RISA TO SARA ON P125M SPENT IN 11 DAYS: "SAAN NIYO DINALA ANG PERA"

 

The title above is the recent Inquirer headline that tells of Senator Risa Hontiveros chiding Vice President Sara Duterte after it was revealed that her office spent its confidential allocation of P125 million in just 11 days.

“Anong uri na naman ng magic ang ginamit nila para ubusin ang P125M sa loob ng 11 araw?” Hontiveros asked. “Hindi  lang yan spending spree. Yan ay paglapastangan sa mamamayan.”

(What kind of magic did they employ to use P125 million in just 11 days? That’s not a spending spree. That is an insult to the people.)

“Babalik lang tayo sa paulit-ulit na tanong: Saan niyo dinala ang pera? Naghihintay ng resibo ang buong Pilipinas,” Hontiveros asserted.

(Again, we ask the same question: where did you take the money? The Filipino people are waiting for your receipt.)

Speaking of “spending spree”, I thought the unthinkable phrase “P125 Million spent in 11 days” would sound clearer if we illustrate it using a more understandable hypothetical scenario. Just for kicks, I prompted Bing, my AI-powered co-pilot, to play the spendthrift role, and we put together the following list of a prodigal spending spree.

Day 1: Buy a luxury car, a Bentley Flying Spur 2023 for P40M.

Day 2: Buy for her Neige Hermes Faubourg Birkin bag for P20M.

Day 3-5: Book a presidential suite at the Shangri-La Makati for P600K per night for 3 nights. Go on a shopping spree for his Armani suit for P200K and kids’ iPhone 15 Pro Max, MacBook Pro, and Sony Play Station 5.

Day 6: Hire a private yacht for P100K per hour for a day cruise.

Day 7-9: Fly to Banwa Private Island Resort in Palawan for a blowout with friends for P5M minimum per night for 3 nights.

Day 10: Fly back to Manila to buy Amorsolo painting for P10M.

Day 11: Buy a condo for what remains of P125M.

On the flip side, I prompted Bing to play the philanthropic role, and it suggested the following humanitarian acts.

Day 1-11: Donate P11M daily up to 10^th day and P15M on the 11^th day to various local charities:  from UNICEF Philippines to help provide health, nutrition, education, protection, and emergency assistance to millions of Filipino children in need, to Mental Health PH that aims to end the stigma and discrimination against mental health conditions.

Bursting the bubble and going back to the real world, let’s get to the bottom of Sen. Hontiveros’ question: “Saan niyo dinala ang pera?” In justifying her confidential and intelligence funds, VP Sara herself let the cat out of the bag in invoking her well-worn mantra: “intended for the safe, secure, and successful implementation of programs, and activities and engagements of the OVP (redundant or duplication of effort Hontiveros asserted on such tasks) and all its SATELLITE OFFICES” (here’s the crux of the matter, underscoring mine).

Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin in coming to the VP’s defense reiterated the same phrase “for newly created satellite offices.” Strangely enough, the significance of such a phrase was brushed off by the media.

“Satellite offices” is about politics and future elections -- the germ of which was laid bare during the final year of the Duterte presidency spelled out by the following commentary and two headlines:

“[T]he Office of the President was granted a whopping P8.182 billion budget half of which was earmarked for intelligence and confidential funds that are beyond public scrutiny. The House Appropriations Committee approved that bonanza to the big boss in three minutes flat…All that moolah for the President to spend any way he wants without accountability. Buying national elections in this country is not really that expensive. One or two billion would do.” (Chin Chin Katigbak)

“Sako ng pera” pangako ni Duterte sa PDP-Laban bets” (Philstar)

“Duterte spent P4.5B on confidential, intel funds in 2021 – COA” (CNN Philippines)

Btw, P4.5B (a billion is a number followed by 9 zeros) could build 30,000 units of standard Gawad Kalinga (GK) houses, spending over 12 million every day of the year – a little bit over his daughter’s daily spending of P11.36M (P125M spent in 11 days).

