Beyond the Terminal 3 (NA) international airport fiasco, local papers are a buzzed re two controversies: (1) defining and taxing oil imports, and (2) the case between a generic and a branded drug. We are pitted against the Germans, the British and the Dutch, and the Americans. Or are we pitted against ourselves – and we are our worst enemy? Is the suspicion of corruption at the heart of the Terminal 3 imbroglio and the taxing of oil imports? And in all 3 cases, are we invoking victimhood – that we are being victimized by the big guys?
We were fascinated by Barack Obama and dissected his candidacy – yet did we miss its true import? Barack Obama turned victimhood on its head! If there’s a lesson we want to discern from Obama, it is that victimhood equates to defeatism! If we think like winners we can turn victimhood/defeatism on its head? But can we win despite the Germans, the British and the Dutch, and the Americans? How did our neighbors do it? As the World Banks reminds us, they did it by: (a) fully engaging with the global economy, (b) maintaining macroeconomic stability, (c) mustering high rates of savings and investment, (d) letting markets allocate resources and (e) electing committed, credible and capable governments.
China is now in a contest with Japan to be the second largest economy. Yet not too long ago China was isolated from the rest of the world – its economy suffered . . . and thus had to address the discontent of its people. China then opted to be a market economy and tapped the requisite elements of competitiveness: foreign capital, foreign market, foreign technology and foreign expertise!
Do we want to connect the dots in order to attain competiveness – or fortify influence peddling instead a la Dick Cheney? Two news reports can’t be ignored: (a) NEDA sees Ps 554 B annual infra spending, and (b) Tollway proponent short of funds – wants subsidy. In one article government proudly says: “It is a solicited private-sector project without any form of government guarantee, a pure private-business venture.” Yet the other reads: “government can offer bridge funding . . . adding that the money could be sourced from the proceeds of the P50-billion infrastructure bonds that NDC would float . . . Earlier, DMCI said that PIDC would raise P10 billion in debt . . . the balance . . . would come in the form of equity. DMCI had subscribed to more than 1.4-million common shares of PIDC . . . DMCI had said that the San Miguel group would raise its stake in PIDC to 49 percent, and later on to 51 percent.”
Are we being transparent in pursuing major initiatives? Infrastructure raises efficiency and thus critical to the competitiveness of our strategic industries. In the case of tourism, for example, it appears we have 12 destinations generating the largest revenues. What piece of the infrastructure spending is allocated to raise the competitiveness of these revenue generators – that visitors coming over for a holiday will have a pleasant experience, i.e., our infrastructure from point a to point b is efficient, not gold-plated? How much income do we expect from tourism if it is a strategic industry? We can’t define our strategic initiatives in wishy-washy fashion – i.e., it equates to influence peddling, abuse and corruption, or why investors skip us!
How badly do we want to develop the competitiveness of our industry? How can San Miguel be a preferred provider – and allotted subsidy – on a business it is not industry leader and innovator, for example? Is San Miguel doing a Warren Buffett, building up its portfolio? Buffett invests to make money – not to seek government subsidy. He stepped in to bailout an investment bank before and recently made a huge bet on the railroad industry, an asset not only to himself but the nation! Buffett is not Cheney! But are we in fact disciples of Cheney’s bunker-mentality and influence peddling, i.e., inward-looking and hierarchical?
We were fascinated by Barack Obama and dissected his candidacy – yet did we miss its true import? Barack Obama turned victimhood on its head! If there’s a lesson we want to discern from Obama, it is that victimhood equates to defeatism! If we think like winners we can turn victimhood/defeatism on its head? But can we win despite the Germans, the British and the Dutch, and the Americans? How did our neighbors do it? As the World Banks reminds us, they did it by: (a) fully engaging with the global economy, (b) maintaining macroeconomic stability, (c) mustering high rates of savings and investment, (d) letting markets allocate resources and (e) electing committed, credible and capable governments.
China is now in a contest with Japan to be the second largest economy. Yet not too long ago China was isolated from the rest of the world – its economy suffered . . . and thus had to address the discontent of its people. China then opted to be a market economy and tapped the requisite elements of competitiveness: foreign capital, foreign market, foreign technology and foreign expertise!
Do we want to connect the dots in order to attain competiveness – or fortify influence peddling instead a la Dick Cheney? Two news reports can’t be ignored: (a) NEDA sees Ps 554 B annual infra spending, and (b) Tollway proponent short of funds – wants subsidy. In one article government proudly says: “It is a solicited private-sector project without any form of government guarantee, a pure private-business venture.” Yet the other reads: “government can offer bridge funding . . . adding that the money could be sourced from the proceeds of the P50-billion infrastructure bonds that NDC would float . . . Earlier, DMCI said that PIDC would raise P10 billion in debt . . . the balance . . . would come in the form of equity. DMCI had subscribed to more than 1.4-million common shares of PIDC . . . DMCI had said that the San Miguel group would raise its stake in PIDC to 49 percent, and later on to 51 percent.”
Are we being transparent in pursuing major initiatives? Infrastructure raises efficiency and thus critical to the competitiveness of our strategic industries. In the case of tourism, for example, it appears we have 12 destinations generating the largest revenues. What piece of the infrastructure spending is allocated to raise the competitiveness of these revenue generators – that visitors coming over for a holiday will have a pleasant experience, i.e., our infrastructure from point a to point b is efficient, not gold-plated? How much income do we expect from tourism if it is a strategic industry? We can’t define our strategic initiatives in wishy-washy fashion – i.e., it equates to influence peddling, abuse and corruption, or why investors skip us!
How badly do we want to develop the competitiveness of our industry? How can San Miguel be a preferred provider – and allotted subsidy – on a business it is not industry leader and innovator, for example? Is San Miguel doing a Warren Buffett, building up its portfolio? Buffett invests to make money – not to seek government subsidy. He stepped in to bailout an investment bank before and recently made a huge bet on the railroad industry, an asset not only to himself but the nation! Buffett is not Cheney! But are we in fact disciples of Cheney’s bunker-mentality and influence peddling, i.e., inward-looking and hierarchical?
Sometimes its not about how competetive we are its about how stable we are or how stable the country presents itself.
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing how the U.S. projects itself as a far stable economy when it is threatened daily by terrorists threats that involve nuclear and biochemical weapons.
The Philippines is challenged to be viewed as a safe place with a few kidnap ransom groups.