The Problem of STILL BLAMING the LONG-DECEASED Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. for the Philippines' CURRENT Economic Woes
 |
| Manuel L. Quezon III"s Twitter Account |
That argument might hold some plausibility if the economic record was brilliant to begin with. But it was not. And here one needs to underscore the importance of assessing the entire period of authoritarian rule, from late 1972 to early 1986.
Take gross domestic product (GDP) for instance: the average GDP growth rate from 1972 to 1985 (Marcos’s last full year) was all of 3.4% per annum. Per-capita GDP grew annually at less than 1% average over the period — more precisely 0.82%. Hardly a roaring-tiger performance. At that rate it would have taken 85 years for per capita income just to double.
For comparison, the average GDP growth from 2003 to 2014 — even under a bumbling and quarrelsome democracy — has been 5.4% per annum — with a rising trend. On a per capita basis, GDP today is rising 3.5% annually, more than four times the growth rate under the dictatorship.
The reason for the dismal performance under martial law is well understood. The economy suffered its worst post-war recession under the Marcos regime because of the huge debt hole it had dug, from which it could not get out. In fact, all of the “good times” the admirers of the regime fondly remember were built on a flimsy sand-mountain of debt that began to erode from around 1982, collapsing completely in 1984-1985 when the country could no longer pay its obligations, precipitating a debt crisis, loss of livelihood, extreme poverty, and ushering in two lost decades of development.
The economy’s record under Marcos is identical to that of a person who lives it up on credit briefly, becomes bankrupt, and then descends into extreme hardship indefinitely. It would then be foolish to say that person managed his affairs marvelously, citing as evidence the opulent lifestyle he enjoyed before the bankruptcy. But that is exactly what admirers of the Marcos regime are wont to do.
It is instructive that neither Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, nor any major Asian country catastrophically experienced negative growth in the early 1980s. The Philippines was the exception, following instead the example of protectionist and over-borrowed Latin American countries. This suggests that there was nothing unavoidable about the crisis the Philippines suffered, and that it was the result instead of failed policies. In 1977 the Philippines’ total debt was all of $8.2 billion. Only five years later, in 1982, this had risen to $24.4 billion. Thailand’s debt in 1982 was still only half that amount. Thailand and other countries of the region thus avoided a debt crisis and ultimately went on to attract foreign direct investments in export-oriented industries in the now-familiar East Asian pattern. But no such thing happened under Ferdinand E. Marcos, notwithstanding the arguments and exhortations of people like Gerardo P. Sicat (who would cease to be active in the regime by 1980). By the early 1980s, the pattern would be set where foreign direct investments in neighboring countries regularly outstripped those in the Philippines. (The intermittent coups d’etat post-Marcos did us no favors either.)
All this should correct the common misconception that the country’s troubles stemmed entirely from conjunctural “political factors,” notably that it was caused by ex-Senator Benigno “Ninoy” S. Aquino, Jr.’s assassination. One might not even entirely blame the mere fact of authoritarianism itself — after all Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia at the time were also ruled by despots of some sort or other, yet suffered no crisis. Rather the Philippine debacle was linked to the misguided policies that were structurally linked and specific to Marcos-style authoritarianism. For all its technocratic rhetoric and rationale, the Marcos regime never took economic reform, liberalization, and export-oriented industrialization seriously; it remained a heavily protectionist and preferential regime (think the cronies and the failed major industrial projects). The availability of easy loans was well suited to the priorities of a regime that thought it could stoke growth without deep reform and slake the greed of Marcos and his cronies at the same time. In the end a corrupt regime fell victim to its own hubris.
First, Marcos was focused on protectionism over free trade. Second, Marcos wasn't getting foreign investments, only foreign debt. Some people still believe that foreign investment is foreign debt (read rebuttal here)! Come on, a business dictionary will tell the differences. Debt is borrowing money. Investment is letting someone do business in your country. When a foreigner invests--they owe the country money in the form of taxes! Please, stop being emotional and do some research! Why talk too much about Marcos' human rights record but not talk about how Marcos' debt-driven, protectionist government was also a problem?
