. . . is the topic of my latest Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld. Excerpts:
"On the other hand, Confucius goes on to relate, the following are things no leader should do: 'Cruelty — leaving the people in their native ignorance, yet punishing their wrongdoing with death. Oppression — requiring the immediate completion of tasks imposed without previous warning. Ruthlessness — giving vague orders, and then insisting on punctual fulfillment. Peddling husbandry --stinginess in conferring the proper rewards on deserving men.'
Confucius must have worked here in the Philippines. Wannabes usually fall into a similar pattern: the up-at-dawn workout buff, the intense participant and note taker in meetings, the swagger in corridors with the ever-present sheaf of papers, the always-late-for-the-next-meeting demeanor, the propensity to play favorites to sycophants, 'elitista' in the shallow 'sosyal' sense of the word, and the stealing of credit due to others. However, the most common similarity is that wannabes never get anything done or are never known for being good at anything whatsoever, be it in a technical area or some other field. All that activity with nothing to show for it, compounded by high staff turnover, low employee morale, and minimal profits. Obviously, guys like that haven’t read The No-Asshole Rule, or Nudge by Thaler and Sunstein."
12.12.08
5.12.08
Trade disputes: asymmetry and policy mechanism
. . . is the topic of my latest Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld. Excerpts:
"The analogy necessarily made with regard to the settlement of trade disputes rests on certain levels, whether it be on the formative, normative, or substantive sense. The toolbox analogy is commonly employed, particularly when defining the settlement of disputes as an allocation of certain rights between State parties to the dispute.
Nevertheless, the analogy, while presenting in a certain sense the diversity of available mechanisms within which such rights, liabilities, and obligations are to be recognized, all of which it must be considered still fall within the parameters and restrictions laid down by general conceptions of what we consider to be sovereignty in its internal and external sense."
"The analogy necessarily made with regard to the settlement of trade disputes rests on certain levels, whether it be on the formative, normative, or substantive sense. The toolbox analogy is commonly employed, particularly when defining the settlement of disputes as an allocation of certain rights between State parties to the dispute.
Nevertheless, the analogy, while presenting in a certain sense the diversity of available mechanisms within which such rights, liabilities, and obligations are to be recognized, all of which it must be considered still fall within the parameters and restrictions laid down by general conceptions of what we consider to be sovereignty in its internal and external sense."
28.11.08
Cars, plans, and bailouts
. . . is the topic of my latest Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld. Excerpts:
"However, the biggest difficulty I have with the bailout is that it serves as a horrendous justification for underperforming companies in poor countries like the Philippines. If the US auto bailout is given, watch out for our own local industries to ask for their own handouts from an already admittedly cash-starved government. And the problem with any government support here is the lack of monitoring systems involved, i.e., where will the money actually go? This is not the time to transfer taxes paid by poorer Filipinos and put them in the hands of wealthy but mediocre company owners.
The better thing to do is not to save the companies and just let them ride it out on their own. Either they innovate, improve, or go bankrupt. Definitely we have to care for the workers that will be displaced but not the wealthy that have mismanaged and let their companies go uncompetitive."
"However, the biggest difficulty I have with the bailout is that it serves as a horrendous justification for underperforming companies in poor countries like the Philippines. If the US auto bailout is given, watch out for our own local industries to ask for their own handouts from an already admittedly cash-starved government. And the problem with any government support here is the lack of monitoring systems involved, i.e., where will the money actually go? This is not the time to transfer taxes paid by poorer Filipinos and put them in the hands of wealthy but mediocre company owners.
The better thing to do is not to save the companies and just let them ride it out on their own. Either they innovate, improve, or go bankrupt. Definitely we have to care for the workers that will be displaced but not the wealthy that have mismanaged and let their companies go uncompetitive."
7.11.08
Economics and national interest
. . . is the topic of my latest Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld. Excerpt:
"I am a believer in liberalized trade and open economies. I believe in the benefit it brings to our people. I believe that we are a better country because of globalization and trade. However, the DoF actions exemplify exactly how erroneous, how wrong, our participation is in the global economy. For the system to work, no country should play the FOOL and each country should strive to protect its own interests, its own sovereign national interest. Our government’s duty is not to watch out for WTO compliance, that’s the job of other countries. If they say we’re not WTO compliant they have the burden of proving it. Our own government should not be acting as lawyers for other countries (although I must say that the lack of competent international lawyers may also have a hand in the present system or government mentality which obviously needs improving). The other countries, such as the US and France, will not be offended if we do this. In fact they’ll respect us even more because they themselves are always acting for their own country’s interests. Let us care for our own, our fellow Filipinos, because nobody else will."
