CS hE yeaa Philippine Copyright © 1993 by Alejandro Lichaueo {All rights served. No part ofthis book may be reproduced by any means in any form without the written permission of tthe author excopt when quoted in an article, review, thesis, book, or any written work, Printed in the Philippines by: To The Memory of Father who made this possibleawakening will doubtiess come. The ranks of the nationalists cannot but increase; the collective conscience grows; the day of realization nears, for the protest ‘nginst the selfidh designs of subtle colonialiem can not be ‘smothered for long. Claro M. Recto‘What value ean there he in venerating pretty images of Christ, or even recognizing hia disfigured face in tho poor, if wo fail to identify him with the human being who needs to be rescued from his undeveléped condition. Archibishop Helder Camara (Church and Colonialism) Author's Note Philippine Crisis Defined .. ‘The Roots of Poverty 13 * Foun soon 13 + aire to inosine 1s + US. Colonial and fee trade. 15 © US, Neooolonain 2 + all Trade Act of 1946... SN + USCIMEWB opposition to foreign exchange tod ingen contol aes 38 + econo Programme of 1962 28 + oating rate of 1970, o Rie of Tococtt mn + Martial Law and Labor-Intensive [Export-Oriented (I1EO) Strategy * Aquino Government and EDSA... + 1987 Constitution... + Ramos Government and “Philippines 2000" * The Philippine Ruling Class. (Chapter 3AUTHOR'S NOTE, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILIPPINE CRISIS 01. WHAT IS THIS PRIMER ESSENTIALLY ABOUT? ‘Some years ago, in 1989, Pope John Paul 11 spoke before the diplomatic community of Denmark. In his speech, the Pope charged that “the continuing plight of the Thied World was canced directly by people and groups who wanted to keep developing countries poor.” “I am fully convinced,” His Holiness reportedly said, “that certain forms of modern imperialism, which appear to be inspired by economics or politics, are in fact real forms of idolatry. the worship of money, ideology, class ar technology.” mperialism Blamed for Havenots’ Plight, Philippines Journcl, June 9, 1989). I feel that the Pope's statement should be illustrated by the Philippine example, ‘This Primer is essentially about how modern imperialism, acting through a group of people driven by a particular ideology and class interest, has kept the Philippines underdeveloped and poor. The Primer is also about the history of the sthagile for Philippine industrialization. That struggle dates back to the ‘turn of the century and continues to rage today. It will in- creasingly dominate political and economic events as the nation’s search for ways of overcoming poverty and of catching up with the economic and military strength of its neighbors pa becomes more pressing, @ eee‘The Primer addresses the one question posed by the ‘country’s situation in relation to developments in Asia. That ‘is: Why has the Philipines failed so far to transform into an industrialized country? 02. WHAT IS THE NEED FOR THIS PRIMER? First, there is a need to understand what modern {imperialism is about and the process by which a class of people ‘has kept the country underdeveloped, enslaved by foreign debt, ‘and poor. An understanding of modern imperialism is necessary if we are to grasp the real reason for Philippine conditions and for a crisis that has reduced the mass of Filipinos to sub- hbuman existence. Second, itis important to focus our people's attention to the struggle for industrialization because on the outcome of that struggle, not on the quarrel of politicians or the contention ical parties, or even form of government, will depend what kind of people we will be, and what kind of country ‘the Philippines will be, at the end of this eentury. Will we be, e2 trends indicate we could easily be, a people irretrievably reduced by their privation to mere caricatures Commauaity pitied ea well as despised by the international What kind of country will the Philippines be? Will ie be something of a Somalia in Asia? Or an impoverished, ararian precommunist China, broken up into economic Zones, its sovereignty pareelied out among industrial powers, its shame symbolized by the glittering settlements of the international community? 1f the struggle for Philippine industrialization isn't won, {nd won decisively, much sooner than the Year 2000, itis hard fo visualize how the scourge of mass poverty and human misery th with societies which have yet to undergo an PHILIPPINE CRISIS ition from an industrial revolution, and negotiate the transit agrarian to an industrial state, can possibly be banished by ean aad And we are the only country in the Asia-Pacific which isn’t making that transition. As the imperatives of survival become mere demanding, ‘more and more Filipinos will be drawn into the nation’s struggle for industrialization because that struggle incarnates our People's will to survive. But to participate in that struggle ‘meaningfully, or even understand it as a mere onlooker, one ‘must be acquainted with its complex nuances and the twists and turns of its long history, as well as the ways and means, the techniques and intellectual weapons constantly being con. trived by groups bent on keeping the country from breaking into the industrial age. Those groups represent powerful forces with a historic interest in doctrines, programmes and policies which keep Third World countries’ in a perpetual state of underdevelopment. ‘That is why the history of that struggle must be traced from its formal beginnings to the present day. Only by doing 50 can we understand the methods by which modern impe. rialism has managed to preserve the country in an underde- veloped state. 03. YOU TALK OF MODERN IMPERIALISM AS THE SOURCE OF THE NATION'S POVERTY AND UNDERDEVELOPMENT. BUT ISN'T THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE COUNTRY DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CORRUPT MARCOS DICTATORSHIP AND TO THE CONTINUING CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT? TO ATTRIBUTE OUR STATE OF AFFAIRS TO IMPERIALISM OR SOME OTHER FACTOR MERELY OBSCURES THE PROBLEM.‘Aazsaxono Laesn000 ‘You talk of corruption andthe dictatorship as the factors ‘behind our problem. It is precisely that kind of talk that obscures the real caure of our problem 7 as corruption, which is just as widespread in countries ike China, South Korea and Ioresa, Rept those nations from developing? We are surrounded by countries where cor- ruption far more peryasive than in the Philippines, and even more pervasive than the corruption of martial law. But those countries are speedily progressing while we rotrogres. ‘As for dictatorship, has thet kept South Koiea, Taiwan, Indonesia and China underdeveloped and poor? Those countries hhave been under dictatorships for a much longer time than. ‘we were under martial law. Andyet they are all industrializing, developing with startling speed, and rolling back the poverty problem ‘while the Philippines remains stuck to the pre- Industrial age and getting more impoverished, Indonesia has been under a corrupt military dictatorship 5 years, but it is one of the fastest developing in the ASEAN, China has been tinder an au- ‘horitarian system for the last 43 years, but that country is ‘how a superpower, Forty years ngs, it was more backward than the Philippines is today. How do you explain that? 04 HOW THEN DO YOU, ACCOUNT ‘FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "THE DICTATORSHIPS IN THOSE