What restricts the poor to have access to efficient healthcare, and what prevents medicine development? Big and intrusive government.
About 50 per cent of people in parts of Asia and Africa have no access to medicines due to harmful government policies, reports the "Civil Society Report on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Health", released on March 28. The document was produced by 16 civil society organizations from around the world, and was released ahead of a report on a similar theme from the World Health Organisation (WHO). I was one of the many discussants actually in the final revision of the paper.
How does big and intrusive government restrict the poor access to efficient healthcare, as identified in the report?
1) High taxes and tariffs, up to 55 per cent on imported medicines price people out of treatment. In the Philippines, medicines and health services (like medical and dental check-ups, hospitalization, etc.) are also covered by the 12% VAT. Weak, sick and dying people are still taxed to prop up fiscally irresponsible and tax-hungry government.
2) Complicated and costly registration requirements, where many medicines already approved in the US, EU and Japan are simply not registered in most poor countries because manufacturers cannot justify the investment in registration.
3) Regulations by various government agencies, that hamper development of private health insurance. The poor are unable to obtain insurance and are only able to pay for treatments if they have sufficient savings, or must rely of charity or meagre government healthcare provision.
4) Price controls, supposedly to benefit the poor, actually reduce the availability of drugs, especially in distant rural regions, by making it uneconomic for pharmacies to stock them. Even in relatively wealthy South Africa, price controls have led to the closure of scores of rural pharmacies – leaving thousands of poor people without any access to medicines at all.
5) Inadequate protection for intellectual property in poor countries, this undermines incentives to invest in R&D for the diseases of poverty by making it more difficult to recover costs. The report found no evidence that intellectual property protection had hampered access to medicines.
I will add that restrictions in opening up new private schools for health sciences, new hospitals and clinics discourage the emergence of more health educational institutions that can churn out and supply more nurses, more doctors, other health professionals, to replace those who have migrated to wealthier countries. In the Philippines, thousands of Filipino nurses and doctors are leaving every year, affecting both government- and privately-run hospitals and clinics. If there is big demand for health professionals (domestically and internationally) or other professions, supply normally follows. Thus, greater supply should not be restricted by high corporate taxes and bureaucratic regulations that discourage more private enterprises that want to open up new health learning institutions.
Big and intrusive government is the author of big and multiple taxes; the administrator of multiple permits, licenses and fees, of a maze of regulations, registrations, inspections and accreditations. Ultimately, it is the main hindrance to the poor having greater access to cheaper and more effective medicines and health care.
If there are less taxes, less business regulations and registrations, more private enterprises that produce more medicines (from R&D to marketing), that build more hospitals and clinics, that open more colleges and universities offering health sciences, will spring up. The simple and old formula of "more competition" and NOT "more government regulations", should ensure that rich and poor alike, will have some access to various medicines and health care at various price ranges and packages.
(If you want electronic copy of the report, pdf form, 76 pages long including bibliography, write me: minimalgovernment@gmail.com)
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Visa-free entry and people mobility
The Philippine government allows citizens of 145 countries to enter the country visa-free for visits of 21 days or less, and citizens of a few other countries for visits of 7 days or less; 59 days or less. The list of these countries can be found in the Philippine government portal,
http://www.gov.ph/faqs/visa.asp . For visits longer than 3 weeks, a Philippine visa will be required though.
A few countries allow Filipinos to enter their country visa-free too for short visits. Among these are Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Brunei, East Timor (as fellow members of ASEAN); Hong Kong, Macau, Seychelles, Maldives, Nepal; Cuba, Netherlands Antilles, Bermuda, Haiti; Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panama, Ecuador, Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, El Salvador, Honduras, Suriname, Belize; Morocco, Israel; Palau, Fiji.
(Thanks to Robby G. for this list!)
One proposal made by some people is "reciprocity" in visa-free entry; ie, if the Philippine government gives visa-free entry for short visits to nationals of about 150 countries, then governments of those 150 countries should also give Filipinos visa-free entry into their lands. I don't believe in reciprocity. Just open entry of foreigners to the Philippines visa-free (again, for visits of 3 or 4 weeks or less), even if the governments of those foreigners will not grant the same privilege to Filipinos. I advocate full free trade, even unilateral trade liberalization, so I also advocate full mobility of people, even unilateral free entry and mobility of foreigners into the country -- except the known terrorists and organized criminals.