Without a doubt, the daughter – “president-in-waiting” (in Randy David’s words) has inherited such a “magic” (in Hontiveros’ words) now in the form – not of the crude vote-buying but -- of the political leading-edge Obama’s “ground game” using FIELD OFFICES.

Let me explain by sharing with you excerpts of my past ATABAY article “Confidential Intelligence Fund: Creating & Investing for the Future”:

><>< 

What is a “ground game”? The US has more than 234 million eligible voters; not all are registered though. Over 159 million voted in the recent US general election. A presidential candidate can’t reach, up close and personal, all voters. Only when he or she puts into action a “ground game” setting in motion media, surrogates, volunteers, and paid staff, will he or she be able to reach voters -- convince them to vote for him or her -- and just as importantly, to convince them to get out and vote.

Raved over by both the mainstream media and political scientists, Obama’s “ground game” in his presidential run flexed its muscle through its numerical advantage in laying down FIELD OFFICES. It set up 947 (vs. less than 400 for John McCain in 2008) field offices mostly in “battleground” or “swing” states (refer to states that could be won by either Democratic or Republican candidate). Obama’s re-election campaign put in place 789 (vs. 284 for Mitt Romney in 2012) field offices.

A US study explored the impact of field offices on election results for the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns and came up with a key finding implication – a decentralized campaign with widespread field offices is a cut above a concentrated campaign focusing its firepower only on strategically selected areas.

><>< 

Here’s the recent headline: “10 government agencies may lose secret funds” (Inquirer) That’s good news. “If the confidential funds will be truly reduced, then this will be an unprecedented move,” House Deputy Minority Leader Rep. France Castro said. The move includes the P650M confidential funds under VP Sara Duterte’s control.

One takeaway. If the above headline is ultimately carried off, such an “unprecedented move” may not be due to the “invalid” transfer of the controversial funds from the Office of the President to OVP being “unconstitutional but not impeachable” (in Lagman’s words, whatever that means).

But thanks to the “tambaloslos” (in VP Sara’s words) factor which could be the driving clout behind such an "unprecedented move" having deemed that the impact of such a "move” could be deeply consequential to the 2028 presidential battle royal.

Content put together in collaboration with Microsoft Bing AI-powered co-pilot

Head collage photos courtesy of Inquirer

Video clips courtesy of YouTube

HOW USA AND CHINA PLAY DIFFERENT GAMES

 

“To answer power with power, the Jedi way this is not. In this war, a danger there is, of losing who we are.” (Yoda, a legendary Jedi Master, Luke Skywalker’s mentor in the Star Wars saga)

MENTOR

Welcome to our Go club, young man! I’m here to teach you the basics of this ancient game. Go is a game of territory, influence, balance, harmony, conflict, and resolution. Do you understand?

MENTEE

Wow, that sounds deep and intriguing. I think I understand some of those words, but not all of them.

MENTOR

Don’t worry, you will learn them as we go along. Go is a game that challenges your mind and your spirit. It teaches you how to think spatially, how to evaluate your position, how to create shapes, how to connect and cut, how to attack and defend, how to reduce and invade, how to capture and save, how to end the game and score.

I’ll give you a bonus. I want to show you something else. Go can help you understand the current conflict in the South China Sea.

MENTEE

Really? How can a board game help me understand a real-world conflict?

MENTOR

Well, you see, Go is not just a board game. It is also a metaphor, a way of looking at the world.

MENTEE

That sounds interesting. How do we do that?

MENTOR

Let’s start with the objective of the game. In Go, the objective is to surround more territory than your opponent. Let’s relate this to the South China Sea conflict that involves competing claims over territory and resources.

China claims almost 90% of the sea based on its nine-dash line which it says reflects its historical rights. China has been trying to expand its control and influence over the sea by building artificial islands.

Other claimants like the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Brunei have their claims based on international law or historical rights. They have been trying to defend their interests and rights by protesting China’s actions, seeking international arbitration, or cooperating with other countries.