COUNTRIES AND THE MARCOS DICTATOR- ‘The dictatorships of cur Asian neighbors werd! and remain, committed to the grand vision of an industrial révolution and economic independence. Industrialization and’ economic inée- pendence were and continue t6 be an obsession with the authoritarian governments of those countries. But, more than that, those dictatorships took the hard decisions necessary to implement their vision, Those dictatorships lost no time taking PHILIPPINE. CRISIS the steps necessary to mount an industrial revolution and bring their respective countries to the machine age. i contrast, the Marcos dictatorship from the very start was committed toa development strategy that fanctioned, and in fact was fashioned and intended, to prevent the country’s industralieation. Te was a srntegy meant to dissuade oUr tvernment from establishing the kind of industries that have made economic tigers out of our neighbors. ‘That was the vital difference, When Mareos finally came to his senses in 1979, seven years after he had declared martial law, and realized that the was about the only country in Asia that wasn’t 1g, he ordered the immediate implementation of LL major industrial projects calculated to push the country to NIC (newly industrialized country) status by the end of the 1980s, but hie programme was blocked at every turn. 05, WHAT WERE THOSE 11 MAJOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES. DIb MARCOS ANNOUNCE THEM? 7 The 11 projects were: integrated steel; the manufacture of diese! engines; aluminum smelter; a petrochemical complex; heavy engineering industries; the expansion of the cement industry; the industrialization of the coconut industry; Aleogas; fan integrated pulp and paper mill; copper smelter; and phosphate fertilizer. "Industry: All Eyes on Eleven Giants,” Asiaweek, June 6, 1980) As Asiaweek noted, the projects were “designed to become the focal point of the country’s industrialization efforte during the decade.” Marcos announced the projects and his programme of heavy industralization in a speech before the U.P Law Alumni-Auzswxono Liewasco ation on September 28, 1979 (FM Launches 11 Major Industrial Projects,” Philippine Daily Express, Soptember 29, 1979) even as he eritcized the “conservative industrialization policy” of his technocrats, simultaneously warning that “if we do not shift gears and get on the same fast track (38 our neighbors) we shall not be able to eatch up and we shall be eR to receive the dust of those we follow."(Tbid). 06. YOU SAY THAT THE INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS WERE, BLOCKED A EVERY TURN. WHO BLOCKED THEM? ‘The IMP-WB; the martial law technocrats, led by then Prime Minister Cesar Virata; the leadership of the Makati business community, represented by the late Jaime Ongpin and the Zobel-Ayala group; the Center for Research and Communication (CRC), an institution associated with the Opus Dei, whose spokesman was Dr. Bernardo Villegas; and even, the National Economic Protectionism Association (NEPA). It was a formidable combination of forces that blocked Marcos’ attempt to industrialize the economy, belated and Jong. deferred as it was: ‘The combination of international capital and the nation’s international creditors; ranking ‘members of the Marcos cabinet, led by no less than the Prime Minister; Philippine Big Business, and an influential research ‘agency linked with the Opus Dei, They even coined a catchy slogan to dramatize their opposition to the industrial projects. “You can't eat steel,” they said. If only even half of those projects had pushed through, and they were scheduled for completion by the mid- 1980s, we would by now be in an entirely different situation. We could now be the leading economy in Southeast Asia, or one of the leading economies in the area. In the end, only the copper ‘smelter was established. The integrated steel industry, known as the mother of industries, remains in the talking stage. PHILIPPINE CRISIS 07. WHY DIDN'T THE PROJECTS PUSH THROUGH? MARCOS WAS DICTATOR. HE COULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING HE WANTED. ‘The World Bank simply withheld funding. It insisted on endless feasibility studies, although feasibility studies had already determined that many of the projects, particularly steel, would be viable. The WB position was vigorously seconded by the technocrats, led by then Prime Minister Virata, and the influential Makati Filipinos. What the industrialization issue proved was that insofar ‘as economic policy was concerned, it wasn't Marcos who dictated but the U.S-IMF-WB and their allies in Makati The battle between Marcos and his crities over the implementation of the projects went on for a full three years. By 1982, Marcos, visibly sick and frustrated, and apparently realizing that he would never get his projects offthe ground, lashed publicly at his critics, accusing them of sabotaging the country’s industrialization. 08. WHAT DID HE Say? He accused his critics - and that meant, the IMF-WB, his technocrats led by his Prime Minister, who was widely perceived as an agent of the IMF-WB, the leadership of the ‘Makati business community and the Opus Dei-backed CRC- 8 “all part of a plot to ensure that the country remains tinder the industrialized countries.” (“Marcos Hits Crities of Major Projects,” Times eJournal,” May 24, 1982) It was an extremely serious, and explosive, accusation, coming as it did from a head of state, compounded by the fact that it was said in public, and given wide publicity, Tt was tantamount to charging his own Prime Minister, Makati Filipinos and a prominent research institution, of plotting with the IMF-WB to ensure that the Philippines “remainsAves Laceaven ‘No Philippine head of state had ever as much as dared ‘hint such an accusation against the citadels of international capital and the heartland of the Philippine Establishment, A year later, n 1983, Ninoy Aquino, harassed by powerful factions in Washington into returning to the Philippines, was assassinated on touching Philippine sol. The nation was plunged in turmoil and crisis, and all talks about industrialization naturally evaporated 09. ARE YOU SAYING THEN THAT CORRUPTION AND DICTATORSHIP HAVE HAD NOTHING TO'DO WITH THE CONDITION OF THE PHILIPPINES? ‘That isnt what Tam saying, Corruption, past and present, has had much to do with the Innentable state of the nation But I am also saying thet corruption and dictatorship don't constitute the ultimate reasons for the nation’s intractable Poverty and continuing backewardness, To insist that they do 48 todo injustice to our intelligence, Corruption and dictator- ship have not prevented countries from developing, and even inning the war on poverty, and Asia provides ample examples for that proposition, ‘As long as we labor under the notion that corruption and the dictatorship explain the deplorable state of the nation, We shall never get to the bottom of our difficulties, That notion ‘constitutes a grave misdiagnosis of our condition. It is a notion which in fact functions to conceal the real roots of our crisis, It is not only an incorrect notion. It is a notion that plays into ‘the hands of what the Pope described as modern imperialism. 