The geographical isolation of the Philippine archipelago from the rest of the world, even from its South East Asian neighbors, is already a big factor why the country is not attracting too many tourists. For instance, when you land in Vietnam, you can take a bus or train to China and Laos (north), bus or train to Cambodia (west), then further west to Thailand, Myanmar, etc. But when you land in Manila or other international airports (Cebu, Davao, Clark), we have no other neighboring countries accessible by land. It's the vast Pacific Ocean in the east, South China Sea in the west, and lots of small seas in between the islands and provinces. So, easier access through visa-free entry is one incentive to lure tourists, foreign businessmen and visitors, to come in. Although it doesn't help that Manila's international airport (NAIA 1 and 2) are just "provincial and domestic" airport in size and facilities compared to many other countries' international airports, like those in Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, and so on.
Some African countries which don't give visa-free entry for Filipinos are ruled by dictators who just live off on taxpayers' blood and sweat, both local and foreign taxpayers. Even if the "visa fee" is only $10 or $20, for those dictators and bureaucrats, that's still money that can go to their pockets. Now if their rich nationals (say, families and relatives of those dictators, top bureaucrats and private cronies) would come into the Philippines to see Boracay, Davao, Cebu, Manila, Baguio, Bohol, Palawan, Puerto Galera, etc., let them come in visa-free, let them spend their money in Philippine beach and mountain resorts, in Philippine malls and restaurants, in Filipino boatmen and travel guides. (We can't bar and confiscate their money as "ill-gotten wealth" as it is an internal problem that has to be resolved in their own countries.)
The wealthy countries of W. and N. Europe, N. America, N. Asia (Japan and Korea) are too protective of their welfare system; that system is too expensive, financed by high and multiple taxes of their citizens, and continuously accummulating public debts (e.g., France's unfunded social security system is around 200% of GDP!) that they can't extend such welfare to many citizens of other countries. Hence, the strict "visa-required" rule, even for few-days visits.
The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) though, does not give visa-free entry yet to citizens of Russia, Kazakhstan, Croation, other central Asian and eastern European countries. I don't understand why, but it will be an important diplomatic and economic move to lift such travel restriction and allow the nationals of those countries to come in visa-free.
People by nature want to be free to move around in many places, islands and continents. Before, it was the harshness of nature and environment (very hot desert, very cold and prolonged snow, presence of many savage animals that can attack people, tribes that are averse to entry of foreigners) that prevented many people to move around. Later on, governments of many countries began expanding, and so the bureaucracy and restrictions to travel also expanded. With modern technology and increasing competition among international airlines, international hotels, international telecomms companies, communication and mobility among friends, families and clans, business and cultural partners, become easier. It is only rightful that full mobility be respected and given back to people -- except to those who inculcate hatred and violence.
http://www.gov.ph/faqs/visa.asp . For visits longer than 3 weeks, a Philippine visa will be required though.
A few countries allow Filipinos to enter their country visa-free too for short visits. Among these are Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Brunei, East Timor (as fellow members of ASEAN); Hong Kong, Macau, Seychelles, Maldives, Nepal; Cuba, Netherlands Antilles, Bermuda, Haiti; Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panama, Ecuador, Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, El Salvador, Honduras, Suriname, Belize; Morocco, Israel; Palau, Fiji.
(Thanks to Robby G. for this list!)
One proposal made by some people is "reciprocity" in visa-free entry; ie, if the Philippine government gives visa-free entry for short visits to nationals of about 150 countries, then governments of those 150 countries should also give Filipinos visa-free entry into their lands. I don't believe in reciprocity. Just open entry of foreigners to the Philippines visa-free (again, for visits of 3 or 4 weeks or less), even if the governments of those foreigners will not grant the same privilege to Filipinos. I advocate full free trade, even unilateral trade liberalization, so I also advocate full mobility of people, even unilateral free entry and mobility of foreigners into the country -- except the known terrorists and organized criminals.
