There we go again. After a relatively long lull in the public debate on population and reproductive rights, two issues that are inevitably intertwined in the Third World, the Philippines is again in the thick of a bitter and important discussion. In a country that in 2007 still grew at 2.04 %, incredibly high by any standards, setting this issue aside for political convenience might be good for short term survival for the government but is potentially catastrophic for the country’s long term prospects.
At 90 million, the Philippines has the world 12th biggest population and 45th in terms of density. This is startling considering the country’s land area, the proportion of its lands that are habitable and the scarcity of its material resources. While the last issue can be debatable as the country boasts of vast natural resources, the gross mismanagement of the country’s economy has made the trickling down of those resources to the population hardly felt especially by those at the bottom of the food chain. Just driving through the streets and highways of the Philippines particularly in Manila would give you a palpable sense of how overpopulated the country is. And the problems that emanate from overpopulation of course follows. The ballooning of those living in poverty, the increasing inadequacy of government services especially those that are directed towards the poor like health care, grassroots education and social alleviation are just some of the most serious consequences of unbridled population growth. For those who have lived in America for a long time, it is perhaps easier to appreciate the sensory experience of too much people in any given space.
Given the country’s undisputedly high population growth rate, one would expect the Arroyo government to move heaven and earth to correct this long-standing problem. With its much touted emphasis on poverty alleviation, it has miserably failed to reconcile the population factor in its long-term strategy. That is how despite the high economic growth that the country has posted in the past several years, the number of poor people still rise every year. In both SWS and Pulse Asia surveys, the percentage of people who describe themselves as poor or very poor is reaching alarming proportions. To date, the government through its Department of Health would still have nothing to do with artificial means of contraception. Almost on cue from the Catholic Church, the Arroyo government refuses to promote the more scientifically proven and reliable means of contraception especially among the poor. State funding for such methods are almost negligible relative to the DOH’s overall budget. Not only are these methods rendered inaccessible to the poor, it is likewise helping in perpetuating the myth that natural birth control alone can do the job.
And it all boils down to politics. The Catholic Church’s fingerprints on the government’s population policy are all over the place. The degree in the Church’s influence is such that the statements of its bishops are hardly distinguishable from those of the government. This has been especially cemented in the aftermath of the ZTE corruption expose which made the Arroyo government’s vulnerability all the more apparent. It can be recalled that at the height of the scandal when the government’s very survival was on the line, the Church leaderships’ position tipped the balance of power towards the beleaguered Arroyo. Needless to say, had the bishops called for a People Power in those critical times, things would have been very different today.
But the Catholic Church’s lobby on the population issue is not happening just now. Ramos, the country’s first and only Protestant president, pursued a population program completely independent of the Church. It was nevertheless an uneasy 6 years with the Church for Ramos and his Protestant DOH secretary Juan Flavier. Whether Ramos’ stellar economic record was a result of good population programs, the jury is not out yet. Whether Arroyo’s economic sense will finally reconcile the population component of the country’s long term economic and social strategy, it is clear that its final couple of years promise no change in policy.
Meanwhile, we can help ease the overcrowding by staying exactly where we are.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
The China Question
Having been Asia’s central power for millennia, China has consistently dominated the politics and culture of much of the Far East. From Mongolia in the north to present day archipelagic Southeast Asia in the south, from Japan in the east to Turkey in the west, the depth and breath of the Chinese empire was unparalleled. The Chinese hegemony lasted for so long that much of the Far East’s trademark cultural DNA can be traced to Chinese roots. From rice to gun powder, from navigation to the invention of paper, the world would have been vastly different if the Middle Kingdom did not exist.
And yet, as late as the early 70s, China was being dismissed even as a regional power. Its lack of a true market economy and a bankrupt financial system coupled with its backward social doctrines made it the virtual sleeping giant in the Far East. While its rival, Taiwan galloped into the 80s as a modern economic power, China was deeply embroiled in its internal political and cultural struggles. It was still so deeply embedded in its socialist path that seriously undermined its economic competitiveness. Although China possessed the largest standing army in the world, it took tiny Vietnam to claim victory in their border war in 1979. Although China also claimed victory in the same war, it was undeniably a major blow to China’s ego as a major power. For decades, China continued to be the giant panda in the room as it remained a diplomatic pariah in the world since most relations were carried out with Taiwan, a.k.a. The Republic of China.