People say that the Philippines could've been "another Singapore" if it wasn't for Marcos. However, reading through From Third World to First--the late Lee Kuan Yew visited other countries economically poorer than post-Marcos Years. China was left poorer and Madame Mao was worse than Imelda Romualdez-Marcos. Vietnam was hit by the infamous Vietnam War. However, both countries became richer than the Philippines. Mao was worse than Marocs. The Vietnamese Communist party that LKY met was probably worse than the CPP-NPA. To say that foreign investments flew to Vietnam because of the absence of a certain family name is stupid. Vietnam is still a dictatorial government evidenced by the one-party state rule. Before, Vietnamese came to the Philippines in boats during the Vietnam War. Some Vietnamese even intermarried with the Filipinos of different ethnicities. For example, Atty. Antonio Carpio, who's now pro-economic reform, is married to a Vietnamese woman who was naturalized as a Filipino citizen.
Economist Andrew James Masigan states the following from the Philippine Star:
I would never undervalue the 1987 Constitution. It dismantled the legal framework of a repressive regime and established the democratic institutions we enjoy today. For this, I am grateful.
The 1987 Constitution was crafted with the best of intentions. It sought to put the Filipino first in all aspects of governance and to level the playing field amongst sectors and peoples. But it is far from perfect. It failed to consider the importance of foreign capital and technologies and the stiff competition we would have to face to obtain them. In short, its economic provisions were short-sighted.
So despite the Constitution’s patriotic bravado, reserving certain industries exclusively for Filipinos (or a Filipino majority) worked to our peril. It deprived the nation of valuable foreign investments, technology transfers, tax revenues, export earnings and jobs.
The Constitution’s restrictive economic provisions stunted our development for 36 years. From 1987 to the close of the century, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand leapfrogged in development on the back of a deluge of foreign direct investments (FDIs). During that period, the Philippines’ share of regional FDIs lagged at a pitiful 3 percent in good years and 2 percent in normal years.
From the year 2000 up to the present, Vietnam and Indonesia took their fair share of FDIs, leaving the Philippines further behind. The country’s intake of foreign investments is less than half of what Vietnam and Indonesia realize. No surprise, our exports have also been the lowest among our peers. The lack of investments in manufacturing capacities have left us no choice but to export our own people.
Imbedded in the Constitution are industries in which foreigners are precluded. These include agriculture, public utilities, transportation, retail, construction, media, education, among others. Further, the Constitution limits foreigners from owning more than 40 percent equity in corporations. Foreigners are barred from owning land too. These provisions caused us to lose out on many investments which would have generated jobs, exports and taxes. Not too long ago, we lost a multibillion-dollar investment from an American auto manufacturing company that chose to invest in Thailand instead. We lost a multi-billion smartphone plant by Samsung, who located in Vietnam.
Sure, the Public Service, Foreign Investment and Trade Liberalization Acts were recently amended, allowing foreigners to participate in a wider berth of industries with less rigid conditions. But it is still not enough. The Philippines remains the least preferred investment destination among our peers.
Our flawed economic laws are the reason why our agricultural sector has not industrialized and why food security eludes us. It is also why our manufacturing sector has not fully developed. It is why we lost the opportunity to be Asia’s entertainment capital despite our Americanized culture (Netflix located its Asian headquarters in Singapore, Disney in Malaysia, MTV in Hong Kong and Paramount Studios in Taiwan). It is why our education standards are among the lowest in the world. It is why many industries are oligopolies owned by only a handful of families.
As for the form of government, I am willing to give the federal system a chance. Let’s face it, the current presidential system fails to provide the checks and balances for which it was intended. Senators and congressmen still vote according to party lines, albeit in a much slower legislative process. So yes, I am willing to try a new form of government because 36 years of insisting on a flawed system is insanity.
The world has changed since 1987. Our Constitution must keep up with these changes if we are to be competitive. This is why I support Charter change, except in the extension of term limits of public officials.
