| |||||
|
Wednesday, July 31, 2019
The Treasure Hunt
Tuesday, July 30, 2019
Rodrigo Duterte is an International Symbol of Freedom Against Rule by The Elites
on
It is a common misnomer to confuse wealth with elitism, even though in reality, the two concepts are very different. Wealth simply denotes an objective state of having an above average amount of money in one’s long term possession. Elitism is a far more manifold concept involving social indicators designed to make one person or group of people appear superior to others within a given society. Of course, wealth can be one such cultural indicator of elitism, but this is far from the case in many instances.
In India, elitism is still often based on one’s caste and thus, one’s status within an ancient Hindu system of hierarchy often indicates one’s contemporary social status beyond the amounts of wealth one may or may not have. In England, many self-made working class and lower-middle class entrepreneurs have become vastly wealthier (Richard Branson for example) than those born into the upper-middle and upper classes. Yet in English society, those born into the higher classes still dominate the social elite, even if someone from a lower class background is far wealthier.
In The Philippines there is also a elite system, but one which is even more ridiculous than India’s or England’s. This is because The Philippine notion of what constitutes an elite is not even related to indigenous culture as it is in India and England. In The Philippines, those considered elite are those that have the most “advanced” educational degrees, those who think and act more like an American liberal professor than like an ordinary Filipino and those who speak a “certain kind” of English that is somehow removed from the dialect of ordinary people. Such elitists continue to use their status to stifle opportunity for ordinary people, thus entrenching their power in the business world, the media environment and most dangerously of all, in politics.
Like in a traditional indigenous caste or class system, Filipino social elites band together in order to make sure that the political system bolsters their status as “superior” to others. After all, there is no better way to prove one’s elite superiority than by literally “ruling” over the people in a political system that is little more than absolute monarchy with a few democratic characteristics. If one wonders why the Filipino elites hate Rodrigo Duterte so much, it is partly if not primarily because Duterte is someone who rejects elitism with every bone in his body. And yet, an anti-elitist like Duterte was somehow allowed to slip past the elitist drawbridge and enter Malacañang Palace. The elites are very unhappy about this and unless the entire political system is changed, someone like Duterte may not ever be “allowed” to enter again.
This is why both India and England have actually done a better job of dislodging the association between social elitism and political rule when compared to The Philippines. India’s parliamentary system has allowed secular parties which reject the caste system as a matter of principle, parties which represent minorities and even parties specifically representing lower castes to play a part in shaping the future of India. Although the current ruling party in India does in fact pander to the notion of high caste Hindus being superior to all other Indians, a multi-party coalition formed around the secular Congress party threatens to damage the ruling BJP’s parliamentary majority in elections that will take place in the spring time.
In England, the gradual switch from a restricted franchise to universal suffrage (the right to vote) for all adult men and all adult women, has likewise helped to decrease the power of upper class social elites in politics. The presence of the anti-elite Labour party from which Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew learned a great deal in respect of party political organisation, was a party that formed around the basis of equal opportunity for all people irrespective of class. By the mid-20th century, this forced the old Conservative and Liberal parties to eventually broaden their own membership whilst by the late 20th century, the Conservatives largely abandoned the notion of classism and embraced a form of meritocracy.
While The Filipino elite often act as though they are elite Americans who happen to have been born in The Philippines, because America’s economy once created the largest middle class in history, the America of the 20th century was actually far less elitist than some Filipino elites of the 20th century seem to have realised. Mid 20th century America was a place where someone working in a relatively ordinary job could own a decent sized house in a safe area, own at least one car but often two and still be able to afford trips to restaurants, cinemas, concerts, sporting games and at least one vacation per year. While this egalitarian America had a dark side in which a racial hierarchy of elitism prevailed, this too began to gradually equalise itself after the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
And yet, while elite Filipinos model themselves on America, they have forgotten that the key elements behind America’s success of the last century included the following:
1. An open economic system that allowed for wealth to naturally create a large middle class that didn’t require state assistance to elevate their material condition
2. An atmosphere that valued a pioneer spirit that placed real life excellence over old fashioned indicators of “superiority” like advanced degrees or a famous familial pedigree
3. A federal system that allowed people in much of the country to make their own local rules in spite of those in far away Washington D.C.
