was my Trade Tripper column in the 30 January 2015 issue of BusinessWorld:
This article is dedicated to the Filipino security forces recently killed in Maguindanao.
I recently came across the Jan. 9 statement by a number of Constitutional Commission (ConCom) members that drafted the 1987 Constitution. In it, they expressed support for the “creation of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region.”
Very sincerely, I am quite respectful of many of the members that signed that statement, having learned constitutional law or economics from them. But I also feel that I must speak up to point out areas that need to be clarified or examined further. As always, should there be flaws in my reasoning, the fault is mine and not on the teachers.
First off, the ConCom members’ opinions are, of course, helpful in determining the meaning of the Constitution’s words. But it must be remembered that they are not its authors. The people are. And it is their understanding of the words when they ratified it in 1987 that prevails (hence, the “ordinary meaning” rule in statutory construction). It is when such is not possible that we go to the ConCom members for guidance.
But the Constitution is clear on maintaining territorial integrity, with Yale-trained constitutionalist and retired Supreme Court Justice Vicente Mendoza already making public his concerns regarding the Bangsamoro Basic Law.
Now, the statement does say that the “Bangsamoro is about the development of people, not about the constitutionality of words.” But this is circular. How can one know the view of the Constitution on development if not through its words? And how can one know about the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region as a tool for development except through the words of the Comprehensive Agreement and the draft Basic Law? And it is precisely the point of those who have raised issues in relation to the Basic Law that such will not lead to true development.
Furthermore, how can genuine development be reached if to do so means violating the Constitution (the very question of the congressional hearings)? Certainly, to begin by not following the rule of law could not be a very good start indeed.
Now implied referral has again been made to the “living” constitution theory (emphasis on “theory”), in that the Constitution’s words can be said to “evolve” to fit the present situation. But this argument is a bit eccentric. If the Constitution’s words can be said to evolve, then why did the ConCom members bother taking months to carefully craft the words of the Constitution? Why have amendatory provisions? And who is to say that the words have evolved and in what form? Certainly not the ConCom members. Not even the Supreme Court, as it can only act within the authority mandated by the people (as written in the Constitution). So that leaves the Filipino people. But usually only through referendum or plebiscite.
The statement goes on to declare: “International Law is not an iron law imposed by a suprabody above all nations that disallows interpretations of words and language to fit the diverse situations of individual nations.” This is a huge understatement. If anything and to mix metaphors, international law is so opaque that it gives a country enough room to hang itself.
But that is not really the point. What is revealing about this is that the statement then goes on to say that the creation of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region “can become part of international law” upon “its acceptance by the community of nations.”
Which is what I have been asking all along that others keep denying: why is this issue internationalized? Why do we have another country (i.e., Malaysia) part of the process? Why are foreign countries influencing the legislative process with promises of foreign aid? Why is the Department of Foreign Affairs and not the Department of the Interior and Local Government taking the lead in this regard? Why do even ConCom members believe that there is a need to have “acceptance” by other countries? This is a matter supposed to be about Filipinos between Filipinos. Why are we talking as if this involves another international personality?
Which leads to this baffling part in the statement: “...by the explicit requirement in the [Basic Law] that the new organic law should be in conformance with the Constitution, and the unequivocal statement that the Bangsamoro territory shall remain part of the Philippines.”
Because there is nothing in the Comprehensive Agreement that says such things. In fact, the Constitution is barely mentioned (just once and to say that it should be amended to fit the Agreement). The Basic Law does mention the Constitution, but it also mentions the need to conform to “international law,” “system of life prescribed by [Muslim] faith,” and “harmony with our customary laws, cultures, traditions.” In short, rather than being supreme, the Constitution is but one of other laws that the Basic Law obeys.
All in all, and with due respect to the members of the ConCom, the entire Filipino people themselves need to give closer attention and examination to the provisions of the Agreement and the Basic Law, and ultimately decide its fate.
7.2.15
Pope Francis: the human permission slip
was my Trade Tripper column in the 23 January 2015 issue of BusinessWorld:
As he so eagerly awaited, CNN, local liberal news and social media, and the “progressive” Left academics and commentators couldn’t hide their giddiness at the arrival of the man who would finally put the Filipino bishops in their place, announce changes to Catholic doctrine, demand that the Church get with the times to “retain its relevance,” and proclaim that to judge another is so 1980s-2000s. Unfortunately, for them, for some reason (my guess is that it had something to do with “reality being superior to ideas”), Pope Francis threw away their script.
A VERY GOOD SPEECH
Admittedly, though, the papal visit started off on a quite humdrum note. After the obligatory “North Korean-ish” reception at the airport (at least according to one commentator; I myself wished the dancing kids spent more time with the Pope rather than the politicians) and the waving at crowds, the Pope spent a relatively quiet evening at the Apostolic Nunciature in Manila. But the next day and the days after, it would be different. For this we probably have to thank President Benigno Aquino.
Jesuit-trained and Ateneo-educated (which, according to one online writer, “preached a faith that was more relatable, more grounded and more rational... not centered on the Catholic traditions”), he welcomed the Pope next morning in Malacañang with a speech. And it was probably a very good speech (I haven’t read it myself) because from that point on the papal visit zoomed from 0 to 100.
THE NEED FOR BETTER LEADERS
Speaking after the President, Pope Francis declared that now, more than ever, it is “necessary that political leaders be outstanding for honesty, integrity and commitment to the common good.”
After that would be profound, relentless pleas to care for the poor and fight against the evils of corruption. This was a theme that would be repeated again and again at the Manila Cathedral and in Tacloban.
Even then, it needs to be said that Pope Francis is not a liberation theologian of the Marxist or socialist kind. In essence, he was reiterating fairly established Church teachings, particularly in relation to charity.
It must be remembered that the Church is not an economic policy think tank. Nor is the Pope an expert on the environment. Any teaching he makes is always through the prism of morality, from the viewpoint of faith and the supernatural.
As one commentator puts it, Pope Francis’ “theology is defined by the question of how to speak good news to the poor.” Anything else will just minimize the Church into an activist organization or NGO.
ON MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY
However, while the Church can indeed talk about economic or environmental issues (albeit within the aspects of morality and faith), nevertheless, it is on far surer footing (scriptural, human experience, and reason-wise) on social issues such as the family or sexual ethics. And it is on this subject that Pope Francis spoke the words that will be and should be remembered for quite some time.
