Wikileaks - leaking power in the 21st century?

Power in the olden days was constituted by those who had the ability to muster means to make people comply to their wishes. The ability to hold life and death in one's hands, i.e. military might, was power. The acquisition of military power, in turn, meant being able to organise society in ways so as to extract economic surplus to fund war machines, which can then be deployed to engage in wars of expansion and the amassing of more wealth to fortify power-holders.

Naked displays of power are still apparent today. However, overt displays of violence and coercive force are now frowned upon, unless you are the preponderant hegemon (the United States). It is perhaps no accident that Julian Assange and the entire motive force animating Wikileaks have targetted the US in their 'exposes'. The 'US' is not so much a territorial entity here as an ideational construct representing who and how power is wielded in the world. Since entities such as Wikileaks cannot contest the 'US' in terms of the old definition of power, they find ways to diminish newer ways in which power is exercised today.

A Year Ago: The Ampatuans

Human Rights Watch recently published a report on the Ampatuan Massacre last year:

This 96-page report charts the Ampatuans’ rise to power, including their use of violence to expand their control and eliminate threats to the family’s rule. It is based on more than 80 interviews, including with people having insider knowledge of the Ampatuan family security structure, victims of abuses and their family members, and witnesses to crimes.

See the full report here.

Migdal on my mind

A glaring omission on my part, I cannot believe I have only just read Joel Migdal. Written twenty-two years ago, this sounds so achingly familiar. On weak state leadership:

Their basic weakness in the face of continued fragmentation of social control has led them to a political style and policies – the politics of survival – that have prevented the state from enhancing its capabilities by not allowing the development of complex organisation in state institutions. Rulers have used similar styles and policies to pre-empt the development of large concentrations of social control outside the state organisation.

As long as the fragmentation of social control has continued, denying state leaders effective mass political mobilisation, rulers have been reduced to ruses and stratagems; they must build and rebuild coalitions and balances of power centres while using state resources to reinforce existing distribution of power and wealth in society. Such mechanisms may at times encourage economic growth, but they do not create a more capable, autonomous state.

(Blogwatch) Noynoy's First SONA

How refreshing, a State of the Nation Address (SONA) that isn't self-congratulatory. I suppose this can be expected, given that this is President Noynoy Aquino's first. He doesn’t have a laundry list of accomplishments to trumpet. Instead he has a laundry list of things the previous administration did wrong. It is always good to juxtapose his administration from the last one. That is a gift that will keep on giving. He reminds us of the horrors of the Arroyo reign, and anything compared to that can only be good. Of course he makes special mention of Pampanga, just to remind us in case we’ve forgotten.

Read the rest at the Philippine Online Chronicles.

(Blogwatch) It Augurs Well

We’re inclined to believe the worst in our leaders. It is the automatic option. Faced with a choice between blind faith and skepticism, we are apostates. Is it borne of our revolutionary tradition, this distrust of authority? Or more a fruit of our useless labors throughout the years? How does one cope with perpetual disappointment? A refusal to believe in the possibility of anything.

Read the rest at the Philippine Online Chronicles.

Malacañang’s Magic Machine

I completely understand why our new president, Noynoy Aquino, is hesitant to live in Malacañang. After nearly a decade of having been inhabited by its current occupant, it now comes equipped with its own version of reality. It is a kind of “virtual” reality, an alternate universe separate from that which unfolds outside its walls. In this parallel universe, all data, all information, can be manipulated to reflect a world of one’s own choosing.

Read the rest at the Philippine Online Chronicles.

(Blogwatch) Freedom of Information: Antidote to Tyranny

Tyranny may change in form, adapting to the milieu in which it must be deployed and exercised, but it never changes in principle. In the olden days, a naked display of power – an army of mercenaries or soldiers – is enough to subdue an uncooperative populace. The tyrant commands through the monopoly of instruments that physically coerce - instruments of hurt, instruments of pain. The constant principle is that the tyrant gets what she wants, no matter the opinion of those whom she rules. This is the very antithesis of democracy.

Read the rest here.

Filipino Rice Policy

A Film By: Magee Clegg

'Filipino Rice Policy' is an eye-opening short documentary that explores the world of politics surrounding Agriculture in the Philippines. Myths, corruption, and the lack of understanding have allowed the Philippine Department of Agriculture to guide Filipinos towards a facade of food security. Former Secretaries of Agriculture Carlos Dominguez, Senen Bacani, and Roberto Sebastion along with many other well known rice policy experts believe that the Department of Agriculture has been leading Filipinos in the wrong direction for too long, and it is now time to change direction.

Filipino Rice Policy from Magee Clegg on Vimeo.