Until Nixon’s ping-pong diplomacy in the 1970s dramatically shifted China’s standing in the world. Looking for a counter-weight to the USSR in the socialist world, Nixon sought to engage the world’s most populous country in what would be China’s debut into the modern world of diplomacy. One by one, Western nations relocated their embassies from Taipei to Beijing. In fact, in one stunning stroke of genius, our very own Marcos preempted even the United States in shifting recognition to Beijing.
Upon Mao’s death and the tumultuous power struggle that ensued, Deng Xiaoping emerged from the rubbles of the Cultural Revolution to lead the China into unprecedented modernization and prosperity. From the early 80s to the present, China’s unstoppable double digit growth became the stuff of legend. Not even Japan’s “miracle economy” after the 60s would compare with the speed and intensity with which China’s leadership pursued its giant leap forward. Overnight, fishing villages in the country’s south and southeast coasts turned into ultra-modern cities of trade and industry. It is estimated that if today’s national growth rates remain the same, 2020 would be the year when China takes over the title as the world’s largest economy.
And this thought frightens a lot of people. The re-dawning of Chinese hegemony after almost half a millennium of lagging behind the West is a true cause for concern. Still a socialist country by loose definition, the prospect of Red China becoming number one creates anxiety for those who value free market as the way to go. While Beijing’s magnificent new skyscrapers would belie any centralized socialist planning, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) omnipresence in its streets during the Beijing Olympics was my constant reminder of China’s continuous embrace of its Maoist heritage.
At the same time, however, China’s march into capitalism is just as unstoppable. The central government can continue to pledge allegiance to Mao for the duration of its existence, but one fact remains, its present prosperity is owed not to its hard-line socialist ideology but to its adoption of the free market. And if this prosperity should remain as the cornerstone of the present communist dynasty, the Chinese’ centuries old skills in trade will remain central to its way of life.
In this regard, China has truly come of age. When I decided to see the Beijing Olympics, part of my enthusiasm in coming was that I knew it would be a monumental event for China. The Olympics would be China’s stage in presenting itself as a modern, welcoming, prosperous and culturally sophisticated power. I knew that the Chinese government would spare no expense in making it the greatest Olympic event in history. And Beijing did not disappoint me.
If the Olympics would be any indication of how this massive civilization wants to engage the world, we should then be comforted by the outcome. It is also true that a lot of questions remain on how China conducts itself vis-à-vis Tibet, its regime’s stifling of political and press liberties, the perceived corruption in most levels of its bureaucracy, but it would be a serious mistake to re-isolate this awaken giant. These are all the more reason to continuously engage China.
To do otherwise is not only foolish, but extremely self-defeating.
And yet, as late as the early 70s, China was being dismissed even as a regional power. Its lack of a true market economy and a bankrupt financial system coupled with its backward social doctrines made it the virtual sleeping giant in the Far East. While its rival, Taiwan galloped into the 80s as a modern economic power, China was deeply embroiled in its internal political and cultural struggles. It was still so deeply embedded in its socialist path that seriously undermined its economic competitiveness. Although China possessed the largest standing army in the world, it took tiny Vietnam to claim victory in their border war in 1979. Although China also claimed victory in the same war, it was undeniably a major blow to China’s ego as a major power. For decades, China continued to be the giant panda in the room as it remained a diplomatic pariah in the world since most relations were carried out with Taiwan, a.k.a. The Republic of China.
Until Nixon’s ping-pong diplomacy in the 1970s dramatically shifted China’s standing in the world. Looking for a counter-weight to the USSR in the socialist world, Nixon sought to engage the world’s most populous country in what would be China’s debut into the modern world of diplomacy. One by one, Western nations relocated their embassies from Taipei to Beijing. In fact, in one stunning stroke of genius, our very own Marcos preempted even the United States in shifting recognition to Beijing.
