Pol. Ideology 59: On PostModern Politics

Last October, a faculty member of DLSU Political Science Department, Antonio "Tonton" Contreras, wrote an article on "Savings, errata and postmodern politics" and made a lousy conclusion that 

“the kind of politics that we have right now is postmodern.”

Philippine politics is already "postmodern"???

Tonton cited this as an example, "our Constitution being openly challenged and undermined, without even mounting a coup. We have a Visiting Forces Agreement that subordinates our sovereignty to another country."

Last time I checked, foreign investors still cannot invest in areas that are either totally prohibited (ie, reserved 100 percent to Filipino investors only) or restricted (they can invest, 40 percent max equity), because the Constitution is still being upheld. I have read the VFA, a short document actually, maybe only 3-4 pages long. There is zero, nothing there, that says American military personnel can steal or land grab or kill here if they like and they will not be subject to PH laws. What PH sovereignty was subordinated?

So because the PH Executive and Legislative bodies try to "undermine" the Supreme Court and institutions, it is defined as "postmodern"?

Since I am not a political scientist by training and it is a technical term in that discipline, I asked other friends who are political scientists. Tonton's colleague at DLSU, Louie Montemar, defined the term as "post-modernism, there is no universal “truth”, truth is negotiated and can only be 'possible' in 'small' groups."

I thanked Louie for that. A web check, one definition from WiseGeek says, 

no single “truth” can be established about anything, including good and evil, and that ideas should be deconstructed to find meaning.... If there is no single “truth” that is acknowledged by all people, then those people are more likely to question the actions of their government.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-postmodern-politics.htm

I like wisegeek's definition. Governments thrive on coercion, they are forcing, coercing, arm-twisting their citizens to follow certain rules and legislations (from high and multiple taxes and fees, no business should start unless  they get dozens  of permits, no smoking there, no parking here, no pedestrian crossing there,,...) they enacted, with fines, penalties and imprisonment for violations. Because those rules are the universal "truth" that must be obeyed. Post modernism politics in effect negates that universal "truth" imposition by governments, or at least many of those "truths" that became local and national legislations.

Tonton defined  postmodernism at the end of his article, 

"In short, everything is negotiable in Philippine politics. We deconstruct and destabilize well-established political concepts, constructs and processes. In political theory, these are telltale signs of the post-modern."

Everything in the PH is negotiable? Lousy. former President Gloria Arroyo, Senators. Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada and Bong Revilla should have negotiated their freedom by now. Orange or Vodaphone or AT&T should have negotiated their way in and compete with Globe-Smart duopoly even without changing the Constitution. These things were not negotiated and were not allowed to happen,

I think the author just wanted sensationalism in his article. Being an academic, he uses academic terms like "post modern" to sound sophisticated and advance a lousy analysis. We have not even reached a "modern" state yet where the rule of law really rules, and not the rule of men. That is how some academics fool their readers. Using jargons and sophisticated-sounding terms to sell a lousy analysis.

I like Louie's definition too, "truth is negotiated and can only be 'possible' in 'small' groups."

Tonton was talking about a big group, the entire country, not just a small group like a rotary club, a running club or a university student council or a company union.

So his conclusion, "everything is negotiable in Philippine politics" is, ummm, post-modern garbage, hehehe.

----------

See also:

Pol. Ideology 55: Jules Maaten's Lecture on Liberalism, May 11, 2014

Pol. Ideology 56: Democracy and the Devils, June 11, 2014

Pol. Ideology 57: Radicalism, Islamic Militance and Terrorism, October 03, 2014 

Pol. Ideology 58: Democracy, Coercion and Civil Society, November 29, 2014

Population Control 18: Billions of RH Services Even Without an RH law

This poster has been circulating in some friends’ facebook wall, like new but good friend, Butch Cabanban. I made this comment on Butch’s wall,

Ako naman Butch, Ethell, anti-RH but for zero religious reason, pure econ and pol philosophy lang. No one prohibits people from donating their own resources to distribute condoms, pills, etc. for free to the poor. Gawad Kalinga (GK) or Books for the Barrios (BftB) or Rotary Homes, etc. did not say that they needed a GK bill or BftB bill to become a law first before they will build a single house or distribute books to the poor. If people help, fine. If not, fine too. And maternal care, child care, is part of the DOH, UP PGH, AFP hospital, LGUs hospitals, PNP hospital, etc etc mandates, nothing new.