"I am a believer in liberalized trade and open economies. I believe in the benefit it brings to our people. I believe that we are a better country because of globalization and trade. However, the DoF actions exemplify exactly how erroneous, how wrong, our participation is in the global economy. For the system to work, no country should play the FOOL and each country should strive to protect its own interests, its own sovereign national interest. Our government’s duty is not to watch out for WTO compliance, that’s the job of other countries. If they say we’re not WTO compliant they have the burden of proving it. Our own government should not be acting as lawyers for other countries (although I must say that the lack of competent international lawyers may also have a hand in the present system or government mentality which obviously needs improving). The other countries, such as the US and France, will not be offended if we do this. In fact they’ll respect us even more because they themselves are always acting for their own country’s interests. Let us care for our own, our fellow Filipinos, because nobody else will."
31.10.08
The MOA and of good intentions
. . . is the topic of my latest Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld.
It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In
the Philippines, it’s not only paved, it’s furnished, lighted, and gilded with
it. A good example is the Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain
Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace. It’s unbelievable how such
an agreement could have been entered into by the government, considering its
provisions’ sheer disregard for the interests of the Republic. This article
will not dwell on the Constitutional process aspects of the MOA and instead
focus on the international law issues. Peace is, of course, always something to
be desired but if there is one thing that we Filipinos should know by now is
that peace at any price always ends up costing way too high.
The MOA essentially begins with acknowledgments from the
government of the Bangsamoro rights. Then it goes on to identify the Bangsamoro
as the natives, Muslim or not, of Mindanao, including Palawan and Sulu at the time
of colonization, their descendants, whether mixed or of full blood, and their
spouses. The MOA then designates the territory of the Bangsamoro as the land –
as well as waters, airspace, and atmospheric space – embracing the
Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan geographic region. The Bangsamoro Juridical Entity is
mandated to have jurisdiction over those areas, including “territorial waters”,
as well as the use of resources. Finally, the BJE is free to enter into any
economic cooperation and trade relations with foreign countries, establish
trade missions in other countries, and enter into environmental treaties.
With that, our government almost got away with allowing a group of
people to dismember our Republic and to have another State carved out away from
us. For as the Supreme Court rightly caught on, the government incredibly gave
the MILF all the requisites of a State as provided under the 1933 Montevideo Convention:
people, territory, government, and the capacity to enter into relations with
other States. How anybody could miss this point, specially those negotiating on
behalf of the interests of our Republic, is beyond me.
That this is not accidental is shown
by the fact that our government also conceded to the BJE the application of the
status of “associative State”, which the Supreme Court again (thank God)
rightly caught as being wholly inappropriate because such concept indicates the
existence of an entity that is on its way of being a separate State. A State,
it must be emphasized, that will get portions of OUR territory, OUR resources,
and OUR people.
That this was deliberate is shown from
the fact that our own government insisted in applying the concept of
self-determination to the Moros, contrary to the clear and overwhelming
declaration by international law that ethnic, religious, or cultural groups
have no rights of self-determination. Again, the Supreme Court was quick to
point out this quite obvious fact of which only our government seems oblivious
to.
Granted, there is the UN General Assembly Resolution 61/295 which
allowed indigenous people the right to “internal” self-determination, which is
more limited in scope, allowing merely for their economic, social, and cultural
development (along with a certain degree of autonomy) but a far cry from allowing
them independent status or statehood. It must be emphasized that this
Resolution was signed September of last year, with 143 countries voting in
favor (the Philippines included), and Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the
US against. This is a brazen act of incredible negligence to protect the
interests of our Republic. There were ongoing negotiations at that time with
the Moros and our government thought nothing about signing a Resolution that
essentially agreed to a point demanded by them? Eh ano ngayon kung 142
countries pumirma doon? We had the option of not signing it, considering the
ongoing negotiations with the MILF. Porque may international agreement pirma
agad tayo para makisama lang sa ibang bansa? Ano ba talaga trabaho nila,
magpasikat sa cocktail parties sa diplomatic circuit at magpakitang gilas sa
Ingles, o ilaban ang kapakanan ng bayan?