Upon Mao’s death and the tumultuous power struggle that ensued, Deng Xiaoping emerged from the rubbles of the Cultural Revolution to lead the China into unprecedented modernization and prosperity. From the early 80s to the present, China’s unstoppable double digit growth became the stuff of legend. Not even Japan’s “miracle economy” after the 60s would compare with the speed and intensity with which China’s leadership pursued its giant leap forward. Overnight, fishing villages in the country’s south and southeast coasts turned into ultra-modern cities of trade and industry. It is estimated that if today’s national growth rates remain the same, 2020 would be the year when China takes over the title as the world’s largest economy.
And this thought frightens a lot of people. The re-dawning of Chinese hegemony after almost half a millennium of lagging behind the West is a true cause for concern. Still a socialist country by loose definition, the prospect of Red China becoming number one creates anxiety for those who value free market as the way to go. While Beijing’s magnificent new skyscrapers would belie any centralized socialist planning, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) omnipresence in its streets during the Beijing Olympics was my constant reminder of China’s continuous embrace of its Maoist heritage.
At the same time, however, China’s march into capitalism is just as unstoppable. The central government can continue to pledge allegiance to Mao for the duration of its existence, but one fact remains, its present prosperity is owed not to its hard-line socialist ideology but to its adoption of the free market. And if this prosperity should remain as the cornerstone of the present communist dynasty, the Chinese’ centuries old skills in trade will remain central to its way of life.
In this regard, China has truly come of age. When I decided to see the Beijing Olympics, part of my enthusiasm in coming was that I knew it would be a monumental event for China. The Olympics would be China’s stage in presenting itself as a modern, welcoming, prosperous and culturally sophisticated power. I knew that the Chinese government would spare no expense in making it the greatest Olympic event in history. And Beijing did not disappoint me.
If the Olympics would be any indication of how this massive civilization wants to engage the world, we should then be comforted by the outcome. It is also true that a lot of questions remain on how China conducts itself vis-à-vis Tibet, its regime’s stifling of political and press liberties, the perceived corruption in most levels of its bureaucracy, but it would be a serious mistake to re-isolate this awaken giant. These are all the more reason to continuously engage China.
To do otherwise is not only foolish, but extremely self-defeating.
Chacha: Here We Go Again
The drumbeat for amending the Philippine Constitution is again sounding louder and louder. As Gloria Arroyo’s term nears its almost inevitable end, the sense of panic of what is to befall her and her minions in a post-Arroyo era envelops the government. And as this sense of panic grows, the search for a stop-gap measure to avoid possible retaliation from her opponents in the form of legal prosecution becomes the order of the day.
Regardless of the type of spin that the government employs on who wants what, the hand of the administration in this effort could not be any clearer. In a momentary lapse of judgement, or an intentional testing of the waters came about when Press Secretary Jesus Dureza prayed for Arroyo’s term “by 2010 and beyond”. While the prayer was excused as a mere joke, the administration’s real intent is by no means a secret to anyone. Year after year, Arroyo’s allies in the Lower House have tried, and consistently failed, to change the constitution. From De Venecia to Nograles, the imprint of using the convening of a Constitutional Convention or a Constituent Assembly to extend their own terms and more importantly, that of Arroyo’s is never more glaring. Previous administrations have also used the precept of constitutional change to remain in office, but this is particularly more objectionable to the public due to valid questions on the administration’s legitimacy. The voice of Arroyo on the “hello garci” tapes still haunts the public until now. Besides, who would want to extend a government’s life when it should not have existed in the first place? The degree by which the public has and would continue to demonstrate its unequivocal opposition to such moves would again unravel in the next few weeks. The administration’s lack of time before the May 2010 elections and the wannabe presidents’ own agenda would undoubtedly clash either in the streets or in the halls of Congress. Or both. Arroyo’s sense of urgency is quite undeniable.
