Analysis
Superpatriots in Senate sending wrong signals
By Amando Doronila
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:24:00 06/09/2008
Filed Under: Electricity Production & Distribution, Congress, Government Contracts, Investments
MANILA, Philippines—Bashing “foreign devils” is a favorite pastime of persons holding public authority in the search for scapegoats to blame for the high electricity rates and spiraling prices of rice and other commodities.
These two potentially explosive issues have sparked the resurgence of economic populism as the weapon of government and its accomplices to bring down the electricity rates.
Last week, the government’s target as scapegoat dramatically shifted from the homegrown “oligarchy”—i.e. the Lopez-controlled Meralco—to foreign investors, who were denounced for “undue interference” in the Senate’s policy-setting function in economic legislation.
The signal for the shift came when the administration’s allies in the Senate, spearheaded by Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile and his confederate, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, opened fire on the Joint Foreign Chambers of Commerce in the Philippines after the JFCC wrote to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, urging her not to amend the government contracts with independent power producers (IPP).
News of the JFCC letter came as the Senate was hearing proposals for amending the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA).
The JFCC’s intervention provoked Enrile and Santiago to wrap the flag around themselves and to go into a frenzy of flag-waving chauvinism against foreign business interests for “intrusion into the domain of policy” in the Philippines.
With their umbrage, Enrile and Santiago introduced nationalism as an issue in the electricity rates dispute in a manifestation of xenophobic Filipino nationalism.
In their many years in public service, Enrile and Santiago without doubt have rendered valuable service to the Filipino people, but serving as exemplars of Filipino nationalism is not their strongest suit.
Matter of approach
Enrile’s claim to be remembered by posterity is anchored on his being the epitome of authoritarianism based on his record as the martial law architect and administrator of Ferdinand Marcos’ 14-year dictatorship.
Whether that has made this country economically strong and independent to be able to tell off foreign investors to “get out of this country if you can’t live with us,” I leave the verdict to our countrymen who had lived and suffered under the dictatorship he had served so well.
What offended Enrile and Santiago was the JFCC’s May 27 letter to Ms Arroyo, which Santiago said was a breach of protocol and undue interference in the workings of a co-equal branch of government because it was not addressed to the Senate or Congress as a whole.
It was not the substance of the JFCC intervention seeking a status quo on EPIRA that affronted the senators but the approach: The chambers bypassed the Senate. The letter should have been sent to the Senate energy committee, chaired by Santiago.
Wrong channel
The JFCC made the mistake of sending its letter through the wrong channels—i.e., the executive department. It failed to take into consideration that the senators were extremely touchy about the independence of the Senate from the executive department.
The senators signaled the message that presidential intervention and lobbying on behalf of the chambers would not ensure an outcome in the Senate hearings favorable to the JFCC.
Nevertheless, Enrile and Santiago converted the appearance of Hubert D’Aboville, president of the European Chamber of Commerce, who acted as spokesperson for the JFCC at the hearing, into a demonstration of their capacity for bullying witnesses and foreigner bashing.
They sought to make the point that economic nationalism was associated with amending the EPIRA, which the foreign chambers did not want disturbed. The present arrangements under EPIRA include the so-called “take-or-pay” provisions.
For a song
In its letter, the JFCC warned: “Threats of yet another round of contracts with independent power producers will cast doubt on the stability of policies and regularity rules and on the integrity of investment promotion program in the Philippines.”
Enrile picked on this warning to harass the JFCC spokesperson in two and half hours of interrogation. He angrily told D’Aboville: “You wanted to make a profit. Because you are forcing the government to sell [its generation and transmission assets] for a song. My goodness, … get out of this country if you can’t live with us … You’re guests in this country.”
Bedrock principles
The JFCC letter said: “Many of the unwarranted accusations being raised by some legislators … appear to be questioning the bedrock principles that are sound and, in fact, practiced by many progressive power industries around the world.”
Enrile was further angered when the witness did not identify the legislators who made the “unwarranted accusations.” D’Aboville said he would answer the question later, but Enrile said: “No, just name the legislators, sir!”
Enrile asked Santiago to direct D’Aboville to answer the question, and she told the witness: “You must come straight to the point. If you do not wish to answer the question, you may say so and this committee will then decide.”
When the hearing was resumed after the break, the witness resumed reading a prepared statement, prompting Santiago to warn: “You may not continue. You do not determine what you can say or not say. I determine [it].” Such arbitrariness is familiar to those who have testified at Senate hearings.
D’Aboville said that “if we were misunderstood, I certainly apologize for being misunderstood.”
History of failure
Santiago later said that if the business chambers “have anything to say about pending legislation, they should say it to the Senate.” How could they say it to the Senate when the chair curtailed the further reading of their prepared statement.
After the hearing, D’Aboville pointed out to reporters the big disparity of $15 billion in foreign investments in Vietnam and the $2.4 billion in foreign investments in the Philippines last year.
When senators showed the door to the foreign devils, they did it as though the economy was strong enough not to need foreign investment.
The Philippines has a long history of failure to mobilize enough domestic savings to back an autonomous investment program. For as long as the country is dependent on foreign investment to finance its economic expansion and development, all this flag-waving is a monstrous bluff.
And the posturing of superpatriots will not bring down the electricity rates.
|