That means while Marcos did his own fair share of damage--it's stupid to blame it on him solely for problems caused after he was overthrown. It's because the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines failed to account for economics. Even worse, some people treat the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines like it's some "sacred document" that nothing must be altered--never mind Article XVII! Never mind that even the late Maria Corazon C. Aquino stated the following:
You must define and protect our individual freedoms and rights; you must decide how our different institutions of state will relate to each other. Do not be distracted by political debates and matters of policy that do not belong within your constitution-making exercise. You are here appointed, by the people’s wish, to write a constitution; you are not here as elected politicians.
Bear in mind that you shall be pondering, debating and writing a constitution not only for our contemporaries with their present concerns, but also for succeeding generations of Filipinos whose first concerns we cannot presume to know beforehand. Future Filipinos must always be free to decide how to address these concerns as they arise. Even the wisest cures for present maladies should not be imposed on succeeding generations that will have their own unique problems and priorities.
True and long-lived constitutions, a wise justice has told me, should be broad enough to be able to meet every exigency we cannot foretell and specific enough to stoutly protect the essentials of a true democracy; in short, open-ended documents that will always be relevant. Remember that constitutional changes are not safe or easy to come by. Our first attempt at constitutional revision was followed by a dictatorship. And this, our second endeavor, was preceded by a revolution.
Future Filipinos and their legislatures and Supreme Courts can best assess and address the challenges they will meet if they enjoy the widest latitude of thought and action. In writing a constitution have the fullest confidence that the wisdom of our race is exhausted in us. Our race has grown in wisdom over time. I believe it will continue to do so.
Yours is indeed no easy task. On the other hand, depending on the result, yours will be no small glory. Our people have suffered much.
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines has its pros but it's also got its cons. It may not be the worst constitution in the world but it's certainly not the best. In short, there's always room for improvement. Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. is plain stubborn, probably taking too much pride in the past rather than focusing on the present. That kind of attitude can explain why some cum laudes haven't done anything with their lives. Of course, there are some cum laudes who have done something with their lives, even if they're not famous figures. That's why when Rep. Raoul Abellar Manuel said "I'm a cum laude!" in an argument--I'd say, "So what? Cum laude doesn't always mean you're already right!"
Germany didn't just focus on remembering what the Nazi Regime did. When Germany was divided, the Berlin Wall was broken. Germany could've chosen to keep moping over what Hitler did. True, we have memorial shrines for Holocaust victims. However, that's not what made Germany progress. Germany's better economic policies aren't protectionist. Meanwhile, some people are still too focused on what Marcos did than fixing what Marcos did. If we're to demand the Marcoses to fix the damage their father did (especially now Bongbong is president), is that enough? Let's say that the Marcos Wealth is fully recovered--will that create employment for Filipinos?
The framers should've focused on learning from the richer ASEAN neighbors. Instead, they still focused on the lousy Filipino First Policy by Carlos P. Garcia. I feel it's just and fair that Garcia is buried next near to Marcos. Both of them are heroes of the lousy Filipino First Policy. Marcos has been too dead to do anything to cause the Philippines distress. The Philippines could've followed LKY's advice on easing economic restrictions. Why wasn't it done to the fullest? Economic restriction policies should only be in legislation and not in the constitution. Even an annoying old man I butt heads with on Facebook believes that Article XII needs to be deleted entirely! My only real big beef with that old man is that he doesn't see the major differences between presidential and parliamentary or federal and unitary!
The martial law victims are growing old and some have already died. Bongbong is now 67 years old. It's already 2024 and Marcos has been dead for for decades. That means Marcos is too dead to do anything to cause the current economic problems. How can a dead man still cause problems like low employment, inflation, and the like? Economic policies to encourage employment (such as allowing FDIs to own 100% of their shares) would create much more money than the amount Marcos brought with him during exile. Sure, I believe that Marcos Wealth needs to be recovered. However, recovering it is never enough to bring significant boost to the Philippines!