10. HOW IS THAT? Because those reponsible for the vital policies that have ‘kept the Philippines underdeveloped and poor don't want the condition of the country traced to their policies. Corruption and martial law-are- i PHILIPPINE. CRISIS ‘That is precisely why the speech of His Holiness in Denmark was so very timely to our situation. He pinpointed ‘with precision the real factor behind the poverty and under- development of the Third World. In that speech, as reported, no allusion was made to corruption. The Pope alluded instead to “modern imperialism,” and to “decisions” made by “indi- viduals and groups who wanted to keep developing countries poor.” If all it takes to bring development and prasperity to a people are democratic institutions and honest government, we should have developed and prospered during the many decades that we were under outright American rule. We had clean, honest and even efficient government then. The Commonwealth, period was in fact the golden age of Philippine politics. Our Public servants at that time were models of intelligence and rectitude. But we remained underdeveloped and poor. 11. LET US GO BACK TO THE SPEECH OF THE POPE, JUST EXACTLY WHAT DID HE MEAN BY “MODERN: IMPERIALISM?" Let us begin with imperialism. The dictionary defines it fs: “The policy of extending the rule or authority # an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of alonies and dependencies, (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, 1989 ed.). We know that in the past imperialism manifested itself through the outright annexation or physical conquest of ter- riteries and peoples. But that form of imperialism went out of fashion after World War 11. Modern imperialism‘Ausanono Lanvco . AND HOW 1S NEOCOLONIALISM DEFINED? ‘The dictionary dafines neoéslonialism as: “The policy of a strong nation seeking political and economie hegemony over ‘an independent nation, or extended geographical area, without necessarily reducing the subordiate nation or area to the legal status of a colony.” (Ibid) ‘The Oxford Amefican Dictionary defines neccolonialism fas: “The use of economic, political or other means to retain influence over former colonies.” ‘The nation reduced to dependency by the dominant power is known as a neocolony. neocalony is a state independent in legal status but which in fact is the effective colony of another, 13, PLEASE GIVE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF NEO. COLONIATISM AND NEOCOLONIES, ‘The policy and method by which the U.S. government fand American fruit corporations converted Latin American states into what fs known at banana republics, Thote were states whose politics ‘and economic life were edntrotied and ‘manipulated by Washington for the benefit of'American fruit companies which owned vast tracts of banana plantations in Latin America Many Arab countries were atone time neocolonies of the US. and Great Britain. Those countries installed and sustained governments in the Arab world subservient t0 international cil companies, Examples were Bgypt before Naster, Iran during the time of the Shah and Libya before Khadafty. China, before the communists took over, Was'a neocolony of the Great Powers which forced that country to open up to international investments, and even forced opium on its people, while allowing it to re t state, PHILIPPINE. CRISIS. 14. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE OF NEOCOLONIALISM? ‘The plunder and pillage of nations and peoples. It is perhaps the most monstrous evil that stalked human history. Imperialism, from which neocolonialism derives, = the system- AU, calculated policy of enslaving, not individuals, but entire peoples and nations. ‘The greed that drives it kes uprooted Inilions of people in Aica and transported them aa slaves to America; spossessed indigenous peoples of their lands, their culture and theirhumanity; destreyed workepportunitios incalonies ir order to pave the way for surplus progiets dumped by metreplitan powers; reduced what would etherwise’ be enterprising and rentive populations to unprodudive, indolent, jobless and impoverished. consumers of foreign goods. In whatever form, imperialism, old or new, represents the highest expression of idolatry, again if one may use the words of His Holiness. Communism at least aims to create jobs aad livelihood in underdeveloped countries. Look at China and owen Vietnam. Imperialism, on the other hand, destroys jobs and livelihood in underdeveloped countries. Look at the Philippines and Africa, Look at India under British rule, Early in the 1970s, Roman Catholic bishops held a synod at the Vatican, and one of the working papers issued by that synod was a condemnation of neocolonialism. It described necolonialism as “that injustice inflicted by one mation on the people of another.” ‘The synod document went on to say that “politically or economically weak nations are still reduced by others in a state of quasi-servitude. These are examples of continuedsubjugation by colonial powers. These are cases of more or less explicit‘Ausunono Lictaca ¥5. WOULD YOU GIVE EXAMPLES OF COUNTRIES. REDUCED BY NEOCOLONIALISM TO A CONDITION | OF QUASI-SERVITUDE? — i We don't have to-look abroad for examples, although carlier I had mentioned the cases of the banaha republics of Latin America, China before the communists took power and the Arab states, ‘The Philippines is a classic example of a country, supposedly sovereign and independent, reduced to quasi servitude by neocolonialism functioning through thie IMF and the World Bank. 16. WOULD YOU GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF HOW NEOCOLONIALISM PLUNDERS AND IMPOVERISHES Is vIcTIMs? It plunders and pillages primarily by forcing open as ‘widely as possible the economies ofits victims to foreign goods and foreign investors. In the days of claosial, old fashioned imperialiam, opening “up economies was accomplished by outright conquest, as when tho U.S. annexed the Philippines and thereafter compelled this country to admit American goods without restraint and free from tariffs; or, through gunboat diplomacy, as when the U.S, deployed in 1853 a naval contingent led by Commodore Perry ‘whose guns intimidated Japan into opening up to interna- tional trade and investments. That was also how the Western powers intimidated China into opening up. The U.S. deployed gunboats along China's great rivers in a display of military ower to terrorize that country into opening Up to imports of Western goods and Western capital, and even to opium. meddling in the affairs of its victims, manipulating their politics, economy, educational system and other aspects of their sien tenis apt tas | | PHILIPPINE CRISIS national life, including the military. Through various tech- niques of influence and control, it installs governments and promotes the political and economic fortunes of people sup- portive of policies and programmes that advance neocolonial ‘ends; specifically, opening up local economies to indiscriminate imports and to international investments. ‘The two most formidable agents of neocolonialism in the world today are the IMF and the World Bank. Through the leverage of their loans the IMF-WB force open the economies of the Third World. Those two financial institutions perform the function of gunboats during the era of gunbost diplomacy. They serve as the battering rams which open up the economies of weak and underdeveloped states to the invasion of foreign goods and the rule of international capital 17. WOULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW OPENING UP THE ECONOMIES OF THIRD WORLD STATES TO IMPORTS IMPOVERISHES THOSE STATES AND REDUCES. THEM TO QUASI-SERVITUDE? By forcing Third World