Someone has a "very bright" idea. That he will give a big portion of his wealth to people in calamities like victims of heavy flooding. But he needed a law first, say a "Calamity assistance law" with fines, penalties and imprisonment provision, for those who do not help during calamities, before he will help. That is one example of a lousy thinking, but that guy thinks his idea is "very bright" and must be imposed on everyone else in the country via a law from congress.

Then Butch’s friend Nathan commented,

No budget to support programs mean it will just fail. That money is called investment in a better future --- one that has less mouths to feed and more sustainable. Saying no money shd be spent for it is like not willing to put into roads and education. Pretty short -sighted.

By calling my idea “short sighted”, I returned the favor and made these counter-comments.

"No budget to support programs" is an idiotic statement. Even without an RH law, DOH has a budget of P42B in 2012, P52B in 2013 approved even before the RH bill became a law. A big portion of those billions of pesos are already in maternal and child care. Then there are billions of pesos more for PGH, AFP hospital, LGUs hospital, also for maternal and child care.

People are liabilities, thus there should be "less mouths to feed" is another stupid and short sighted statement. Those bus and taxi drivers, office workers and pub school teachers, yayas and drivers of the middle class and the rich, etc., many of them come from households with 5 or more children, they are "surplus" and hence, "unwanted children" because they come from "unwanted pregnancies." Yeah, those people should have never been born.Lousy and idiotic thinking.

Many people are ignorant of numbers and they just want to open their loud mouth because of emotionalism. The 2013 DOH budget of P52 B was approved in Dec 2012 or one year before the RH bill became a law, Dec. 2013. In that 2013 budget, DOH already included P2.539 billion for various RH services alone, of which P538 million is for FP supplies and contraceptives alone -- even without an RH law. 
http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2012/09/health-spending-6-dohs-proposed-2013.html

LGUs also have their own RH services in their respective provincial and city hospitals. PGH has RH services in its P2 billion annual budget -- even without an RH law.

No counter-argument from him. I also posted the first comment on other rabid RH campaigners like Tonton Contrereas of DLSU and Oscar Picazo of PIDS. Tonton replied,

The state has an obligation to spend for women's health because it is their bodies that are worn out just to reproduce future members of the labor force and to think that most of the work they do rearing these future workers are not being paid by the capitalist system. Put that in your equation Nonoy Oplas.

I replied,

"The state has an obligation to spend for women's health..." is off tangent as it assumes or implies that the state has NOT been spending on RH services. Wrong. Even without an RH law, the DOH, PGH, LGU hospitals, etc. have been spending on RH services already for many years.

Take the DOH 2013 BUDGET, approved in Dec. 2012 or one year before the RH bill became a law. Of the P52 B total budget, P2.539 billion alloted for various RH services alone, of which P538 million is for FP supplies and contraceptives alone -- even without an RH law.

http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2012/09/health-spending-6-dohs-proposed-2013.html

 And you mentioned the capitalist system, among my favorite topics J. Capitlaism gave us facebook, youtube, google, yahoo, twitter, samsung, apple, black berry, cars, buses, restaurants, hotels, private schools and universities. Capitlaism is a wonderful system, it creates revolutionary products and services that even socialists or other anti-capitalist groups so love and patronize. It gives jobs to people, and people feed their children. What looked like undernourished or underclothed children running in the streets will soon be the bus/taxi/office/familyi drivers, office workers, yayas for kids of people including the anti-capitalism ideologues, NGOs, media and academics alike.

That is why people are assets. More people, more assets. The real liabilities -- thieves, murderers, rapists, extortionists, kidnappers, land grabbers, etc. -- rich and poor, in private or public offices, government should get them. That is the main purpose of having government, to protect people from those criminals, especially the armed and organized ones.

