellphone Numbers: +63908-1737072 (Smart)
My Websites:
CARLOSANI.COM -
http://www.carlosani.com
SEEDFINANCE Corporation -
http://www.seedfinance.net
DEVJOBS -
http://www.devjobsmail.com
PHILDEVFINANCE -
http://phildevfinance.posterous.com
http://phildevfinance.blogspot.com
Family website -
http://www.anifamily.net
Skype name: carlosaniph
----------------------------------------------------------
