UP Hooligans, Part 4

This article by Prof. Antonio “Tonton” Contreras was widely shared in facebook yesterday. It looks cool, well-written, but not necessarily well-argued. An open letter to the UP Hooligans a.k.a. enemies of UP

Among the urban  legends propagated by this article are,

For some, your act was so abominable to a point that 23 members of the faculty of the School of Economics of your University, my Alma Mater, rushed to defend Abad and condemn you in strong words…

In calling you as enemies, they took the side of Abad. In declaring your act as pure hooliganism, they became instruments for a closure of the dynamics of resistance.

Defend (DBM Sec.) Abad? Took the side of Abad?

The statement of the UPSE faculty members is 11 paragraphs long. Nowhere in that statement it said, explicitly or implicitly, that they are “defending Abad” or “taking the side of Abad”. The opening statement was very clear what they were attacking – violence.

We deplore in the strongest terms the violence perpetrated last Wednesday, September 17, by a group of protesters against Secretary Florencio B. Abad outside the U.P. School of Economics auditorium.

In the statement, they were defending only one thing – freedom of expression without physical violence.  Anyway, I posted this generic comment to my friends who posted Tonton’s articles in their  walls:

I am sure many of those UP students who went inside the UPSE auditorium to listen to Sec. Butch were also activists. They listened, they watched, when they went out, they made an academic paper, or blog post, or posted in their fb or twitter their critical observations or disagreement with the Sec. They can hit the Secretary -- with words and ideas, not with coins and plackards and other forms of physical attacks. I call the former "bold, wild and wise" activists whereas the STAND UP activists are "bold, wild and idiot" activists.

Supporters of the 2^nd type of activists did not like it, of course. Here is one exchange. I did not  get his permission to use his comments, so I just refer him here as “Mr. M.” Some readers may be interested to see the other side of the argument, so I  am posting the exchange unaltered, unedited.

--------

Mr. M: Mababait pa nga mga bata ngayon! Kung panahon natin yan Bato, Bote, Bugok na itlog, Bulok na kamatis or baka may kasama pang pillbox , molotov cocktail or granada( if available) ang ipupukol kay Sec. Abad!

Nonoy: Pag govt official like Sec. Abad ang binabato, justified. Pag mga idiot activists ang binabato or ginugulpe, unjustified na kasi human rights violation na; repression of peaceful assembly na. Double talk lang para sigurista.

Mr. M: Sec.Abad should know better than to go to a UP campus and not get some Flack! He got off lightly and unhurt. Just his Pride! For a man with no sense of Honor and Delikadeza! He surely is onion skinned! He should have resigned and not stay on as a cabinet member. His Arrogance like his boss Pnoy and his Lap Dog Perasima are doing more harm than good in the last 2 years of Pres. Pnoy's term. And I voted for Pres.Pnoy, but ano nangyari sa Tuwid na Daan ! Bumaluktot na yata!?

Nonoy: Palusot. The issue is the act of violence by the STAND UP activists. Is it justified? UPSE faculty members said No. UP Pres. said No. Both camps did not say, explicit or implicit, that they are siding with Abad or PNoy or whoever. What they are saying or implying is that people can discuss in UP and advocate same sex marriage, humans and animals marriage, legalization of drugs and prostitution, privatization or further expansion of UP, abolition or further expansion of govt, anything else under the Sun. Do it, speak it, argue passionately -- except using violence. Anyone using violence are low-level minds, have low intellectual caliber for rational debate. By resorting to violence, they show they are plain idiots.

Mr. M. Parang hindi ka naging bata! Mainit ang dugo, mapusok at walang takot! Feeling immortal until the shit hits the fan! Pero Defiant to the end! Yan ang UP student! Yan ang mga Iskolar ng Bayan! You do not agree with what those students did to Sec. Abad!? Being violent for you is low level minded!? You call that Violence!? Parang hindi ka yata napasama sa mga rally noong UP days na truncheon, tear gas, nakulong or hold for 48 hours etc. That is the enviroment of UP not La Salle, UST, Ateneo! But UP! Or you never join any anti government rally or activity nung estudyante ka? Kung panahon nga namin yan for sure some students would be arrested and Sec.Abad would need to go to the E.R? So for you we are low level minded and idiots? UP student ka ba talaga?

5 mins · Like

Nonoy: People are free to do what they want, provided they are accountable for their action or inaction. If those STAND UP activists and their apologists think it was the right thing to do, fine. But other people who do not share their violence mentality are also free to lambast and attack their emotionalism and idiocy. That is what the UPSE faculty members did. They were saying, "Hooligans, do your thing outside of UP, or at least outside of UPSE grounds." If they have to be violent idiots, they should show it elsewhere, not in UPSE grounds.

Mr. M: Then I am a hooligan! And UP hooligan! Am Darn Proud of it!!! : )

Nonoy: Good, That is the right thing to do. Be accountable for one's words and actions.

It's also cool if activists will sing insulting songs while smiling and clapping, as bureaucrats like Butch Abad come out. Another gimik is that the activists will have a group photo with him, all smiling, but at the back there are plackards attacking him, then post in fb or youtube, I think that trick will go viral. No mess, no violence, no controversies, and still effective in attacking him.

I am no fan of Butch myself and the fiscal irresponsibility of this admin -- and all other admins before it. But I can attack them with words and ideas. If thousands of UP students will do the same, many govt bureaucrats will melt.

Mr. M: Sometimes or most of the time, ACTION not words will be more effective for change.....

Nonoy: kanya-kanyang trip yan. People can shoot or stab other people that they dislike actually. So long as people are accountable to their actions, fine. Face the consequences, no running away, no double talk. Pwedeng manggulo or manggulpe ng ibang tao, justified, pero sila hindi pwedeng gulohin at gulpihin, unjustified, kasi human rights violations, kasi abridging freedom of assembly, kasi there is pol. repression, kasi....

---------

To summarize, I am against the use of physical violence and aggression in settling disputes for the following reasons:

1. It is a low-level-mind way of expressing ideas and emotions.

2. It further expands government. It is used as an excuse by the government to keep expanding its armed forces and police and the armaments they wield.

3. Inferior ideas and  dishonest people can be hurt and shamed by truthful and independent analysis. These people use government armed and coercive forces or private armies to harass and terrorize those who  will expose them  and  their  lousy ideas. Thus, the use of violence by the  government or by the activists and/or political opposition in stifling freedom of expression is unjustified. 