Because, to be honest, many of the Catholic faithful have been asking what Pope Francis’ actual stand is on contraception, divorce, same-sex “marriage,” and euthanasia. So it was just stunning and overwhelming to realize that Pope Francis chose the Philippines to say what many in the world have so longed to hear:
“Every threat to the family is a threat to society itself” and the family is “threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life.” All therefore must do their best “to overcome these threats.”
This was said at the Mall of Asia on Jan. 17. Before that, at the Manila Cathedral, was a quiet, almost unnoticed but significant rebuke to those who thought that Pope Francis’ “who am I to judge?” was a call for a “if it feels good, do it” return to 1960s self-indulgence: “The Gospel is also a summons to conversion,” which “means being the first to examine our consciences, to acknowledge our failings and sins, and to embrace the path of constant conversion.”
LET’S HEAR IT FOR THE GIRLS
Pope Francis even took the time to say something about women: “Women have much to tell us in today’s society. Sometimes we’re too macho and we don’t leave enough room for women. Women are able to see things with different eyes than us. Women are able to ask questions that men can’t understand.”
This was received well in the media. But really, why are people surprised? This has always been the Church’s teaching: the greatest human was the one that gave birth to God, the only one hailed, blessed, and full of grace. The only human whose requests Christ could not refuse. And when Christ was crucified and all the men ran away scattered and scared, only the women were brave enough to be with Him till the very end. And it was to women whom He appeared first upon resurrection. Oh, and we do refer to the Church as our “mother.”
FOREVER OLD, FOREVER NEW
And then there was the homily during Sunday Mass at the Luneta. Closing my eyes, I really couldn’t tell anymore if it was Pope Francis or his brilliant predecessor Pope Benedict XVI or Saint John Paul the Great speaking. And what was said showed a Church ever united and one in teaching:
“Sometimes, when we see the troubles, difficulties and wrongs all around us, we are tempted to give up. It seems that the promises of the Gospel do not apply; they are unreal. But the Bible tells us that the great threat to God’s plan for us is, and always has been, the lie. The devil is the father of lies. Often he hides his snares behind the appearance of sophistication, the allure of being ‘modern’, ‘like everyone else.’”
This call against modernity’s “allure” does not only refer to technology (as some local news anchors tried to spin it) but rather to all passing fads and fancies, of socio-political theories that are detached from reality, of governmental measures that disconnect us from faith and values.
But most of all, it is against a modernity that portrays the Church as out of touch and tempts us with “confusing presentations of sexuality, marriage and the family.”
This, Pope Francis reiterates: “Sadly, in our day, the family all too often needs to be protected against insidious attacks and programs contrary to all that we hold true and sacred, all that is most beautiful and noble in our culture.” One has to love how Pope Francis inserted the word “program.” I don’t think this was a show of support for the RH Law.
SURPRISE: POPE FRANCIS IS CATHOLIC
In the end, the man the media painted as surprising and “progressive” proved to be just that: a surprise and a progressive (albeit in the best and true sense of the word: a defender of the faith, an upholder of the truth).
But perhaps we shouldn’t have been surprised. It was ultimately unfair and naïve to look at Pope Francis not as he is but as one that “progressives” wanted to create and mold as their will dictated: a walking talking permission slip who would say “there there” and “whatever you do is fine” and “so long as you’re happy, I’m happy.”
Instead, Pope Francis turned out to be someone far far better: the Bishop of Rome, the Pope of the Catholic Church, the Vicar of Christ preaching mercy with justice, forgiveness with conversion, and of truth, reason, and faith.
As he so eagerly awaited, CNN, local liberal news and social media, and the “progressive” Left academics and commentators couldn’t hide their giddiness at the arrival of the man who would finally put the Filipino bishops in their place, announce changes to Catholic doctrine, demand that the Church get with the times to “retain its relevance,” and proclaim that to judge another is so 1980s-2000s. Unfortunately, for them, for some reason (my guess is that it had something to do with “reality being superior to ideas”), Pope Francis threw away their script.
A VERY GOOD SPEECH
Admittedly, though, the papal visit started off on a quite humdrum note. After the obligatory “North Korean-ish” reception at the airport (at least according to one commentator; I myself wished the dancing kids spent more time with the Pope rather than the politicians) and the waving at crowds, the Pope spent a relatively quiet evening at the Apostolic Nunciature in Manila. But the next day and the days after, it would be different. For this we probably have to thank President Benigno Aquino.
Jesuit-trained and Ateneo-educated (which, according to one online writer, “preached a faith that was more relatable, more grounded and more rational... not centered on the Catholic traditions”), he welcomed the Pope next morning in Malacañang with a speech. And it was probably a very good speech (I haven’t read it myself) because from that point on the papal visit zoomed from 0 to 100.
THE NEED FOR BETTER LEADERS
Speaking after the President, Pope Francis declared that now, more than ever, it is “necessary that political leaders be outstanding for honesty, integrity and commitment to the common good.”
After that would be profound, relentless pleas to care for the poor and fight against the evils of corruption. This was a theme that would be repeated again and again at the Manila Cathedral and in Tacloban.
Even then, it needs to be said that Pope Francis is not a liberation theologian of the Marxist or socialist kind. In essence, he was reiterating fairly established Church teachings, particularly in relation to charity.
It must be remembered that the Church is not an economic policy think tank. Nor is the Pope an expert on the environment. Any teaching he makes is always through the prism of morality, from the viewpoint of faith and the supernatural.
As one commentator puts it, Pope Francis’ “theology is defined by the question of how to speak good news to the poor.” Anything else will just minimize the Church into an activist organization or NGO.
ON MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY
However, while the Church can indeed talk about economic or environmental issues (albeit within the aspects of morality and faith), nevertheless, it is on far surer footing (scriptural, human experience, and reason-wise) on social issues such as the family or sexual ethics. And it is on this subject that Pope Francis spoke the words that will be and should be remembered for quite some time.
Because, to be honest, many of the Catholic faithful have been asking what Pope Francis’ actual stand is on contraception, divorce, same-sex “marriage,” and euthanasia. So it was just stunning and overwhelming to realize that Pope Francis chose the Philippines to say what many in the world have so longed to hear:
“Every threat to the family is a threat to society itself” and the family is “threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life.” All therefore must do their best “to overcome these threats.”
This was said at the Mall of Asia on Jan. 17. Before that, at the Manila Cathedral, was a quiet, almost unnoticed but significant rebuke to those who thought that Pope Francis’ “who am I to judge?” was a call for a “if it feels good, do it” return to 1960s self-indulgence: “The Gospel is also a summons to conversion,” which “means being the first to examine our consciences, to acknowledge our failings and sins, and to embrace the path of constant conversion.”
