October 6, 2005 · Posted in: Congress Watch, In the News

Senate probes agri fund

THE Senate began this morning its investigation into the disbursement of the P728-million Ginintuang Masaganang Ani (GMA) fund in 2004.

The PCIJ reported late last month on the trail of the fund, supposedly meant for fertilizer and other implements for the country’s farmers, but which found their way to non-government organizations identified as beneficiaries by the proponent congressmen, governors and mayors. Those NGOs are not involved in agriculture and are beyond the jurisdiction of government audit.

The committee on agriculture received the testimonies of Commission on Audit (COA) officials and leaders of farmers’ organizations.

The hearing, which lasted for about two hours, was like a lesson in Auditing 101 for the members of the chamber, as auditors failed to satisfy the lawmakers’ queries about where the money actually went. Some nineteen months after being disbursed, the funds have yet to be fully liquidated.

Tobias Lorenzo, director of COA’s agriculture and environment cluster, told the Senate they have only managed to complete the audit for the GMA funds released to regions 5 and 7. "We are meeting difficulty because some of the money went to NGOs, which are not subject to COA jurisdiction," Tobias said.

"It might take you another two years to finish all of them," Sen. Franklin Drilon told the auditor. "Could you kindly submit to the committee at least those two regions?"

Lorenzo promised to submit the documents pertaining to the two regions in time for the committee’s next hearing.

Danilo Ramos, secretary-general of the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), told the committee that no fertilizer fund ever found its way to the alliance’s 64 chapters nationwide. "Ni isang butil ng abono, hindi kami nakatanggap (We never received even a single fertilizer grain)," Ramos said.

Ramos gave the committee his own lesson in cropping, describing the prohibitive costs of fertilizers and other inputs that push farmers deeper into poverty. "Napakalaking tulong sana nitong abono na dapat sana’y nakuha namin (The fertilizer funds could have helped us a lot)," said Ramos. 

Former Agriculture secretary Luis Lorenzo Jr. was invited to the hearing, according to committee chair Sen. Ramon Magsaysay, Jr., but "begged off and said he had somewhere to go." Former DA finance and administration undersecretary Jocelyn Bolante, also invited to the hearing to explain the fund disbursements, "could not be located," the chair said.

No date has been set for a second hearing.

47 Responses to Senate probes agri fund

Avatar

chac

October 6th, 2005 at 2:53 pm

Alam nyo bang para makautang ng abono, me patong ng 30% sa halaga at kailangan bayaran pagka-ani? Halos lahat ng magsasaka ngayon na walang pambili ng abono ay pilit ng niyayakap ang 30% patong para lang me makain ang pamilya nila at me pera silang matatabi para sa susunod na taniman. Pero pano kung masalanta pa ng bagyo ang pananim at lubog pa sila sa mga utang? Ganyan kahirap ang buhay magsasaka dito sa ating bayan na ninanakawan pa ng sariling gobyerno.

Avatar

tiago

October 6th, 2005 at 2:56 pm

Kung tutuo man ito, this is the root cause of dissent among our farmers. My God, kakapiranggot na nga lamang ang kanilang kinikita, pinagsasamantalahan pa yung para sanang tulong sa kanila. There is no rich country that doesn’t have a sound agritultural fundamentals. Saan na kaya tayo pupulutin…

Avatar

manuelbuencamino

October 7th, 2005 at 12:33 am

“In a nation run by swine, all pigs are upward-mobile and the rest of us are f**ked until we can put our acts together: Not necessarily to Win, but mainly to keep from Losing Completely.” – Hunter S. Thompson, Gonzo Papers, Vol. 1: The Great Shark Hunt: Strange Tales from a Strange Time (1979)

Avatar

bukolitos

October 7th, 2005 at 2:20 am

Hindi ko maintindihan kung bakit may mga budget na ganito ang Department of Agriculture eh hindi naman nila tinutulungan ang mga magsasaka. Matagal akong tumira sa probinsiya pero ni isang kusing ay wala kaming nakuha tulong mula sa gobiyerno. Pamaraan lang iyan ng mga mambabatas para magkamal ng pera. Excise tax para sa mga tobacco farmers kay Chavit napunta. Road users tax para sa kalsada, kay GMA napunta. Abono para sa magsasaka, sa mga congressman napunta. Maawa naman kayo. Linalaspag niyo ang kaban ng bayan pero ang mga maliliit na tao ang nagbabayad. EVAT para sa linaspag ni Gloria.