Population matters. Didn't expect RH to somehow be incorporated in this!

First Article with Blogwatch

I am a new contributor to the Philippine Online Chronicles and Blogwatch. You may read my maiden article "Dear Noynoy" here.

Rule of Kings, Rule of Government

It seems, at times, we are caught in a time warp. Similar configurations from the past revisit time and again as though to punish those among us hard-pressed to learn the lesson. Some say we could be where we were in 1986 and that the magic of People Power will once again be put to test. It is the same power blocs jockeying for position playing by old rules in this tired old game.

Are we truly stuck in a time warp or are we progressing onto something else? I have, from time to time, thrown my hands in exasperation. I am, like you, too close to the action to discern any real change in the way we conduct our politics. I am, like you, alternately exhausted, befuddled, aghast, bemused. But my current location, that is, my position in our polity, affords me little perspective. Once in a while, however, one might glimpse a glimmer of … something new.

Diagnosing Symptoms

A new discovery, UP Prof. Bong Mendoza's blog. Don't be intimidated by the tone of the language (just keep plugging on), this is an excellent summary of what is wrong with the Philippines'...


economic system:

The failures of the Philippine state and politics are highlighted by the inability to sustain and realize a promising economic growth potential (as of the 1950s) when the country was supposed to be second in Asia only to Japan in terms of economic development.  At the core of this failure is inconsistency and incompatibility of economic policymaking with the requirements of sustainable growth since 1946.

...The source of policy inconsistency is identified in the literature as reflective of incomplete elite class differentiation in the country.  For example, as the country’s elite groups are involved in almost all lines of business such as external trade (imports and exports), real estate, commercial agriculture, manufacturing, and finance—there has been for a long time no elite consensus on trade and foreign exchange policy.

The Spirit of the Law and the Ghouls of Arroyo

There are two ways of looking at a country’s legal system. One is that it embodies a set of rules that regulate actions of those bound by the law – legal personalities who inhabit the country in question. It is ‘unlawful’ or ‘illegal’ to steal from your neighbor. The capacity to say that it is wrong to commit such an act shapes the behavior of those who commit themselves, as citizens, to the legal community (i.e. country). To add teeth to the law, there are also all sorts of punishments levied upon those who transgress what is lawful or legal. You pay a fine, you do community service, your liberty is taken away. Seen this way, laws are a set of rules designed to regulate or harmonize a community. They assure order and a measure of peace so that citizens might go about their daily lives with as little hassle as possible.

But what makes stealing unlawful? Or killing? Or rape? These are not ‘unlawful’ just because. The rules by which we abide are moral judgments. It is morally wrong to steal, kill and rape. Why? Because those who have drafted these laws and the community which protects and/or abide by them have put value on one being able to keep one’s possessions and one not being killed or raped by any random person. These values, in turn, are also underlined by a chain of other values – the sanctity of private property, the sanctity of life, the sanctity of dignity. And so on.

Noynoy’s to Lose

I suspect the Noynoy campaign is frittering away its massive lead by failing to deliver messages that will convince the faithful to hold on and convince the not yet converted to switch over. The natural constituency of Noynoy are the above thirtysomethings who have still have residual feelings for the country’s democratization process helmed by Ninoy and Cory. The younger voters will have no such nostalgia but will probably find Noynoy suitably hip and infinitely cleaner.

Among peers from the educated middle class however, I hear grumblings on three fronts – first, Noynoy should stop pressing the message of his being the son of his sainted parents. “We already know this, tell us something we don’t yet know.” Second, he should speak more strongly about his past achievements and what he has actually done both as a member of Congress and Senate. Self-effacement be damned. Its time to toot your own horn and market yourself better. Third, Noynoy has to hammer the message that his plans, embodied by his platform of course, will deliver a better future. If he can concentrate on delivering these three messages, then he’ll protect his lead. We already know you’re not corrupt, on to the next step ok?

The more people get to know rivals Gibo and Gordon, the paler becomes Noynoy’s reflected glory. And more votes lost to the first two candidates gives Manny Villar a better chance to win. The presidential bid is Noynoy’s to lose given that we have reasonably clean elections. Time to switch gears. Sipag at Tiyaga, Galing at Talino, Nanay at Tatay…just doesn’t sound good.

"A Message of Modern Politics" by Randy David

Yesterday I attended a talk given by Prof. Randy David in the University of Asia and the Pacific. He addressed university students with his “Message of Modern Politics: A situationer on Philippine current politics.” Let me take this opportunity to echo salient points of his talk.