The geographical isolation of the Philippine archipelago from the rest of the world, even from its South East Asian neighbors, is already a big factor why the country is not attracting too many tourists. For instance, when you land in Vietnam, you can take a bus or train to China and Laos (north), bus or train to Cambodia (west), then further west to Thailand, Myanmar, etc. But when you land in Manila or other international airports (Cebu, Davao, Clark), we have no other neighboring countries accessible by land. It's the vast Pacific Ocean in the east, South China Sea in the west, and lots of small seas in between the islands and provinces. So, easier access through visa-free entry is one incentive to lure tourists, foreign businessmen and visitors, to come in. Although it doesn't help that Manila's international airport (NAIA 1 and 2) are just "provincial and domestic" airport in size and facilities compared to many other countries' international airports, like those in Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, and so on.
Some African countries which don't give visa-free entry for Filipinos are ruled by dictators who just live off on taxpayers' blood and sweat, both local and foreign taxpayers. Even if the "visa fee" is only $10 or $20, for those dictators and bureaucrats, that's still money that can go to their pockets. Now if their rich nationals (say, families and relatives of those dictators, top bureaucrats and private cronies) would come into the Philippines to see Boracay, Davao, Cebu, Manila, Baguio, Bohol, Palawan, Puerto Galera, etc., let them come in visa-free, let them spend their money in Philippine beach and mountain resorts, in Philippine malls and restaurants, in Filipino boatmen and travel guides. (We can't bar and confiscate their money as "ill-gotten wealth" as it is an internal problem that has to be resolved in their own countries.)
The wealthy countries of W. and N. Europe, N. America, N. Asia (Japan and Korea) are too protective of their welfare system; that system is too expensive, financed by high and multiple taxes of their citizens, and continuously accummulating public debts (e.g., France's unfunded social security system is around 200% of GDP!) that they can't extend such welfare to many citizens of other countries. Hence, the strict "visa-required" rule, even for few-days visits.
The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) though, does not give visa-free entry yet to citizens of Russia, Kazakhstan, Croation, other central Asian and eastern European countries. I don't understand why, but it will be an important diplomatic and economic move to lift such travel restriction and allow the nationals of those countries to come in visa-free.
People by nature want to be free to move around in many places, islands and continents. Before, it was the harshness of nature and environment (very hot desert, very cold and prolonged snow, presence of many savage animals that can attack people, tribes that are averse to entry of foreigners) that prevented many people to move around. Later on, governments of many countries began expanding, and so the bureaucracy and restrictions to travel also expanded. With modern technology and increasing competition among international airlines, international hotels, international telecomms companies, communication and mobility among friends, families and clans, business and cultural partners, become easier. It is only rightful that full mobility be respected and given back to people -- except to those who inculcate hatred and violence.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Migration and Freedom 1: World Cup, brain gain and OFWs
During the last World Cup, a small and "lowly" African country, Senegal, beat the defending world champion France in the eliminations (or quarter finals?) round. It was one of the "shocking" results of that world cup. Why? One important reason is because Senegal "exported" or "brain-drained" some of its best soccer players to play abroad, in European football clubs, especially. Then one day the boys came home to play for their national flag, and the players used the experience and talent they gained while working and playing abroad. And they beat and eliminated the reigning, the defending, world champion!
For me that's one big advantage of brain gain. And I don't believe in "brain drain". OFWs or other nationalities leaving their countries to work abroad should never be considered as brain drain. When Filipino nurses and doctors leave the hospitals they are working in the Philippines, went abroad to work in a hospital in the US or Canada or Europe or elsewhere, the health displacement is temporary. One day, some of those health professionals will come back, not as nurses or doctors, but as owners and administrators of new clinics, new hospitals, or an HMO company. The experience, talent, network and business partners, and savings they got abroad.
So I stick with my simple formulation:
Whether such migration results in some broken families back home, these are some of the costs that households can decide and risk. The same way that there are costs and risks for staying in the country for many people when jobs and pay are not enough.
The OFW phenomenon has been with us for the past 30 or hundred years, though it grew noticeably larger and faster over the past 20 years, along with faster pace of globalization (more work opportunities abroad, more competing international airlines, cheaper info and communications dissemation among families, etc.).
Maybe we just don't notice it, but the new medical and nursing schools, the new clinics and private hospitals, new HMO companies, that we have NOW, are put up or managed by health OFWs who have left the country 10, 20, or 30 years ago. They may or may not be in the Philippines physically, but the resources and network are all here.