Avatar

schumey

October 7th, 2005 at 7:30 am

No wonder kulelat tayo in agriculture in our region. From being a major exporter of rice in the 70’s and 80’s, we now have to import rice from other countries. Surely, may kumikita dito. Tons of agricultural produce are dumped here from other countries squeezing out what meager earnings our farmers get. Instead of the government supporting our farmers, ninanakawan pa nila ito. This is treason! Blame GMA for pushing globalization at the expense of our farmers and local manufacturers.

The senate also should investigate why GSIS remitted 1B pesos to the president. These are proceeds from collections from government employees. Don’t you think that GSIS members should be the ones benefiting from this? Is this another bribe so that Winston Garcia will stay as GM of GSIS?

Avatar

koj

October 7th, 2005 at 7:49 am

can’t understand why we are blaming the gov’t for the tons of imported farm produce (meat and vegetables) that we ourselves prefer to buy in groceries and market for being priced lesser than our local produce. except for smuggled goods, i think we have import quotas and trade agreements with other countries to protect our local producers.

kung gusto nating makatulong, magin nationalistic tayo,bilhin natin ang gawang atin kahit mas mahal ng konti (kaso kadalasan laki ng diperensya). pag konti lng bibili ng imported goods (bigas, gulay, karne), babawasan ng importers ang goods na kanilang ipapasok. kaipokritohan kung bibili tayo ng imported goods tapos maninisi tayo.

in my opinion, the additional price we pay from our local produce are factored more to our inefficiencies (in production) and higher labor compared to the countries where we get our imports.

Avatar

assumptionista

October 7th, 2005 at 8:31 am

Imported meat or vegetables are cheaper because of the heavy subsidies their government give to their farmers. That is why I dont agree with globalization, because it tends to kill our local farmers or industry.

We cant compete because our government instead of giving help to the agricultural sector tends to just make it a milking cow. An example of this would be the supposed fertilizer subsidies that did not reach the farmers. But the money definitely reach someones pocket. And the sad thing is that even the COA cannot do anything about it because the funds were transfer to NGO’s (some connected to GMA and company).

Avatar

koj

October 7th, 2005 at 9:14 am

globalization has its own merits and supposedly encourage countries to produce goods based on comparative advantage and thereby promote efficient utilization of world resources. competition reduces if not eliminate complacency from our local producers. gov’t own defects (inefficiencies thur corruption and red tape) further compounds the gap. this isn’t only found in the farming sector.

so i am saying that globalization is not necessarily the evil here. to succeed a concerted effort must be made by all the players: the govt, the financing sector, the producers and consumers.

Avatar

Huseng Bulag

October 7th, 2005 at 10:44 am

Koj, you failed to grasp assumptionista’s point. How can we be competitive to the first-world countries when the prices of their produce which they dump on us are highly subsidized by their governments?

GMA, as a senator, bragged about “safety nets” when she sponsored this globalization bill. If there were indeed such things, they are plainly negligible and ineffective judging by the way our agriculture is currently being gradually destroyed by importations.

The writing on the wall is clear – GMA is going down, down, down, and she’s dragging the whole country down with her.

Avatar

mariatoo

October 7th, 2005 at 10:54 am

sa mga taga pcij, puedeng paki report rin yung sinasabi ng mga empleyado/ralyista sa gsis yung pagbigay ni winston garcia sa malacanang ng 1B savings ng gsis. garcia was quoted that it is up to malacanang/gma to decide on what to do with the money. is that even legal?

Avatar

assumptionista

October 7th, 2005 at 11:20 am

well said Huseng Bulag …………

Avatar

roamee

October 7th, 2005 at 11:27 am

mariatoo.. agree ako jan… dapat ngang pagtuunan natin talaga ng pansin itong si winston garcia… aba eh pera na ng mga naka-empleyo sa gobyerno ang binibigay kay gloria eh.. hanep talaga sa lakas itong si winston.. di pa rin mapatalsik-talsik.. di tulad ni insurance comm. benjie santos, pinalitan agad. ni hindi inimbestigahan ng malacanang…
malamang di nakatulong sa eleksyon nung 2004…
PALPAK talaga si pandak!