LET’S HEAR IT FOR THE GIRLS
Pope Francis even took the time to say something about women: “Women have much to tell us in today’s society. Sometimes we’re too macho and we don’t leave enough room for women. Women are able to see things with different eyes than us. Women are able to ask questions that men can’t understand.”
This was received well in the media. But really, why are people surprised? This has always been the Church’s teaching: the greatest human was the one that gave birth to God, the only one hailed, blessed, and full of grace. The only human whose requests Christ could not refuse. And when Christ was crucified and all the men ran away scattered and scared, only the women were brave enough to be with Him till the very end. And it was to women whom He appeared first upon resurrection. Oh, and we do refer to the Church as our “mother.”
FOREVER OLD, FOREVER NEW
And then there was the homily during Sunday Mass at the Luneta. Closing my eyes, I really couldn’t tell anymore if it was Pope Francis or his brilliant predecessor Pope Benedict XVI or Saint John Paul the Great speaking. And what was said showed a Church ever united and one in teaching:
“Sometimes, when we see the troubles, difficulties and wrongs all around us, we are tempted to give up. It seems that the promises of the Gospel do not apply; they are unreal. But the Bible tells us that the great threat to God’s plan for us is, and always has been, the lie. The devil is the father of lies. Often he hides his snares behind the appearance of sophistication, the allure of being ‘modern’, ‘like everyone else.’”
This call against modernity’s “allure” does not only refer to technology (as some local news anchors tried to spin it) but rather to all passing fads and fancies, of socio-political theories that are detached from reality, of governmental measures that disconnect us from faith and values.
But most of all, it is against a modernity that portrays the Church as out of touch and tempts us with “confusing presentations of sexuality, marriage and the family.”
This, Pope Francis reiterates: “Sadly, in our day, the family all too often needs to be protected against insidious attacks and programs contrary to all that we hold true and sacred, all that is most beautiful and noble in our culture.” One has to love how Pope Francis inserted the word “program.” I don’t think this was a show of support for the RH Law.
SURPRISE: POPE FRANCIS IS CATHOLIC
In the end, the man the media painted as surprising and “progressive” proved to be just that: a surprise and a progressive (albeit in the best and true sense of the word: a defender of the faith, an upholder of the truth).
But perhaps we shouldn’t have been surprised. It was ultimately unfair and naïve to look at Pope Francis not as he is but as one that “progressives” wanted to create and mold as their will dictated: a walking talking permission slip who would say “there there” and “whatever you do is fine” and “so long as you’re happy, I’m happy.”
Instead, Pope Francis turned out to be someone far far better: the Bishop of Rome, the Pope of the Catholic Church, the Vicar of Christ preaching mercy with justice, forgiveness with conversion, and of truth, reason, and faith.
19.1.15
Religion and the progressives double standard
was my Trade Tripper column in the recent weekend issue of BusinessWorld:
Last week was just about Charlie Hebdo, the French magazine known for its satirical cartoons. Though an equal opportunity offender (lampooning viciously everybody, whether it be Christians, Jews, immigrants, etc.), unfortunately one group of people didn’t find some of the cartoons funny (I don’t think anybody does) and so did what any normal, well-adjusted men of faith would do (of course, I’m being sarcastic): massacre a substantial number of the editorial staff (plus two policemen who were at the scene).
The “progressive” Left’s reaction has so far been predictable: (a) lump all religion together negatively as a bunch of intolerant extremists with hair-trigger personalities; (b) obfuscate the matter by putting out to the public gazillions of social media updates, thoughts or articles under the guise of “bridge-building” or the seeking of “compromise” (inevitably leading to inaction); or (c) blame poverty, historical hurts, or politics as the cause of the massacre (rather than pin the responsibility on adults with the free will to choose to just not kill anyone).
The first reaction is so expected it’s almost a satire: “progressives” dislike religions, as they abhor the idea of moral standards. To them, everything has to be relative. Which is why it’s bizarre that their faith (pun intended) in “freedom of expression” runs into the absolute.
As to the relationship between the rights to free expression and religion, I’ve already discussed it in a previous BusinessWorld article (“Offending hate speakers,” October 2013) and won’t repeat the points here.
However, the importance of religion in people’s lives and as a human right should be reiterated: Stanford’s Michael W. McConnel describes it this way: “Religion is a special phenomenon, in part, because it plays such a wide variety of roles in human life.” There is no other human phenomenon that combines all of these aspects (e.g., institution, worldview, locus of community, an aspect of identity, provides answers to questions of ultimate reality, and offers a connection to the transcendent); “if there were such a concept, it would probably be viewed as a religion.”
Because religion indeed plays such a huge role in the human condition and identity, it constitutes a fundamental human right alongside which other rights are arrayed. Hence, though we adhere to the idea of free speech, nevertheless, reasonableness tells us that the exercise of such right (in fact, any right) has to be done in a manner that is respectful of other and of other’s rights.
The right to religion is also subjected to this dimension; hence, why the Islamic extremists who murdered the Charlie Hebdo staff are justly and correctly condemned. The same goes for Christian anti-abortion activists who murder doctors or nurses.
Progressives have it wrong: you don’t actually respect the religion, you respect people. And many people simply like their religion. That is reality. Just as nobody should maliciously, without reason, offend the feelings of a person for liking One Direction (utterly tempting and justifiable it may be), then all the more should you respect that person’s sensitivities when it comes to his identity and his belief about his Maker.
There’s one aspect, however, that must be emphasized: as we noted above, the progressives’ inability to definitively call Islamic terrorists as responsible.
Because to hold them to account requires a standard (which an act is said to violate that gives rise to the accountability). But as mentioned previously, progressives hate standards. And worse (for them), one quite identifiable source for a standard, which will inevitably invite comparison, is Christianity. But the idea that Christianity (particularly the Catholic Church, which opposes contraception, same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia, etc.) might actually possess possible solutions or even guidance is such an anathema to those on the Left that they will absolutely refuse to consider it at whatever cost. They’d rather have the world burn from global inaction against the terrorists just because something will not fit their narrative.