--------

See also:

Emotionalism, Violence and Stupidity: the Attack by UP Student Activists on Sec. Abad, September 20, 2014

UP Hooligans, Part 2, September 20, 2014

UP Hooligans, Part 3, September 22, 2014

UP Hooligans, Part 2

This is a continuation of Emotionalism, Violence and Stupidity: the Attack by UP Student Activists on Sec. Abad  earlier.

From the Inquirer,  Palace, Abad blast UP campus mob, September 19th, 2014,

“Once I began approaching the Stand UP group, however, the protesters—who were around 50 to 60 strong—did not engage me in dialogue. Instead, they surrounded me aggressively as I made my way toward the vehicle. I had objects thrown at me, and one student even attempted to grab me by the collar.”

Abad was also pelted with coins and the collar-grabbing incident happened as he was getting into his car, according to other accounts gathered by the Inquirer. 

The Secretary was still lucky because he was protected by UP's private security guards. Otherwise, he may have been dragged and punched. The event was organized by the UP Student Council (USC) and venue was the UPSE auditorium. The hooligans are reportedly from the Student Alliance for the Advancement of Democratic Rights in UP (STAND UP).

These minority violent activists -- the majority are non-violent, listened to his presentation, asked questions and more questions, and that's it -- maybe they were trained precisely for violence and stupidity.

Again, I am no fan of Sec. Butch Abad and the fiscal irresponsibility of this and past administrations, But these things can be shown and exposed in public fora, peacefully and with civility, no shouting with invectives nor resorting to violence. 

I like this opinion by Atty. Mel Sta. Maria.

A friend, Prof. Bong Mendoza of the UP Political Science Department, tagged me his facebook comment, "Aren't violating the Constitution and hooliganism crimes? And the former is the graver crime? The much graver crime?So why is A Bad Baby crying and complaining?"

 .

I commented that the Secretary was not "crying and complaining." It was the UPSE faculty members who issued the strong statement indirectly saying, "Hooligans, do your thing outside UP, or outside UPSE. He was formally invited, he agreed to come, treat him as a guest like you treat a guest in your house or party."

If one is invited in a forum to speak on his controversial, "politically incorrect" position, and some guys dislike his ideas and start shouting and throwing things at him, drag and punch him if possible, one would not be happy with it.

Two of Bong's friends came to defend the hooligans. I did not ask for their permission to use their comments, so I will not give their names. Nonetheless, I think  their arguments are worth posting so readers can see another side of the coin.

(1) HD said, 

Abad was no ordinary "guest." He is one of the country's most powerful public officials, with apparent control over P3 trillion pesos and a huge say in how the entire apparatus of the state, which has relative monopoly over the legitimate use of violence in the country, is run. More than that, he is responsible for crafting a scheme which the Supreme Court has found unconstitutional and which many people consider undemocratic at best and immoral at worst. He is therefore accountable to the public and to the people wherever he goes.

But to use the inappropriate analogy, is it really true that we should always and everywhere treat guests with respect? Doesn't it depend on the context--on who the guest is and what he has done? Suppose, to use an analogy that is extreme but that drives home the point, Hitler or Stalin or Bin Laden or Marcos were invited to UP? Should we just bow down to them in respect and treat them like "guests"? No, we have every right, even a moral obligation, to make them feel anything but welcome.

As for being invited to a forum and then suddenly being accosted by my audience, does it not again depend on the context: on what you say during the forum or what you've done before it? If, to use another extremely analogy, I suddenly started yelling 'Kill all the Jews" or "Kill all Muslims", or for that matter if I tell outright lies misleading my audience, then I think my audience have every right--even a moral obligation--to be angry at me and denounce me. If, to use a closer analogy, before coming to the forum I orchestrated a scheme that effectively trashed democracy by usurping the power to decide how to spend hundreds of billions of people's money--then got away with it with impunity, should I really expect my audience to be nice to me or to kiss my feet?

(2) RV said,

"Why the sudden regard of UP Econ faculty on courtesy in exchange of ideas in pious solicitude with Sec. Abad? They were dead silent when then President Gloria Arroyo was mobbed by UP activists when she attended a UP workshop. Not a whimper was heard from this group when then AFP Chief of Staff Esperon was shouted out and hit with hard paper balls by UP students. What is bad for Abad is good for those they loath and dislike? Is this not selective vigilance on civility if not plain hypocrisy?"

#1 is garbage. If Sec. Butch Abad forced his way to UP saying, "I will go to UP even uninvited and lecture on those activists and if they misbehave, I have a platoon of soldiers to deal with them" with arrogance, then he deserves to be treated with arrogance.

Suppose we  replace Butch Abad as the invited guest in the UP forum that day, say it was House Speaker Belmonte, or Sen. JP Enrile or Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, or Jaime Ayala or MV Pangilinan or any other known political and business personality in the country. Some student activists do not like him even before he steps in UP grounds. Does this justify the acts of violence?

#2 is misguided. The UPSE faculty members reacted with strong words because the hooliganism occurred on UPSE grounds. If other faculty members from other colleges have tolerance for physical attacks, or they were shy to confront the hooligans when these student goons disrespect guests in their colleges, that is another issue. The SE faculty members said, "No, we cannot tolerate such hooliganism in our grounds."

Now, see this statement justifying the UP hooligans, 

That statement shows that this group Contend-UP are cowards and misguided. In the UPSE statement, the professors gave all their names, they did not say, "Faculty of UPSE" and not a single name was given. In this statement, zero name, no one is brave enough to own up to such lousy statement.

See their sloganeering, and my commments:

Uphold campus freedom! -- Yes, anyone with a brain and willing to stand by his/her statements are welcome to speak in UP.

Uphold the rights of students to protests and assemblies! -- Yes, but their "rights" do not include the right to physically attack people whom they dislike.

No to campus repression! -- Who repress whom? Any government policeman attacked and arrested any of those hooligans?

Secretary Butch Abad resign now! -- Fine, say it. Loudly, 1,000x, 1M x, but such freedom of expression does not include the "freedom" of physical aggression.

Oust President Aquino! -- same as above.

Make all persons and parties involved in DAP and PDAF accountable! -- same as above.

Down with bureaucrat capitalism! -- Is this the CPP above ground speaking? Very likely, yes.

Emotionalism, Violence and Stupidity: the Attack by UP Student Activists on Sec. Abad

I am not exactly a fan of DBM Secretary Butch Abad. If I have the chance to question him face to face, I will come prepared with lots of numbers and data, but will never do or plan any physical harm. Unfortunately, emotionalism, violence and stupidity has ruled the minds of some idiot activists in UP. Shame on you, mga bobo. If you dislike a person or his/her ideas, hit hard on data and logic, never do physical attacks. The use of physical attacks is among the indicators of mentally sick people.