countries to open up te indiserimi- nate imports, neocolonialism in effect forces thase countries to subsidize the industries and the labor force of the dominant powers. Capital, which could be retained in the economy of ‘Third World countries, and utilized to finance their own in- dustries, wind up in foreign shores. The markets of Third World countries compelled to open up to unlimited imports become the dumping ground of foreign goods (many of which are subsidized by foreign governments) which undermine local industries and domestic sources of income and employment. Note how imports of foreign fruits and ather agricultural goods have virtually decimated a once promising local grape industry as well as our once thriving corn and peanut industries. Now even the ancient sugar industry and the infant potato industry are threatened with extinction by imports. Nate also how indiscriminate imports of finished products have undermined.. ‘Auzasc30 Lietaueo ‘the textile, appliance, electronics, tool, paper and many other ‘Manufacturing enterprises. Even Japancse investors have warmed that the importation of finished vehicles could destroy ‘the local car-assembly industry in which they have made heavy investments, ut ‘Many ofthe items which nesolonialism compels its victims to import are luxuries. They represent the squandering of scarce foreign exchange resources which de-capitalizes econo- ries that are already short of capital, forcing them into debt and excessive dependence on the metropolitan powers. The Philippines, for example, imports close to $2.8 Billion of luxury items every year, not to mention non-luxury items which can be produces! locally and need nat be imported, such as canned goods, hard tools, flashlights and even toothpick. ‘So you see how a policy of indiscriminate imports im- poverishes Third World states like the Philippines and keeps them in a state of dependence and servitude even as it encourages their people into wasteful consumption, 18 AND HOW DOES OPENING UP THIRD WORLD ECONOMIES TO FOREIGN INVESTMENTS IMPOVERISH THEM? LOOK AT'!CHINA AND HONGKONG. THESE COUNTRIES ARE PROSPERING BECAUSE OF FOREIGN INVESTMENTS. WHAT IS WRONG WITH FOREIGN INVESTMENTS? ‘The primary objective of foreign investors is not to develop the productive powers of a country but simply t6 extract m capital “than what they put into it. And usually they don't bring in capital. They merely borrow from the'local banks and the money market. ut ' Foreign investors are tinder no responiibility to develop countries where they operate. Their responsil primarily to themselves, to make profits for themselves; as quickly and ‘as much as they can, and in whatever way théy'can. And if they have to destroy local competitors in the-process,- they do PHILIPPINE CRISIS. Hence, a paramount demand foreign investors invariably make on their host government is an investment atmosphere ‘hich ‘would keop the host economy as open a possible to Sllow the unlimited export of capita. Such'a polity, however, is Rindamentally incompatible with the paramaart require: ment of an underdeveloped country to accumulate capital, The more extensive the presence of foreign investors nan ‘unt derdeveloped country, the more extensive would bathe pressure on that country to open itself to the export of eapital, No Festriction, in Breton the amount of profes and capital that ane shipped out. Thats the meaning of otal foreign exchange Hberaitabon ‘That is the first step in the process of de-capitalization, Once admitted into the host territory, foreign investors + and these are usually transnational corporations - engage in a wide range of exploitative practices that drain the host of resources, Perhaps among the most notorious of these practices transfer pricing. By this, foreign companies (who do busines: generally through what is known as fully-owned subsidiaries), ‘import from their overseas factories and foreign affiliates the equipment, industrial materials, spare parts and machines they need, at an overprice or at prices above world market levels. This practice ensures maximum, artificial profits for the overseas factories and foreign affiliates of the subsidiaries, One of the realities of foreign investment is that sub- sidiaries of transnational corporations (TNCs), through which the TNCs operate in host countries like the Philippines, are usually mechanisms for disguised import operations. These subsidiaries set up plants that actually function as conduits through which overseas factories export goods at inflated prices to the host countries where the subsidiaries are located, One result of this operation, of course, is to inflate the import, Dill of the host country. This has been documented in LatinAuznono Laemco America where TNCs have been allowed to operate extensively. ‘As far back as 1976, a government study confirmed that, a substantial portion of Brazil's trade deficit was due to the importations made by the TNCs. (Brazil Deficit Due to TNCs,” Times Journal, June 2,1976) ‘A classic on the subject of transnational company op- erations revealed that the practice of transfer pricing has enabled U.S. industries to export to their subsidiaries in Latin ‘America products overpriced by as much as “twenty-five times the world market price." (Barnet and Muller, Global Reach, .188), ‘The extensive presence of transnational subsidiaries in fan underdeveloped country also operates to clese the door to industries which local capital would otherwise undertake. Take the presenceofgiant companies ntheinternational rar industry as example, Through their subsidiaries, thesé international car companies set ip shop in developing countries primarily to facilitate the export to those countries of manufactured parts ‘and components which the subsidiaries simply assemble through 1ocal Labor, with no intention of manufacturing those parts and ‘components themselves. This kind of operation blocks the development of an indigenous car manufacturing industry. ‘That is why in the Asian countries which have managed to develop an indigenous and authentic car manufacturing industry, like China, South Korea, India and Malaysia, the government played, and conti-ues to play, the role of industrial pioneer and entrepreneur. The car industries of those countries were pioneered by the state, which continues to be a major actor in the field. Those countries made sure that their car industry developed into a real manufacturing industry, and not an industry dominated by international ear corporations: whose main interest is to import manufactured parts and components from their overseas factories at inflated prices | PHILIPPINE CRISIS| instead of producing those parts and components in the host country dust consider the contrast in the car industry situation between the Philippines and its neighbors. We have had a car assembly industry since the 1950s but, in contrast to South Korea, China, India and Malaysia, where the state is a major participant in the industry, ours never graduated from the assembly stage into a real” manufacturing operation, No country rose from poverty to Fiches by depending on foréign investments for its development. In fact, modern revo- lutions are about poor countries whose leaders were either stupid or corrupt enough to entrust the progress of their countries to foreign investors. The first revolution ofthis century ‘was the Mexican revolution of 1910. It was the revolution of a people against a