And the logic twisting goes to ridiculous lengths: Islamic extremists murder people and liberal media and academe go into hyper-drive in demanding “nuance” and “understanding”: that Muslims suffer more from terrorists or are forced to do acts not required of other faiths or have suffered historic wrongs stretching not only decades but millennia. But such are quite fallacious. Besides, the problem is not the Muslims. Or anyone’s religion. The problem is the Islamic extremists who kill, torture, or otherwise hurt people.
On the other hand, when a Christian simply writes or speaks about the faith’s doctrines on same-sex marriage, the entire liberal progressive establishment goes nuts: all of a sudden, absolutism is fine, particularly when it comes to free speech. And forget about nuance. One local newspaper columnist labeled “intolerant” the Philippine Catholic Bishops for simply pointing out a misquote on Pope Francis.
There is nothing reductionist about this: people really need to start approaching things with reason rather than ideology. Perhaps with that at least something constructive can be done.
Last week was just about Charlie Hebdo, the French magazine known for its satirical cartoons. Though an equal opportunity offender (lampooning viciously everybody, whether it be Christians, Jews, immigrants, etc.), unfortunately one group of people didn’t find some of the cartoons funny (I don’t think anybody does) and so did what any normal, well-adjusted men of faith would do (of course, I’m being sarcastic): massacre a substantial number of the editorial staff (plus two policemen who were at the scene).
The “progressive” Left’s reaction has so far been predictable: (a) lump all religion together negatively as a bunch of intolerant extremists with hair-trigger personalities; (b) obfuscate the matter by putting out to the public gazillions of social media updates, thoughts or articles under the guise of “bridge-building” or the seeking of “compromise” (inevitably leading to inaction); or (c) blame poverty, historical hurts, or politics as the cause of the massacre (rather than pin the responsibility on adults with the free will to choose to just not kill anyone).
The first reaction is so expected it’s almost a satire: “progressives” dislike religions, as they abhor the idea of moral standards. To them, everything has to be relative. Which is why it’s bizarre that their faith (pun intended) in “freedom of expression” runs into the absolute.
As to the relationship between the rights to free expression and religion, I’ve already discussed it in a previous BusinessWorld article (“Offending hate speakers,” October 2013) and won’t repeat the points here.
However, the importance of religion in people’s lives and as a human right should be reiterated: Stanford’s Michael W. McConnel describes it this way: “Religion is a special phenomenon, in part, because it plays such a wide variety of roles in human life.” There is no other human phenomenon that combines all of these aspects (e.g., institution, worldview, locus of community, an aspect of identity, provides answers to questions of ultimate reality, and offers a connection to the transcendent); “if there were such a concept, it would probably be viewed as a religion.”
Because religion indeed plays such a huge role in the human condition and identity, it constitutes a fundamental human right alongside which other rights are arrayed. Hence, though we adhere to the idea of free speech, nevertheless, reasonableness tells us that the exercise of such right (in fact, any right) has to be done in a manner that is respectful of other and of other’s rights.
The right to religion is also subjected to this dimension; hence, why the Islamic extremists who murdered the Charlie Hebdo staff are justly and correctly condemned. The same goes for Christian anti-abortion activists who murder doctors or nurses.
Progressives have it wrong: you don’t actually respect the religion, you respect people. And many people simply like their religion. That is reality. Just as nobody should maliciously, without reason, offend the feelings of a person for liking One Direction (utterly tempting and justifiable it may be), then all the more should you respect that person’s sensitivities when it comes to his identity and his belief about his Maker.
There’s one aspect, however, that must be emphasized: as we noted above, the progressives’ inability to definitively call Islamic terrorists as responsible.
Because to hold them to account requires a standard (which an act is said to violate that gives rise to the accountability). But as mentioned previously, progressives hate standards. And worse (for them), one quite identifiable source for a standard, which will inevitably invite comparison, is Christianity. But the idea that Christianity (particularly the Catholic Church, which opposes contraception, same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia, etc.) might actually possess possible solutions or even guidance is such an anathema to those on the Left that they will absolutely refuse to consider it at whatever cost. They’d rather have the world burn from global inaction against the terrorists just because something will not fit their narrative.
And the logic twisting goes to ridiculous lengths: Islamic extremists murder people and liberal media and academe go into hyper-drive in demanding “nuance” and “understanding”: that Muslims suffer more from terrorists or are forced to do acts not required of other faiths or have suffered historic wrongs stretching not only decades but millennia. But such are quite fallacious. Besides, the problem is not the Muslims. Or anyone’s religion. The problem is the Islamic extremists who kill, torture, or otherwise hurt people.
On the other hand, when a Christian simply writes or speaks about the faith’s doctrines on same-sex marriage, the entire liberal progressive establishment goes nuts: all of a sudden, absolutism is fine, particularly when it comes to free speech. And forget about nuance. One local newspaper columnist labeled “intolerant” the Philippine Catholic Bishops for simply pointing out a misquote on Pope Francis.
There is nothing reductionist about this: people really need to start approaching things with reason rather than ideology. Perhaps with that at least something constructive can be done.
10.1.15
Want inequality? Wreck the traditional family.
my Trade Tripper column in this weekend issue of BusinessWorld:
Amid the discussions regarding 2015’s ASEAN integration, certain data had been consistently ignored by the general academe and policy makers: Filipinos 30 years old and below comprise around 70% of the population (with those below 14 years at 35%, with the median age at 22.9 years old). Those at 65 years old comprise only about 4.1%.
Quite simply, beyond economics, the very future of this country depends on how well that 70% is educated, developed, and formed.
But even just narrowing the discussion in economic terms, to state the obvious: a lot is dependent on people. A huge portion of our output or trade has to do with services, yes, but even then, manufacturing and agriculture would need people to run them. Nevertheless, despite the demographic potential that the Philippines has compared to the ageing populations of our trading partners, all of that would be meaningless if that youth would not grow up as responsible adults.
Unfortunately, our education system needs a lot of improvement. The “Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2014-2015” show no Philippine university included.
That is compounded by the fact that of the almost three million Filipinos currently unemployed, 48.2% are within the 15-24 age group, with 29.9% from those in the 25-34 age group. Most of them are high school graduates.
All these are not contributing to the proper formation of the youth. And yet, nothing could be more devastating to them than the weakening of the traditional family institution.
But unfortunately, teenage pregnancy in this country rose by 70% in the past 10-year period (114,205 in 1999 to 195,662 in 2009). Figures for 2010 show 206,574 of such pregnancies. Data from the National Youth Commission show that the Philippines is third highest in Southeast Asia and among the highest in the ASEAN region and the only country where that number is increasing.