Avatar

koj

October 7th, 2005 at 12:41 pm

Huseng Bulag said,
October 7, 2005 @ 10:44 am

Koj, you failed to grasp assumptionista’s point. How can we be competitive to the first-world countries when the prices of their produce which they dump on us are highly subsidized by their governments?
=======
kindly re-read my post (including the one i sent earlier) and re-analyze your comment, maybe you’re the one who missed the point. noticed that i included ‘gov’t inefficiency’ on it…..

i did not address assumptionista’s statement of high subsidy of first world countries to their farmers because it may be partly true only. foreign farmers production methods may be highly efficient which may or may not be the result of high govt subsidy. i am not sure either that the statement is back with facts or just an assumed statement.

besides, local producers are guarded by trade agreements limiting imports to certain amount (could be percentage of total phil reqmts) thereby obliging consumers to partly buy from local produce.

if you are really to help our local farmers, try buying only from local production, those from benguet, bagiuo, laguna, etc. and stop buying imported vegetables and rice, maybe this will reduce the incentives of the importers to import more.

Avatar

tiago

October 7th, 2005 at 2:09 pm

Guys;
It is true that foreign governments are subsidizing a lot of agricultural products in one form or the other. It is also true that we may be experiencing dumping of these products due, perhaps to overproduction, from wherever country they come. But then again, our government should make sure that a certain amount of safety factor is built in our policies in order to protect our farmers. Not only the farmers but also our factories as well as. What do our Anti-dumping laws says. Do we have an anti-dumping law? You see, guys, “Globalization” is another word for “go eat the smaller ones”.

Avatar

indio_lawless

October 7th, 2005 at 2:18 pm

Hi there tiago :

You asked “Do we have an anti-dumping law? ”

My unsolicited response : Yes, We have. Check RA8752 at this link : http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno8752.htm

Avatar

baycas

October 7th, 2005 at 4:05 pm

i doubt there’ll be a 2nd hearing…

cito lorenzo, “iwas kaso na.”

joc-joc bolante, “nag-a la garci na.”

Avatar

Toro

October 7th, 2005 at 5:42 pm

Assumptionista, let me just say that trade globalization means survival of the fittest economies. Liike it or not globalization is here to stay . It is powered by strong economies of nations, not necessarily subsidized by government. It is simply that their economies are super efficient and overpowering like the EEC, and even China, that they turn out cheap products in great volume for export (read that dumping). No fast rules to fight this off. Either you join the WTO and get some concessions so you don’t get swamped with cheap products or you stay out but isolate yourself from the global trade.

Avatar

dimasalang

October 7th, 2005 at 6:11 pm

Toro,

If its the survival of the fittest economies, then what will happen to those economies that will fall? and to the people living in those economies? will we just let them die of starvation?

Avatar

penpenpen88

October 8th, 2005 at 12:02 am

Imported meat or vegetables are cheaper because of the heavy subsidies their government give to their farmers. That is why I dont agree with globalization, because it tends to kill our local farmers or industry. by assumptionista

— i agree.. e sinu ba yung nag accelerate ng entry natin sa wto.. e di ba si tabako?? wlang logic din yun.. di muna pinalakas yung local industries natin bago binaba yung mga tariffs.. e talagang magiging dumping ground tayo ng cheap agri products ng ibang bansa.. e tayo lang naman dito sa pinas na imbis na tinutulungan yung legitimong mga mangagawa, magsasaka at mga negosyante eh ginigipit pa ng gobyerno sa pamamagitan ng kakulangan sa inprastruktura, makinarya, talento.. eh yung binhi nalang ginamit pa sa eleksyon eh.. tama ba yun?? tapos mga mayayamang politico negosyante nakikinabang dahil sa koneksyon nila sa malacanang walang imik… baka maudlot yung mga racket nila. mga smugglers kaliwat kanan pinapatay ang ating manufacturing sector.. kaya mga factories nagsasara.. tama ba yun??

Avatar

schumey

October 8th, 2005 at 3:01 am

If I remember right, si Pandak ang pasimuno sa entry natin sa globalization. The problem is that we did not have a strong economic base before we entered. Thailand and Malaysia delayed their entry into the WTO and developed first their economic bases and their trade mission did not just give in to what WTO imposed upon them. They were even accused of protectionism.

Yes, farmers and manufacturers from other countries are given incentives and subsidies by their governments. If globalization is so good, how come every WTO summit is met with enormous demonstrations. And these demos are violent. Globalization is only good for developed economies. And yes, they tend to eat up the smaller countries.

