I rewatched the Jose Rizal (1998) film on Netflix, because it's Buwan Ng Wika or Month of the Language. However, it's become more of National History Month instead. Back then, I remember the image of a fat priest known as Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda. I Googled his name and exclaimed, "Socrates Villegas, is that you?" Although Villegas no longer sits as the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines as its president, one may not be able to deny how the CBCP still runs with Padre Damaso-style economics. Padre Damaso was often pictured in Noli Me Tangere as a person who is overly resistant to change. Damaso was known to be overly close-minded, evidenced by talking too much. In fact, Damaso also turned out to be Maria Clara's biological father, as Captain Tiago was actually sterile, for some reason.
Sure, the Spanish colonization days are over. Now, Chinese Filipinos can enter and exit Intramuros without facing discrimination legally. Chinese Filipinos and Spanish Filipinos can now get together, have a chat, or even marry each other. I could enjoy Spanish food, and the Spanish Filipinos can enjoy Chinese food. The Sangley Rebellion is a lesson to be learned, not a tragedy to hold on to. Despite the end of the Spanish colonization, we still need Jose Rizals to speak against the stupidities of today. If Rizal were living in this era, he might have addressed the CBCP for upholding the Damaso School of Business and Economics!
Exploring pastoral letters and statements that endorse the Damaso School of Business and Economics
In 2015, Villegas showed marks that made him comparable to Nozaleda. Nozaleda was notable for his involvement in Jose Rizal's persecution. Rizal was critical of the practices of his day. It's crazy how Rizal, a man who fought peacefully, was sentenced to die a violent death. Rizal didn't even make Simoun the hero of El Filibusterismo, because he didn't want bloody revolutions. Rizal could've rewritten El Filibusterismo, but chose to write Mi Último Adiós instead. Rizal was an advocate for peaceful reforms, to give the Indios fair treatment, as much as the Spaniards born in the Philippines. That was a stepping stone towards calling every person who is a citizen of the Philippines, a Filipino.
No to ‘exploitation of resources’
In his pastoral statement, Villegas also pointed out that the framers of the 1987 Constitution limited foreigner ownership of land and businesses to promote social justice. They meant to preserve “the wealth and resources of the country for our countrymen.”
“Rightly, we have always steered away from the prospect of foreigners enriching themselves by the country’s resources and our labor force, transferring their earnings overseas, and leaving us none the better because of their presence and their exploitation of our resources, both natural and human! This should remain a paramount principle,” Villegas wrote.
Still, he noted that, according to observers, “limiting foreign control of some corporations,” such as banks and media, “has been counterproductive.”
He said, “It is claimed that we have so many resources that remain untapped – beneficial to none – because local capital is just woefully insufficient for capital-intensive ventures.”
Villegas added that constitutional amendments regarding the Philippines’ form of government “are matters that we, your bishops, leave to politicians and to their discernment.”
On the other hand, proposed amendments to economic provisions “bear directly on issues of social justice,” which the Catholic Church “has always considered…an area of her competence and solicitude.”
Villegas was referring to the Catholic Church’s rich collection of encyclicals, or letters from popes through the years, about workers’ rights and social justice.
One of these encyclicals, Rerum Novarum, issued in May 1891, tackles the “rights and duties of capital and labor.” – Rappler.com
It's one thing for CBCP to condemn things like the condemnation of innocent people, going against abortion (because by all means, the fetus is a living organism), or to go against the SJW movement. However, the CBCP has a mentality similar to Damaso. What Villegas just said about FDI is utterly ignorant. Sure, exploitation is a real issue. However, allowing MNCs to own beyond the 60-40 ownership arrangement doesn't automatically guarantee exploitation. Hasn't Villegas even understood what profits mean? Come on, he doesn't need a PhD in business or economics to understand that! Don't tell me that Villegas couldn't at least learn that from businessmen attending masses with him?
The CBCP News later had Bishop Broderick Pabillo also write this wrong understanding of economics:
Is this happening now in the present dominant economic system in the country and in much of the world? No! The government gives more concessions to draw in capital, especially foreign capital (the so-called Foreign Direct Investment), to set up businesses in the country, and many times at the expense of the local laborers. Thus, to entice capitalists, the wages are kept low, the rights of workers to self-organize are curtailed, humane conditions of work are weakly enforced, and the security of tenure of workers are denied them. The reason why millions of workers are not regularized in their work is that the capitalists do not want to give the benefits due to regular workers such as sick leave, vacation leave, eventual retirement pension and the like. But more especially, they do not like the workers to organize themselves into labor unions for mutual protection and to demand what is due to them. This present system of favoring the rich over the poor, the few over the many, and often, the foreigners over the local people, is unjust and not humane. It will not bring about peace and well-being in the country.