Also disconcertingly, 13-14% of all registered marriages are among teenagers. On the other hand, perhaps not coincidentally, there is also a rise in annulment cases (records indicate a 100% increase in the past 10 years). Add to that the increasing incidences of rape.
However, not only is economic development retarded by the diminution of the traditional family institution, economic inequality is fostered as well.
According to Jeff Jacoby in a November 2014 article, “One report, aptly titled ‘For Richer, For Poorer,’ is by sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox of the American Enterprise Institute and economist Robert I. Lerman of the Urban Institute. It documents the profound links that connect family structure and financial well-being and underscores what decades of empirical data have shown: Families headed by married couples tend to be stronger economically than those headed by unwed single parents.”
“‘Anyone concerned about family inequality, men’s declining labor-force participation, and the vitality of the American dream should worry about the nation’s retreat from marriage,’ the authors write. The steady fall in the percentage of married two-parent households -- from 78% in 1980 to 66 % in 2012 -- goes a long way toward explaining why so many ordinary families have trouble climbing beyond the lower rungs on the economic ladder. Correlation isn’t proof of causation, of course. But there is no refuting the strong association between growing up with both parents in an intact family and achieving higher levels of education, work, and income as young adults.”
“To be sure, not all families headed by married parents are stable or successful, and not all children raised by single parents struggle economically or professionally. Barack Obama, who was two years old when he was abandoned by his father, is dramatic evidence of that. But as Obama himself says, the data aren’t in question. ‘Children who grow up without a father are more likely to live in poverty. They’re more likely to drop out of school. They’re more likely to wind up in prison.’”
The message was emphasized further by Aparna Mathur: “Wilcox and Lerman document how the shift away from marriage and traditional family structures has had important consequences for family incomes, and has been correlated with rising family-income inequality and declines in men’s labor force participation rates. Using data from the Current Population Survey, the authors find that between 1980 and 2012, median family income rose 30% for married parent families, for unmarried parents, family incomes rose only 14%.”
With such scientific and researched backing, then the media’s, academe’s, and policy makers’ wholesale effort to look the other way is truly the height of irresponsibility.
Dominated as they are by left-leaning “progressive” thought, the only thing that matters to them is to further ideologically driven policy initiatives such as divorce, same-sex marriage, the Reproductive Health Law, and euthanasia. Any evidence that shows the necessity to strengthen the traditional family institution simply does not fit their narrative.
Offending hate speakers
this is a repost of an October 2013 article for BusinessWorld:
Last week was full of statements calling for the unconstitutionality of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code (Offending religious feelings). That such calls are reactionary and biased is to point out the obvious. The claims, however, were also based on fallacious reasoning and on assumptions that have no basis in or disregard reality.
We will ignore complaints that Article 133 violates Church/State separation for their utter obliviousness on what the concept really means. Also to be snubbed is that supremely asinine argument that Christians must forgive everything and forget about justice. That has never been the Catholic Church’s teaching. Forgiveness must always be coupled with justice.
Then there’s the dim-witted "Spanish-era" Article 133 is "antiquated" position. But by that "logic," the US Constitution and the Ten Commandments must be discarded as well.
Instead, we look at the argument that the foregoing provision is unconstitutional for conflicting with free speech. Such, however, ignores basic constitutional law: the right to free speech is not absolute. One cannot libel or slander people, commit vandalism to express opinions, display obscenities, falsely shout "fire" in crowded places. The point here is not to stifle dissent or contrasting ideas but to restrain speech that deliberately is meant to sow hate, violence, or intolerance.
The provision, as it’s currently viewed, has nothing theocratic about it. Neither is it meant to favor a specific religion. It simply acknowledges the fact that there are some things people feel strongly about. Hence, why crimes committed in another’s house or murdering one’s own family members, or assaulting teachers or public officials, have higher penalties. Considering today’s fears of terrorism, one can go to jail just by making a joke about bombs while inside an airport. That is why the Civil Code has a provision restraining rich people from flaunting their wealth in times of public want (see Article 25).
One incredibly bizarre argument recently made is that priests who speak against the RH law during Mass also offend the feelings of those who are pro-RH. But this ignores the constitutional right of the priest to religion and free speech, the constitutional right of the pro-RH individual to religion which includes the right to stop being a Catholic and not attend Mass, and the fact that what is being punished by our laws is not the contrary idea being expressed but the hateful, intolerant manner in which it is expressed.
Then there are people who argue that free speech shouldn’t come with restrictions. Such argument, again however, inanely disregards reality. And also quite hypocritical: I bet that any person who argues that, if confronted with someone who joins their family party and starts insulting them, causes a ruckus, makes them look silly in front of the cameras, and then posts pictures and smugly boasts about it in the Internet, would not hesitate to have the law fully enforced.
The other argument employed is why should religion be given distinct protection? If an Imam, it is argued, enters a gathering of atheists, disrupts proceedings, then why would that not be considered a crime? Actually, it is. On the top of my head, it could constitute qualified trespass, tumults, alarms, unjust vexation, or violating the right to peaceful assembly.
On the other hand, it’s also true that religion is given such protection because it is so fundamental, an inherent and self-evident inclination of people, that the right to religion is considered a primary human right that must be respected. Hence, this right to religious freedom is protected, not only by our Constitution, but also by international instruments such as the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
That is why many countries in the world aside from the Philippines penalize hate speech (i.e., speech vilifying persons on the basis of some characteristic like race or religion). Poland, Norway, Singapore, Thailand, South Africa, Canada, Germany, Denmark, amongst others, impose punishments for it. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently ruled against speech offending religious sensibilities and hate speech. Britain punishes hate speech that seeks to "stir up religious hatred."
The point here is: whether or not you believe in religion or agree with the doctrines of a religion, the reality remains that religion is something fundamental to most people’s identities and their conception of rights. This fact, like the attachment to the ideas of family or marriage (both definitely established human rights as well) is something that liberals, progressives, or leftists have puzzlingly been unable to comprehend. The plea for tolerance (correctly understood from the Latin tol -- to endure a burden) should never be understood to mean that people must shut up about their religious rights.
Simply put, there may be room for sloppy thinking in the public square but none at all for bullying and boorishness.
Last week was full of statements calling for the unconstitutionality of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code (Offending religious feelings). That such calls are reactionary and biased is to point out the obvious. The claims, however, were also based on fallacious reasoning and on assumptions that have no basis in or disregard reality.