While the predominant view in political circles is that there is indeed a need to change to country’s form of government to a federal type with the question on the parliamentary type remaining more debatable, the danger of using the constitutional forum to further their own interests looms so large in the public’s consciousness. The President’s credibility problem is so bad that on this basis alone as shown in survey after survey that constitutional change has almost no chance to succeed. The country’s vastly diverse regions, both in cultural and political sense, give the argument for a federal type of government a lot of weight. This path likewise makes the issue of autonomy for Muslim Mindanao almost moot and academic. The country’s extremely expensive presidential election requires a very redundant national campaign for the candidates actually also lend validity for a parliamentary form. Prime Ministers are elected into office within parliament and require no national campaign, hence vastly reducing the cost of becoming Chief Executive. But opponents of the parliamentary form cite the country’s turncoat culture and the perceived corruption among those who would be given a hand in selecting the country’s leader. Because constitutional change is always held hostage by the administration’s obvious selfish designs, the merits of these proposals become secondary. Just the thought of Arroyo changing titles from President to Prime Minister after 2010 is such a nightmare for a lot of people.
Despite Arroyo’s strong desire to remain in office, time is still her biggest obstacle. Already, the race for to become their party’s standard bearer are in full swing. Even with the appropriately named Lower House’s best efforts to disregard the less cooperative Senate despite the latter’s change of leadership, the prospect looks dim for any real movement towards their goal. With a Senate that leans heavily to the opposition, the House would most likely attempt to go at it alone through some constitutional or legal maneuvering. But the clear need for the Senate’s approval on any move to amend the constitution spells doom for congressmen and Arroyo’s political and legal future.
In all these intramurals, however, the more important factor of the people’s disdain for the status quo and their desire for it to come to pass as quickly as possible should never be ignored. This is the dead end that they know will one day come their way. And then the country moves on, for better or for worse.
Regardless of the type of spin that the government employs on who wants what, the hand of the administration in this effort could not be any clearer. In a momentary lapse of judgement, or an intentional testing of the waters came about when Press Secretary Jesus Dureza prayed for Arroyo’s term “by 2010 and beyond”. While the prayer was excused as a mere joke, the administration’s real intent is by no means a secret to anyone. Year after year, Arroyo’s allies in the Lower House have tried, and consistently failed, to change the constitution. From De Venecia to Nograles, the imprint of using the convening of a Constitutional Convention or a Constituent Assembly to extend their own terms and more importantly, that of Arroyo’s is never more glaring. Previous administrations have also used the precept of constitutional change to remain in office, but this is particularly more objectionable to the public due to valid questions on the administration’s legitimacy. The voice of Arroyo on the “hello garci” tapes still haunts the public until now. Besides, who would want to extend a government’s life when it should not have existed in the first place? The degree by which the public has and would continue to demonstrate its unequivocal opposition to such moves would again unravel in the next few weeks. The administration’s lack of time before the May 2010 elections and the wannabe presidents’ own agenda would undoubtedly clash either in the streets or in the halls of Congress. Or both. Arroyo’s sense of urgency is quite undeniable.
While the predominant view in political circles is that there is indeed a need to change to country’s form of government to a federal type with the question on the parliamentary type remaining more debatable, the danger of using the constitutional forum to further their own interests looms so large in the public’s consciousness. The President’s credibility problem is so bad that on this basis alone as shown in survey after survey that constitutional change has almost no chance to succeed. The country’s vastly diverse regions, both in cultural and political sense, give the argument for a federal type of government a lot of weight. This path likewise makes the issue of autonomy for Muslim Mindanao almost moot and academic. The country’s extremely expensive presidential election requires a very redundant national campaign for the candidates actually also lend validity for a parliamentary form. Prime Ministers are elected into office within parliament and require no national campaign, hence vastly reducing the cost of becoming Chief Executive. But opponents of the parliamentary form cite the country’s turncoat culture and the perceived corruption among those who would be given a hand in selecting the country’s leader. Because constitutional change is always held hostage by the administration’s obvious selfish designs, the merits of these proposals become secondary. Just the thought of Arroyo changing titles from President to Prime Minister after 2010 is such a nightmare for a lot of people.