First Prof. David said he was not endorsing anyone. He structured his talk around four major themes – ‘Quest for political stability’, ‘the Philippine experience’, ‘The Arroyo government’ and ‘Possible scenarios in 2010.’

I found the first part most instructive. His training as a sociologist requires him to always paint a broad historical picture, allowing listeners to situate themselves in the current situation as part of the national context. The second part outlines some historical details relevant to the present. The third part argues GMA has painted herself in a corner where her options have become restricted. And the last attempts to forecast what might happen this year.

Quest for political stability

David observes that Filipinos are “sick and tired” of politics. In other societies, people are not overburdened with politics. And normally citizens only think about it during elections. The fact the politics consumes much of our national imaginary has both good and bad effects, he says. It is good in that citizens are kept informed. It is bad in that the constant politicking leaves little room to do much of anything else. It is time spent away from thinking about ways to improve education and health, growing businesses and the arts.

He says in the region the Philippines has had the longest experience with elections and yet we cannot seem to get it right. Elections are a good way of making the transition from a ‘traditional’ to a ‘modern’ society.

Here he gives quick yet unerring definitions of these broad concepts. A ‘traditional’ society is one of hierarchies. One might also call them ‘feudal’, ties and associations based on families. He also calls this society ‘limited-access’ in that only certain people enjoy monopolies of power and influence. A ‘modern’ society is ‘open-access’ and allows associations not based on familial or personal ties but through functions. They are ‘functionally differentiated’, allowing for clear divisions between politics and business, politics and religion, politics and other public realms. One might argue that a modern society is also more democratic.

David then makes an astonishing claim, one that many of us will probably instantly recognize but which we have not yet articulated, most of all to ourselves. I know I was struck by it. David claims we cannot seem to make that transition from being a ‘traditional’ (i.e. hierarchical, monopolistic) society to a ‘modern’ (i.e. truly democratic) society. We are stuck somewhere in the middle, exhibiting characteristics of either model. And here is where David makes a crucial point. He asks, why is it important to modernize?

He says it is important because “many young people are already leaving in disgust.” He means disgust with the status quo. Now more than ever, young Filipinos cannot see themselves in this particular context. He says it is now possible for Filipinos to pursue personal development and growth independent of their nation’s development and growth. This argument hit close to home. I have articulated before how I felt as though I were a cultural minority, believing in certain ideals and principles divorced from the reality here.

To address political stability, David defines ‘governance’ as the ability to create “collectively-binding decisions”, that is, decisions that will apply to all irrespective of identity and position. He names public debt as a collectively-binding issue. All of us incur public debt whether we like it or not.

He asks, how does government achieve legitimacy so its collectively-binding decisions are accepted? This can only be achieved through a democratic exercise free of coercion. He asks, and this one made me cringe I hadn’t realized it, “Can you imagine if we settle political constestation like the Ampatuans?” CRINGE. Political contest then will devolve to who has more guns, goons and gold to finance them. All matter of rhetoric, appeals to the public good etc. etc. will take a backseat. In such a scenario, how do people with no guns, goons nor gold make the people who do accountable?

Here David makes another important point. He says the governments legitimacy and authority should not emanate from its coercive power, that is, the ability to force people to submit. Legitimacy and authority should be consensual. The LESS there is a need to force people to abide by collectively-binding decisions, the MORE legitimacy and authority it has. The two elements – legitimacy/authority and coercion are inversely proportionate. In simple language, a government that enjoys the approval and support of the governed does not need to use FORCE.

Here David uses a statistic to drive home a point. The Philippines has the largest private security force in the world – these are the blue guards we see in every building in the country. HALF A MILLION. Almost thrice the size of the AFP’s standing army. We have gotten so used to seeing security guards toting guns, we have become immune. It is not like so in other societies, says David. And yes, I am reminded of my stay in Australia, where it took me 3 months to finally spot a police car. David also deplores the presence of security in the UP campus nowadays. He recounts how it was when he was a young professor, there were no security guards. We ask ourselves then, if visibility of police and quasi-police forces is an indication, then it must mean our current government does not enjoy legitimacy and authority?

Philippine experience

David begins his broad strokes with the declaration of Martial Law in 1972. At that time, many of our neighbours in this region were run by authoritarian governments. David argues that Marcos styled himself as a ruler in the middle of the dueling left (communists) and right (oligarchs), with the strong state creating a space for sped-up modernization. This was why, he says, so many UP professors at the time joined the Marcos regime, forming the backbone of the technocracy. They had high hopes for the Marcosian experiment.