MENTEE

So, China is playing Go in the South China Sea?

MENTOR

Yes, you could say that. China is trying to surround more territory than its opponents and assert its influence over the sea by deploying its naval forces and conducting patrols. But there is another player in the conflict, one that has no direct stake in the sea but has several interests that motivate its intervention. That player -- the USA.

MENTEE

And what game is the US playing in the South China Sea?

MENTOR

Chess: another ancient and fascinating board game. By comparing Go with chess, we can see how both sides – China and the US -- have their respective approaches and philosophies that shape their behavior and perception of the conflict.

While in Go, you want to control the board the most space, in chess, you want to capture on the board the most important piece.

 The US wants to uphold its principles of freedom of navigation rule of law and regional stability. It wants to counter China’s rising power and assert its leadership and presence. It has been trying to achieve such goals by conducting naval exercises and forging alliances, among others.

MENTEE

So, the US is trying to checkmate China in the South China Sea?

MENTOR

Yes, you could say that. The US is trying to capture the most important piece on the board – the kingly influence over the sea. But there is a problem with this analogy.

MENTEE

What is it?

MENTOR

Go and chess are different games with different rules and strategies. They are not compatible and interchangeable. You can’t play Go with chess pieces, apply Go principles to chess situations, or expect Go outcomes from chess actions, and the other way around.

MENTEE

So, what does that mean for the conflict?

MENTOR

It means that both sides are playing different games in the South China Sea. Both don’t understand each other’s game and have different objectives, interests, challenges, strengths, weaknesses, approaches, and philosophies. Both have different ways of looking at the world. Both have different yin and yang.

 

MENTEE

What are yin and yang?

MENTOR

They are the two opposite but complementary forces that makeup everything in the universe. In Go, yin and yang are represented by black and white stones. In chess, yin and yang are represented by black and white pieces.

MENTEE

I see. So how do yin and yang affect the conflict?

MENTOR

Well, you see, Go is a game that balances yin and yang. It emphasizes long-term vision, holistic thinking, indirect action, flexible adaptation, mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. It reflects China’s historical and cultural legacy, as well as its current aspirations and challenges.

On the other hand, chess is a game that contrasts yin and yang. It emphasizes short-term tactics, linear thinking, direct action, rigid rules, zero-sum outcomes, and decisive victory. In the same way, it reflects the US’s historical and cultural legacy, as well as its current aspirations and challenges.

MENTEE

I see. So, Go and chess are not just games. Both are also metaphors for the worldviews of China and the US.

MENTOR

Yes, exactly. And by understanding these metaphors, we can understand the conflict better, and maybe even find a way to manage or resolve it.

MENTEE

How can we do that?

MENTOR

Well, I don’t have a simple answer for that. The situation is complex and uncertain, and there are many other factors and perspectives. But I think the first step is to recognize that both sides are playing different games in the South China Sea and to respect such differences. The second step is to learn from each other’s games and to find common ground. The third step is to play a new game together, one that is not Go or chess, but something else. Something that can accommodate both sides’ interests and values, and create a win-win situation for everyone involved.

MENTEE

That sounds very hopeful.

MENTOR

Well, I’m glad you think so. Go is a game that teaches you hope and optimism. It teaches you that there is always a way out of a difficult situation if you look hard enough. It teaches you that there is always a possibility of resolution if you work hard enough.

MENTEE

Thank you for teaching me. You are very kind and wise.

MENTOR

You are welcome. You are very eager and curious. I’m sure you will become a great Go player someday. And maybe even a great peacemaker in the future.

Now, let’s play a game and see what you have learned.

Content put together in collaboration with Microsoft Bing AI-powered co-pilot

Head collage photos courtesy of The Japan Times & Getty Images

Still photos courtesy of PNG key, Mr. Eurodisco, & Freepik

Video clip courtesy of YouTube

A TALE OF TWO BROKEN PROMISES

 

Imagine that you are in love with someone who promises to write you every day, but you never get a single letter. You think that he has forgotten about you, and you move on with your life. Years later, you find out that he did write to you, but someone else hid the letters, getting in the way of your knowing the truth. How would you feel? Somehow, that’s the plot of the novel The Notebook. Have you seen that film? And if so, remember this scene?