Avatar

tiago

October 8th, 2005 at 3:31 am

Thanks Indio_lawless; this would be one of those fine reading….

Avatar

assumptionista

October 8th, 2005 at 5:43 am

toro,

dont get me wrong, in theory globalization is wonderful. Supposedly small countries will have a chance to compete with rich ones and sell their products in the global market.

But as I said “IN THEORY”,

Avatar

assumptionista

October 8th, 2005 at 5:56 am

IN REALITY THERE IS NO COMPETITION, what the big nation like theUS, or even china does is that they “DUMP” their products into our market, thus destroying local industries.
I would agree wit both penpenpen88 and schumey, its basically the wrong policy of GMA and Ramos (wala na talgang ginawang magaling itong dlawa)that got us into this mess. They were so bent on impressing the americans that they forgot to put safeguards.
And of course another issue is that the BIG COUNTRIES still have their SUBSIDIES and grants to their own industries,How can we compete with that !

Globalization was not really meant for the small countries like the philippines, it was really designed for the more INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES, SO THEY CAN HAVE MORE CONTROL, MORE PROFIT, AND SO THAT WE WILL BECOME MORE DEPENDENT ON THEM!!

Avatar

Toro

October 8th, 2005 at 7:15 am

All the commentaries are valid. Globallization opens the door towards global trade liberalization. Everyone is supposed to have access and benefit from cheap goods, as Assumptionista said, in theory, but on the ground the reality is that the weaker and smaller economies are helpless to fight off the onslaught of cheap goods as they become the dumping grounds of the powerful economies. This is the reasosn why we see violent protests everywhere the WTO holds its meetings because it’s really difficult to fight the big guys if the smaller guys are not properly equipped. As most weak economies depend on their exports for the badly needed foreign exchange they have no choice but to get some concessions from other nations through the WTO to be sure they can access their markets.

I have often wondered what if the second and third world countries put up a united front, and they outnumber the first world countries, and it is a fact that most of the world’s resources are in the hands of these small countries, just as it is a fact that the new frontier in trade and industrialization is now in the East (as it has already began in China and India, the West appears to have hit the limit), and these small countries united as one put a strong stand at the WTO, I believe we can see some acceptable concessions yet. I would like to see China and India to take the lead, but even this seems like only a pipe dream. Their economies never had it so good so why create a ripple in the water that could grow to a big wave and sink their boats in the end? I really wonder.

Avatar

jr_lad

October 8th, 2005 at 4:53 pm

I believe Globalization favors the rich nations only. it will destroy the economies of the poor nations. Simply because the rich nations have all the modern technologies compared with the poor nations.

i also wondered why not asia stand on its own against the west. for sure we will survive since we have all the resources. asian countries can trade with each other and survive. maybe start w/ creating one currency just like in europe. then do a radical move of boycotting and stop paying IMF/world bank. ginagawang gatasan ng mga mayayamang bansa ang mga mahihirap na bansa through this institution. parang hindi rin nawala ang kolonialismo. ginawang in guise of the world bank. enticing small and poor nations to borrow money hanggang sa mabaon sa utang dahil sa big interest just like what is happening in africa. in the phils. kalahati na ata ng budget for the whole year napupunta lang sa bayad utang sa labas at interest pa lang yun. iba ang nakikinabang sa kinikita ng bansa while ang mga mamamayan ay naghihirap. etong e-vat at ibang mga austerity measures na sinasabi dikta lahat ng imf. in truth hawak sa leeg ng imf/world bank ang mga mahihirap na bansa.

Avatar

benign0

October 8th, 2005 at 6:40 pm

The reason globalisation severely impacts the Pinoy economy is because we are inherently uncompetitive in the first place. Arguably, the purpose of globalisation is to even the playing field. That we fail to thrive under a free-trade regime simply highlights the fact that we are not good at playing in level playing fields.

Why?

Simple. Pinoys do not have an ethic of wealth creation and PRODUCTIVE industry. Case in point: There is no tagalog word for “EFFICIENCY”.