Reposting this. The photos I added myself and not part of the original statement.

--------------

Statement from Faculty Members

of the University of the Philippines

School of Economics

We deplore in the strongest terms the violence perpetrated last Wednesday, September 17, by a group of protesters against Secretary Florencio B. Abad outside the U.P. School of Economics auditorium.

Secretary Abad was leaving a just-concluded forum organized by the University Student Council. His way to a waiting vehicle, however, was blocked several times by protesters, who not only shouted slogans and invectives—par for the course at U.P.—but actually assaulted him by throwing placards and metal coins and physically laying hold of him, grabbing his clothing to prevent him from leaving.

What is worse, some student “leaders” thought nothing of gloating about the incident and celebrating their hooliganism in mainstream and social media, as if it were some kind of victory. This incident is not a victory but a blow to UP’s honor.

By participating in these events the protesters have declared themselves enemies, not of Secretary Abad, but of the University itself. As an invited guest, Secretary Abad was covered by the same blanket of academic freedom and safe passage that the University guarantees to all who set foot on campus. The purpose of that high privilege is to guarantee a free traffic in diverse ideas—and of the diverse people who espouse them—which is the lifeblood of a liberal academic institution. Those who violate that security and privilege by resorting to physical threats and violence sow apprehension and fear among bearers of contrary and unfashionable ideas, who would henceforth shy away from participating in the University, resulting in an impoverishment of intellectual life and a reduction of debate to a monologue among the already-converted.

The acts of Wednesday’s protesters, therefore, not only violated decency and courtesy, they were an assault on the University itself.

To remove this blot on the University’s reputation:

We enjoin those who participated in the dishonorable events of last Wednesday—but who were possibly misled or sincerely unaware of the gravity of their acts—to come forward, own up to their participation, and proffer a public apology to Secretary Abad and to the University.

We call upon the University Student Council and other student organizations responsible for organizing the event to publicly dissociate themselves from the actions of Wednesday’s hooligans;

We enjoin the University authorities to begin an inquiry to identify those ultimately responsible for the violence, and who cynically staged the incident, applying penalties, wherever necessary;

We call on the University authorities henceforth to enhance the security provided to invited visitors of the University to prevent a repeat of the said incident.

Finally, we call for a renewed discussion and clarification among faculty, staff and students, of the University’s unwritten rules of free speech and safe passage, to ensure that the University remains a free and fearless field for ideas, where debates are won not by assault but by argument, not by shouting down but by speaking up.

SIGNED

Prof. Rosa M. Alonso i Terme

Prof. Maria Joy V. Abrenica

Prof. Ruperto P. Alonzo

Prof. Agustin L. Arcenas

Prof. Romeo Matthew T. Balanquit

Prof. Joseph J. Capuno

Prof. Fidelina N. Carlos

Prof. Ramon L. Clarete

Prof. Rolando A. Danao

Prof. Sarah Lynne S. Daway

Prof. Emmanuel S. de Dios

Prof. Emmanuel F. Esguerra

Prof. Raul V. Fabella

Prof. Aleli D. Kraft

Prof. Cielo D. Magno

Prof. Maria Nimfa F. Mendoza

Prof. Solita Collas-Monsod

Prof. Toby Melissa C. Monsod

Prof. Marjorie C. Pajaron

Prof. Stella Luz A. Quimbo

Prof. Majah-Leah V. Ravago

Prof. Renato E. Reside

Prof. Gerardo P. Sicat

Pork Barrel 13: Executive-Legislative Honeymoon and Presidential-Parliamentary Forms

This is my article today in thelobbyist.biz.

---------

Last Monday, before President Aquino delivered his State of the Nation Address (SONA) 2014, I noted that facebook was peppered with so many anti-government, anti-PNoy posts and complaints. Was it good? Maybe yes, maybe no. But one thing is sure: Government is force and coercion. No matter how much we complain about the government or a particular administration, we are forced, coerced and arm-twisted to contribute to its annual funding via taxes, fees, fines and mandatory social contributions.

Next time, people should NOT support new programs that expand government. Like new tax hikes unless a tax cut somewhere else is made. Like a new subsidy and welfare program unless some existing subsidy programs that do not work are shrank or abolished. Or creating a new agency or bureaucracy unless an existing agency or bureaucracy is drastically shrank or abolished.

Government has three levels -- local, national and multilaterals (UN, WB, IMF, ADB, etc.). All of them share the same characteristics. Generally wasteful, tax-hungry and always saying that "things are bad, we need more taxes and subsidies to solve them." They said that 3 or 5 or more decades ago, they say it today, they will say it 2, 4 or more decades tomorrow.

There is also an observation that Filipinos are “puro angal pero walang aksyon” (all complaints, no action). Right. We should have less government responsibility, more personal and civil society responsibility. Yan ang tunay na "aksyon". But for many activists and "reform-oriented" groups, they want "more/bigger but good government".

I think they are setting the public for more deception and disappointment. When government expands, at least 50-60 percent of the total budget and funding goes to salaries alone. Plus offices and office supplies, electricity and gadgets, vehicles and fuel, travels and trainings, etc. Very little can be expected to go to the supposed beneficiaries, like actual roads. And we are not talking about corruption and robbery yet.

People who are advocating similar campaigns are selling an idea, not individuals or politicians. The idea of less government, more personal and civil society responsibility. If many people will buy that idea, the supply of politicians who will articulate that idea will come in. I doubt though that many people want more personal responsibility. Gusto ng mga tao, painom-inom, pa tambay-tambay, at hingi lahat sa gobyerno. Pag di nabigay or kulang binigay, magagalit, susuporta sa oposisyon, at uulitin panghihingi. Many civil society leaders also support this mentality. That is why they keep lobbying for "more but good government". More government, we got it. Good government, I don't know. When Marcos was kicked out in 1986, or even in several administrations before Marcos was elected in 1965, "good government" has been the battlecry of almost all groups and political parties.

Meanwhile, this news report,  PARA DI NA MAULIT DAP | Speaker seeks creation of oversight committee to examine govt spending, referring to House Speaker Sonny Belmonte is “naku naman.” The whole legislature is created by the Constitution mainly to be the oversight body of the Executive branch. Each Committee and special Committee is supposed to perform oversight function over each Department and bureau in the Executive. To create a separate committee means the other Committees will not do their oversight function seriously?