Allie: Why didn’t you write me? Why? It wasn’t over for me. I waited for you for seven years. And now it’s too late.

Noah: I wrote you 365 letters. I wrote you every day for a year.

Allie: You wrote me?

Noah: Yes. It wasn’t over. It still isn’t over.

The plot depicts a tale of a “broken promise” that almost ruined a true love story.

But what if the promise was not about love, but more about life? Like the promise of the vital food on the table of a family? Or the crucial future of the people of a country? What if the person who made the promise was not your lover, but your leader?

That is the fact of life for the multitudes who voted for the two leaders who made promises that they couldn’t keep: the U.S. 41^st President George H.W. Bush and our Philippine President Marcos Jr. Let’s compare and contrast their election campaign promises and the consequences.

Bush and Marcos Jr. are like two sides of the same coin: one made a promise that was too ambitious, but failed to deliver; the other made a promise that was too ambiguous and has crossed his fingers.  One broke his promise because of the recession; the other is on the brink of breaking his promise because it’s only an aspiration. One admitted his mistake and apologized; the other is still in a state of suspension and holds on to his aspiration.

Both faced challenges that tested their integrity and credibility. One suffered the consequences that changed his fate and legacy; the other aimed to rebrand his family’s name to fulfill their destiny.

READ MY LIPS

Bush made his famous six-word election campaign promise in a party nomination speech:

“And I’m the one who will not raise taxes… My opponent won’t rule out raising taxes. But I will. And the Congress will push me to raise taxes and I say no. And they’ll push, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push again, and I’ll say to them, ”Read my lips: no new taxes.”

Bush wanted to appeal to the conservative base of his party who were opposed to any tax increases. He also wanted to distance himself from his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, who had raised taxes several times during his presidency. Bush’s promise was simple, clear, and absolute: he would not raise taxes if he became president. As one pundit says, “It was considered an act of political genius at the time and has been widely mocked since.”

Bush’s promise gave himself no wiggle room. The economy slowed and the budget deficit worsened. Inevitably, he conceded, “It is clear to me that both the size of the deficit problem and the need for a package…require… tax increases…” The headlines were devastating like The New York Post: “Read My Lips…I Lied!”

Bush’s promise backfired when he had to break it. He had a growing budget deficit that forced him to compromise with the Democratic-controlled Congress and agree to raise some taxes as part of a budget deal. It angered many of his conservative supporters and eroded his credibility. As a result, he lost his re-election bid to Bill Clinton, who campaigned on the slogan “It’s the economy, stupid.”

MAY CHANCE LAGI YAN

Marcos Jr. reiterated lately his election campaign promise: P20 per kilo of rice, he first made during the 2022 election campaign season as upheld by his own party:

“Tiniyak ni Partido Federal ng Pilipinas presidential frontrunner Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr. na magkaroon ng murang bigas na hanggang P20 kada kilo sa kanyang  administrasyon matapos siyang manalo sa darating na halalan sa Mayo 9.”

Marcos Jr. wanted to appeal to the poor and hungry masses who were suffering from the high cost of living. He also wanted to differentiate himself from his father, Marcos Sr., who had ruled the country with an iron fist for two decades until he was ousted by a people-power revolution. Marcos Jr.’s promise, like that of Bush, was simple, clear, and absolute: he would lower the price of rice to P20 per kilo if he became president. One may say, “It was considered an act of political genius at the time; will it be, like that of Bush, widely mocked soon?”

Bush’s minions engaged in an enormous behind-the-scenes battle about the line “Read my lips: no new taxes”. One side thought of it as too strong. Another side crossed it out on an initial draft calling it “stupid and dangerous”. Ultimately, the line remained in the speech.