Check out more on our hopelessness in the game of competitive commerce in this eye-opening expose:

http://www.geocities.com/benign0/agr-disagr/17-savings.html

Happy reading! 😀

Avatar

tiago

October 8th, 2005 at 6:58 pm

To Mr. BenignO;
Masakit yung sinabi mong pinoys are “inherently uncompetitive in the first place”. You of all the bloggers here should know, as i know, writing away from home, if i’m not mistaken, that pinoys basically excel in the foreign land. There are really those that we may call “walang pag-asa” but then again this is normal to any country.
Para sa akin, what the Philippines need is an industry that support the industry. If we could just go over the notion of consumer production being the key to industrialization, instead of creating machines that make machines, i think we will be there.
What i want to see from our government is geniune concern to the plight of our ailing factories and stronger policies (not programs) for the welfare of our farmlands and farmers. Unfortunately, this administration is more interested in center piece projects that does not put value to the economy. Very sad…

Avatar

Toro

October 9th, 2005 at 5:59 am

Benigno, you are correct to say that globalization has an adverse impact on the Pinoy economy, but it is totally incorrect to say that Pinoys are “nherently” uncompetitive. That’s a sweeping statement which you have no basis to say. That is a falsity, a figment of your imagination and you know that. Disabuse your mind from thinking so lowly about the Filipino’s capability.

You compare Filipinos excelling in foreign land, as you have obviously done yourself, against the inability of the country to excell in industrial development. You are talking of two different things totally unrelated to each other. If you are successful it is because you found a good paying job that enabled you to afford the comforts in your new found life. Did you need capital to get that job? No you did not. Did you need to build infrastructures, roads and bridges from farm to market place, new technology, machines that extract resources from the mountains and fields, create business that will give employment to millions so they don’t have to find jobs abroad? No, I did not think you did. All you needed was your brain to get a good job. The nation needed much more than brains, we have plenty of that, and it boils down to just one word: CAPITAL. That’s all it needed to build a strong economy and your sadness over the economic plight of the nation will go away. Trust me.

Avatar

benign0

October 9th, 2005 at 9:53 am

Pinoys do excel overseas and while working in multinational companies because foreign societies and MNC’s create environments that are CONDUCIVE to EXCELLENCE. We on the other hand hardly ever create institutions, businesses, and organisations that DEMAND and ENCOURAGE excellence. Our very society itself is a PWEDE NA YAN and a BAHALA NA society. Small wonder that we are as mediocre a society as we are today.

When I said that Pinoys are inherently uncompetitive, I meant that in a COLLECTIVE sense — that Pinoy society (i.e. a society created by FILIPINOS) cannot provide an environment that encourages COMPETITIVENESS and EFFICIENCY.

And as for CAPITAL, well, I make a point that we are hopeless at creating capital INDIGENOUSLY and therefore are pathetically reliant on foreign investment, aid, and remittance from our overseas workers.

Whenever CAPITAL is received in the form of foreign investment and aid, it comes with strings attached — which is why we are forever stomping our feet and whining about how foreign “imperialists” are milking the nation dry. If we don’t want those attached strings that come with the dole outs, then we need to learn how to create capital INDIGENOUSLY, this means using our brains, dancing less to the tune dished out by politicians (and looking like fools in the process), and focusing on MAKING money rather than ASKING for it.

It goes to the very fabric of our identity as a society, which is why the SOLUTION I articulate here…

http://www.getrealphilippines.com/solution/framework.html

…is designed to address FUNDAMENTAL issues about our character.

Try also checking out our slideshow where I explain the above concepts in a simpler and more visual format (you can also download a PDF version of this slide show):

http://www.geocities.com/benign0/aboutus.html

Happy viewing! 😉

Avatar

Jojie

October 9th, 2005 at 11:05 am

I agree with you, Toro. In specific, we do not seem to have a framework for capitalizing on new business ideas generated by young people. If I had a great idea for a new widget, for example, I would need to talk to an Ayala or a Lopez in order to get venture capital. And if I do, they get all of the equity, while I’ll probably become the head of R&D or something. I would not be able to find a venture capitalist willing to finance me, unless I go to the US or something.

Most rich people here are more interested in capitilizing relatively low risk ventures such as trade and/or real estate, and not innovations in technology and industry.

Avatar

Jojie

October 9th, 2005 at 11:11 am

Benign0, you want to posit something as grand as that, you would have to change the whole Philippine society. Makes me remember this true story about the guy who invented a swimming pool that cleans itself — someone told him it’s not markettable since you’d have to change swimming pools everywhere. So, he made this compound that cleans swimming pools instead.

Maybe it’s better if you posit something less grand, since maybe you only need to change a small part of Philippine society to make it right.