The experiment ran aground though. My favorite example here is South Korea. That country’s martial law regime, which took over in 1973 and ran almost as long as ours, delivered an economic takeoff that now counts South Korea among the richest countries in the world (i.e. a member of the OECD). The Marcosian experiment, far from strengthening the state-in-the-middle created new oligarchs and new insurgents. Instead of widening public space and access to public institutions, Marcos created pockets of privatized gain.

David also tackles the difficulty of universal suffrage being made a tool for modernization and change. In other societies, economic rights were fulfilled first before political rights. That is, poverty and hunger were solved first before democratization. A citizen cannot take his or her political duties seriously if he or she is economically dependent. And so, until today, we have Filipinos who will gladly sell their votes for money.
Cory Aquino’s transitional regime was saddled with problems. It had the difficult task of solving problems accumulated in 14 years under Marcos. Old trapos came in to fill public offices, those displaced by Marcos again back in the limelight.

David argues that Fidel Ramos’ economic growth in the nineties didn’t trickle down to the poor. The 1997 Asian financial crisis made life even more difficult for the most vulnerable. And so by the 1998 elections, these marginalized sectors were in electoral revolt. And what better ally than Erap Para Sa Mahirap?

David makes a difficult admission – EDSA Dos was a mistake. It was a mistake because Arroyo shouldn’t have been sworn in as president and that Joseph Estrada didn’t resign. He says there should have been snap elections.

The Arroyo government

For the last nine years David says Arroyo has been in a permanent mode of political survival. Her administration has been riddled by political instability – the Garci tapes, the Oakwood mutiny, the ZTE-NBN scandal etc. etc. Her actions hence have been compromised by political survival. David says she employed tools to ensure her stay in power:
1. Firm grip on AFP & PNP through distribution of patronage
2. Firm grip on LGUs through the same
3. Firm grip on judiciary
4. Carrot and stick approach to control the business community
5. Striking deals with political warlords to deliver votes

Here David says if one should review the Garci tapes back in 2004, one would hear the word ‘Maguindanao’ mentioned every so often. And lest we delude ourselves into thinking warlords only exist in Mindanao, let us think of all sorts of organized criminal elements such as jueteng lords operating in Luzon and Visayas.

At the end of her almost decade-long reign, David claims that Gloria Arroyo has broken so many rules it would be impossible for her to give up power. She does not have an exit option like Marcos (who was flown to Hawaii by the US government) and she doesn’t want to do an Erap incarceration. Lastly the professor outlines five scenarios and we will see why charter change is crucial in all of them.

Scenarios in 2010

1. Failure of elections – automation breaks down, chaos and confusion ensues (whether spontaneous or instigated), AFP and PNP step in and we have a transitional government.

2. Elections held but no proclamation – local officials, including members of Congress are sworn in, but no national winners. Winning local candidates vote for charter change and elect House member Gloria Arroyo as prime minister.

3. Wholesale automated cheating – pro-Gloria incumbents are re-elected, changing government, GMA as prime minister.

4. 2010 results are credible, having a legitimate new government. GMA in Congress takes speakership of the lower house, pushes for con-con, shift to parliamentary government, GMA as prime minister.

5. 2010 elections are credible. GMA doesn’t get speakership, is possibly indicted or at least removed from office.

In conclusion, David reminds us of three important points. First, that political stability is important and that elections are important. Second, GMA has been there so long she has privatized and distorted democratic institutions. Lastly, and perhaps the most important note, how can GMA be peacefully prosecuted without a decisive change in government?

These are some of the things we must bear in mind this year, once we troop to the polls. Let us keep our eyes and ears pealed.

A Politics of Meaning

The city of Calapan is plastered with the initials RGV - public works, vehicles, buildings. The letters are shaped a certain way, a distinctive font. These three letters are inescapable, they assault you everywhere. Rodolfo G. Valencia has been campaigning for a long time. He owns many businesses in Oriental Mindoro’s capital. It is his right of course to put his initials on any object purchased with his money.

In Manila, faces of politicians of every stripe and hue are also plastered on every available surface. Visibly photoshopped, the aspiring barangay captain, councilor, senator and president is strategically placed on moving buses or inert buildings and light posts. On television, there are thirty-second audiovisual presentations with catchy blurbs made palatable by poppish music.

In four months citizens will troop to polling precincts to choose their leaders from the barangay to the national level. Four short months. I have been waiting for real substantive messages from any one of these politicians. I have been waiting to be engaged in a debate on problems and possible solutions. And there are problems aplenty. All there seem to be are problems. As one who has closely followed the American elections last year, I have been thoroughly disappointed by the Philippine ‘pre-campaign’ period so far. Will there be a debate on healthcare? Economic reform? Public debt? Human rights? Agricultural policies? Environmental protection? I may yet expire from holding my breath.