Marcos Jr.’s minions, on the other hand, attempted an about-face claiming that Marcos Jr. never promised the P20 per kilo of rice. His Presidential Communications Office, however, has spelled out such a promise:

“The administration of President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. remains hopeful that it will fulfill his campaign promise of lowering the price of rice to P20, despite the current rice productivity in the country, according to the Department of Agriculture.”

Strange to say, Marcos Jr.’s high-level officials appear to have called in question his campaign promise in varying gradation of answers when asked if the Department of Agriculture could bring down rice prices to P20 per kilo:

“Iyong P20 per kilo, medyo mahirap… It is our aspiration… I cannot answer.” (Agriculture Undersecretary Leocardio Sebastian)

“Baka mahirap po.” (Agriculture Undersecretary Mercedita Sombilla)

One read-my-lips-no-new-taxes lesson: “A case can be made that Bush was not defeated by agreeing to tax increases… It was, rather, the act of BREAKING A PROMISE…” (Howard Gleckman, Urban Institute & Brookings Institution, underscoring mine)

Never mindful of the stakes to his presidency, oddly enough, Marcos Jr. has been holding on tightly to his election campaign promise: “May chance lagi yan.”

Well, as Noah in The Notebook said, “It still isn’t over.”

Scratching my head, I wrap up this article with a wacky corny humor.

“Knock knock!”

“Who’s there”

“May chance lagi yan.”

“May chance lagi yan who?”

“Chances are ‘cause I wear a silly grin

The moment you come into view

Chances are you think that I’m in love with you…”

(Crooning the rest of the song a la Johnny Mathis style)

Content put together in collaboration with Microsoft Bing AI-powered co-pilot

Head collage photos courtesy of The Spokesman-Review, RTVM, & Alamy

Video clips courtesy of YouTube

THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND: A STRATEGY FOR SURVIVAL

 

Once upon a time, there was a vast and beautiful sea where many different animals lived in peace and harmony. Among them were the Philippine eagle, the Vietnamese buffalo, the Malaysian tiger, and the Bruneian sea eagle. They were all friends and neighbors who respected their boundaries.

However, their peaceful life was disturbed by the arrival of a huge and fearsome Chinese dragon who claimed that he owned the entire sea and everything in it. He flew over their waters, breathing fire and smoke.

The Philippine eagle and his friends were outraged by the Chinese dragon’s aggression. They tried to resist him by complaining, but he ignored them. The Philippine eagle and his friends realized that they could not fight the Chinese dragon alone, as he was too powerful and cunning. They needed help from someone stronger than him.

Looking around the sea, they saw an American eagle flying high in the sky, watching over the sea with his keen eyes. The Philippine eagle flew up to him and before long, both flew to meet other friends – the Australian kangaroo, the Japanese monkey, and the Indian tiger.

Befriending the enemies of their common enemy, they banded together to fend off the Chinese dragon’s threat to protect their sea.

ANCIENT WISDOM

The expression “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is an ancient proverb according to Wikipedia which “suggests that two parties can or should work together against a common enemy”.

Often used as a strategy in warfare, politics, or diplomacy to gain an advantage over a common adversary, it was first expressed in the Latin phrase “Amicus meus, inimicus inimici mei” (my friend, the enemy of my enemy).

One notable example in history was the alliance during World War II between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union despite their inherent differences. Both sides then recognized a need to work together to meet the threat of a common enemy – Adolf Hitler.

Let’s look into these two parallel recent developments in which this ancient wisdom is called into play: the West Philippine Sea geopolitical conflict and our local political stunt.  Taking into account both are relevant and important because they involve the interests and values of our country and the Filipino people, as well as the implications for regional and global security and stability.

WEST PHILIPPINE SEA

The West Philippine Sea geopolitical conflict is a dispute over the sovereignty and rights of various countries in the South China Sea which is rich in natural resources and crucial in strategic value. The main actor and threat in this conflict is China which claims almost the entire area, including parts of the exclusive economic zones of the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei. China has also built artificial islands and military bases on some of the disputed features and has deployed its coast guard and maritime militia to harass and intimidate other claimants.