We will ignore complaints that Article 133 violates Church/State separation for their utter obliviousness on what the concept really means. Also to be snubbed is that supremely asinine argument that Christians must forgive everything and forget about justice. That has never been the Catholic Church’s teaching. Forgiveness must always be coupled with justice.
Then there’s the dim-witted "Spanish-era" Article 133 is "antiquated" position. But by that "logic," the US Constitution and the Ten Commandments must be discarded as well.
Instead, we look at the argument that the foregoing provision is unconstitutional for conflicting with free speech. Such, however, ignores basic constitutional law: the right to free speech is not absolute. One cannot libel or slander people, commit vandalism to express opinions, display obscenities, falsely shout "fire" in crowded places. The point here is not to stifle dissent or contrasting ideas but to restrain speech that deliberately is meant to sow hate, violence, or intolerance.
The provision, as it’s currently viewed, has nothing theocratic about it. Neither is it meant to favor a specific religion. It simply acknowledges the fact that there are some things people feel strongly about. Hence, why crimes committed in another’s house or murdering one’s own family members, or assaulting teachers or public officials, have higher penalties. Considering today’s fears of terrorism, one can go to jail just by making a joke about bombs while inside an airport. That is why the Civil Code has a provision restraining rich people from flaunting their wealth in times of public want (see Article 25).
One incredibly bizarre argument recently made is that priests who speak against the RH law during Mass also offend the feelings of those who are pro-RH. But this ignores the constitutional right of the priest to religion and free speech, the constitutional right of the pro-RH individual to religion which includes the right to stop being a Catholic and not attend Mass, and the fact that what is being punished by our laws is not the contrary idea being expressed but the hateful, intolerant manner in which it is expressed.
Then there are people who argue that free speech shouldn’t come with restrictions. Such argument, again however, inanely disregards reality. And also quite hypocritical: I bet that any person who argues that, if confronted with someone who joins their family party and starts insulting them, causes a ruckus, makes them look silly in front of the cameras, and then posts pictures and smugly boasts about it in the Internet, would not hesitate to have the law fully enforced.
The other argument employed is why should religion be given distinct protection? If an Imam, it is argued, enters a gathering of atheists, disrupts proceedings, then why would that not be considered a crime? Actually, it is. On the top of my head, it could constitute qualified trespass, tumults, alarms, unjust vexation, or violating the right to peaceful assembly.
On the other hand, it’s also true that religion is given such protection because it is so fundamental, an inherent and self-evident inclination of people, that the right to religion is considered a primary human right that must be respected. Hence, this right to religious freedom is protected, not only by our Constitution, but also by international instruments such as the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
That is why many countries in the world aside from the Philippines penalize hate speech (i.e., speech vilifying persons on the basis of some characteristic like race or religion). Poland, Norway, Singapore, Thailand, South Africa, Canada, Germany, Denmark, amongst others, impose punishments for it. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently ruled against speech offending religious sensibilities and hate speech. Britain punishes hate speech that seeks to "stir up religious hatred."
The point here is: whether or not you believe in religion or agree with the doctrines of a religion, the reality remains that religion is something fundamental to most people’s identities and their conception of rights. This fact, like the attachment to the ideas of family or marriage (both definitely established human rights as well) is something that liberals, progressives, or leftists have puzzlingly been unable to comprehend. The plea for tolerance (correctly understood from the Latin tol -- to endure a burden) should never be understood to mean that people must shut up about their religious rights.
Simply put, there may be room for sloppy thinking in the public square but none at all for bullying and boorishness.
9.12.14
Again: competition law? Maybe.
(Remarks at the 1st National Competition Conference, Philippine
International Convention Center, Manila,
Philippines; 09 December
2014)
Good morning.
And thank you for inviting me to participate in today’s discussion on “Competition
Policy and Regional Economic Integration”. Indeed, prevalent in today’s mind
would be the subject of ASEAN integration. As it should.
With
countries touted as interconnected and technology
perpetually advancing, nevertheless, most international
trade remain affected significantly by geography. And thus
ASEAN will always play, should always play, an important part in the
formulation of Philippine economic policy.
Competition policy is said to constitute
a vital cog leading up to ASEAN integration by 2015.
And members are “endeavored” to introduce competition policy and legislation by
that year to “ensure a level playing field and to foster a culture of fair
business competition for enhanced regional economic performance in the long run.”
It is worth exploring, however, the
thought that before the Philippines indeed contribute to enhancing regional economic performance that its
own economic interests – both in the short and long term – be solidified. And
perhaps it is in that light that we best look at
competition policy and legislation.
The trouble with assumptions
One fundamental problem
with present discussions on competition law is the implicit reliance on this one
assumption: monopolies are bad and government is the solution. But note, not
even our Constitution see monopolies with that perspective: the “State shall
regulate or prohibit monopolies when the public
interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair
competition shall be allowed.” (italics supplied)
As my own newspaper BusinessWorld reported (Competition Law Urged, 28 August 2013)
on the East Asia Forum on competition law, the consensus seemed to be that “a
competition policy is considered important for a country to grow and consider
itself an advanced economy.” Furthermore, “competition law should also be
separated from politically motivated industrial policy as the latter allows the
government to choose which industries to champion instead of letting natural
competition occur in the market.”
Urging must be made to re-examine
the assumptions on which such assertions are made. It is not dogma that
monopolies are inefficient and stifles innovation. And because of the way
today’s economic system is, with globalization and technology, the probability
of a new entrant, whether locally or elsewhere, breaking in will always serve
as an impetus to improve products or services.
Even claims related to
predatory pricing need not go unexamined. Predatory pricing can work if the
“predator” is willing (and able) to suffer deep financial losses and even then
such would only be effective if the market itself is inundated with regulations
that exempt, protect, subsidize current players.
Even declarations like
“all advanced economies have a competition policy” should be rendered suspect.
Simply because we’re not an “advanced economy”. Not yet anyway. Which should
tell you a lot about the wisdom of importing and imposing a regulatory
framework tailored for countries whose circumstances are not similar to the
Philippines.
Indeed, the logic of the
foregoing assumptions seems to be is that to further regulate the market will
set it free. But we’ve known from trade policy history that such never benefits
consumers and that protectionism has generally harmed the economy. And we’ve
known from trade policy history that monopolies are created precisely because
of regulations: that such regulations before had to do with tariff barriers and
subsidies and now identified as monitoring and review really is of no
difference.