government that had given the ountry away to foreign investors. Cuba before Castro was another example, ‘The Cuban revolution at the start was primarily a revolution against a regime that had become the tool and captive of foreign investments. And so was China before the communist revolution, In the case of China today, it isn’t foreign investments that developed that nation and transported it fom poverty ‘to riches. China, before the communists took over, had been the playing field of foreign investors who literally occupied China through the infamous international settlements. But 1a remained poor, and that was one of the reasons for SS ‘communists took on assuming power was to drive out the foreign investors and liquidate the international settlements, When China finally started opening up to foreign invest- ments under communist rule in the early 1980s, itwas already a developed economy, although Western propaganda and the IMF-WB kept portraying it as an impoverished country. In fact, as early as the late 1950s, China had already establishedAumuvono Laemco ‘the foundations of a selfreliant and viable economy. As early 1s then, it was exporting capital and technology to the Third World, 19, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? learned that from a study commissioned if 1957 by the National Planning Association, a U.S-based research institute that was investigating the potentiils of China as'an economic competitor of the West in the Third World. The conclusion of that study was that: “There can be no doubt that Communist China’s domestic economic development and forbign economic policies present a serious challengeto the free world, a challenge which the West can not fail to take into consideration in formulating economic policies for the future.” (A. Deak Barnett, Communist Economie Strategy: The Rise of Mainland China, National Planning Association) According to that study, whieisthe communists took power {n 1950, they lost no time building up basie and heavy industries, 0 that by the end of its First Five-Year Plan, China was ‘turning out a wide range of steel products, including locomotives, engines, textile mills, cement factories, machine tools and the like. That was in 1957. And yet, only seven years earlier, in 1950, China was even more backward than the'Philippincs is ‘today. Tts steel aad eapital goods industry wat virtually non- existent. Pat ‘The same may be said of'India. And I'caii do no better in describing Indian policy than Indian Primé! Minister Rao hhas done reently. As you know; India, after devades of main- taining a closed door policy on foreign investments, began ‘opening up two years ago. But this was what the Prime Minister ssid: “India welcomed foreign’ investors ater dchieving. self sufficiency in agriculture, laying a strong foundation in indus- try, and building a latge skiliéd work force!” (‘India Pledges | | | | | i | PHILIPPINE CRISIS India now, according to revised estimates of the IMF-WB, has the sixth largest economy in the world, India didn't achieve that by relying on foreign investments, It followed the course of China. First develop on your own. And then open up to foreign capital, but gradually. ‘The Philippines follows a completely opposite philosophy: Never mind developing on your own. Just invite foreign in- vestors and let them have the run of the place. They don't have to bring in their own capital; they don’t have to transfer tochnology; they can practice transfer pricing with abandon; they can ship out as much of their profits as they want to ‘They can even intervene in our elections. Just let them in and treat them better than Filipino investors. And we wonder why we remain underdeveloped after fifty years of independence. What I am saying is that foreign investments can be useful to a country that is already developed, with a gov- ernment and an economy strong enough to resist the pressures of international capital; meaning to say, strong and viable enough to do without foreign capital if necessary. But it would be foolhardy for a weak, underdeveloped country to entrust its development to foreign capital. The Philippines was wide open to foreign capital all throughout the colonial period, as were China, Cuba and Mexico before their respectiverevolutions, but nothing happened. ‘The message of the Mexican, Chinese and Cuban rejolutions, as well as revolutions in the banana republics, precisely that poor and underdeveloped countries whose leaders allow foreign investments to dominate their political economy, invite social upheavals, But‘Auzuvono Lictaveo ‘There are more than 10,000 state enterprises in China, ‘and foreign investors doing business there are invariably con- strained to tnke in a state company as partner in A joint venture. And the relation can be nightmarish. As the Far Eastern Economic Review reposted it, quoting, 4 foreign investor source in the car industry, “the way these ventures are set up, your partner is effectively the Chinese state, As a government it regulates your prices, markets and finances. As a shareholder in the venture, it dictates your corporate policy. As owner of your supposedly arms-length suppliers, you depend on it for everything you need: compo- nents, workers, plant equipment, foreign exchange.” (issue of 27 May 1999). And still foreign investors knock on China's doors. 20. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN HONGKONG? towards Hongkong is to offer it a a parking space for in- ternational corporations and as a transit point for tourists and international traders, One of the attractions of Hongkong for foreign capital is the virtual absence of taxes. Hongkong, | being a colony, doesn’t have to worry about raising revenues to support institutions and activities necessary to nation-states, like a standing army, or a Defense and Foreign Affairs establishment. Hongkong's prosperity is deeply linked to the China trade, and it has mainland China as a cheap source of food. | | Hongkong is a colony of the British, and British policy Inquire into the structure of Hongkong's economy. For- cign investments in Hongkong have not created the kind of basic, heavy industries that have made economic tigers of South Kore end Taiwan. It remains essentially a trading outpost and producer of light consumer goods, such as textile products, embroideries, shoes and canned goods, much of PHILIPPINE CRISIS made in Hongkong. A substantial portion of Hongkong’s revenues is derived from the continuing influx of tourists drawn by Hongkong’s scenery, in search of cheap foreign goods made cheap because they are tax-free, and who see in Hongkong a convenient and cenic stopover point in their travels through Asia, Besides, Hongkong, being a colony, has no pretence to political and economic sovereignty. And you mightinquire, who are the real beneficiaries of Hongkong’s prosperity? If Hongkong’s open policy toward foreign capital were a replicable model, it would have been copied long ago by Asian neighbors. But the Asian tigers do the opposite. resist the importunities of foreign capital, and restrict operations instead of opening up to it as we do andas Hongkong does, 21. YOU MENTIONED THE IMF AND THE WORLD BANK AS THE PRIME AGENTS OF NEOCOLONIALISM, WOULD YOU BRIEFLY EXPLAIN HOW THE IMF-WB PROGRAMMES HAVE HURT THE PHILIPPINE POOR AND PREVENTED THE NATION FROM DEVELOPING. ‘The IMF-WB programmes are based on a mortal com- bination of five deadly policies. These are: (j) the