Avatar

Toro

October 9th, 2005 at 4:35 pm

Benigno, your statement that “Pinoy society cannot provide an environment that encourages competitiveness and efficiency” is a fallacy. Did you ask yourself why the foreign societies and MNCs you are talking about have been able to create, as you delicately put it, “environments conducive to excellence” and we cannot? Are you not putting the cart before the horse? Did you think these MNCs and foreign societies you speak of just woke up one morning and discovered their economies are highly developed making their environment conducive enough for excellence? Did you bother to think that in all likelihood they were in the same economic predicament as we are today when they started before they found the means to develop their economies that qualified them to become a first world country? It’s ludicrous to compare us against first world countries.

You speak of creating capital “indigenously” with so much ease. I presume to develop industries and build infrastructures, etc? With what? I’m not sure if you’re reading the correct economic books. You seem to be a wide reader so perhaps you can go and find out how much foreign capital infusion went into China to make it a fearsome economic giant it is today.

You confuse yourself with the meaning of foreign investment and foreign aid. And what’s pathetic about foreign investment? That’s plain business, my friend, where both sides take some degree of risk and get their moneys worth for their trouble. Foreign aid means exactly that, aid, and as beggars cannot be choosers, don’t complain if there are strings attached. What do you expect, feebies for nothing?

Avatar

lokalokang matino

October 10th, 2005 at 12:53 am

Its very clear GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO had taken the NATIONAL TREASURY into her PERSONAL PURSE. Insuring the good life for her children and her grand childrens’ children. Nakaka-suka! No wonder, Luli Arroyo does not need a job, her mother can provide her needs beyond life. Remember Mikey Arroyo? Yesterday he’s worth nothing, naidlip lang tayo ng sandali pag-gising natin naging multi-mllionaire na. How will GMA be remembered by her grand children? a CHEATER? A THIEF? A LIAR? Nakakahiya!!!, Kawawang mga apo, ngayon pa man may bahid na ang mga kinabukasan !!! Am just amaze, why some people find comfort being seen, pictured with this CHEAT,LIAR AND THIEF, tanong ko tuloy, Baka sila rin.

Avatar

benign0

October 10th, 2005 at 7:57 am

Mr. Toro,
The Philippines can hardly be considered to be a country that ‘just woke up’. It is a 200-year old society and a 60-year old nation. Singapore went from 3rd to 1st world in far less time. Why couldn’t we? Yes, Singapore used to be in our position. The difference is that they BUILT whilst we, on the other hand, SQUANDERED.

You don’t have to view the idea of “indigenous capital creation” from your grandiose macro-economic perspective. You only have to see our dysfunction in light of this using a simple example — the Jeepney. How come a 60-year-old technology like the jeepney has not progressed from its PWEDE NA YAN beginning back in the mid-40’s? For 60 years, the technology remained stagnant (and its value as a piece of intellectual capital has remained stunted). Meanwhile, what were once little mom-and-pop bicycle and electrical appliance makers in Korea and Taiwan are now world-class manufacturers of transport equipment, machinery, and precision hi-tech devices. More importantly, these same businesses now own among the highest-equity brands and trademarks in the world today.

Compare that to the Jeepney — once trumpeted (read: BRANDED) as a symbol of “Filipino ingenuity”. Today it is a poignant relic of the past and a symbol of the backwardness and mediocrity of the Philippines).

No confusion between investment and aid, dude, from the perspective of a bankrupt society like the Philippins. Foreign investment and aid are no different to a beggar. Just like money to spend on rehab is no different from dole-out money in the eyes of a drug addict (if he had it his way, he’d spend money regardless of its source on drugs).

They are only different if the host/receiving society is an astute and sophisticated seller and provider of its resources and manpower. Unfortunately the Philippines is neither (it is a BEGGAR). It has prostituted the wellbeing of its workers, taxation regime, and environment on the altar of “foreign investment”. Its tax-free zones and industrial parks host nothing more than LABOUR-added-value ASSEMBLY operations. Assembly is no problem with a emerging economies like Vietnam and Bangladesh. But we are supposed to be in the league of Malaysia and Singapore now where productivity and added value in their respective economies go beyond the sweat and muscle.