A lawyer friend, Rey Reyes, shared bright comments. He wrote,

two ideas i wish to share ... first, the inherent powers of the State. With or without legislation, these powers are a given to any State otherwise, it will not function as such. In political theory, they are 3: taxation, police power and eminent domain. Second. In parliamentary systems, the Cabinet is made up of legislators (MPs or Member of Parliament) belonging to one party, the ruling party) The legislative and the executive are merged. In presidential forms, they are separate. Tripartite, which includes the judiciary. Oversight committees are de riguer in presidential forms. In parliamentary forms, government is dissolved and a new one elected. No need for oversight.

Bright contribution, I thanked Rey for it. And I agree, that is why parliamentary governments tend to expand much faster than those in presidential form. The Prime Minister can talk and debate with himself and along with key leaders of the parliament, they can discuss and quickly implement projects, which almost always are about new and expanded welfare/subsidies, and high taxes and huge borrowings to finance these endless subsidies. A really independent Legislative in a Presidential form should result in frequent gridlock between the Legislative and Executive, and this results in slow expansion of government. o minimize or even prevent such gridlock, pork barrel -- hard or soft, explicit or implicit -- is invented by the Executive, essentially a bribe to the Legislature to prevent gridlock and tolerate the wastes and fiscal irresponsibility of the Executive.

Rey added,

In theory, parliamentary forms work well with strong political parties which unfortunately we do not have. Parties with strong ideological underpinnings. We imported American democratic institutions hook line and sinker without the necessary basic fundamentals of party politics. The 1987 Constitution further bastardized the presidential form with the introduction of the European party list again without the basic fundamentals in place. Sad but true. That is the story of our politics in the Philippines over the past decades. Ever wonder why some are advocating for a constitutional convention to change the charter.

Personally, I like the two-party system in the Philippines before, after the adoption of the US-style constitution. The Nacionalista Party means nationalists-protectionists while the Liberal Party means globalists-free traders. Similar to the Democrat-Republican rivalry in the US. Thus, it was an ideology-based political system in the Philippines then, although many Liberals were as populists as the Nacionalistas in getting voters’ support.

I remain agnostic on the Presidential vs. Parliamentary debate. I am only interested in small and limited government, whether it is a Presidential or Parliamentary form.

-----------

See also:

Pork Barrel 9: Are PH Government Institutions Ready for Cleansing?, April 09, 2014

Pork Barrel 10: Bloated Budget, Wasteful Government, June 02, 2014

Pork Barrel 11: Impending Arrest of Sens. Enrile, Estrada and Revilla, June 19, 2014

Pork Barrel 12: Why DAP is Wrong, July 29, 2014

Pork Barrel 11: Impending Arrest of Sens. Enrile, Estrada and Revilla

I watched the local evening news today, on the impending arrest of three Senators accused of plunder (more than P50 million stolen public money). My immediate reaction -- Tense si Jinggoy, relaks si JPE, nag presscon-drama si Bong. 

I thought they would be arrested and imprisoned today. Sayang, bukas pa pala. Enjoy kayo sa kulungan ha.

Naalala ko yong post ng kaibigan kong si Cynthia na nanood ng "privilege speech" ni Bong last June 10 at nag post, "P___ MO BONG REVILLA! Not just for the pork barrel stuff but for that Godawful song." hahaha, ang lutong! 

Kaya nang makita ko sya sa tv kanina, may konting luha habang nag presscon-drama sa cavite, sabi ko, "behhh Bong, tinablan ka rin ng malas."

From another friend Majah: "Sino kaya ang unang uupo sa wheelchair? Si Pogi, si Sexy, or si Tanda?" :-)

Dati ganito. Bukas kaya, sino mauuna sasakay sa pambansang silya, the "national chair" of high government officials in big political/corruption scandals.

Some of the memes coming out. More should be coming, among the fun of social media.

Meanwhile, this Gigi Reyes, a former wife of my good friend in Rotary, also fellow UPSE alumni, Atty. Inky Reyes, she seems to be rich big time. She is linked romantically to Sen. Enrile, her boss for many years until she resigned early this year due to the "heat" of corruption and plunder scandal involving Enrile and herself. The two deny the romance angle of course.

Sorry ka na lang Gigi. Kulong ka rin. Total yumaman na kayo masyado sa gobyerno. At sana tumagal kayo sa bilangguan, madami naman kayo eh, barkadahan fun na lang sa kulungan. Ituloy nyo pagiging relihiyoso nyo, tulad ni Bong Revilla.
-----------

See also:

Pork Barrel 7: Presentation at Adamson University, September 04, 2013 

Pork Barrel 8: Forum at DLSU Manila, October 02, 2013

Pork Barrel 9: Are PH Government Institutions Ready for Cleansing?, April 09, 2014

Pork Barrel 10: Bloated Budget, Wasteful Government, June 02, 2014

Pork Barrel 10: Bloated Budget, Wasteful Government

A physician friend, Doc Tony Leachon, posted this  poster in his fb wall and asked, “Do you agree? Yes or No?”

ALL the first 26 comments have answered Yes, directly or indirectly. And the succeeding many other comments also said Yes. Not one said No. Coming from mostly physician-friends of Dr. Leachon. 

I also briefly commented, "Yes. The main purpose of government is often to expand the government. So many taxes, fees, royalties, other revenues and still not enough. They keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing. Both the Executive and Legislative branches are wasteful.

There were three notable comments there:

1. Mark: The problem is that power corrupts. You may not be corrupt when you enter politics but you are at very high risk of bring corrupt when in power and exposed to all that money flowing around.

2. Ruby: Yes. Grabe ang laki ng taxes. Lalo na sa salaries na automatic ang deduction. 1/3 agad ang bawas sa perang pinaghirapan mo. Paano mababago ang sistema kung same people ang nasa government? Tapos di mo makita or maramdaman saan napunta ang perang binawas sau... walang pagbabago.

3. A former DOH official: “frustrated working on the DOH budget. ‘bondat na bondat na ang DOH sa dami ng Pera..di na Kayang nguyain.’ The problem is, the success of the department is measured on how much budget you can get. DBM introduced performance-based budgeting but the problem is beyond planning and spending...it's on the capacity to implement, existing infrastructure of the local government, procurement policy and process. Mahigpit sa gumagawa ng tama pero sa mga katulad ni Napoles walang existing system!

