My first post at RP 2010

I recently joined in RP2010: The Election Watchblog. It is the brainchild of Oliver "Blogie" Robillo, convenor of Mindanao Bloggers community. RP2010 is a collective work of bloggers that:

endeavors to be the poll watchdog for the Philippine Presidential Elections in the year 2010...

My first post there was about Davao City politics of course, arguing that, however faulty the logic seems to be for choosing Inday Sara, Davaoeños can still opt for her. That is, if one condition is met---the condition being if the mayoralty race would be a tossup between Inday Sara and Speaker Nograles.

Nograles should heed the 'blinking red lights'

Per Speaker Nograles' logic, the only way to attract foreign investors is to change the restrictive economic provision of the Constitution---a move that obviously calls for Charter Change.

But these are no halcyon days on the economic front. The world is suffering from a global financial meltdown. And experts say, the more exposed a country's economy is to "international capital flows", the more likely it will be affected by crisis that is gripping the world.

"As globalization spread in recent decades, the pace of world economic growth picked up. Open economies, it turns out, can grow faster than closed ones," New York Times noted. "But now, as the financial crisis has turned to an economic one, it appears that those running a closed economy may be in better shape to weather the storm."

The Times added: "Kenneth S. Rogoff, the Harvard economist, noted at the International Monetary Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week that India, which has “comparatively stringent restrictions on international capital flows,” also seemed to have the most optimists and seemed to be in line for economic growth in a year when few countries are.

“Thank heavens for the strong regulatory framework we have in our financial system,” he quoted one Indian corporate executive as saying."


Lest his cure might prove to be worse than the disease, Speaker Nograles should heed the "blinking red lights," as Mr. Rogoff put it.

Inday Sara: Not the best choice, but the only choice

If the 2010 mayoralty race will be a tossup between incumbent Vice Mayor Inday Sara and Speaker Prospero Nograles, I will go for Inday Sara.

In election, the rule of thumb is to choose the more experienced over the inexperienced. But it does not apply here. Voting for the inexperienced Inday Sara over the experienced Speaker Nograles may not be the best choice, but it is the only choice.

I've seen how the experienced Speaker Nograles leads the House. It's far from satisfactory. He flounders as a House Speaker, how else will he fare were he to lead this city?

It's not the Constitution, idiots!

[caption id="attachment_228" align="aligncenter" width="324" caption="Proponents of Cha-cha must be cooking something besides further opening up our economy to foreign investors. (www.bulatlat.com)"][/caption]

If we were to believe our venerable Representatives, the only reason they want to change our Constitution is to further open up our market to foreign investors. No more no less. It isn’t a ploy to extend GMA’s or any other incumbent officials’ terms. By opening up our economy, foreign investments will be flooding in.

“I am asking for an economic provision na 60-40 tatanggalin natin dahil ito palagay ko naiiwan tayo ng ibang Asian countries dahil sila open for foreign investment samantalang tayo limited ang foreign investments natin,” Speaker Nograles, the pride of Davao, was reported to have said. Apparently, he’s trying to allay fears that the administration-sponsored Cha-cha is a pretext to further GMA’s hold on power.

What a noble cause!

But the recent Cha-cha moves provide excellent case study of dogs (read: sleazy Representatives) barking up the wrong tree.

Rex C. Drilon II’s exposition (Cha-cha and foreign investment) said it all: The idea that opening up our economy so foreign investments may flow is a wrong notion. Proof of this is that Philippines has neighbors with far more restrictive economies but whose foreign direct investments are far higher than ours:

The Philippines has a neighbor, a non-English speaking, communist country where there is no freedom of speech nor free press, no religious freedoms, no judicial and legal system as we know it, no code of commerce nor code of corporate governance. It received more than $9 billion in foreign direct investments (FDIs) last year. It is a restrictive economy.

The biggest country in the region with similar sociopolitical and economic environment received $60 billion last year in FDI in spite of human rights violations, use of child labor, tainted products and is probably the world’s biggest violator of intellectual property rights. This year, its FDIs are expected to reach $115 billion. It, too, has a restrictive economy.

On the other hand, we who have been christened as the bastion of Christianity in Asia, praised for our Edsas, proficiency in English etc. only received “a little over $2 billion in 2007 and as of October 2008, we are told we are down 58 percent and will be lucky if we get $1 billion.”

So why is Philippines so aloof to foreign investors?

Our venerable Congressmen want us to believe it’s the Constitutional provision that restricts foreign investors from investing. But people like Rex C. Drilon II thought otherwise. “Corruption, uneven playing field, ineffective governance and leadership, changing rules, no sense of urgency for reforms and a negative country image, among others, are the reasons why.”

Can Cha-cha solve them all?