Pauperized by Politicians

By Antonio C. Abaya

Written on Nov. 21, 2007

For the Standard Today,

November 22 issue

The Philippines, which was the second most prosperous country in Asia – second only to Japan – until the late 1960s, was overtaken by one after another of our neighbors starting in the 1970s and 1980s when we did not follow their example of gearing their economies to the export of manufactured goods.

This was the start of their industrialization which created millions of jobs for the broad mass of their people, lifting them from poverty into the middle class prosperity which is very evident when one visits any urban center in South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and China. The same process is being replicated in India and Vietnam.

By the time the Philippines woke up from its self-absorption with its navel – during the 1990s under President Fidel Ramos – the global marketplace had become crowded, especially with the entry of China. There is a penalty for being late, and our penalty for being late is the diaspora of millions of Filipinos who were forced and are being forced to seek jobs abroad that they could not and cannot find at home.

Compounding our failure to industrialize at the same time and to the same extent as our neighbors was our premature and accelerated embrace of free trade and globalization, ironically also under President Ramos, with the legislative support of then Sen. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, both under the influence of Opus Dei economists Jesus Estanislao and Bernardo Villegas.

There is something obscene, even comical, about a country that cannot even produce its own door hinges, enthusiastically embracing free trade and globalization even ahead of such emerging industrial giants as South Korea and Taiwan.

Whatever industries we managed to establish during our delayed and nominal industrialization were inevitably put at risk as we naively opened our economy to the products of other countries, forcing thousands of domestic producers to close shop or reduce their operations, thus throwing hundreds of thousands of Filipino workers out of work

To make matters worse, the Roman Catholic Church continued and continues to forbid the use of artificial methods of birth control, a diktat that is largely ignored by the upper and middle classes, but still carries weight among the lower classes, who are multiplying like tilapias, even though they are the least able to afford the many children that they continue to have.

In the 1970s, Thailand and the Philippines had almost exactly the same population size , about 45 million. Because Thailand had and has an aggressive population management policy and the Philippines did not and does not, in 2005 the population growth rate in Thailand was 0.68 percent, compared to 1.95 percent in the Philippines. In 2007, there are an estimated 66 million Thais, compared to 88 million Filipinos.

By any yardstick of commonsense, and all things being equal, it is easier to feed, house, clothe, educate and find jobs for 66 million people than for 88 million.

And because of its correct (and our flawed) economic strategies, Thailand’s exports in 2005 totaled $105.8 billion, compared to the Philippines’ $42.7 billion. In 2006, Thailand attracted 13 million foreign tourists, the Philippines less than three million.

As I did in my article titled Malaysia’s Success (Oct. 25), I venture the opinion that Thailand’s surpluses over the Philippines, of $63 billion in exports and 10 million in tourist arrivals, can be translated into millions of jobs that Thailand generated and the Philippines did not, in these two sectors alone.

So whose fault was all this? Obviously, much of the blame rests on the shoulders of the chief executive officers, the presidents who have led (or misled) this country since Ferdinand Marcos, and must include him, since our decline in relation to our neighbors started during his presidential watch.

But because in our American-style governmental set-up, the legislative and the judiciary are co-equal with the executive, they must also share in the blame for the failure of our government since the 1970s to give the people the minimum goals of governance: a secure present and realizable hopes for a better future.

In this article, I will argue that aside from having failed to give this country these basic minimums, the legislatures of the past 30 years, but especially of the present – meaning the politicians from both administration and opposition parties – have actually helped to pauperize us through the extravagant compensations that they have given themselves.

I thank Reynaldo O. Arcilla for having sent me a copy of his column (in Malaya) last Nov. 1, titled “The Perks of being a Congressman.” He tells us that every congressman or woman in the Lower House gets much more than the P35,000 monthly (or P420,000 yearly) salary, plus his or her yearly pork barrel allocations amounting to P70 million.

The last is divided into P20 million in Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and P50 million as congressional allocation for public works projects. (To be fair, the P50 million are not given out to them in cash. It is the value of the public works projects that they endorse to the public works department for their electoral district. The crooks among them extract kickbacks from the contractors, who are sometimes their relatives or cronies.)