“We need to develop a very good monitoring system on where the money went, how it was used and it's impact based on the objectives. There has to be a very very clear indicators on how to use the funds Hindi lang where and what.”

Take note of this: "We need to develop a very good monitoring system on where the money went, how it was used and it's impact based on the objectives."

That is exactly the role of Congress -- have oversight functions over the money that it authorized and appropriated for the Executive Branch. Congress is not doing its job. The Executive is wasteful, the Legislative tolerates its wastefulness, in exchange for pork barrel. That is why the pork barrel system can never be abolished or eliminated. Its size is directly proportional to the wastefulness of government in general, it is a bribe by the Executive to the Legislative so that the former can continue with its wasteful, living beyond its means, philosophy and practices.

Even if income tax is 50 percent of personal and corporate incomes, it will never be enough. All that government will do is to keep expanding like amoeba. Both national and local governments. B

Doc Tony asked me, “where do we start now ? The people are waiting for the execution of the plan. With the PDAF investigation , the senate and congress are all busy.”

Well, my quick modest and doable proposals are as follows:

1. Have a flat budget. 2014 budget is P2.27 trillion, the 2015 budget should be P2.27 trillion too, if not lower.

2. No new borrowings, have zero budget deficit for 2015, government to live within its means. If projected total revenue is P2.2 trillion, then spending should be only P2.2 trillion, not P2.5 trillion because government will borrow P300 billion.

3. For every new welfare program (cash transfer for the poor, condoms and pills for the poor, soon iPad for the poor), one or more old welfare program/s should be shrunk or discontinued.

The public debt stock is rising by around P400 billion a year, with or without a crisis, it just keeps rising and expanding like amoeba. Thus, annual interest payment alone remains high, around P330 billion a year.

I am not suggesting drastically shrinking government to only one-half or one-third of its current size and spending (not doable) nor the abolition of government (anarchist argument, not doable either). I am suggesting modest and doable action programs. Once government and its various bureaucracies and personnel see that they can still exist with “less” resources and no need for borrowings and fiscal irresponsibility, personal and official responsibility can trickle again back to government consciousness.

And the public, the NGOs and media, academics and consultants, politicians and their supporters, should realize again and again that “A government that is BIG enough to give everything you want is also BIG enough to take everything you’ve got.” If the people will ask for freebies and subsidies left and right, government will also impose taxes and fees left and right, borrow left and right.

--------------

See also:

Pork Barrel 6: Spontaneity and Friedrich Hayek, August 29, 2013 

Pork Barrel 7: Presentation at Adamson University, September 04, 2013 

Pork Barrel 8: Forum at DLSU Manila, October 02, 2013

Pork Barrel 9: Are PH Government Institutions Ready for Cleansing?, April 09, 2014

Pork Barrel 9: Are PH Government Institutions Ready for Cleansing?

A friend, Vince Lazatin, convenor of the Transparency and Accountability Network (TAN), posted some provocative questions in his fb wall yesterday. Vince asked,

Are our government institutions ready to handle the PDAF cases against some of the country's most powerful personalities? Are our government lawyers up to the task of facing the most expensive defense attorneys that money can buy? Will the chips be allowed to fall where they may?  

These PDAF cases will put everyone to the test, including non-government actors such as the media, the citizens, and NGOs/CSOs. There will be people who will rise as beacons of hope, while others will spiral into a vortex of infamy.

People, are we ready to see this to the very end? Or will we recede into the anonymity of our daily lives and concede the future of this country to apathy and indifference? Our future rests squarely in what we are willing to accept and what we are willing to fight for.

In short, are Philippine government institutions and the public ready for social and political cleansing? Good and direct question, but I doubt if people are ready to hear the likely answers to those questions.

Are our government institutions ready to handle the PDAF cases against some of the country's most powerful personalities?
NO.

Are our government lawyers up to the task of facing the most expensive defense attorneys that money can buy?
NO.

Will the chips be allowed to fall where they may?
NO.

People, are we ready to see this to the very end?

NO.

All stealing by some (or many) legislators will not be possible without the participation of all Executive agencies where the money is supposed to be spent. Also with participation by some (or many) COA auditors as this crime has been happening not just a few years ago, but several decades ago.

Many in the public themselves -- NGOs, CSOs, people's organizations (POs), media, consultants -- are indirect beneficiaries of this crime. Some or many of them were the conduits, or the "I see nothing wrong in exchange for money", of this large-scale money laundering and plunder.

I suggested a campaign for a back to P2 trillion budget. It’s nearly P2.3 trillion this year, and likely to reach P2.6 trillion next year. There is no reason to keep the budget rising by around P300 billion a year and borrowing the same amount yearly, while the public debt stock keep rising by P400-450 billion a year, even if many of this money is wasted, if not outrightly stolen.
------------

See also:

Pork Barrel 5: Abolish Pork Fund, or Shrink Government?, August 21, 2013 

Pork Barrel 6: Spontaneity and Friedrich Hayek, August 29, 2013 

Pork Barrel 7: Presentation at Adamson University, September 04, 2013 

Pork Barrel 8: Forum at DLSU Manila, October 02, 2013

Fat Free Econ 46: On Pork Barrel Aboition, August 25, 2013 

Fat Free Econ 47: Pork Scam vs. Public Debt Scam, September 07, 2013

Freedom Run 2013, I will Run the 10K

Tomorrow, I will join the Freedom Run 2013 to be held in Quezon City. Like the Freedom Run 2012, I will run the 10K, even if did not join any other run this year. So my legs, be ready to be hammered tomorrow. That means terrible pain in the legs 2-3 days after November 10 :-)

At the Freedom Run facebook page, there was one discussion last Sunday, November 02, if this "freedom from corruption" run is pro-abolition of pork barrel, or simply keep but reform pork barrel. I joined that thread.

I said that the organizer of the Freedom Run is the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF) Manila office. That FNF is one of the German political foundation with an office in the country, along with Konrad Adenauer Foundation (KAF), Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FEF) Hans Seidel Foundation (HSF), etc. 

FNF I think does not take any position on the pork barrel debate, whether to reform it or abolish it. And I don't think any foreign political foundation should take that position. It is funded by German taxpayers, not Filipino taxpayers, and the goal of each political foundations is to propagate their respective  philosophy at the general level, not taking into specific details of policy debates in the country where they have an office.

So if people feel so strongly about a particular stand, that pork barrel should be scrapped, or be reformed, then they might be disappointed that FNF will not take a specific position. If your participation in the Freedom Run is pre-conditioned on such scrap or reform pork, black or white position, then they might be disappointed as FNF has no stand.