For whatever reason or alibi, government should not put up any barrier or hurdle or hindrance to migration and mobility of people, whether health professionals or rock bands or investment analysts. If people want to go abroad, let them be. People respond to incentives, and shy away from disincentives. If staying here in the country means bearing low incomes while paying high personal income taxes -- gee, the House Committee on Ways and Means (in charge of taxation), is planning to hike personal income tax from 32% to 35% for those with annual taxable income of P500,000 or more.
So government policies are not a good reference point for many individuals and households to decide to stay. While govt. says it wants to lure health professionals to stay in the country, it whacks them with double taxes -- VAT on health services (which possibly reduce their clients since medical check-ups and medicines are now subject to higher VAT), and high personal income tax. This is not to mention the other taxes and govt. fees on their household consumption, from VAT on hamburger to excise tax & VAT on fuel products. So, households weigh the costs/risks and benefits of staying in the country. And it turns out that for many households, the costs far outweigh the benefits.
If government really wants to help the poor and the sick, government should abolish income taxes (or keep a low, flat tax) and retain VAT (I'd even favor a 15% VAT if income tax is zero) as main govt. revenue source. So that if you're a doctor (or engineer or manager or...), you keep all of your incomes (no confiscation by govt.), you keep your friends and family members here, you pay tax only when you spend, better stay here. Because in the US and Canada and UK, incomes are high but income taxes are also very high.
And yes, churn out more health professionals and other skilled people in the education and formal training institutions. So what if 200,000 nurses and doctors leave every year, if you also graduate 250,000 nurses and doctors every year. This means deregulating the education, health care, and the business environment in general. Less permits and licenses, less charges and fees, less signatures and paper work, less taxes and bureaucracies, and you'll have lots of entrepreneurial initiatives.
There are policy implications for this formulation. If migration is good (since it is voluntary, not forced), then government should not get in the way over-regulating and choosing players (and disallowing many others) in the manpower recruitment agencies. Let the sector regulate themselves, like forming their own industry associations, and these associations will police their ranks who are the recognized members (ie, good recruitment agencies) and who are not. One reason why "placement fees" for potential OFWs are very high is because there are just too few "licensed" recruitment agencies. And I would presume that the licensed ones have paid huge amount of fees, legal and under-the-table, to the government overseas placement agency, the POEA, and other government agencies. This makes working abroad an expensive option.
Finally, when people wish that "all (or most) politicians would leave and be exported", unconsciously I think, people are wishing that there be "less government". Because politicians and many many bureaucrats represent taxes, charges and fees, permits and licenses, that the citizens bear. And very often, the wastes and corruption that come with the presence of too many politicians and government bureaucrats.
For me that's one big advantage of brain gain. And I don't believe in "brain drain". OFWs or other nationalities leaving their countries to work abroad should never be considered as brain drain. When Filipino nurses and doctors leave the hospitals they are working in the Philippines, went abroad to work in a hospital in the US or Canada or Europe or elsewhere, the health displacement is temporary. One day, some of those health professionals will come back, not as nurses or doctors, but as owners and administrators of new clinics, new hospitals, or an HMO company. The experience, talent, network and business partners, and savings they got abroad.
So I stick with my simple formulation:
Migration = Mobility = Freedom.
Whether such migration results in some broken families back home, these are some of the costs that households can decide and risk. The same way that there are costs and risks for staying in the country for many people when jobs and pay are not enough.
The OFW phenomenon has been with us for the past 30 or hundred years, though it grew noticeably larger and faster over the past 20 years, along with faster pace of globalization (more work opportunities abroad, more competing international airlines, cheaper info and communications dissemation among families, etc.).
Maybe we just don't notice it, but the new medical and nursing schools, the new clinics and private hospitals, new HMO companies, that we have NOW, are put up or managed by health OFWs who have left the country 10, 20, or 30 years ago. They may or may not be in the Philippines physically, but the resources and network are all here.
For whatever reason or alibi, government should not put up any barrier or hurdle or hindrance to migration and mobility of people, whether health professionals or rock bands or investment analysts. If people want to go abroad, let them be. People respond to incentives, and shy away from disincentives. If staying here in the country means bearing low incomes while paying high personal income taxes -- gee, the House Committee on Ways and Means (in charge of taxation), is planning to hike personal income tax from 32% to 35% for those with annual taxable income of P500,000 or more.