Has Pabillo ever heard that the government can allow FDI while putting certain reasonable restrictions? For example, an MNC can have 100% share ownership while setting up rules such as fair compensation, fair competition, and stiff penalties for exploitation in the name of profits. Profits aren't evil per se, but it's the focus on profits alone that makes it evil. Profits aren't unpaid wages but profits based on unpaid wages are the issue.
Which should be funnier when a pastoral letter by the CBCP, while it addresses the OFW problem, I still have to question this:
A Question of Development Models?
Economic recovery will be slow and more painful than is yet popularly perceived. Not only is this a currency and banking crisis or a property bubble that must be weathered. More profoundly, the present economic situation, replicated in many other parts of Asia, has raised serious questions about the viability of development models. Already in 1995 questions were raised in Malaysia about a so-called “Asian” development model that has as core elements high economic growth sustained indefinitely, managed and/or guided by omnipresent government officials, financed by foreign debt and implemented by cheap labor. Moreover, Westerners denounced “Asian” values that they associate today with crony capitalism, widespread corruption, banking irregularities, and lack of transparency.
On the other hand, the dominant “Western” model emphasizes free trade and encourages competition, especially under the umbrella of globalization. The idea is to produce higher and better quality returns than one’s competitors, to be open to foreign investments, protect property rights, liberalize regulations, privatize government business corporations and have minimal government intervention. Unfortunately, those countries that had rushed to embrace this model have suffered most in the crisis.
Yet it is clear that the best examples of the Asian model, Hong Kong and Singapore, topped the world in the 1997 Index of Economic Freedom by the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street. There is indeed an “East Asian miracle” which got the “basics” right. These include low inflation, high levels of domestic saving, heavy investment in education and openness to foreign technology. Experts tell us that East Asian economies have been mixing the formula of Asian values and market capitalism and have been reaping considerable success.
Still, many economists claim that development models be they Western or Asian, with their variants and combinations, tend to produce the same inequality of income, growth disproportionately against the poor, persistence of poverty and increased possibilities of social conflict. “Trickle down economics”, another name for “growth economics” inevitably creates inequality of income and wealth. We have yet to see a version of what some economists call “trickle up economics” where the fruits of economic growth are universally and equally shared. In the final analysis present development models are based on a vision of society that remains materialistic if not consumerist.
They address income inequality, but do they see it persist more in the Philippines? For one, are they insinuating that Filipinos should listen to Hilario G. Davide Jr. in contrast to the other powerful grandfathers, such as Mahathir Mohamad (read here) and Kishore Mahbubani (read here). If one must think about it, Mahathir was the architect of the Malaysian rise. Mahathir was also one who helped navigate Malaysia during the Asian Financial Crisis. The Philippines may not be in the same room as Venezuela. However, Filipinos should never wait until the Philippines becomes like Venezuela!
I wonder who the economists are that the CBCP is citing? Can they at least cite one? If all they're naming are people from the IBON Foundation, I have to question their credibility. IBON has been citing one statement after the other that goes against even basic economics. If it's beyond IBON Foundation, it might also be quoting economists from the Philippines, who also espouse economic protectionism. For example, they may be quoting from snobs who graduated from the most prestigious universities in the Philippines.
Statements like this from the IBON Foundation all over again? Some people may attack me because I'm just using Blogspot. Again, my blog isn't meant to be an academic source. However, it doesn't mean that I couldn't use Blogspot to write on the Internet! I have more access to what Rizal never had during his day and time! Rizal probably struggled to get his ideas across. Today, these ideas could spread like wildfire. That's why the CBCP has what I call their selective campaign against fake news. Fake news is fake news when it disagrees with them. Fake news is fake news if it disagrees with them. Truth: Fake news is fake news, whether it agrees with the CBCP or not!
In turn, you've got Filipino Catholics who believe that FDI will "ruin the spirit of the nation"
Such people might remind me of the people in Noli Me Tangere and in Rizal's day. Some people got so used to their oppression that they grew comfortable in it. Some Filipinos have the wrong idea of resilience, something that the CBCP may be promoting (read here). The CBCP are pretty much like the friars of Rizal's day, too. For one, since when did constitutional amendments automatically mean certain stuff the CBCP is against (such as same-sex unions and abortion) automatically become part of the constitution? Some countries are open to FDI but are also against what the CBCP is against. It's all about selective change. That is if changing for the better, not for the worse.