I suggested that they join the run and get a running shirt which says at the back, "We believe in the power of freedom and the responsibility of citizens, and a strong commitment to the strengthening of democratic institutions, human rights, transparency,…”

The shirt in Freedom Run 2011 has this message, “We support the liberal values of freedom and individual responsibility, democracy and the rule of law, respect for human rights and tolerance."

All the German political foundations -- FNF, FEF, KAF, HSF, etc. -- do not display their pol philosophy in each of their activities. KAF is affiliated with CDU-CSU of Angela Merkel, FNF is affiliated with FDP (Free democratic party), FEF is affiliated with the Social Democrats. These foundations do not always advertise their party affiliation in Germany. They just focus on their pol philosophy. So FNF is focused on individual freedom and personal responsibility, rule of law, economic freedom, human rights.

So the Freedom Run is under one of its philosophies -- to promote more individual freedom, apart from collective or national freedom.

So join the Run and set aside the debate on abolish or reform the pork barrel as it won't be tackled there. It is not a symposium or seminar, it is a run but there are a few speakers and performers after the run who will discuss what "freedom" means to them. We may agree or disagree with their own definitions of what freedom is, but overall, the event is to celebrate, or advance and insist, that we people should advance our individual freedom. We may have been too engrossed with the politicians, whether they are pro-abolish or pro-reform the pork. Some of us may define freedom as less politics, less government, less interventionism, like I do.

I join the annual Freedom Run because as one of the local friends of the FNF, my personal philosophy of less government, more free market, is consistent with the FNF philosophy more than KAF, FEF, etc.

Some people may insist and accuse that "FNF is supportive of the Liberal Party. Hence, it is supportive of the administration and 'reform the pork' side."

The first sentence is correct because FDP, the party affiliation of FNF, is sort of the "liberal party" of Germany, its philosophy is liberalism. So LP Philippines and Free (liberal) Democratic Party Germany are ideological allies. Beyond that, similarities may end. Thus, the second sentence is wrong. FNF takes no side on whether to abolish or keep/reform the pork barrel. FNF works not only with pol parties and politicians, it also works with civil society and non-politicians, like us in Minimal Government Thinkers, Inc.

I know the FNF Manila people, they are very professional, they know their mandate and their limit. They are accountable to the FDP and German taxpayers, not to the LP or UNA or any other Filipino pol parties and politicians, or the Filipino taxpayers. They are here to help advance the ideas of liberalism and individual freedom, rule of law, tolerance of social diversity and respect of human rights. So they are selling an idea, not politicians or a political party.

Freedom Run. It is the only run in this country with clear political message printed on the running shirt itself like “individual/citizen freedom and responsibility”, “human rights and rule of law.” Beyond the nation, beyond the collective, there is need to remind ourselves the value and primacy of the individual.

------------

See also:
Freedom Run 2011, November 28, 2011 
Freedom Run 2011 and 2012, November 03, 2013

PNoy Government, Pork Barrel and Parliamentarism

Chilling here in my hotel in Hong Kong, arrived today to attend a full day round table discussion tomorrow on “Democracy – Past, Present and Future”, sponsored by the Lion Rock Institute, HK’s first and only free market think tank. Then on Sunday, some of us participants here will fly to Bangkok  to attend the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia 2013 Conference on “Asia, Middle Income Trap and Economic Freedom”, Monday-Tuesday. I will post articles about these two events in the coming days.

Then checking my facebook, my article, Pork Barrel 8: Forum at DLSU Manila has attracted the attention of some guys hurting over my non-singing “halleluiah” to parliamentary form of government, in the “Kilos Pinoy” fb group. Some guys there dislike it too much, even if I am not singing “halleluiah” to a presidential form of government either. 

See the exchanges below, made only this afternoon. Copy-pasting everything, zero alteration, not even comma or period. Judge for yourself re attitude, arrogance, civility or lack of it. Notice for instance Nigel’s calling me Noynoy repeatedly. Implying something and in the process, showing his mental state.

This is 2,200+ words, 6 pages, enjoy.

--------------

Nigel Pope I love how Noynoy Oplas voted for and campaigned for Aquino but now, suddenly, is lecturing everyone else on corruption in government being wrong.

Seriously, Noynoy, why did you vote for  noy?

Nonoy Oplas Nanggigigil si Pope, hehehe, bakit ba. Anyway, yes I voted for PNoy, the only liberal candidate in the 2010 elections though he's far out from being a classic liberal. The other candidates were more statist, more dangerous than him. But I did not go out campaigning hard for him.

Nigel Pope More statist? More dangerous?

He's an Aquino! That family - and the Cojuangcos - have been big state, pro-oligarch, pro-protectionist for GENERATIONS.

Seriously, mate, you really need to learn a bit more about the free market and small state movement if you think voting for  noy was the best option. Did you honestly think he would be any different that his execrable mother?

Vincent Blas https://www.facebook.com/photo.php...

Timeline Photos

By: Saint Cory Aquino of Hacienda Luisita

Nonoy Oplas My vote in 2010, none of your business. You crucify PNoy, fine, I'm not his spokesman, not an LP member, not a govt bureaucrat.

Nigel Pope It's not really my business... other than the fact that you sit there lecturing me and damning CoRRECT for not being free market enough for your tastes but...

YOU
ARE
AN
AQUINO
SUPPORTER.

That's hypocrisy. That's intellectual dishonesty. That's not coming to an argument with clean hands. That's the sort of cognitive dissonance with taints every argument you make.

You're a joke, Noynoy, just like your namesake whom you frittered away your vote to.

Also, Noynoy, now that you are revealed as a big state supporter, I am interested in knowing more about your new political party.

Is this a pork barrel thing?
Does your support for Aquino mean you are hopeful of attracting more pork?

Nonoy Oplas Commenting without reading. My blog post was actually an attack on the administration without naming it. Pork as bribe by the Exec to the Legislative so that wasteful and corrupt spending by the former will be tolerated by the latter. The current PNoy admin, past Gloria, Erap, FVR, Cory admins were all guilty of such pork bribery. Hence, I did not single out any admin as all of them were guilty of such wasteful, big govt spending.

Some guys are just groggy or hurting that some people are not convinced by their pol advocacies.

Vincent Blas ^You realize that they’re all guilty, and still you want to keep the Presidency?

Nonoy Oplas If you want to put Binay as successor to Pnoy now, fine, do it, should make you happy. 