A question of necessity
And then, there is the question of necessity. Or, more accurately, the
degrees thereof. At the outset, let us get this straight: to agree to
“endeavor” to have a competition law by 2015 does not mean we should have a
competition law by 2015. The only deadline the Philippines must consider at
this stage is its own interests and the welfare of its people.
Reference has been made (here and elsewhere) of the 2014 Economic
Freedom Index. As its name indicates, the Heritage Foundation’s study measures
a country’s openness to trade, economic mobility, and prosperity.
The Philippines is currently ranked 89 (out of 186 countries), although
the same is said to be an improvement by 1.9 points. Amongst Asia-Pacific
countries, the Philippines placed 16th out of 42. Overall, the Philippines is
considered “slightly below the world average” or “moderately free”.
Of particular interest is the Index’s category of “Rule of Law”. For the
Philippines: “Corruption and cronyism are rife in business and government, with
a few dozen leading families holding an outsized share of wealth and political
power. Judicial independence has traditionally been strong, but the rule of law
is generally weak. A culture of impunity, stemming in part from a case backlog
in the judicial system, hampers the fight against corruption. Delays and
uncertainty negatively affect property rights.” In this regard, it is to be
noted that as of 2010, Vietnam has overtaken the Philippines in terms of
lessened corruption and is currently three ranks higher.
The Economic Freedom Index goes on to discuss ease of doing business or
“regulatory efficiency”, noting that in the Philippines “launching a business
takes 15 procedures and 35 days.”
The foregoing makes informative reading when set alongside the World
Economic Forum’s 2014-2015 Global Competitiveness Index.
The Philippines certainly made improvements, ranking 52 out of 144
countries. However, the data seems to give the impression of the huge role that
the private sector played in our improved ranking.
One can see this in our high scores in “business sophistication” and
market size (which perhaps can be related to the fact that the Index declares
our population to be at 97.5 million, with a substantial chunk of that, it must
be added, belonging to the youth sector – more on this later). High scores in
innovation and financial market complement this.
However, what is telling are the areas where the Philippines rank lowest:
infrastructure, corruption, health and primary education, ease of starting a
business, inefficient bureaucracy, and wage
determination, hiring and firing procedures, and redundancy costs.
The media trumpets
Philippine improvement in one pillar: “institutions”
(rank: 67, formerly 79). But even then, when broken down, one
sees that it is private institutions that gave us that higher score (at 48),
with public institutions at 75. Two additional figures worth noting in this
regard: judicial independence (77) and transparency in
policymaking at 85 (and which probably highlights why a Freedom of Information
Law can help attain better competitiveness for the country).
Nevertheless, the undoubted key for whatever prospects that may open to
the Philippines is in education. There is one striking Philippine statistic
that everyone should be aware of and that is in the area of demographics:
Filipinos 30 years old and below comprise around 70% of the population (with
those below 14 years at 35%, with the median age at 22.9 years old). Those at
65 years old comprise only about 4.1%. The future of this country quite simply
depends on how well that 70% is educated.
In this regard, let us take note of The Times Higher Education World
University Rankings 2014-2015, which declares itself to be “the only global
university performance tables to judge world class universities across all of
their core missions - teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international
outlook. The top universities rankings employ 13 carefully calibrated
performance indicators.”
The usual suspects are there: Cambridge and Princeton definitely (as well
as some school called Oxford). From the Asian region, the list is filled with
Japanese, Singaporean, Hong Kong, South Korean, Taiwanese, Indian, Israeli,
Turkish, Saudi Arabia, and Thai schools.
And yet (although one is free to ignore the rankings for whatever
excuse) not one of our schools joined the list of top universities. Not even in
the “looser” Times Higher Education World Reputation Rankings, which is based
on “nothing more than subjective judgment”.
Relate the foregoing with
recent figures indicating that teenage pregnancy in this country rose by 70% in
the past 10-year period (114,205 in 1999 to 195,662 in 2009). 2010 figures show
206,574 of such pregnancies. Data from the National Youth Commission show that
the Philippines is third highest in Southeast Asia and among the highest in the
ASEAN region and the only country where such number is increasing.
Furthermore, of the almost 3 million Filipinos currently unemployed, 48.2% are within the 15-24 age group, with 29.9% from
those 25-34 years old. Most of them are high school graduates.
Also disconcertingly, 13-14% of all registered marriages are among
teenagers below 20 years old while. On
the other hand, perhaps not coincidentally, there is also a rise in annulment cases
(records indicate a 100% increase in the past 10 years). Add to that the
increasing incidences of rape.
Why are these numbers important in relation to our economy? Because the
basic economic unit and source of productivity are people. And nothing develops
people better than a strong family unit.
Potrykus and Fagan tell us that: “It is worth emphasizing that though economic
production generally, and growth particularly involve three components,
economic enterprise is a human activity. Human beings, by the measure of growth
accounting, contribute over half of what is valuable to production. Only one
third of growth may be attributed to non-human, physical capital. Domestic
production is affected massively by the human component’s contribution.”
It bears worth pointing out that despite ASEAN integration being
packaged as turning ASEAN into one big “production base”, the Philippines
nevertheless is also hinging its strategy on expanding our services industry.
But services require people. And people need to be educated and trained.
To further press the matter,
while the Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index recognized the importance
of infrastructure,
the economic,
trade, financial and tax system, and the rule of law as drivers of
competitiveness, the biggest driver of competitiveness and economic growth is,
you guessed it, a country’s people: “the
availability of high quality human talent will always remain in the top set of
competitiveness drivers.”
And this is
key for the Philippines: “Demographics,
more specifically aging populations, will have a significant impact on market
attractiveness over the coming decades, with some nations like Japan, and even
China, despite its large population, significantly inhibited by their aging
populations and others, including the U.S. with favorable population age
demographics gaining the upper hand as time passes.”
How the
foregoing, which are clearly urgent matters all, are to be addressed by a
competition law is something that needs further examination.
Competition Law? Maybe.
At this point, perhaps it’s best to state some
caveats: do we need a competition law? Yes. But we need one that will work effectively
for the interests of Filipinos. And the measure of its importance tells us that
we better not be too eager in passing such legislation.
And indeed, when we say that we want to foster better competition then
we better address the question: competition for whom? And competition where?
So,
on a substantive level, and inasmuch as he pulled me to the punch in saying it,
then I might as well borrow the words of Teddy Boy Locsin (in his 04 September
2014 “Teditorial”): “If the anti-competition law seeks to stop giant local companies from
keeping local competition down and foreign competition out, then that law is a
yes. But if seeks to break up local giants now dominating the local market and
getting a lion’s share of a cash rich country after beating the foreigners who
were taking all the money long ago, then it is a big, fat no.”