Despite Arroyo’s strong desire to remain in office, time is still her biggest obstacle. Already, the race for to become their party’s standard bearer are in full swing. Even with the appropriately named Lower House’s best efforts to disregard the less cooperative Senate despite the latter’s change of leadership, the prospect looks dim for any real movement towards their goal. With a Senate that leans heavily to the opposition, the House would most likely attempt to go at it alone through some constitutional or legal maneuvering. But the clear need for the Senate’s approval on any move to amend the constitution spells doom for congressmen and Arroyo’s political and legal future.
In all these intramurals, however, the more important factor of the people’s disdain for the status quo and their desire for it to come to pass as quickly as possible should never be ignored. This is the dead end that they know will one day come their way. And then the country moves on, for better or for worse.
What Obama Means to Fil-Ams
Much has been said about how President-elect Barrack Obama’s presidency is transformative for the United States and its people. How only 40 years ago, African-Americans lived in the segregated South, the election to the presidency of this son of a Kenyan immigrant has truly inspired millions into a movement that made all these happen. Obama’s oratorical prowess and his program of change challenged much of the status quo even within the Democratic Party. He became the face of reform in the midst of a debilitating national picture. He embodied everything that is hopeful for a country that is reeling from the seeming collapse of the national morale.
The November 4th polls also catapulted a wider majority for the Democrats in both houses of Congress. This means that the incoming administration will have a bigger elbow room for its programs, even those that would be too Left in the eyes of conservative Republicans. Obama’s capacity to push his programs will be vastly greater than those of Clinton and Bush II given the margin of the Democrats’ seat advantage this time. Issues that would have been too precarious like immigration reform, redoing the Patriot Act, women’s reproductive rights, stem cell research and major foreign policy shifts particularly in the Middle East seem easier to tackle now than ever before. And since Obama is largely perceived to be on the Left of Clinton and even Carter, the audacity of this administration to push its agenda will be very evident.
Which is what the huge mandate in both the presidential and congressional elections means. Elections are always a referendum of existing policies and those that are proposed to replace them. That is what platforms and policy positions during the campaign are all about. The charge to power by the Democrats in Washington will of course be tempered by the promise of bipartisanship. Just 3 seats shy of the filibuster-proof 60, the Senate Democrats are poised to redefine the legislative agenda. The further fall from power of the likes of Elizabeth Dole and John Sununu also mark an ideological shift in the Senate. Even moderate Republicans agree that there will have to be a serious rethinking of where they want to be in the face of this onslaught. Like on stem cell research, or its unbridled embrace of the evangelical cause as the foundation of its electoral base and as a major component of its ideological fiber.
Above all these, Obama’s presidency is a major cataclysmic shift for a country that for years has been leaning to the Right. It will and probably already has paved the way for a change on how the world views America. The United States will once again lay the ground work for a foreign policy that is much less unilateral and takes greater consideration for international opinion. Democratic administrations have traditionally adhered to a brand of international liberalism that foreign powers have tended to favor vis-a-vis the strong-arm behavior of many Republican administrations. Obama’s pronouncements during the campaign always emphasized regaining America’s moral leadership in the world. Bush’s failure to form a broader coalition for the invasion of Iraq stemmed from this fundamental flaw in foreign policy.
On the more specific question on how the Filipino-American community will be impacted by this historic electoral triumph, nothing touches the cord of immigrant communities than immigration reform. It generates much emotion from either side of the political debate. While the issue was seldom discussed during the campaign, there is widespread expectation that Obama and the Democratic Congress will move, albeit slowly, to fix the lingering immigration issue. Increases in family and employment-based immigration will be received positively by the Filipino-American community. Obama’s close ties to the immigrant community especially when he lived in Hawaii and his own immigrant background certainly augurs well for positive changes in Washington on this deeply divisive issue. The vitality of America’s nationhood after all has deeper roots on immigration than any other policy since its foundation. The broader issue of comprehensive immigration reform that includes giving some status to illegals will be a tougher issue to tackle, but will nonetheless probably be on the table. The previous strong opposition to the defeated bill in the last Congress was premised on its lack of border security features. Many of those issues have been addressed and the plausibility of ignoring this lingering issue is next to unacceptable. And Obama possibly realizes this.