4. A party political system that minimised ideological differences and prioritised management of a broader political consensus
Notably, all of these virtues that were once associated with the US have long been absent from The Philippines. Instead, The Philippines adopted a US style political system but failed to empower the regions of the country on a federal model, failed to use economic openness to create a meritocratic middle class, failed to adopt the American style of social egalitarianism and failed to purge extremist ideologies from the body politic.
In many ways, The Philippine political system is a classic model of failure in the developing world. The same problems present in The Philippines are present in most presidential systems in Africa and Latin America. Notably, developing nations using parliamentary systems have tended to avoid or at least minimise many of these problems.
With the United States middle class now shrinking, its old egalitarian model descending into sectarianism, its politics becoming ideological and polarising and its central government becoming too big for its own good, even the US is now starting to exhibit some of the worst characteristics that have traditionally been associated with presidential systems.
Ultimately, presidential systems encourage an elitist atmosphere and this is especially true in developing countries that necessarily have an undersized middle class. By focusing politics on personal characteristics rather than fostering a healthy market place of ideas, the presidential system enforces the notion that only “certain kinds of people” have a pseudo-divine right to rule. While such systems aren’t as closed to ordinary people as are fully closed monarchical systems, they are merely one step removed from the idea of a divine right of kings and queens.
By contrast, parliamentary systems allow for multiple parties to form on the basis of ideas and one big idea in any developing country is to expand the middle class at the expense of a small group of elites. This is what Singapore’s People’s Action Party accomplished – thus transforming Singapore into a first world economy in a short period of time and it is likewise what the new Pakatan Harapan coalition in parliamentary Malaysia and the new PTI government in parliamentary Pakistan are presently working to accomplish.
In a parliamentary system, one has to show rather than tell and not only that, but one has to show rather than tell on a constant and continual basis. This is the case as parliamentary systems allow for daily debates in which the opposition can scrutinise the ruling party in real time. This itself helps to diminish the impact of elitism because high social status cannot save someone who is losing a debate to someone who simply has better ideas, irrespective of where such a person came from in terms of background. Thus, the only test for success in a parliamentary system is how one does within the system itself. Prerequisites are therefore surplus to requirements. Furthermore, because parliamentary systems allow a young backbencher to prove his or her worth over the months and years, one can judge for themselves who is and who isn’t objectively qualified for a future leadership position.
In presidential systems, one can hide behind who one is, where in a parliamentary debate, there is no room to hide. One is only as qualified for executive power as one can command the support of parliament and this could change at any moment.
Thus, a parliamentary system allows for meritocratic political openness in the same way in which a reformed and open economy that embraces foreign direct investment and free trade allows for economic meritocracy, due to the fact that economic openness breaks the monopoly of a class or oligarchs in a pseudo-capitalist society (like The Philippines has generally been since at least 1987) just as sure is it breaks the monopoly of state run businesses in a communist society.
This is why the three point agenda of the CoRRECT Movement can help to remove elitism from Philippine politics. In summary, the three point agenda can accomplish the following:
1. Parliamentary parties will complete in an open market place of ideas in which individual characteristics and backgrounds will be jettisoned by a meritocratic debate on the issues in which one’s real time ability rather than one’s background is valued
2. Federalism will break Imperial Manila’s monopoly of power over the rest of the country
3. An economy open to foreign direct investment (FDI) will likewise break the power of the elite oligarchs and allow clean money from abroad to help and build a large middle class
https://eurasiafuture.com/2019/07/30/rodrigo-duterte-is-an-international-symbol-of-freedom-against-rule-by-the-elites/?fbclid=IwAR1xjPlvW0pFCHCm1vNMc48RSlGCwYKdXU7cR4_jViX8amrEPG34_k6rkfM
Why Digong scrapped all PCSO franchises
BY RAMON T. TULFO JULY 30, 2019
YOU know why President Digong was so pissed off about the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO)?
First, because the people he trusted there were bickering over who would collect the remittances from STL, lotto, Peryahan ng Bayan and Keno operators: his newly appointed general manager, recently retired police Col. Royina Garma, and board member Sandra Cam.
Second, reports of massive corruption among PCSO officials and the distribution of franchises were just too many to be brushed aside.
Garma, immediately upon taking over as GM, said all the operations of STL and other games should be handled by her office.
Sandra Cam, speaking for her fellow board members and PCSO Chairman Anselmo Simeon Pinili — whom she treats as a doormat — countered that all gaming operations are to be placed under the board and chairman.