Next month will mark the beginning of the official marketing and mud-slinging. In four short months our aspiring leaders will make promises, all sorts. For once I would like to hear outlined HOW they will deliver on these promises. EXACTLY. I am sick and tired of the meaningless posturing.

I have nothing but contempt for those who engage in politics for politics’ sake. Because then the road to the presidency, the seat in congress, the barangay captaincy becomes nothing more than a calculated pursuit of power. Power – the ability to coerce others to do what one wants - no more no less. Politics then degenerates into a mad scramble for scraps. Picture them rabid mongrels, hackles raised, ready to bite, claw and jockey for position for the tenderest of morsels.

I sometimes wonder whether any of these politicos even bother to think of what is at stake, lost as they are in this game of one-upmanship.

Would-be Mr. President, do pray tell, WHAT IS AT STAKE?

Is it Good vs. Evil?

I am squeamish any time somebody brings up "good" versus "evil" in politics because in this context, the Church pretty much has a monopoly on ascribing what either one is. In the classic binary of black-white, devil-satan, there is little acknowledgment of the gray in between. Randy David rightly cautions Noynoy Aquino's camp from overtly framing his candidacy along these lines:

For, such moralistic formulations preempt and disparage the need for a careful and reasoned analysis of the problems that confront us as a nation. They tend to focus on the character of the doer than on the origins and consequences of the deed. They ride on unexamined moral prejudices, and simplify the search for political solutions into a quest for heroes. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo may be the most despised president in the nation’s history, but instead of ascribing to her sole authorship of everything that is bad in our government, I find it more arguable to think of her as a reflection of our society’s basic problems, or the street-smart personification of a dysfunctional social order.

Perhaps because I have seen what 'evil' professional purveyors of morality can and do perpetrate up close, I share David's opinion. The Church has called pro-Reproductive Health advocates 'evil.' There is no reasoning with anyone who thumps the bible and calls on God as final arbiter on affairs of humankind. There is no room for debate and no room to unpack and balance ideas on what it means to be a mother and what a woman's rights are vis-à-vis her husband, her family and the State.

There is no question that the Church played a significant party in the first People Power. Then, they also framed the Marcos regime as the evil empire to be toppled. Here, let me say I understand where Conrado de Quiros is coming from when he says the battle is that between good and evil:

The people who criticize Good and Evil presume completely unsophisticatedly and plain ignorantly that we think only with our conscious abstract mind, not with our unconscious image-making mind. They’re so busy looking at logistics, figures, organizational charts, they cannot appreciate the power of myth, symbol and archetype. Or the power of the storyline the ad agencies of the “presidentiables” are so desperate to find and mine for their candidates. The phrase “Good vs Evil” is merely a symbolic, mythical, archetypal, shorthand for a situation where the choice has become so stark, so life-and-death, it cannot be captured by trite and sullen articulations.

It was linguist George Lakoff who said our brains are structured to process information and to find meaning in metaphors. The human mind organizes thought by creating categories. For political purposes, Lakoff, a democrat, has written literature on how Republicans have successfully used language to frame many policy issues. It is understandable, then, that De Quiros is hammering the Good versus Evil frame. On the surface, this is a metaphor that has rung true among homo sapiens since they started walking upright. We categorize things as 'bad' or 'evil' if they harm us and 'good' if they don't. In discerning the difference, we act accordingly.

Let me suggest then that David and De Quiros' seemingly opposing views need not be irreconcilable. For the purposes of elections in these extraordinary times - the good versus evil frame will be useful. But for the purposes of governance, the day-to-day nitty-gritty of running a country, we might want to heed David's appeal to careful reasoning.

And since history has shown we have no problem fighting the battle of Good verus Evil, then we might want to shore up our collective capacities to fight the more protracted battle of figuring out how we can function as a just and prosperous nation.

Mikey Arroyo BBQ

Winnie Monsod skewers Mikey Arroyo on his US properties.


For the latest Philippine news stories and videos, visit GMANews.TV

ETA:
In case GMANews takes down their video clip, here is the same interview on Youtube.

Oh...I love this. Thanks E.P.!!

Imagining a President, Making a President

The thought has been percolating in this writer’s mind since that first column by Conrado de Quiros on Noynoy. For the past three weeks we saw how the idea has simmered, and today has culminated in an announcement by Sen. Mar Roxas that he is giving way to Cory and Ninoy’s only son.

