A historical SONA

DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
7/25/2005



Most SONAs are myopic, reviewing only the immediate past, present and future. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s SONA is expected to be most vacuous and self-serving being, as one mainstream and not so well disguised pro-GMA newspaper put it, crucial to her political survival. She’s sure to be engaging in prevarications: papering over crucial questions about her cheating in elections and the fiscal and economic crisis she has spawned, evading the issue of the nation’s all but complete loss of trust and confidence in her, and painting a sanguine future for her regime which no one will believe.

Equally empty and self-serving was Lacson’s TSONA, showing the Ping’s media handlers creating an event without delivering any substance. Retired general Fortunato Abat had his own SONA published in pamphlet form which the newspapers report as a call for the “caretaker government”, which he believes he should be included in of course. While I support the concept of a transition government under a caretaker council, inclusion should only be based on a leader’s proof of support from a major political constituency. How much popular endorsement does the proposed council member have?

A new survey indicator gives us an insight into the historical state of the nation, from the time of GMA’s father Diosdado Macapagal to the present. The question posed was: who is the best and the worse president the Philippine has had. The answer given by Pulse Asia’s executive director Felipe Miranda in a speech to students of the FEU showed Marcos on top as the best, with a grade of 7 out 10, followed by Estrada with 6. Cory followed Estrada but no score was given, then Ramos followed by Gloria at the very bottom. So, historically we can say that we have come from good to worst.

That’s the state of the nation and it can be summed up very briefly: It’s the worst of times. Why did we get into this sorry state of affairs? An intelligent answer to that question cannot be provided by mere comparison of the personalities of the presidents. Cory Aquino, Fidel Ramos and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo were given higher education in foreign lands, the first a stint in France, the second at West point, Virginia, U.S.A. and the last at Georgetown University, U.S.A., but why does the college drop out Joseph E. Estrada considered by the population as a president that these three?

Marcos didn’t have a foreign education, but attaining at the Bar one of the highest scores of all time firmly established his academic abilities. Why did the foreign educated leaders fail to measure up to the Filipino’s standard? Historical hindsight provided the incontrovertible basis: under Marcos and Estrada they felt the care and concern of the leaders. Something in foreign education distorts a Filipino’s value system, and as leaders they become instruments not of the people but of the culture they imbibed abroad.

Faith in the Filipino made Marcos and Estrada do their best for the country and attempt to do things their own way; while the other three failures were carrying goals and aspiration infused with Western thought, such as liberalization of the economy and trade. Marcos tried to protect and develop Philippine industry and industrialization, and Estrada as a senator charged Cory Aquino’s economic managers as “economic saboteurs” for precipitately opening the country to foreign onslaught. During Marcos’ long years and Estrada’s short term one thing was clear, they cared for the Filipino.

Felipe Miranda’s survey apparently did not include Dosdado Macapagal and Carlos P. Garcia, which is unfortunate. Between these two presidents’ policies on the country’s Peso and the economy stood one of the most crucial changes that spelled the historical doom of the Philippines. Garcia stood for the Filipino First built on the twin policies of currency and capital controls, it was Macapagal on pressure of the U.S. that reversed this and decontrolled the financial system and we have been on the decline since then. Macapagal was also too proud of his economics diploma.

China revalued the Yuan by 2.1% last Thursday, some claim that China floated its currency by this; but to float is to be like drift wood in the ocean. China shifted from fixing its Yuan from the Dollar to a basket of currencies that only it knows the composition of, the Chinese monetary authorities are firmly in control of its currency to suit to its trade and political aims. Malaysia has followed China in shifting to lock its Ringgit to a basket of currencies to protect its financial and economic interests, the real issue at the heart of the Mahathir-Anwar Ibrahim struggle that landed the latter in jail.

Mahathir triumphed over financial liberalization. For the Philippines the financial and economic nationalism questions are still central to the country’s survival. Beyond the cheating and corruption of Gloria the issue of her financial and economic treason against the Peso and the Filipino should also be raised against her. Economic nationalism is a central, and here’s a cue: China’s shift from the Dollar is also a signal to go for gold. The Philippines has lots of gold but GMA’s giving it away to foreign interests. How we are sold out by these leaders, that’s the worst part of the state of the nation.

(Tune in from Mon. to Fri., 7:30-8:30am on 1350AM, and 6-7pm on 1098AM)