In this conflict, three situations exemplify the use of the ancient proverb – befriending the enemy of my enemy.

First, the alliance of the U.S. and its allies with the Philippines and other SEA countries against their common “enemy” -- China. The U.S. and its regional allies, such as Australia, Japan, and India, have affirmed their commitment to uphold the freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea, along with respecting the 2016 arbitral ruling that invalidated China’s claims.

Moreover, they have conducted naval operations and exercises in the region and have offered military and diplomatic assistance to their partners.

Second, the strategic partnership between the Philippines and Vietnam against their common “enemy” -- China. Both being claimants in the Spratly Islands and having experienced China’s aggression and coercion in their respective waters, the Philippines and Vietnam established the strategic partnership agreement in 2015 expecting to go beyond the security dimension as well as urging both countries to cooperate more closely in areas that will deepen the ties between them.

Third, the collaboration of civil society groups and activists from the Philippines and other countries in their advocacy for the protection of the West Philippine Sea, like the coral reefs, against the common “enemy” – China. Time Magazine’s article The Environment Is The Silent Casualty of Beijing’s Ambitions in the South China Sea disclosed:

“Most ecologically harmful is China’s construction of artificial islands in the South China Sea, which depends on dredgers to churn up coral reefs and smother them with sand and gravel to create land. Since 2014, China has transformed seven mostly underwater reefs into artificial islands, including ones with runways long enough to welcome military jets. “

“’The worst issue with the island-building is that the effect is permanent,’ says John McManus, a professor of marine biology and ecology at the University of Miami.

“Once a portion of coral reef has been buried under tons of sand and gravel, it cannot ever recover. Imagine telling this to our grandchildren.’”

LOCAL POLITICAL STUNT

“Arroyo urged ex-president Duterte to return to politics” (ABS-CBN News)

“Gloria Arroyo on ‘social dinner’ with Leni Robredo” (GMA Network)

The above headlines are neither about Duterte’s “re-entry to politics” nor the “Bicol politics”. It’s all about Gloria Arroyo – giving human shape to the war cry “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”.

Remember, five months ago, she suffered a rare demotion in the House of Representatives. Rep. Edcel Lagman said, “She may be waiting for the right moment to strike back.”

Could this be the right moment? The optics, with Duterte and Robredo as her heavyweight props, appear Arroyo is flexing muscles, looking daggers, and giving a warning to everyone concerned – including to the “tambaloslos” and his top honcho -- that she’ll be back, putting to good use the ancient wisdom: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Could Arroyo turn out to be a Liz Cheney? Removed from her third-highest ranking position in the House of Representatives by her own Republican Party for her outspoken criticism of Trump and her vote to impeach him for the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol, Cheney launched a new organization, “The Great Task”, to educate Americans about the ongoing threat of Trump to democracy. On top of that, she serves in the House Jan 6 Committee investigating the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol. What is more, she appears to be a potential U.S. presidential candidate in 2024.

Or, perhaps, instead of being like Liz Cheney, could Arroyo be just “all bark and no bite”, like a fighter who as Clint Eastwood said has stayed too long in the ring until one could no longer perform at his or her best?

Imagine you are a lion. You have learned how to befriend the enemy of your enemy to survive and thrive in the jungle. But you also know that the jungle is constantly changing and that your enemies and friends may not remain the same forever.

As we face an increasingly complex and interconnected world, we should remember that befriending the enemy of our enemy is not only a smart move but also a risky gamble. It requires careful evaluation and constant vigilance, as well as a willingness to compromise and collaborate.

After all, as Mahatma Gandhi once said, “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.”