Pork Barrel 8: Forum at DLSU Manila

More than corruption in pork barrel use, government has corrupted the people's value that personal and parental responsibility can be secondary to more government responsibility.

I said that during a forum at De La Salle University (DLSU) Manila last Friday, September 27, 2013,  "Double Dead: A Forum on PDAF", in front of about 200 students. The event was organized by two student organizations, the Pol. Science Society plus an organization of Development Studies majors.

I was one of three speakers that day. The other two were Atty. Eduard Chico of DLSU College of Law, and another lady lawyer from DLSU College of Business Administration. We seemed to corroborate each other's point, very spontaneous.

The format was also based on spontaneous discussion. No powerpoint, the faculty moderator, Prof. Gina Lomotan of the DLSU Political Science Department, read the guide questions, then three minutes talk from each speaker, then Q&A round 1, Then student moderators read a question and asked the audience response/answer of Yes or No, asks some of them to explain their answer. Then Q&A round 2, and so on. All done in 1 1/2 hour.

The main questions addressed to me were, "Why is PDAF a governance issue, how has it affected governance in the country, should it be abolished or reformed?".

My opening arguments to answer these questions were as follows.

1. Pork barrel is a bribe by the Executive branch for its wasteful if not corrupt spending. An equally wasteful and corrupt Legislative branch has allowed this, via pork barrel fund. If the Legislature is truly independent, it should have checked and controlled the Executive's wastefulness, but it did not do its job.

2. One clear proof of the Executive branch's wastefulness is the ever-rising public debt. Even in the absence of clear national emergencies (1990-91 earthquake + Pinatubo eruption, 1997-98 Asian financial crisis were clear emergencies and debt financing and borrowing were clearly justified), the Executive kept borrowing, endlessly and irresponsibly, to finance its wasteful and often bloated spending. Even if domestic revenues are not enough, government keeps spending beyond its means. The public debt stock is rising by around P350-400 B a year.

3. The Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or other Philippine legislators pork barrel can never be abolished because it is a bribe by the Executive branch to the Legislative so that the wastes and irresponsible spending by the former will be tolerated without much questions.

My other points during the open forum were:

4. In periods or years where there are no clear national emergencies, the government should aspire to have budget surplus, pay back some old debt. This never happened and is far from happening, regardless of the administration in power. More public debt means more and rising interest payment, average of P332 B a year from 2012-2014. The public is not scandalized by this huge transfer of money from their pockets -- such interest payment alone constitutes about P20 or 1/5 of every P100 in various taxes that we pay.

5. Since the audience were mostly Political Science and Development Studies majors, I briefly discussed  political theory, "What is the role of government?" From the 3 Social Contract theoreticians, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, and corroborated by another classical thinker, Adam Smith, the main role of government is to protect the citizens from aggression, protect their right to life against murderers and aggressors, their right to private property against thieves and destroyers of property, their right to liberty against bullies. The classical thinkers hardly or never advised that government should provide numerous, endless, forever redistribution and welfarism. Such endless welfarism has become the basis of endless expansion of government including pork barrel expansion.

Abolish Income Tax 9: Tax Revolt Against Government Corruption

The on-going pork barrel and government corruption scandal is radicalizing more and more middle class and average taxpayers. Some individuals are getting bolder and explicitly announcing that they will stop paying taxes. Like this story by Sandy Allan Beltran who owns a book shop. She posted this nearly a month ago and look, her story has been shared more than 400x, wow.

See her story below. The other posters I just added, not part of her original fb posting.

My shop The READING ROOM has been religiously paying taxes since we opened it in 2007. Every month I pay my accountant a retainer fee, and he religiously looks over my books, and files my papers, and at the end of the tax season, or during renewal of licenses, he religiously, zealously even, to the detriment of my wallet & my husband's burdened bank account, pays whatever he sees is my due.

I want to stop paying taxes, because the system has proven itself to be a corrupt one, and I find my moneys to go not to where it will be used for the good of my country or countrymen.

But. If I do so, they will close up my shop. Do I want this? Of course not.

But. It hurts to think that people like the Napoles' and the Revillas and the Marcoses and the Domogans and the Enriles and the Estradas and who knows who else live their undeserved luxurious lifestyles from the hard-earned moneys that I and the rest of my blindly religiously-tax-paying countrymen work our asses off. It makes me so angry to think that corruption is at the core of a government that has consistently failed at taking care of its peoples.

But. Have faith, they say - somewhere there are those who will take your taxes and put it in the right places.

But. It is no longer fair. It would also not be fair to the people I have hired to lose their jobs once I close up shop. They are important to me, as much friends, companions, what I like to call my shop family. It is also unfair to close the shop because there are some customers who have come to love it, come to depend upon it for the "good stuff", items that only I can find and come up with. One client told me "your shop is my splurge haven", and that I can't forget.

But. I've been paying taxes since I was 14 - I sold my first short story to a local women's magazine at that age, and when I got my writer's fee, the government made sure it got its rightful chunk. So for 29 years I have been paying taxes, and in all honesty,

I don't see that it's being used right.

I just don't see it. The roads - wehhh... The police & the military - wehhh... The public school system - wehhh... The salaries of government workers, teachers - wehhh... The whole PDAF scam - wehhh...

The whole situation has left me speechless, wordless.

Angry. Uncertain. Afraid of the future. Angry because after all this time of doing the basic right thing, it has left me afraid. The government failed to take care of me, one who can, and should demand that things turn around.

So BIR chief whoeveryouare = think again. I'm not going to pay my taxes in the next round. I'm letting go of my accountant. I'm not renewing my shop's license.

But my shop will still be open. I will still serve customers. I will still sell what there is to sell, and restock when my shelves become bare.

But I refuse to pay taxes UNTIL THIS COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT STARTS DOING THE RIGHT THING.

Am I really going to do this?

Yes.

I'm so afraid - but I'm more afraid that if I won't, I'll get sick at heart knowing I'm not doing something about it.

By the way - if anyone from the BIR comes to my shop and puts some form of notice on it that says CLOSED FOR FAILURE TO PAY TAXES, I'm going to tear that notice down and open up my shop. If they bar my door, I'm going to shoot the locks off. If they do something else, I'm going to do something else.

It's already wrong that they stole from me. I refuse that they continue to do so, without any assurance that anyone in the government will make it right.

I will do this, until I'm told, I see, I hear, that something good, something REAL, something changes, and it is proven to me.

Goodness gracious, I'm shaking in my boots.