If we say better
competition to benefit our consumers, then we have to remember that our consumers
need money to consume. Which they can’t do if they’re unemployed or
underemployed. Which means that they need companies, preferably Filipino
companies, succeeding and succeeding well not only in the Philippines but also
in an ASEAN integration and beyond.
Ultimately, size is
relative and what may seem like giants in our neighborhood that is the
Philippines may actually be puny when placed in regional and global arenas.
Consequently, the size of
our market should lead us to appreciate the idea of “natural monopolies,”
whereby maximum efficiency is derived by way of economies of scale through one
or two suppliers.
As such, Filipinos should
be supportive of even larger Filipino conglomerates. Take any as example and
one would see that despite their size and reach, could not really be considered
possessing monopoly power due to the nature and threat presented by global (or
regional) competition.
Again, Teddy Boy Locsin
gets it remarkably right: “Big is better if it is Filipino because capital has
a nationality” but “big is bad if it is foreign, which will destroy what we
have, milk it by big bonuses, siphon profits abroad, and make sure no Filipino
ever gets big again. If foreign competition wants to break up Filipino giants,
let the free market do it. Do not make a Filipino law tailor-made for
foreigners do the job for them. Foreign competition does not believe in
Filipino competition in their home countries. It only believes in foreign
competition here and elsewhere abroad.”
That is why questions on
the need to regulate mergers through a competition law at this point are with
merit. Not all countries with competition laws even have provisions on merger
regulation. As Lisa Campbell,
Senior Deputy Commissioner, of the Canadian Competition Bureau, remarked: “the
size of a business, even one that dominates a particular market, is not in an
of itself, a cause for concern. Businesses may need to become large to achieve
lower production costs or to compete against foreign
and domestic competitors.” (International Antitrust Forum Fifth Annual Chicago Forum on
International Antitrust Issues, June 12-13, 2014)
Further on the substantive,
we know that a government-managed competition will not result in free
competition. We know that doing so results in inefficiency. Instead, at this
point, the best competition policy that we could advance would simply be to
strictly enforce the rule of law. The many many laws that we already have now.
Instead, if we must have a
competition law by next year, then let it include provisions on the possibility
of foreign corporations sneaking up in acquiring Filipino companies or
influence to the point that monopoly powers are exercised from beyond Philippine
jurisdiction, constricting Filipino entrepreneurial efforts, and damaging local
consumer interests. And let us explore more vigorously the idea of implementing
the “effects” doctrine as a manner of acquiring jurisdiction over those who
seek to damage Philippine economic interests from abroad.
One last point on the
substantive: if we must have a competition law then why are the competition law
drafts essentially similar in text to foreign competition laws? To have
influences is understandable but that is not the point. US laws are worded
generally, for example, but that is so because the core provisions were made a
century ago. But that was followed by more than a hundred years of US
jurisprudence (plus that of Europe and Japan) that we should have learned from
and could have been inputted into the draft competition law, thus giving the
same more depth and precision.
At the institutional
level, I invite everyone to peruse BizNewsAsia’s 01 December 2014 issue. There
it reiterates a fact that every economist and policymaker knows: the
Philippines has “24 million families and 100 million people.” And yet,
political and economic power has been held only by a select few. With that,
“since 1962, the country has deteriorated, from Asia’s richest to being the
region’s economic laggard.”
I mention that because
indeed, another area we need to look at is the connection that competition
policy has with corruption, and thus, relatedly, the need to constrain the
ill-effects of having both political and economic power held by a select number
of families in the country, which is something that even the latest drafts of
our competition laws seem to ignore.
Because, what is the point
of having trade commissions, legal procedures, and the like if in the end the
judged and the judge are from the same side of the fence? Competition laws work
in the US and Europe as the people who lead in business would not be the same
people who comprise government, thus serving as a check upon each other. While
undoubtedly relationships exists between the two groups in any country, that is
a far cry from having the same families actually in control of both business
and government.
In conclusion --
I should wrap up here
before I exceed your patience (if I had not done so already!).
Competition policy and law
are definitely important. But they are not panaceas. And like everything else,
they would need a certain context to have any positive effect.
In this regard, we must
consider that competition-wise we are not as ramshackle as others would have us
believe. The Global Competitiveness Index gave us good
marks for “intensity of local competition” (61), “prevalence of trade barriers”
(51), and “prevalence of foreign ownership” (51). And studies (such as Ajit Singh’s) suggest that
policymakers should
consider “optimal” degrees of competition rather than maximum
competition as apt for a developing country economy (such as the Philippines’).
Contrast this with the scantiness
of our resources and experience, administratively and judicially, that are necessary
to implement a competition law. Couple this with the abundant reliance on
outside analysis that may not have thoroughly considered the peculiarities of
the Philippines.
On this point I agree
there is a huge need to develop competition advocacy: the thorough education of
both Bench and Bar, and the eventual creation of experienced and trained
competition and consumer champions.
From years of policymaking
we know that if there’s a thing that the ruling sector wants immediately
accomplished, with zero fuss, then generally it’s best to make a fuss about it.
It is precisely at such moments that time for further study becomes a
necessity.
In relation to crafting
our competition law, the same thought should apply considering the profound
effect it will have on the country’s economy and Filipino lives.
Thank you. I think shall
stop here.
=
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
References:
ASEAN Competition Law and Policy: Toward Trade
Liberalization and Regional Market Integration (Pornchai Wisuttisak
& Nguyen Ba Binh; ICIRD 2012)
Drafting Competition Law for Developing Jurisdictions:
Learning from Experience (Eleanor M. Fox
and Michal S. Gal; 2014)
The Divorce
Revolution Perpetually Reduces U.S. Economic Growth: Divorce Removes a Fourth
of Head-of-Household Productivity Growth (Henry Potrykus and Patrick Fagan;
2012)
Competition and
Competition Policy in Emerging Markets: International and Developmental
Dimensions (Ajit Singh; G-24 Discussion Paper No.18, 2002)
2014 Economic
Freedom Index (Heritage Foundation)
2014-2015
Global Competitiveness Index (World Economic Forum)
2014-2015 Times
Higher Education World University Rankings
2013
Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index (Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited
and the U.S. Council on Competitiveness)
2010 ASEAN
Regional Guidelines on Competition Policy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)