Skepticism has come from all quarters. They question Sen. Aquino’s competence and record as a public servant. They question the unsavory elements of his heritage, that of being a descendant to the land-owning Cojuangcos. But De Quiros makes a convincing argument. Noynoy has no ambition to be President – and that is what separates him from aspirants yipping at Gloria Arroyo’s heel. Like his mother in 1986, he has no greed for power. He perches on the shoulders of giants. This alone, De Quiros asserts, would make it difficult for the son to dishonor the heroic memory of his mother and father.

Because all through his career he has not been the media whore his little sister Kris is, we know very little of the man. His legislative record isn’t impressive, but it doesn’t count for nothing either. Those who have rallied behind Noynoy these past few weeks saw a glimpse of grace under pressure, maybe a hint of a quiet kind of spine, in his time of bereavement. And character matters as much as qualifications, if not more. Gloria Arroyo’s experience is impressive – and look where that got her. Look where she has dragged all of us.

The idea that tantalizes is Noynoy’s blank slate. And on this blank canvas, we the people are free to write the narrative. On Noynoy we can inscribe our dreams as a nation. On Noynoy we can ascribe our will to heroism. Noynoy is an idea whose time has come. Like his mother and father, he must find it in bones to answer this call to duty. And like the generation who first wielded People Power, we must find it in ourselves to answer ours.

Cerge Remonde's Circus Tale

Cerge Remonde can't seem to keep his story straight on the details of President Arroyo's New Yawk dinnah. Others who have spoken up to ostensibly aid the press secretary are in fact giving information that do not coincide with his narrative.

On August 7, Saturday Remonde confirmed the dinner did in fact take place. He said it was Rep. Romualdez who paid for dinner and denied knowing how much it cost.

It was Congressman Martin Romualdez who invited the First Couple to dinner at Le Cirque in New York. As to how much the dinner costs, Malacañang does not know as it was the host who chose the menu and picked up the tab...

On August 9, he said the amount was exaggerated and said there were 15 to 20 people in their retinue. He also downplayed the "ritziness" of Le Cirque. I guess he forgot the a few clicks on the internet would disprove his claim. The dinner was not only "simple", it also lasted for "one hour." Exhibiting ignorance over who broke the news, Remonde conveniently pins the blame on the "communist front" Bayan "which has never ceased in its agitation propaganda against the government."

Sen. Miriam Santiago, who was with the Philippine delegation, was quick to say she did not join the Le Cirque diners. She even reproached the Palace:

Ang payo ko lang sa kanila ay huwag nang pagtakpan at sabihin ang totoo at mangako na hindi na uulitin. It was a mistake in judgment...

Sen. Santiago also said Sen. Lapid, who was one of the diners, did not enjoy the meal. [ETA 8:07 @popisunga on twitter also pointed out that Lapid saying "Sabi niya, grabe naman itong restaurant na eto, katagal tagal dumating ng order" contradicts Remonde's claim that the whole shebang was over in an hour.]

On the same day, another Le Cirque diner Rep. Suarez also says it was Rep. Romualdez who paid for the bill at the invitation of the latter's brother who is an architect based in New York. But his story recounts 50 diners instead of the original 15-20.

We were more than 50 in our group, the President’s security and the secret service joined us.

Today, Rep. Romualdez' staff Nick Esmale denies it was the congressman who made the payment, but his architect brother.

In the past few days the story has changed but one thing has not been denied by the Romualdez camp, the amount of $20,000.

Maybe tomrrow will yield new information...abangan!

ETA 8/11:

The day isn't yet over and we already have new tidbits. Rep. Villarosa of last-minute-call-to-Speaker-Noggie-to-halt-transmission-of-the-Magna-Carta-for-Women fame said they also ate at Wolfgang Steakhouse and Rep. Mandanas recounts eating at Bouley's.

ETA 8/12:

As she trail-blazed through les États-Unis, GMA left thousand-dollar meals in her wake...and here they come a-haunting. The Washington Post reports GMA's retinue had a $15,000 meal at Bobby Van's Steakhouse. Hat tip to Manolo for breaking the news.

The group took over one of the restaurant's private rooms and dined on lobster, steak and fine wines; at the conclusion of the meal, an unidentified woman opened a handbag stuffed with cash, counted out bills and paid the $15,000 tab -- which included a generous tip. The Philippine Embassy did not return calls for comment Tuesday.

The NY Post does a follow-up, also reporting this other meal.

The wonders of globalization. Hayluveeeet.

Number Crunching, Lying and Arroyo’s SONA

Palace poodle Alex Magno, minutes before yesterday’s SONA predicted the President will make a “very detailed, specific, technical report.” Indeed, the President is counting on most Filipinos not being able to make heads or tails of her laundry list of statistics. After all, these are the numbers she collated from the various departments. Who can dispute official government data?