constant devaluation of the currency; (ii) import liberalization; (iii) fiseal and monetary austerity; (iv) a minimal role for government inthe economy; and (v) a maximum role for foreigninvestments in the economy. What have been the consequences of these policies? Devaluation means inflation, a rise in the cost of pro- duction und the cost of living as well as of the sodial services. It also translates into an increase in the peso cost of the nation's huge foreign ¢Auznvoho Lewveo Import liberalization undermines domestic industries, both | manufacturing and agricultural, squanders our limited foreign. exchange reserves and leads to an ever rising trade deficit and foreign debt. This year, our trade deficit could exceed $5 billion, while our imports of non-essentials could go beyond $255 billion. | A policy of monetary and fica austerity means ae | stricted monty supply and high interest rates. These in turn | constrict ecanomie activity Any effort on the part of government tome socal demands for publicworks and services translates. into an IMF-WB requirement for increased taxes. | ‘A minum role for goverament in the’eonomy means withdrawal ef programmes, duch as subsidy to farmers, price Control of basi commodities, and subsidized fates for water and electricity, intende to asl those sections af the population who are unable to defend thertsdlves against thd impoverishing Consequences of inflation and ennatricted economic activity ‘A maximum role for fofeiim eapital_méans tolerance of ploitative practices, including political, intervention to secure laws and policies favdrable to it but inimical to the country. An example is the recent total liberalization of the nation’s foreign exchange syst which would enable foreign companies to remit freely ard without restraint profits made on their Philippine operations” . ‘The simultaneous application of these policies, to which we have been subjected since 1962, when we first submitted ourselves to IMF-WB supervision through, the Decontro! Programme of the Macapagal administration, is what. has devasted the economy and forced millions of our countrymen to seek life and livelihood abroad. Under the iron heel of these policies, we have seen the peso depreciate from its original value of P2:$1 to its present evel of over P27:81 (they are now talking of a possible exchange PHILIPPINE CRISIS rate of P40:8); the price of rice soar from P0.60a kilo to P15 1 kilo, We have seen our foreign debt rise from a mere $150 million in 1962 to $32 Billion today. We have seen major industries close shop, and even farming made unviable. ‘Those policies explain the brutalization of Philippine society, and an impoverishment so deep and extensive as to have driven millions of our women and children to vice and prositution, and to wander abroad as modern-day daves, Several years ago, a European publication disclosed that there are more than 2 million Filipinas being auctioned in Burope. ‘The explanation for why we are the only entry in the Asia-Pacific region which isn’t industrializing is to be found in that lethal combination of policies with which we have lived for more than 30 years. No country which has to live with the crushing consequences of those policies can possibly in- dustrialize, or even survive indefinitely as a viable social organism, which we have almost ceased to be. Thirty years of those policies have transformed this nation fram the incipi- ent economic tiger that it was in the 1950s to the economic wasteland that it is today. 22, COULD IT NOT BE POSSIBLE THAT THE IMF-WB ARE NOT AWARE OF THE HARM WHICH THEIR POLICIES ARE INFLICTING ON THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES LIKE THE PHILIPPINES? They are perfectly aware of the consequences of their policies, bit that is no matter to them anymore thanit mattered to the imperialists of old that imperialism impoverished their colonies. It didn’t matter to the British that British imperi- alism impoverished India. It didn't matter to the Americans that American colonial rule kept the Philippines from devel- oping an industrial base, preserving an economy inherent incapable of absorbing a ‘army of unemployed. pos- tie | Five years ago, a group of IMF technicians wrote a ‘memorandum acknowledging that the poor in the Third World “have been hurt by policies it (the IMF) has pressed on Third World countries with the support ofthe United States.” Among the countries hurt by those policies, according to the ‘memorandum, was the Philippines. ("RP Hit by IMF Policies”, Manila Bulletin, June 2, 988). In spite of that’"memorandum ‘the IMF-WB have continued pressing their policies on our ‘government, ever threatening to cut offloans if we don't comply Remember that in the IMF-WB we are dealing with twin institutions charged by their very charter with the task of pressing neocolonial programmes on Third World states like the Philippines. After all, those institutions were founded by the Western colonial powers which had exploited their colonies precisely by forcing open the economies of the latter to free trade and international investments. 23. WHY THEN HAVE THE VARIOUS GOVERNMENTS OF THIS COUNTRY, FROM MACAPAGAL TO RAMOS, ACCEPTED THE 'PACKAGE OF! IMF-WB CONDITIONALITIES? | + or ‘That is une ofthe mattefs'which the Primser'will explain. ‘At this point, it should suffice tanote that ovér the last thirty years, a class of Filipino functionaries, sharidg with the IM®- ‘WB the same ideologil commitment to free'trade and free market capitalism, have come'to dominate'the shaping of Philippine developmental programmes and ‘policies. It has reached a point that these functionaries might as well be working directly for the IMF-WB. Many of them in fact either wind up in the payroll of those institutions after leaving public service, or were recruited into government directly frorh those institutions. They function, either wittingly or witlessly, as the fifth columns of neocolonialism within out governmental structure: as the zealous apostles of an economic philosophy historically utilized by the colonial powers to exploit their colonies and keep them in.a condition of servitude PHILIPPINE CRISIS 24, CAN YOU SUMMARIZE THE MAIN THEME OF THIS PRIMER? Behind the national crisis is mass poverty. Behind mass poverty isthe failure of the country to engineer its own industrial revolution and to graduate into the industrial age Behind our failure to industrialize is what the Pope called ‘modern im- perialism”, specifically, U.S. neocolonialism, operating through. the IMF and the World Bank, and their ideologieal allies in the Philippines, 25, THIS PRIMER THEN IS ABOUT MODERN IMPERIALISM OR NEOCOLONIALISM AND ITS . RELATION TO PHILIPPINE UNDERDEVELOPMENT AND MASS POVERTY? Yes. 26. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT SHOULD CONCERN US ABOUT NEOCOLONIALISM? Yes: And that is dona eeeariy 27 PLRASH EXPLAIN, Neocolonialism, represented by the IMF-WR, has been the single most formidable stumbling block to. this country's industrialization. And industrialization holds the key to the nation’s security. For unless we develop into an industrial state, we can never develop a military capability commensurate with our status as a sovereign state. Without thateapability, we are sure targets of economic and military aggression on the part of industrialized neighbors Last year, on his return from a visit to South Karea, Army chief of staff General Lisandro Abadia lamented that the ca- pability of the Philippine Armed Forces trails that of South Korea's by almost twenty years. Apparently, whileeur armedAunw010 Lenco forces still have to make do with manually operated equip- ‘ment, South Korea's is now equipped with high-tech, com- ‘puterized weapons, missiles, lasers and even satellites. But that should not come as a surprise. South Korea is a fullfledged industrial state producing the vast range of industrial products needed by a modern army2Tt is one of the largest steel producers in the world, has one of the most mod- ‘ern shipbuilding industries, has a highly developed capital ‘goods, computer and telecommunication industry, produces its fown car (instead of simply assemblying them from imported components) and precision tools and instruments, exports ‘entire factories and sophisticated weaponry... ‘The Philippines eannot even produce a decent bieycle or its own brand of shoo polish a 28. AND YOU BLAME NEOCOLONIALISM FOR THE DEPLORABLE STATE OF OUR MILITARY? ‘Yes. Specifically, American neocslonialism. The U.S. government was supposed to) 9e0 to the de- velopment of our armed forces eapablity. ‘That was the whole Point about the bases and the military assistance pact which we entered into im 1947. z ‘After 45 years of the bases and Amérjean military as- sistance, we woke upto the fart that we have jst about the ‘weakest military establishment in this part of the world. We ilmast make do with World War 11 Tore Tras while Taivan and ‘South Korea produced their own missiles ton Years 980, and Indonesia has developed an. sreraft industry. Should our neighbors invade Mindanao we wouldn't even have the capability of expeditiously transporting troops to that island from Luzon. We have no nayy to speak of. PHILIPPINE. CRISIS ‘The Manila Times has just run an editorial on the state of our air force and described its modernization program ‘a8 a “pipsqueak attempt compared with the steadily expanding airpower of our neighbors.” 29. WHAT PURPOSE THEN WAS SERVED BY OUR MILITARY ASSISTANCE PACT WITH THE U.S.? ‘That pact served an economic purpose. Financial assistance made available by that pact was utilized by the U.S. gov- ernment to pressure our government into constant fidelity and adherence to IMF policies in order to keep our economy open. 30. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? ‘That was disclosed by U.S. Aid officials before the U.S. Congress. Here are paragraphs in a story carried by the Manila Bulletin last September 29, 1987 (“To carry out IMF policies”): ‘The United States is using the Economic Support Fund (ESF) and the budget support fund as a leverageto ‘encourage! 5 the Philippines to open up its economy and carry out the economic policies imposed by the International Monetary Fund, ‘This linkup was disclosed by officals of the US Agency for International Development. in recent testimonies before Congress in Washington, D.C, and in interviews in Manila Under the 1983 renegotiated military bases agreement, the US is committed on a best efforts basis to providing a $900, million compensation to the Philipines from 1984 to 1988, The «compensation stipulates that $475 million should go to ESF tance , ‘Tho ESFis dosigned to finance rural development projects. ‘The IMP-imposed economic structural program includes ‘a spate of economic policies like trade liberalization, lowering of tariff, abolition of price control and agricultural subsidies, dismantling of agricultural divestment of several‘sero Liewvco ‘overbearing demand for access to Asian markets and its insistence that Asians adopt American political and economic ‘alues blindly. And yet at no time in its history has America ‘come to need Asia's markets more than it dods how. So we can be sure that the U.S. will fight to the death to preserve ‘the economic and military presence in Asia that it has enjoyed since the turn of the century primarily through its bases in this country. Ifthe present administration contemplates allowing the ‘return of the bases, it should at least be reminded what those ‘bases stand for, what they did to our military, to our economy, ‘to our country. They. represent the most visible|imanifestation of American neccolonialism and spell nothing but trouble. The return of the U.S. bases, under whatever arrangement, will bring us in a collision course. with China and North Korea and, possibly, Japan as well as Malaysia and Indonesia ‘94, IP WASHINGTON IS THINKING ABOUT HAVING THE BASES BACK, WHERE DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD INSTALL THESE? Most likely in the Mindanao-Palawan-Sult area 35. WHY? ee Because the Mindanao-Palawan area has become suddenly strategic geopoitically in view of recent major ofl discoveries by several petroleum consorti'led by the glant British Po- leum, one f the seven sisters. Industry reports point to ‘Mindanao and Palawan as possible sites of the largest oil eserves in Southeast Asia Iti poasible that Anglo-American eil companies, threatened by the volatile situation in the Arab world, could be planning on shifting base to Southeast Asia, to the Mindanao-Palawan area\in particular, jas a hedge. This, of course, could spell trouble. Bearjin\mind what oil has done to the Arab world. Oil, while a blessing, could PHILIPPINE CRISIS h weak, naive in underdeveloped countries wit also mean, \derdeveloped ce i don, nat cltea!Inadership, a curse, poverty and exploitation, Eitmol, foreign intervention, and even fragmentation. The turmoil in the Middle Basti about oil. Iraq i9 about oi. Libya fs about oll ARE YOU SAYING THAT OIL NEED NOT NECES- SARILY BRING PROSPERITY TO A PEOPLE? WON'T OIL BRING AT LEAST PROSPERITY TO THE PEOPLE OF MINDANAO? 36, Not to a:people under a government and a ruling es- tablishmont that are merely tools of colonial interests. Look at the Arabs. Only the shoiks and members of the ruling class have prospered, beyond imagining, while the masses remain ‘backward and impoverished: ill in an underdeveloped country invites neocolonialism ‘That is why the Philippine Crisis could sharpen instead of being blunted by the oil discoveries in Palawan. ST. WHY? © Because the Philippine erisis is essentially the crisis of a neoeolony. And oil could only aggravate that crisis by in- tensifying the problem of neocolonialism in the country, 38. WOULDN'T THAT BE A REASON FOR MINDANAO'S. | SECESSION? WOULDNT OIL INDUCE MINDANAO TO SECEDE AND DECLARE ITS INDEPENDENCE, FROM THE PHILIPPINES? 1 If the people of Mindanao believe that secession would solve their problems, they are being naive. A Mindanao severed. from the Philippines would be easy prey to powerful external forces prodding it into secession. It will eventually be disme bered and the very Filipinos leading the secession movement would find themselves out of the picture after tarning their‘zunoeo Lcnaco ‘back on the nation. They would be the laughing stock, as well as villains, of Philippine histary. Mindanao doesn't have the rilitary-political and cultural infrastructure to resist the invasion of neocolonial and other external interests attracted to that island by its immense wealth and vast potential 38-4, WHAT THEN SHOULD'BE DONE? [Nationalist forces, and cleinents in the country awakened tothe realities and menace of neocolonialism, should join hands t transform the nation from the neocolony that it is to the truly sovercign state that it should be. ‘That is an indispensable first step toward the solution ofthe Philippine Crisis. Fr that crisis the esis ofa neocolony process of resolving the crisis can truly begin only when the Philippines ceases to be a neocolony. 