But aside from this, according to Arcilla, using data from the Commission on Audit, each congressman or woman gets the following amounts each year: P220,867.70 for foreign travel; P650,000.04 for district staff allocation; P120,000.00 for consultants on a contractual basis; P396,000.for “research’: P788,763.71 for consultative local travel; P129,600 for communications; P120,000 for supplies; P308,400 for public affairs fund; P1,982,033.58 for central office staff; P21,537.84 for equipment, furniture and fixtures; and P600,000 for other maintenance and operating expenses. Or a total of .P5,757,202.43 a year for each of the 230 members of the Lower House, as of 2005.. Or at least P1.324 billion a year to keep the Batasan trough fully stocked.

These figures do not include what they pay themselves for being officers and members of committees, which in 2005 amounted to another P92 million. Arcilla also quotes from the Philippine Center of Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) that the annual upkeep of every congressman or woman has been climbing from P2.83 million in 1994 to P5.77 million in 2005.

The average amount paid by the government for the foreign travel of congressmen and women each year has climbed from P98,444.80 in 1994 to P220,867.70 in 2005. In 2005, the top 10 spenders on foreign travel among members of the Lower House were: Antonio Cuenco, P1,294,058.05; Roque Ablan Jr., P1,014,006.90; Monico Puentevella, P960,789.66; Emilio Espinosa Jr., P806,904.43; Ernesto Nieva, P795,350.89; Juan Miguel Zubiri, P787,582.99; Abdullah Dimaporo, P777,886.88; Hermilando Mandanas, P741,172.72; Arnulfo Fuentebella, P733,777.65; and Reylina Nicolas, P731,196.50. The above list does not include the foreign travel expenses of House Speaker Jose de Venecia.

According to the PCIJ, the congressmen and women “are not expected to submit a payroll of their district staff or report their function, salaries and withholding taxes. No one starts asking if they do not produce a report on the research their offices are supposedly undertaking. There is no demand for them to produce the list of consultants they have hired, as well as the contracts they draw up for those whose services they need. As far as the current (lack of rules) go, how the legislators spend their public affairs fund is their business and (theirs) alone.”

Says Arcilla: “The generous perks do not end there. The House Speaker is himself a source of funds with a vast discretionary largesse at his disposal. From this are mostly drawn the representatives’ monthly allowances (which can range from P50,000 to P100,000 each), Christmas bonuses (P100,000 to P200,000 each), as well as ‘payoffs’ for votes during speakership contests and ‘appearances fees’ (P50,000 each as minimum) for attending plenary sessions to vote on crucial national bills….”

And, I hasten to add, bags full of cash (P200,000 to P500,000 each) distributed to them by mysterious individuals in Malacanang or elsewhere whenever the President needs their undying support, such as to block an impeachment motion, or to push (again) for a shift to the parliamentary system before 2010.

Considering that, according to the World Bank, 15 million Filipinos live on less than one dollar (P45) a day, and 43 million live on less than two dollars (P90) a day, the P5.7 million-plus each that the House politicians pay themselves each year is a criminal, immoral and obscene extravagance that is a slap on the faces of 58 million pauperized Filipinos

No wonder so many Filipinos want to become politicians, no matter what their qualifications (or lack thereof) may be, even if it involves lying, stealing, cheating or killing. It beats working in a 9-to-5 job, or practicing a profession, or running a business. It is the fastest way to fabulous wealth and the first step towards the inevitable family dynasty.

It is also a possible passport to the ultimate political plum, the presidency, even if it involves even more lying, more stealing more cheating and more killing, and even if it involves pauperizing much of the rest of the country.

No wonder that when a bomb killed one congressman last week, the general sentiment in cyberspace was mock sorrow that it eliminated only one of them..

If SWS or Pulse Asia were to conduct a survey on how the public views our government, ‘abolishing Congress’ would likely be in a dead heat with ‘declaring the Presidency vacant.’ Either of which can be seen as a tacit endorsement for a revolutionary government. *****

Reactions to tonyabaya@gmail.com. Other articles in www.tapatt.org and acabaya.blogspot.com .