----------

See also:
Population Control 14: Lessons from the Cybercrime Law, October 08, 2012
Population Control 15: Debate, Debate, on the RH Bill, December 03, 2012
Population Control 16: RH Bill as HR, Coercion as Choice, December 13, 2012 
Population Control 17: China's Depopulation and RH Law, March 03, 2013

Population Control 15: Debate, Debate, on the RH Bill

The pro-Reproductive Health (RH) bill camp has issued a public challenge today, nice press release, see below. One of my friends in facebook,, Louie Montemar, posted it in his wall. I replied with the following points.

I want to join the debate. Here are my questions:

1. Condoms lang, we need legislation pa?

2. Asking the OB professionals to render services to the poor for free, we need coercion and legislation pa?
3. DOH will spend P2.5 B for various RH services in its 2013 budget, so it is being done already even without new legislation, why do we need more coercion and more legislation?

4. There is an impending big typhoon coming to the country by tomorrow, to hit Mindanao and the Visayas  There is no "Solidarity during flooding bill" or law, and yet people are helping their fellowmen on their own even without coercion and legislation, so why more coercion and legislation?

5. With about P300 B per year budget deficit (expenditures larger than revenues), this is not enough. Govt must over-spend further, over-borrow further with new programs like cash transfer for the poor and condoms for the poor, while maintaining old programs?

As I argued before, I believe that this bill will become a law soon. There are just too many academics, media people, NGO leaders, etc. who are pushing for government expansion in population issue. 

Then people will realize later, "Ayy, kulang pa pala ang RH law, poverty persists pa rin, kaya beyond education & healthcare for the poor, housing and credit for the poor, train subsidy and tractors for the poor, cash transfer and condoms for the poor, we need iPad and samsung Tab for the poor pa pala. Add also cars and yacht for the poor." 

Their bottom line actually, is jut to keep expanding government, keep expanding taxes and fees.

Then one of the statement signatories, Dr. Antonio "Tonton" Contreras of DLSU Political Science Department, invited me to join the debate. I immediately said Yes. I told them that they cannot expect me to argue the Church position because I have zero sympathy with their argument. He said their position does not mention the church position as well. That's good.   Let us make the church position irrelevant in this debate. 

I also suggested that they reformulate some points into questions that are answerable by Yes or No, so that a black and white position can clearly be established. Fori nstance, one question will be:

Do we need new legislation for all these RH services and arguments? Why or why not?

I also asked them who are those anti-RH debaters they have tangled with in the past, but were cowards to share their presentation publicly. I think these are lousy debaters and I despise cowards. If people should debate publicly, they should open up their data and arguments to public scrutiny.

On another note, I attended last week the two-days Federation of ASEAN Economic Associations (FAEA) 37th annual conference at the PICC. In a keynote address, Dr. Charles Horioka of Osaka University presented a paper, “The Determinants and Long-Term Projections of Savings Rate in Developing Asia”. Their economic regression showed that domestic saving rates in developing Asia are determined primarily by the age structure of the population (negative effect, especially the aged dependency ratio),  the level of per capita GDP (positive effect), and the degree of financial sector development (also positive effect). 

So, having a less-ageing population is positive news as there are more young people who can produce more wealth – as entrepreneurs, as workers, as traders – and support the young and the aged section of the total population. This table below is interesting.

Source: Charles Horioka and Akiko Hagiwara, The Determinants and Long-Term Projections of Savings Rate in Developing Asia, presented at the 37^th FAEA Annual Conference, 28 November 2012, PICC, Manila.

During the open forum, I spoke and commented that with savings rate in Asia  ranging from 10 to about 50 percent of GDP, these are still savings whereas almost all governments in Asia (and elsewhere) have dissavings with their high public debt. In effect, private savings have compensated for government dissavings and fiscal irresponsibility and over-borrowing, resulting in a positive net savings. Dr. Horioka agreed with my observation.