Others have pored over the coded political messages couched in her hour-long speech. While remaining coy about perpetuating herself in power, Mon Casiple points out that Arroyo is not likely to leave the political scene. Manolo Quezon summed in three brief sentences the President’s core messages:

1. Don’t count me out.
2. Cha-Cha is a go.
3. We will mobilize vs.certain presidential candidates.

Popoy De Vera makes a quick assessment of GMA’s so-called accomplishments. Of eight points: balanced budget, education for all, automated election, transportation and digital infrastructure, terminate hostilities with milf and npa, healing the wounds of EDSA, electricity and water for all, opportunities for livelihood and 10 million jobs, decongest Metro Manila, develop Subic and Clark, only one item is a clear fact. The other are either complete fiction or deserve qualifiers.

While there may be no ‘smoking gun’ to tie the President to the graft and corruption scandals that have plagued her stay in power, Rep. Mong Palatino reminds us of human rights violations and the undisputed (missing) body count of militant and journalist desaparecidos.

Sassy Lawyer makes the obvious point that the President will strive to make her last address optimistic. Why indeed would she talk about her failures? Because the SONA is a highly publicized event it is a good opportunity for the president to legitimize and deodorize her incumbency. Nobody expected an inspirational tale from her. Nobody expected a rallying cry that would capture the Filipino nation’s imagination. So yes, her SONA, like her previous ones, was short on rhetoric and long on numbers and cheap shots at ‘opposition’ players.

Let us go back to the outrageous claims on the economic front. Gloria Arroyo PhD’s number crunching deserves some demystification. Aside from outright lies, they also betray false assumptions that result to her claiming the country’s ‘economic fundamentals’ are sound.

DEBT

Watching her speech yesterday, my eyebrows shot up the roof when she said she had “exorcised” the demon of foreign debt.

Far from Neutral uses IBON data to illustrate that Arroyo said an outright lie when she said that she has “exorcised” Philippine debt. By March 2009, government debt has nearly doubled from P2.17 trillion in 2000 to P4.23 trillion.

In a roundtable discussion organized by the Freedom from Debt Coalition, former Budget Secretary Boncodin presents us more hard data on the government's budget deficit and debt.

Debt owed to domestic lenders rose from P1.06 trillion in 2000 to P2.4 trillion in 2008. Debt owed to foreign lenders rose from P1.09 trillion to 1.8 trillion in 2008. And the President, dear beloved President in pink, has the gall to say she has "exorcised" debt???

FINANCIAL CRISIS

Arroyo also generously gave herself credit for ‘accomplishment’s in which she had no direct hand.

“In 2008 up to the first quarter of 2009 we stood among only a few economies in Asia-Pacific that did not shrink.”

Dr. Josef Yap of PIDS observes the drop in GDP growth rate in 2007 is consistent with the onset of the global financial crisis. And the Philippines is not unique in weathering the financial storm. He credits this to the following:

- the very limited direct exposure of the region to subprime and other related securitized products
- relatively strong bank balance sheets with a return to profitability—as impaired loans from the 1997/98 Asian financial crisis have been worked off
- improvements in risk and liquidity management
- strengthening of supervisory and regulatory systems
- moves by banks into new and profitable domestic business lines such as consumer lending.

The country has escaped the worst of the crisis because of the conservatism (dare I say backwardness?) of local financial markets. This meant financial players preferred to keep capital at home rather than play high stakes in the global casino. This conservatism probably has more to do with hard lessons learned in the 1997 financial crisis than excellent forecasting by Arroyo’s economic team.

In the same FDC roundtable mentioned earlier, another former Budget Secretary, Benjamin Diokno, presents data on falling exports.



He expects these figures to worsen in 2009 as the economies of the top 10 destinations of our exports, accounting for 84 percent of the total, are also expected to weaken.

The President was triumphant in proclaiming yesterday:

Our reforms gave us the resources to protect our people, our financial system and our economy from the worst of shocks that the best in the west failed to anticipate.

Cash handouts give the most immediate relief and produce the widest stimulating effect. Nakikinabang ang 700,000 na pinakamahihirap na pamilya sa programang Pantawid Pamilya.

We prioritize projects with the same stimulus effects plus long-term contributions to progress.

Early in the year the administration announced a P330 billion stimulus package that was supposed to target spending to save the economy. This just means the government (instead of the private sector) will spend money to promote economic activity. For example, if it commissions public work projects - this will create employment and business opportunities for construction workers and contractors.

Since the President makes no mention of the results of her stimulus package, did she plunk all P330 billion in her “Pantawid Pamilya” program?