The quarrel apparently stemmed from the huge amount of money given by gaming operators to PCSO officials on the side.
They’re like dogs fighting over a bone.
That’s the reason the Sandra Cam-led board and Pinili fought former GM, Alexander Balutan, who insisted that his office should oversee the gaming operations.
Balutan, a retired Marine general with an unblemished military record, was kicked out after Cam was able to whisper lies to Executive Secretary Salvador “Bingbong” Medialdea about him.
The President said that some military generals were given franchises by the PCSO as if they were privileged individuals.
Retired police general Jose Jorge Corpuz, whom Pinili replaced, awarded four franchises to his mistahs in the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) Class of 1983.
Pinili, another retired police general, gave away one franchise to his classmate in PMA Class 1982.
So, the President was told that only retired generals were favored in the awarding of franchises by their classmates at PCSO?
What about a former Cabinet official whose brother was awarded the small town lottery (STL) franchise for Camarines Norte and Albay?
The Grand Lucky VI — that does not stand for a Roman number six but for the first two letters of a name, Vitaliano — was awarded to former Justice secretary Aguirre.
From the original 18 STL operators during the previous Aquino administrations, the number ballooned to 85 after Digong took over Malacañang to accommodate the retired generals, Aguirre and other big-time people.
PCSO officials were being given huge bribes by STL operators who cheated the government charity agency by remitting the incorrect amounts of the government’s share of the gaming proceeds.
For instance, a Batangas STL operator was supposed to remit P400 million yearly to the PCSO but was only paying P30 million, according to PCSO insiders.
The same insiders said the PCSO was supposed to earn P600 million from a Pangasinan STL operator but was only being paid P30 million in remittances.
* * *
President Digong got a high net satisfaction rating (+51) in a recent SWS survey.
Presidential spokesman Sal Panelo said that Mr. Duterte was happy to learn that the latest results showed a new record high.
“To the Cabinet members, this survey is important as it is demonstrative of the sentiment of the Filipino people, indicating that they are starting to experience a working government that addresses their welfare,” Panelo said.
Secretary Panelo, methinks the President will have a higher net satisfaction rating if he gets rid of the corrupt members of his Cabinet.
Sal, as the Palace spokesman, you know the Cabinet members I’m referring to.
* * *
I agree with fellow Times columnist Rene Saguisag that the charges of sedition, inciting to sedition, cyberlibel, libel, estafa, harboring a criminal and obstruction of justice filed against Vice President Leni Robredo were meant to harass her.
The Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) should have been more discerning in filing those cases.
The cases filed against Robredo and other opposition figures by the CIDG were based on allegations of Peter Joemel Advincula alias Bikoy.
Advincula is a liar. He first linked President Digong and his family to illegal drugs and then retracted later.
He’s an ex-convict who served time in prison for large-scale illegal recruitment.
Why did the CIDG believe Advincula?
For believing an estafador ex-convict, CIDG investigators are pulis patola or bumbling cops, as Saguisag describes them.
Remember, Saguisag, a human rights lawyer and professor at the San Beda College of Law, is a brilliant lawyer.
* * *
President Digong’s Cabinet members are bickering over whether the Chinese are “in possession” of, or “in position” at, some islands in the Spratlys and in the West Philippine Sea which, according to Mr. Duterte, the Chinese have occupied.
Presidential spokesman Sal Panelo echoes the President’s statement that the Chinese are “in possession” of the islands in question.
But Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana says the Chinese are “in position” to better defend the islands in question should we try to retake them.
My gosh, they’re dealing in semantics and quibbling!
Panelo and Lorenzana are both correct.
The Chinese are in a position to defend the islands because they are in possession of them.
Simple, right?
https://www.manilatimes.net/why-digong-scrapped-all-pcso-franchises/591941/
God’s Final Harvest
| |||||
|
So Duterte’s not a populist after all, huh?
BY RIGOBERTO D. TIGLAO JULY 29, 2019
THE political opposition most likely rejoiced over President Duterte’s veto last week of Congress’ purported “anti-endo” bill, as it gave them ammunition in their propaganda that he is “anti-people,” the communists’ formulaic allegation against him.
For the fast-vanishing Yellows, it is another instance of Duterte failing to fulfill his election promises.