99. HOW THEN DOES THE PHILIPPINES TRANSFORM ROM A NEOCOLONY 10 A TRULY SOVEREIGN ‘That transformation can come about. only. through a Government for National Independence: a government com mitted to the nation’s sovereignty, and able to assert that sovereignty effectively because it is hacked by people power. Only such government can resale the debt question in the way it should be resolved, bring the nation into the ‘mainstream of the industrial revolution that is sweeping all Asia, effectively tackle the problem of maee poverty, and create 2 Stone, fundamentally democratic and popilitstate which accommodates the essential requirements of geographic regions that make up thi nation, Aas Only such a government can possibly formulate an al- ternative programme that would command a consensus among the numerous political and ideological factions in the country. PHILIPPINE CRISIS 40, AND WHAT IF NO SUCH GOVERNMENT EMERGES? ‘Then we must be prepared to see this country suffer the ‘unmitigated rigor of the IMF-WB prescription embodied in the mortal combination of policies described in Dise. 21 above. By the ond of the Ramos term, five years from now, the ppeso-dollar exchange rate could, by very conservative estimate, exceed P4061, and rice at over P20 a kilo. Jast figure out the social, economic, political and security implieations of that. Visualize what the cost of medicine and hospitalization, already beyond the reach of even many middle-ineome families, ‘will be; what the cost of gasoline and oil producta will be; what. the cost of water and electricity will be; what the rate of un- ‘employment will be; what the peace and order situation will be. Visualize what our foreign debt will be; what our budget deficit will be; what the state of our social and pablic services, from garbage collection to education, will be; what will be the living condition of our teachers, civil servants, workers, farmers, students, and the rank and file of the armed forces. By the end of the Ramos term, how many ofeur withering industries will remain standing; what agricultural products ‘would be worth planting, and how many of our impoverished farmers would be able to afford farming at all? ‘What will be the condition of the masses and the state af the environment? | ‘Then viaualize what all these would meaa in terms of the problem posed by the secessionists, the Marxist insurgents, and the military rebels. Finally, visualize how the country, impoverished, bac ward and desperate, will relate to, and be treated by, its rich and powerful-neighbors, all of whom by the end ef the Ramos term will have reached NIC status. “ xxiii,Aumwon Loevo0 Tt wouldn't require an exceptional imagination to visu- Alize what, under the IMF-WB programme of government, the Philippines wil be by the time the Ramos government retires 41. WHAT ABOUT THE PROBLEM OF THE CPP-NPA-NDF? That will go with a programme of government that Affective attacks the problems of neocolonilism and mass poverty. Without such a programme there will be no peace. Tdeological and armed dissidence will persist. Both the secession movement and Marxist insurgency are fundamentally the product and function of a poverty problem which could never be addressed because of neocalonialism. Neocolonialism has forced on us programmist and policies calculated to preserve our undardevelopment and maintain an ‘exploitative socal sytem. ; Only by banishing neocoloniatim will wa'have the free- dom to nally adress both the secession movement and the Marxist insurgency. 42, AND THE PROBLEM OF THE MILITARY REBELS? ‘That too will go with the implementation of « programine of goverament addressed to the problems of neocoloniaism and mass poverty. ic Z 49. HOW Dip THIS COUNTRY EVER GET INTO ITS PREDICAMENT? 7 nies Let us discuss that now., We ean begin by exploring the nature and dimensions of our predicament, ; ALBJANDRO LICHAUCO | August 11, 1998 | i bien u " say int THE PHILIPPINE CRISIS DEFINED 02. WHAT 18 THE PHILIPPINE cristS? 1 is the) sum totall of the crisis that every major aspect ‘and sector of Philippine society is going through. Itis acompound of five major crises: (i) the political erisis; (i) the economic crisis; (it) the moral crisis; (iv) the peace and order crisis; and (9) the crisis of sovereignty. ‘Add all these up and you have the Philippine cri It is the crisis ofa society in process of disintegration,‘Auswno Lemavco 02, WHY DO YOU SAY THE PHILIPPINES IS IN CRISIS? Because the institutions on which the country has ha- Ditually relied for the resolution ofits difficulties, and through which it has pursued its goals as a society, have been made irelevanthy the prsstenc, character and intensity of national 03, WOULD YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC? A. The Political Crisis Let's take the political crisis, ‘This crisis stems from the failure of the politi. Bhim oi soe ace oe urs SS na a Terns ale waren oy eas Sethe sree amma etd = aPpropriate policies, programmes iutaddto rahe than dmiih ow pores eae foreign meddling in our internal ars, subservience to hs international creditors, and the lke No poliea! institution is wna Pal ian is tka serouly anymore, Songres, the Judiciary, the Preside letra syste o even the Connttin ‘he! ot tolerated simply cantt be helped, they are there and their existence ‘The political aystem, which ‘ ene «Tim at whi i supposed to futon as enue fer peaceful change, jut gems unabe Lo ipise change will ome, even asthe need for change ha al rorvival, Increasingly, people ask two questi , people ats r that serve as an indictment offs Sout me emtem PHILIPPINE CRISIS Why has it failed to produce the political giants and visionaries who presided, or who now preside, over the destiny of fellow Asians: Gandhi, Nehru, Mahathir, Lee Kuan Yew, Park Chung Hee, Chiang, Mao, Deng Xiao Peng, Nasser, Suharto? ‘Why has it failed to transform the Philippines into an industrialized country? 04, THERE IS GROWING TALK THAT OUR PROBLEMS WILL GO AWAY WITH A CHANGE IN THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT, FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL TO THE PARLIAMENTARY. WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAT? ‘The political eriais goes beyond the form of government. ‘What guarantee is there that changing from presidential to parliamentary will stop the practice of votebuying and influence peddling, of graft and nepotism, or that it will raise the quality of legisiation and the quality of the nation’s public ‘or lead to efficiency and integrity in public ad- ‘ministration, or stiffen the government's back against the IMF? Inlernatanal Monetary Fund ‘Don’t forget that the parliamentary form could virtually erase whatever check and balanceremain in the political system, fand government ean be one unmitigated affair of collusion among the nation’s politicians against the people. It will be cheaper, for one, for aspirants to capture the highest political office of the land, All they have to do is bribe their peers in parliament. Above all, how would shifting from the presidential to the parliamentary resolve the central problem of poverty? How ‘would it help the country become an NIC and eatch up with ith neighbors? How would it break up’the infrastructure and tyranny of concentrated wealth? aides Newly, \dvetaanal. Country