Content put together in collaboration with Microsoft Bing AI-powered co-pilot

Head collage photos courtesy of South China Morning Post, Philippine Star, Inquirerdotnet, Nikkei Asia, Indo-Pacific Defense Forum, & Facebook

Video Clips courtesy of YouTube

LONG-TERM GOVERNANCE: NOT THE SOLUTION TO PH PLIGHT

 

“Ombudsman wants COA memos out of public eye” (Inquirer)

“’Significant decliner’ Philippine ranks 116^th in the global corruption index” (Philstar)

What do the two headlines above tell us?

Plagued by corruption for decades, the Philippines, according to the 2022 Corruption Perception Index, got a dismal score of 33 out of 100, ranked 116^th among the 180 countries, and has remained one of the “significant decliners” among the Asia-Pacific countries.

One seeming corruption expediter is the controversial ombudsman, Samuel Martires. Wanting to keep the COA reports out of the public eye on government agencies for probable corruption, he drew flak lately from activist groups which asked why the supposed country’s “top graft buster” would advocate “greater opaqueness rather than transparency”.

Three years ago, the same ombudsman restricted access to SALNs – a mechanism for transparency and accountability for public officials. “Doing away with it is like [giving] carte blanche to unscrupulous government officials in using the people’s money,” said House Deputy Minority Leader Rep. France Castro. The filing of SALNs is required under Republic Act No. 6713 with the Ombudsman considered the custodian of such documents.

These two headlines tell us about the sorry state of our country where corruption is rampant and pervasive, and where public trust and confidence are eroded and undermined. They also raise some crucial questions: Is there hope for our country to eradicate corruption in our lifetime? Is long-term governance the answer to our plight?

LONG-TERM GOVERNANCE

Dealing with multiple political, social, and economic problems, such as corruption, poverty, inequality, and natural disasters, among others, the Philippines has lagged behind its ASEAN neighbors in terms of economic growth. Some observers have attributed this to the instability and inefficiency of the Philippine democracy characterized by frequent elections, weak institutions, fragmented parties, and polarized politics. They have suggested that our country may benefit from a system of long-term governance – the same leader or ruling party stays in power for a long period without regular or competitive elections.

Long-term governance can take various forms, such as dictatorship, absolute monarchy, or one-party state. Some examples are China, Singapore, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Cambodia. But is long-term governance the answer to our country’s plight? What are the potential advantages and disadvantages of this system? How feasible and desirable is it for our country to adopt it?

ADVANTAGES

Long-term governance can provide stability and continuity in policies and institutions which may foster economic growth and social development. A long-term leader or ruling party can implement consistent and coherent policies that can address long-term problems and goals. They can avoid policy reversals or disruptions that may result from frequent changes in leadership or government.

For example, Singapore has been led by the same dominant party, the People’s Action Party, since 1959, and has transformed from a poor and underdeveloped colony to a prosperous and modern city-state.

Long-term governance can reduce political conflicts and violence, as there is no need for power struggles or opposition movements. A long-term leader or ruling party can maintain order and security in the country by eliminating or suppressing any threats or challenges to their authority. They can also prevent or resolve any disputes or tensions among different groups or regions in the country. For example, Vietnam has been ruled by the same Communist Party since 1975 and has achieved political stability and national unity after decades of war and division.

Long-term governance can allow for quick and decisive actions in times of crisis or emergency, as the leader or ruling party does not have to consult with other branches of government or the public. A long-term leader or ruling party can mobilize resources and implement measures that can address the urgent needs and demands of the country. They can also adapt to changing circumstances and realities by adjusting their policies and strategies accordingly. For example, China has been ruled by the same Chinese Communist Party since 1949 and has shown remarkable resilience and agility in dealing with various challenges such as the Sino-American split, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the environmental crisis.

Long-term governance can promote innovation and modernization, as the leader or ruling party can pursue long-term visions and ambitious projects without fear of losing popularity or support. A long-term leader or ruling party can foster a culture of creativity and excellence in the country by investing in research and development, encouraging entrepreneurship, and supporting cultural diversity. For example, India has been governed by Narendra Modi since 2014 and has emerged as a major power in terms of economy, diplomacy, and innovation.