I'm reposting this because the link is now broken. The original link was deleted - it now says "server error". the article originally reported BIR CHIEF Kim Henares saying the normal taxpaying citizen will still continue to do so because (am paraphrasing) "of the current administration's stance to improve things."
-------------

I support this citizen expression of anger and dissatisfaction against corruption and government failure. But more than individual expression of disobedience, I think the tax policy should be amended and move to a low, flat tax, with timetable towards the abolition of income tax. Government has lots of consumption-based taxes, transaction taxes, mandatory and regulatory fees to survive.

Meanwhile, here's the logo of the Tax Revolt fb group.
-----------

See also:
Abolish Income Tax 6: Income tax and VAT trade-off, February 08, 2010
Abolish Income Tax 7: Rene Azurin, Peter Wallace, John Mangun, August 19, 2011 
Abolish Income Tax 8. From low flat tax to zero income tax, September 30, 2011

Tax Cut 14: APTU Meeting in Bangkok, March 1-2, January 22, 2013 
Tax Cut 15: Some Resistance to Reducing Personal Income Tax, May 04, 2013 

Tax Cut 16: Conserving Fishery Resources by Taxing Demersal Fish Catch? May 27, 2013

Pol. Ideology 51: Liberalism is Not Welfarism

* This is my article yesterday in thelobbyist.biz.
----------

In the on-going pork barrel scandal and deliberation of the 2014 budget, many sectors are advocating that the money for legislators’ pork barrel or PDAF that has been abolished will be inserted back to the budget as additional funding of the different Departments for various welfare and subsidy programs to the poor.

They make this suggestion because they believe that slow but endless expansion of government spending and bureaucracies are fine so long as the poor benefit from it, and that the Liberal government of President Benigno Aquino has promised big anti-poverty programs by controlling corruption.

If the poor have indeed benefited from previous welfare and subsidy programs many years and decades ago, then poverty by now should be small and negligible. This is not the case. What various welfarist and subsidy programs have done many decades ago is to benefit the politicians and the various bureaucracies that receive ever-rising budget and regulatory, prohibition powers.

Many officials and members of the Liberal Party (LP) forget that they are supposed to advance the philosophy of liberalism in their service to the public, not the cousin of socialism which is endless subsidies and no time table welfarism.

In a recent, short book published by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF) Pakistan Office, Talking Sense: Liberalism, The Greatest Misunderstandings, author Jana Licht discussed the essence of liberalism. She wrote,

The word “liberalism” has its roots in the Latin words liber, which means “free”, and respectively liberalis, which means “concerning the freedom”; in short: it is all about freedom. Liberalism is a social and political movement with the freedom of the individual as its basic idea, aim and decision guideline….

The core of liberal philosophy is the individual whose freedom must be secured and defended. This should be the highest standard and most important norm of a liberal state. Liberals  do not refuse the state; on the contrary, the state is the guarantor of the freedom. The state and its political as well as economic order must be directed to the freedom of the individual, which is the basis of a humane society. Governmental power must end where the individual freedom is touched. The state is only allowed to come into action if the freedom of an individual is hurt. Its duties are limited to the achievement and the sustainment of freedom and law.

Thus, the main function of the State in a liberal government is to protect and expand individual freedom. Freedom against murderers and aggressors (right to life), freedom against thieves and destroyers of property (right to private property), and freedom against bullies and dictators (right to liberty and self expression).

By extension, individuals have the freedom to be hardworking and efficient, or be lazy and inefficient. They have the freedom to be self-reliant, ambitious and responsible, or be dependent, mediocre and irresponsible. Becoming thieves, land grabbers and kidnappers to compensate for their poverty due to laziness or irresponsibility are explicitly disallowed and will be dealt strongly by the State.

In a liberal society therefore, being industrious and self-reliant is rewarded by prosperity while being lazy and dependent is penalized by poverty. Welfarism and forced equality, giving endless and forever subsidies is not a core function of the State in a liberal government.

Jana Licht wrote further,

Freedom” cannot be thought without “responsibility”, the other important term of liberal philosophy. For liberals, freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. Freedom can only be lived by individuals who take responsibility for themselves and for their fellow men. And freedom can only be lived with responsibility, because the freedom of an individual is limited by the freedom of the others. A surplus of freedom always implies more self-responsibility. But this responsibility is not a burden. Liberals claim it, because self-responsibility opens the door for more possibilities to choose from. And this, in turn, is an essential aspect of freedom.

The economic order in a liberal state is based on free markets and private property. The idea of a liberal economy disapproves overflowing governmental regulation of the markets. This belief is justified by the idea of self-responsibility. Liberals are convinced that individuals are better in organising their economic life than any state authority, because they will always have more information about their individual needs and wants.

So while socialism and welfarism emphasized lots of “rights” – health is a right, education is a right, housing is a right, stable job is a right,… -- liberalism strongly and emphatically emphasize that for every right, there is a corresponding responsibility. Rights and freedom are closely interlinked with responsibility, they cannot be divorced from each other.

Thus, in a liberal society, health is a right and a responsibility; education is a right and a responsibility, and so on. What does this mean?

This means that people cannot over-drink, over-smoke, over-eat and over-sit and when they become sickly, they will rally and lobby that the government should give them free or highly subsidized healthcare. This means that students cannot be frequent flunkers and school repeaters because education is free anyway. This means that people can squat and occupy private lands for their housing and lobby that government should side with them.

This also means that high and multiple taxation of the people’s income and savings as codified into tax laws by the previous governments is wrong. Such high taxation and forced equality is penalizing the hard working and industrious people, while subsidizing the less or non-industrious people, and the various government bureaucracies that do the endless and forever subsidy distribution.

Many taxpayers are angry at the on-going pork barrel scandal, at the large-scale corruption in many government departments and agencies, at the inability of certain agencies like the Commission on Audit (COA) and Congress that are tasked by the Constitution  to check and disallow such wastes and corruption to happen.

It is time for the Liberal government to go back to its core function – to promulgate the rule of law. Punish the wrong doers after a due process, give justice to taxpayers by slowly reducing or abolishing certain taxes and fees that penalize hardwork and efficiency.

-------------

See also: 

Pol. Ideology 47: SONA Rallies, Socialism and Thomas van Beersum, July 24, 2013 

Pol. Ideology 48: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Social Contract Theory, September 09, 2013 

Pol. Ideology 49: Machiavelli, The Prince, Liberality and Meanness, September 11, 2013 

Pol. Ideology 50: Plato, The Republic and Pork Barrel, September 14, 2013