Former National Treasurer Prof. Briones notes that of the P1.4 trillion 2009 budget, only P10 billion was allocated for the “Economic Stimulus Fund” and the rest were from normal government spending.

So, did all P10 billion go to Arroyo’s “Pantawid Pamilya” program?

POVERTY

Another outright lie is her claim that poverty has gone down during her watch.

“Bumaba ang bilang ng mga nagsasabing mahirap sila sa 47% mula 59%. Maski lumaki ang ating populasyon, nabawasan ng dalawang milyon ang bilang ng mahihirap.”

Not less than the government’s NSCB data disproves her claim! While the data may be dated at 2006 stats, the numbers categorically show a worsening of poverty incidence between 2000 and 2006 and more people now fall under the poverty threshold.

FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENTS

The World Economic Forum is a pow-wow of the most powerful business actors in the world. Yearly they compile a report called the “Global Competitiveness Report.” This signals to businesses where they may invest profitably. Last year, the report categorically states that foreign businesses have been avoiding the Philippines like the plague for these reasons:

1. Corruption
2. Inefficient government bureaucracy
3. Inadequate supply of infrastructure
4. Policy instability
5. Government instablity/coups



Somehow, I doubt that Speaker Nograles’ proposal to amend the constitution, supposedly to encourage investments, will attract these businesses. They will have to eliminate themselves first.

MAGICAL GDP GROWTH

Many experts now agree that GDP is not a sufficient measure of a country’s economic welfare. As the adage goes, if you cut trees the GDP goes up. If you have two cars smash into each other on the road, the GDP goes up. This is because GDP accounts for activities that go into producing products (things) and services. It is an ‘amoral’ measure in that it posts a plus for trees cut but cannot measure the costs of the same. Obviously, we all need trees for clean air.

Nevertheless, let us try to unpack the mystery that is Gloria Arroyo’s bullish GDP! Yesterday she happily announced:

“…our economy posted uninterrupted growth for 33 quarters; more than doubled its size from $76 billion to $186 billion. The average GDP growth from 2001 to the first quarter of 2009 is the highest in 43 years.”

Looking at the UPSE Economic Database, the figures seem to confirm a continuous upward increase in GDP from 2001 to 2008. The thing that puzzles though, and what ultimately makes experts scratch their heads, is why the so-called growth does not match other indicators to measure the over-all health of the economy.

This paper written by former NEDA head Felipe Medalla and Karl Robert Jandoc note that while GDP growth rates are on the up and up, other indicators do not go up along with them.

"We ask why is it that if economic growth is being correctly measured, many indicators and data sets are at odds with the supposedly high economic growth. Moreover, we find that Philippine growth patterns—shrinking growth of domestic absorption, exports, and imports accompanying rising output growth—do not fit the pattern in other Asian economies."

Pattern One: GDP went up even as imports contracted. These economists note that the pattern for other Asian countries show that both indicators go up at the same time. It makes sense, if the local economy is making more goods and providing more services, it will need to import materials - the most crucial of which that we lack, I think, is oil.

Pattern Two: GDP went up even as exports also contracted. Among the nine Asian countries surveyed, the Philippines again miraculously bucks the trend! There were more goods and services consumed...but we didn't export any of them?

So if GDP has enjoyed a consistent upward trend since Arroyo took over, and the products and services the economy produced were not exported, this must mean that Filipinos themselves did most of the consumption.

Medalla and Jandoc express serious doubts about the government's statistics on the strength of the Filipino's buying power. They make mention of many other inconsistencies, and here I will only mention that between Gloria's Statistics and the Family Income and Expenditure Survey.

"Now, if the obvious fact that the FIES and the NIA begun to diverge after 2000 is accepted, the question is which data set should given more weight for assessing what happened to the economy after 2000. As already pointed out, the incredibly high growth of food consumption and personal consumption growth that far exceeds the growth of purchasing power as estimated in the NIA itself already casts strong doubt on the claims that the economy has grown the fastest in recent years."

So, the GDP grew even when the Filipino's buying power did not. Allow me then to paraphrase their conclusions without jargon - something is wrong with Gloria's number crunching.

A STRONG ECONOMY BUILT ON WHAT?

After all this the President concludes: “The state of our nation is a strong economy.”

The President is not coy about her administration’s engines of growth. Her castle rests on our young and talented serving BPOs and the export of more of the young and talented to all corners of the world.

Why I do not think this is sustainable and will hardly earn us First World status by 2020, deserves another blog entry.

For now, let me just say, I am not looking for a visionary come 2010. I am looking for one who will at least not lie so audaciously.