DISADVANTAGES

Long-term governance can lead to corruption and abuse of power, as the long-term leader or ruling party faces little or no accountability or checks and balances from other institutions or the public. A long-term leader or ruling party can amass a huge personal fortune, manipulate the constitution and the electoral system, appoint their family and cronies to key positions, and use the military and the police to suppress dissent. For example, under 14 years of Martial Law from 1972 to 1986, which was a period of dictatorship, repression, and corruption, Marcos Sr. amassed a huge personal fortune. Here are excerpts from The Guardian article: The $10bn question: what happened to the Marcos millions?

“In the early hours of a February morning in 1986, Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos flew into exile…The Marcoses had seen the crisis coming and been able to prepare their escape, so when they landed that morning at the Hickam USAF base in Hawaii, they brought plenty of possessions with them.

“The official US Customs record runs to 23 pages. In the two C-141 transport planes that carried them, they had packed: 23 wooden crates, 12 suitcases and bags, and various boxes, whose content included enough clothes to fill 67 racks; 413 pieces of jewelry, including 70 pairs of jewel-studded cufflinks… and more than 27m Philippine pesos in freshly-printed notes. The total value was $15m.

“The reality…was that Ferdinand Marcos [Sr.] had amassed a fortune up to 650 times greater… he had accumulated up to $10 billion while in office.”

Long-term governance can violate human rights and civil liberties, as the leader or ruling party may suppress dissent and criticism, censor information and media, and control education and culture. A long-term leader or ruling party can impose their ideology or agenda on the country by restricting or manipulating the freedom of expression, association, and assembly. For example, Cambodia has been ruled by Samdech Hun Sen since 1985 and has experienced political repression and human rights violations. Hun Sen has banned the main opposition party, jailed its leader, and cracked down on civil society and media. He has also controlled or influenced the education and culture of the country by promoting his version of history and nationalism.

Long-term governance can create resentment and resistance among the people, especially if they are dissatisfied with the performance or policies of the leader or ruling party, or if they aspire for more democracy and participation. A long-term leader or ruling party can face opposition or challenges from various sectors of society, such as ethnic minorities, religious groups, regional movements, civil society organizations, and pro-democracy activists, among others. For example, Indonesia has been governed by Joko Widodo since 2014 and has faced various challenges and controversies in his administration, opposition, and criticism from various groups.

Long-term governance can hinder adaptation and reform, as the leader or ruling party may become rigid and dogmatic, resistant to change and feedback, and isolated from reality. A long-term leader or ruling party may fail to address the changing needs and demands of the country and the world and may stick to outdated or ineffective policies and strategies. They may ignore or reject any suggestions or criticisms from other actors or institutions and may isolate themselves from the global community and trends. For example, North Korea has been ruled by the Kim family since 1948 and has become one of the most isolated and repressive countries in the world.

A FISH OUT OF WATER

Like a fish out of water, long-term governance is not the answer to the Philippine plight. While long-term governance may have some benefits, such as stability, continuity, and decisiveness, it also has many drawbacks, such as corruption, abuse of power, violation of human rights, resentment, and resistance. Moreover, long-term governance is not feasible or desirable for our country, given our colonial legacy, democratic tradition, constitutional system, civil society activism, and ethnic diversity.

Our country should focus on strengthening its democracy and institutions, improving its governance and accountability, enhancing its economic and social development, and promoting its national and regional interests.

This is the best way to address the Philippine plight and achieve a better future for our country.

PARTING SHOT

Ombudsman Martires: "I don’t think a receipt is important."

Dale Carnegie: "Applause is a receipt."

The Ombudsman doesn’t deserve a “receipt.”

Content put together in collaboration with Microsoft Bing AI-powered co-pilot

Head collage photos courtesy of inquirerdotnet, Radio Free Asia, & Global Times

Still photos courtesy of Tenor & Keep Calm

Video clips courtesy of YouTube