One thing though that everyone, even his critics, would agree to is that contrary to academically pretentious claims by commentators who have struggled to explain away his popularity, Duterte isn’t a populist, or one who merely plays to the gallery, or who throws bounties to the masses, even if its economic consequences would make their situation worse.
This is a president who listens to his economic officials’ assessments and advice, and who understands that the nation has an economic base with its laws and dynamics, which the political leadership cannot just ignore. He makes decisions even if these would be unpopular, at least in the short term.
Without a doubt, Duterte has strengthened the business sector’s support for him in his veto of the “anti-endo” bill.
Duterte could be faulted, however, for not intervening early enough, so that Congress was able to pass the bill on third reading and gave it to him to sign into law. In fact, if he had not vetoed the measure, it would have automatically become law on July 27.
Suspicion
But then, what the heck. Better late than never, and better that Duterte is embarrassed for acting late, than allowing a law that would have slowed down local and foreign investments in the country.
I can’t seem to dismiss this suspicion in my mind that the Yellow senators and representatives all voted for the bill (whose principal author was Aquino 3rd’s former official Joel Villanueva) in a Machiavellian plot, calculating it would either lead to an economic downturn under Duterte’ watch, or if he gets wind of the scheme, and vetoes it, as he in fact did, he would be accused of junking a “pro-people” bill. Sen. Franklin Drilon, for one, who was a labor lawyer before he joined government decades ago, would have known the disastrous consequence of the kind of anti-endo bill he voted for.
“Endo” refers to the cost-saving practice of businesses to employ a worker only for six months, so they won’t have to pay them benefits mandated by law as regular employees, such as health, security and insurance in which the employer bears a part of the cost of the premiums. “Endo” is the term used by such contractuals, referring to “end of contract.” To skirt labor regulations, these short-term employees often were officially not contracted even by the company itself, but by another firm, the ‘labor-only contractor.”
It is astonishing that there was little public debate over the “anti-endo” bill, and more amazing is that the usually powerful business sector failed to effectively raise the alarm over it, or ask the many legislators in their pockets to block it.
Is this the downside of an extremely popular president, that legislators didn’t dare block a law that they thought would have implemented Duterte’s campaign promise to end “endo”?
EO 51
An anti-endo bill of whatever form was actually redundant. Duterte actually, through existing labor regulations and his Executive Order 51 issued in May last year had already clamped down on big businesses employing contractual employees to skirt the labor laws.
The labor department in fact reported to the President in 2017 that among the companies it was investigating as using the “endo” system were among the country’s biggest, such as Jollibee Foods, the SM department stores, Dole Philippines, PLDT, and Philippine Airlines.
The SM group of companies had started gradually reducing its contractual employees, and committed to regularize 10,00 of its contractuals. (A 2016 inspection of the Department of Labor and Employment of the SM stores in Metro Manila found that about half, or 34,210 out of the company’s 67,248 employees, had regular status. The other 18,720 workers were on probationary status, while 14,318 others were classified as “seasonal” workers.)
The DOLE also had ordered PLDT to regularize 9,000 of its contractuals. That actually made PLDT’s repair services so lousy for months—some say to this day—as it lost a big part of its crew of repairmen and couldn’t replace them with regular workers fast enough.
SM, however, seems to have resorted to a clever tack so it would not have a larger number of regular employees: Go to any SM department store, and more often than not, the sales staff of a particular product aren’t the store’s employees, but those of the company that produces or distributes that product.
Duterte’s Executive Order 51 actually simply ordered the DOLE to enforce the provision in Article 106 (of Title II, Book III) of the Labor Code which already prohibits the “contracting-out of labor” that violates the rights of workers. The order directed the labor secretary to “consult with the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council to declare activities which may be contracted out.” It also ordered the labor secretary and his representatives “to conduct inspections of establishment so as to ensure compliance with all labor laws.”
Prohibition
The Congress bill that Duterte vetoed went overboard, however, deleting even the title of Article 106 in the Labor Code from “Contractor or Subcontractor” to “Prohibition on Labor-Only Contracting.” Worse, the bill practically prohibited labor-only contracting when it specified that “in all cases where labor contracting is present, the workers shall be deemed regular employees of the contractee.” How on earth can they be contact workers, when the bill orders that they be “deemed regular employees”?