After all, finally confronting this 12 million people problem is really just a matter of time.
On a higher plane, Obama’s victory opens up the door for everybody else. It makes it easier for Asian-Americans and Latinos to dream of someday becoming leader of the Free World. Whether some people like it or not, Obama’s face is the face of America’s present and its even more diverse future. The Obama presidency revalidates America’s promise of inclusion for all those who still seek the American dream. That not only is the promise that of a better life, but a much greater role in shaping its destiny.
Who knows, the next Obama could be among us.
The November 4th polls also catapulted a wider majority for the Democrats in both houses of Congress. This means that the incoming administration will have a bigger elbow room for its programs, even those that would be too Left in the eyes of conservative Republicans. Obama’s capacity to push his programs will be vastly greater than those of Clinton and Bush II given the margin of the Democrats’ seat advantage this time. Issues that would have been too precarious like immigration reform, redoing the Patriot Act, women’s reproductive rights, stem cell research and major foreign policy shifts particularly in the Middle East seem easier to tackle now than ever before. And since Obama is largely perceived to be on the Left of Clinton and even Carter, the audacity of this administration to push its agenda will be very evident.
Which is what the huge mandate in both the presidential and congressional elections means. Elections are always a referendum of existing policies and those that are proposed to replace them. That is what platforms and policy positions during the campaign are all about. The charge to power by the Democrats in Washington will of course be tempered by the promise of bipartisanship. Just 3 seats shy of the filibuster-proof 60, the Senate Democrats are poised to redefine the legislative agenda. The further fall from power of the likes of Elizabeth Dole and John Sununu also mark an ideological shift in the Senate. Even moderate Republicans agree that there will have to be a serious rethinking of where they want to be in the face of this onslaught. Like on stem cell research, or its unbridled embrace of the evangelical cause as the foundation of its electoral base and as a major component of its ideological fiber.
Above all these, Obama’s presidency is a major cataclysmic shift for a country that for years has been leaning to the Right. It will and probably already has paved the way for a change on how the world views America. The United States will once again lay the ground work for a foreign policy that is much less unilateral and takes greater consideration for international opinion. Democratic administrations have traditionally adhered to a brand of international liberalism that foreign powers have tended to favor vis-a-vis the strong-arm behavior of many Republican administrations. Obama’s pronouncements during the campaign always emphasized regaining America’s moral leadership in the world. Bush’s failure to form a broader coalition for the invasion of Iraq stemmed from this fundamental flaw in foreign policy.
On the more specific question on how the Filipino-American community will be impacted by this historic electoral triumph, nothing touches the cord of immigrant communities than immigration reform. It generates much emotion from either side of the political debate. While the issue was seldom discussed during the campaign, there is widespread expectation that Obama and the Democratic Congress will move, albeit slowly, to fix the lingering immigration issue. Increases in family and employment-based immigration will be received positively by the Filipino-American community. Obama’s close ties to the immigrant community especially when he lived in Hawaii and his own immigrant background certainly augurs well for positive changes in Washington on this deeply divisive issue. The vitality of America’s nationhood after all has deeper roots on immigration than any other policy since its foundation. The broader issue of comprehensive immigration reform that includes giving some status to illegals will be a tougher issue to tackle, but will nonetheless probably be on the table. The previous strong opposition to the defeated bill in the last Congress was premised on its lack of border security features. Many of those issues have been addressed and the plausibility of ignoring this lingering issue is next to unacceptable. And Obama possibly realizes this.
After all, finally confronting this 12 million people problem is really just a matter of time.
On a higher plane, Obama’s victory opens up the door for everybody else. It makes it easier for Asian-Americans and Latinos to dream of someday becoming leader of the Free World. Whether some people like it or not, Obama’s face is the face of America’s present and its even more diverse future. The Obama presidency revalidates America’s promise of inclusion for all those who still seek the American dream. That not only is the promise that of a better life, but a much greater role in shaping its destiny.
Who knows, the next Obama could be among us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)