The problem is that international law works in a manner quite
different from that of a local or “municipal law”. If our government interprets
international law in a certain way, that interpretation is binding to a certain
degree on it. For the government to interpret international law in a manner
conceding statehood to the Moros is an ignominy. To conduct the negotiations
substantially from the perspective of international law and not Philippine law
(the Constitution wasn’t even mentioned in the MOA) is unbelievable. Even
though the Supreme Court did render the MOA unconstitutional, nevertheless,
this government just made it tremendously more difficult to negotiate in the
future with the MILF in a manner that will protect our Republic’s interests.
Our officials have one duty, particularly in matters of
international law and relations: uphold Philippine interests. If they can’t
grasp that, they don’t deserve – they are a shame to – their office.
24.10.08
Defending the free market
... is the topic of my latest Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld. Excerpts:
"Not many people now are willing to defend the free market and even those I thought who would come out in its defense (as they were such vocal advocates in better times) are all suddenly silent. If they won’t defend it, then I will: the free market is the best system we have and we should ensure that we do not revert to a protectionist, closed economy mind-set.
To judge the global free market as defective and should be done away with it due to the events happening in Wall Street is as illogical as saying that the Catholic religion should be terminated because of a few pedophile priests. As Churchill would say, democracy may not be perfect, but it’s the best that we have. And the free market system is the best that we have, with no alternative able to credibly assert itself even in these troubled times."
"Not many people now are willing to defend the free market and even those I thought who would come out in its defense (as they were such vocal advocates in better times) are all suddenly silent. If they won’t defend it, then I will: the free market is the best system we have and we should ensure that we do not revert to a protectionist, closed economy mind-set.
To judge the global free market as defective and should be done away with it due to the events happening in Wall Street is as illogical as saying that the Catholic religion should be terminated because of a few pedophile priests. As Churchill would say, democracy may not be perfect, but it’s the best that we have. And the free market system is the best that we have, with no alternative able to credibly assert itself even in these troubled times."
10.10.08
Cuisine that reigns supreme
. . . is the topic of my latest Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue. Excerpt:
"There are also statements that Filipino food is too salty or too fatty or too whatever. These conveniently ignore the fact that China must have one of the highest diabetes or heart disease rates, the French have cirrhosis, or the Americans have an obesity problem, and that Filipinos are still among the happiest people in the world.
I can’t even understand the giggly adoration some of our countrymen have on foreign cuisine. Soufflé? It’s airy mamon. Pot au feu? It’s beef nilaga. Ratatoulie is pinakbet. A daube is kaldereta and thom yan is sinigang and Hainanese chicken rice is tinola. Obviously there are differences, but food is food and the variations come due to the use of locally available ingredients. It must be noted that Filipino food generally doesn’t resort to heavy spices or sauces for the simple reason that, unlike other countries, our ingredients come fresh and doesn’t need any flavor disguises. After all, the initial value of spices and smoking and sauces was to hide the taste of food that had already gone a bit bad. We had no need for such trickery because we’ve always had relatively an abundant and readily available supply of food."
"There are also statements that Filipino food is too salty or too fatty or too whatever. These conveniently ignore the fact that China must have one of the highest diabetes or heart disease rates, the French have cirrhosis, or the Americans have an obesity problem, and that Filipinos are still among the happiest people in the world.
I can’t even understand the giggly adoration some of our countrymen have on foreign cuisine. Soufflé? It’s airy mamon. Pot au feu? It’s beef nilaga. Ratatoulie is pinakbet. A daube is kaldereta and thom yan is sinigang and Hainanese chicken rice is tinola. Obviously there are differences, but food is food and the variations come due to the use of locally available ingredients. It must be noted that Filipino food generally doesn’t resort to heavy spices or sauces for the simple reason that, unlike other countries, our ingredients come fresh and doesn’t need any flavor disguises. After all, the initial value of spices and smoking and sauces was to hide the taste of food that had already gone a bit bad. We had no need for such trickery because we’ve always had relatively an abundant and readily available supply of food."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)