Shall I, in the words of this Jojie, dude “posit” something “less grand”. Any schmoe can do that. Here’s an example of a “less grand” solution: EDSA REVOLUTION. 😀

Avatar

Toro

October 10th, 2005 at 1:45 pm

Benigno, I have much to say in reply to your last posting but I have changed my mind.

I will be the first to admit that the country is in a hell of economic adversity, but unlike you, I will never refer to it as a bankrupt society. Financial bankruptcy yes, but not the society. Your regard for the country, as I have read in your various postings, is so low and demeaning, not in the class of what you call the “astute and sophisticated,” that you relegated it to the level of a beggar. And you had to put that word in caps yet to stress what? The strong contempt you have for it. That is totally unfair and uncalled for. That statement is bloated with prejudice and I am beginning to wonder if you are really a Filipino to have said that. You have just indicted an entire people whose only mistake was in choosing the wrong leaders. I have so much to say to rebut you but under the circumstances I do not think you are worth my time. If you say you didn’t mean it, then your problem is shooting off with your big mouth. Why don’t you take a long walk on a short pier and bring down with you your “brainy” comments?
I really don’t think you belong here.

Avatar

indio_lawless

October 10th, 2005 at 2:44 pm

Well said,Toro, Sir :)

Avatar

benign0

October 11th, 2005 at 8:14 am

Mr. Toro, suit yourself. 😉

Avatar

agol_78

October 11th, 2005 at 10:57 am

benign0 ta3

Avatar

schumey

October 14th, 2005 at 5:57 pm

We must all bear in mind that our country was never really envisioned by our conquerors to be nothing else but a country of slaves. Its only in our very recent history that we were granted autonomy but not full freedom. Unless our leaders start thinking of how we can improve our country and deviate with the way the world powers think, our country will be forever be in this quagmire.

Yes Toro, let’s face it, the world will forever have bigots and know-it-alls
who have nothing else to do but demean and degrade his fellowman. That is why we have despots and dictators who think they are the rulers of the world.

Avatar

m38manila

October 14th, 2005 at 6:54 pm

Interesting exchange of thoughts. I happen to agree with benign0 almost entirely.

Oh the other problem we have, as clearly shown above, is that we find it so difficult to accept criticism. When faced with it we accuse the critic of not being patriotic. What a load of crap.

Avatar

Duck Vader

October 15th, 2005 at 3:01 am

The problem with Benignois is that he uses what he thinks are snappy descriptions, but are in reality not-so-meaningful generalizations, e.g. “bankrupt society.”

We haven’t reached the industrial level of Malaysia or Singapore, and we are comparable to Vietnam and Bangladesh — conclusion, we are a bankrupt society. That’s quite an unscientific statement.

Let’s push it a bit. If we are a bankrupt society, and our level of economic achievement is comparable to Vietnam and Bangladesh, then Vietnam and Bangladesh must too be “bankrupt societies” by his reasoning. Fine logic indeed.

Avatar

Toro

October 15th, 2005 at 6:08 am

m38manila, I can take criticisms anytime, I have no problem with that. But when a critic goes beyond the bounds of civility, spews mistaken conclusions in sweeping and disparaging generalizations with deliberate intent to insult or humiliate, that’s no longer constructive criticism. Have you heard of the word libelous?

You may not find it unpatriotic for Benigno to insult and humiliate his own race, but hell it says a lot about what kind of man you are too. We have a word for that too. Traitor.

Even you cannot distinguish the meaning of crap from constructive criticism. Clearly, by your statement you do not understand the meaning of logic yourself. Go get help from the dictionary. A word learned a day keeps Junior smarter every day.

Avatar

m38manila

October 17th, 2005 at 9:18 pm

You’re a funny guy Toro.

Avatar

baycas

October 21st, 2005 at 3:53 pm

senate nearing to get to joc-joc

‘cause magsaysay is playing no joke…

bolante was sighted at westin (Philippine Plaza)

but the subpoena he is dodgin’!

Avatar

dimasalang

January 3rd, 2006 at 2:05 pm

m38,

your last post says it all…

Avatar

baycas

January 13th, 2006 at 4:31 pm

just read an invite to a wedding…a senator along with the infamous joc-joc are ninongs. will the senator handcuff jocelyn? abangan…

oops, the wedding’s in February pa pala. jing must have arrested the latter by then. sorry, one ninong out…huhuhu…

Avatar

Alecks Pabico

January 13th, 2006 at 4:58 pm

Watch your manners here, people.

Comment Form