The bill also stipulated that the labor secretary shall “impose a fine of up to P5 million against any labor-only contractor” who violates the provisions of what would have been the new “security of tenure” law. With licensing requirements such as minimum P5 million paid-up capital, labor contractors – if they would still exist – would charge fees only the biggest companies could afford. Why bar small and medium-sized companies form this venue for helping them produce products?
“Endo” has been an unscrupulous management practice to avoid paying workers the benefits due them under our labor laws. But there are so many kinds of labor that require only short-term employment by a firm, among the obvious one, the need for a bigger workforce during the peak of a business cycle. There is also the legitimate need of a firm’s management to focus on its key competitive advantages, and contract out other aspects of its work.
If Duterte didn’t veto that crazy endo bill, it would have raised labor costs too high that it would have discouraged both local and foreign-financed businesses, leading eventually to an economic slowdown that would have forced even regular employees to lose their jobs. That would have been so ironic for a bill titled the “Security of Tenure Act.”
Email: tiglao.manilatimes@gmail.com
Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao
Twitter: @bobitiglao
Book orders: www.rigobertotiglao.com/debunked
https://www.manilatimes.net/so-dutertes-not-a-populist-after-all-huh/591627/
https://www.manilatimes.net/so-dutertes-not-a-populist-after-all-huh/591627/
Monday, July 29, 2019
More labour regulation could motivate businesses to reduce reliance on cheap workers and be more INNOVATIVE
Tightened labour contracting laws is good. It will force businesses to rely less on labour and be more reliant on technology and capital solutions to improve productivity. When the process of hiring workers is convoluted and highly-regulated, well, why bother, right? Tighter labour regulations and higher minimum wages could therefore kill lazy entrepeneurs and reward innovative ones. Businesses that find a way to do away with workers altogether will win.
The trouble with those “activists” supposedly “representing” the “plight” of Filipino workers is that they seem to have it in their pointed heads that the most important input into the economy is labour. It isn’t. That’s just the Kool Aid doing an inception job on snowflakes who are too lazy to think. Labour is nothing without capital. Without the SM Group, without those branded food chains, without those vast mining operations, without rich people’s big mansions to clean, without chi chi private school “influencers” patronising “trendy” beach resorts, without the First World’s rich ageing retirees, vast armies of Filipino workers will still be pushing karitons around collecting old newspapers, knocking on doors begging fork aning baboy or selling cigarettes by the stick on Manila’s traffic-clogged intersections.
The core issue with Philippine labour is that there are just too many workers. When you have an enormous supply of a commodity and not enough buyers, guess what: prices fall. Why do prices fall? It’s because starving throngs of people looking for work are willing to take anything. For their part, employers who are spoilt for choice feel no pressure to pay more. What labour “activists” are essentially asking for is to legislate against the law of supply and demand.
Over the short-term business will comply.
In essence, laws that pander disproportionately to “works’ rights” and set arbitrary “minimum wages” are all short-term solutions. Eventually, the market will recover.
Here’s how…
The ill-effects of these anti-business labour laws are not necessarily all bad. They could be good for an entirely new class of capitalists and workers — the smart ones. When it gets simply too hard to hire workers and the ones you already have become such big pains in the asses because of their new-found sense of entitlement, it creates incentive to cut low-added-value labour out of the business equation. This is good news for smart workers — those who contribute sustained productivity gain to business operations.
The 21st Century offers vast opportunity for businesses to reduce their exposure to the messy world of labour relations. One just need be creative and imaginative enough to come up with less labour-intensive business models, apply more technology solutions to increase automation in operations, and find innovative ways to tap modern skills available in the vast market of skilled freelance workers.
Capital should not be cowed by rabid and infantile labour activism. The biggest weakness of labour “activists” is that their ideology and mindsets remain imprisoned by half-century vintage Cold War rhetoric. They fail to appreciate how fluid capital is today and how it easily flows around, over, underneath and even through any manner of unreasonable regulation governments presume to implement. The key therefore is to focus more on competing and less on whining. This goes out to both capital and labour. Innovate more, whine less. Compete like adults and leave the need for coddling to the “temperamental” ones.
https://www.getrealphilippines.com/2019/07/more-labour-regulation-could-motivate-businesses-to-reduce-reliance-on-cheap-workers-and-be-more-innovative/
Do You Believe?
| |||||
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)