So government policies are not a good reference point for many individuals and households to decide to stay. While govt. says it wants to lure health professionals to stay in the country, it whacks them with double taxes -- VAT on health services (which possibly reduce their clients since medical check-ups and medicines are now subject to higher VAT), and high personal income tax. This is not to mention the other taxes and govt. fees on their household consumption, from VAT on hamburger to excise tax & VAT on fuel products. So, households weigh the costs/risks and benefits of staying in the country. And it turns out that for many households, the costs far outweigh the benefits.
If government really wants to help the poor and the sick, government should abolish income taxes (or keep a low, flat tax) and retain VAT (I'd even favor a 15% VAT if income tax is zero) as main govt. revenue source. So that if you're a doctor (or engineer or manager or...), you keep all of your incomes (no confiscation by govt.), you keep your friends and family members here, you pay tax only when you spend, better stay here. Because in the US and Canada and UK, incomes are high but income taxes are also very high.
And yes, churn out more health professionals and other skilled people in the education and formal training institutions. So what if 200,000 nurses and doctors leave every year, if you also graduate 250,000 nurses and doctors every year. This means deregulating the education, health care, and the business environment in general. Less permits and licenses, less charges and fees, less signatures and paper work, less taxes and bureaucracies, and you'll have lots of entrepreneurial initiatives.
There are policy implications for this formulation. If migration is good (since it is voluntary, not forced), then government should not get in the way over-regulating and choosing players (and disallowing many others) in the manpower recruitment agencies. Let the sector regulate themselves, like forming their own industry associations, and these associations will police their ranks who are the recognized members (ie, good recruitment agencies) and who are not. One reason why "placement fees" for potential OFWs are very high is because there are just too few "licensed" recruitment agencies. And I would presume that the licensed ones have paid huge amount of fees, legal and under-the-table, to the government overseas placement agency, the POEA, and other government agencies. This makes working abroad an expensive option.
Finally, when people wish that "all (or most) politicians would leave and be exported", unconsciously I think, people are wishing that there be "less government". Because politicians and many many bureaucrats represent taxes, charges and fees, permits and licenses, that the citizens bear. And very often, the wastes and corruption that come with the presence of too many politicians and government bureaucrats.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Party List 3: Marginal Parties Should Aspire to Become Big
A friend commented to one of my postings about the party list system. He wrote,
I thanked him for his comments. Actually I want to see Akbayan, Sanlakas, Bayan Muna, other current party-list groups evolve into a "real" political party -- challenging the Lakas, LDP, NPC, other traditional parties in some congressional districts, fielding local candidates
in some municipalities, cities and provinces.
By doing so, these groups can go beyond the 3 seats maximum at the House if they get lucky, and field Senatorial candidates someday -- on the assumption that the Upper House will not be abolished someday.
But I maintain my position: the party-list system should be abolished (together with the Senate) in the next round of constitutional change. parties should aspire to be big; if they cant do it on their own, they should learn the art of coalition with other small parties.
I also think that in future constitutional change, initiatives should consider going back to the two-party system. It's simpler because most policy questions are answerable by Yes or No. For instance, on the questions of government size and individual liberty:
a) Should govt. cut taxes, cut its services (welfare + bureaucracy), and let the citizens decide where to allocate their hard-earned income?
b) Or should government get more and higher taxes from the citizens, expand services (welfare + bureaucracy), so that govt. will decide where to allocate taxpayers' money?
c) Should government liberalize trade, let the tens of millions of Filipino consumers decide where to buy their needs, the Filipino producers and exporters where to sell their products?
d) Or should govt. restrict trade, protect the producers, but deprive the consumers of more options and liberty where to buy their needs?
These and similar policy questions are generally answerable by Yes or No. Hence, only two major political and economic philosophies will represent the citizens' aspirations. A multiple party system often contributes to muddled understanding of issues.
---------
See also:
Party List 1: Opportunism, 2001 Elections, November 28, 2005
Party List 2: Opportunism, 2004 Elections, December 12, 2005
Hi Nonoy,
I am no fan of sectoral representation myself, but let's not dismiss the party list system altogether.
I agree, there is no such thing as solid sectoral interests. Sectoral lobby groups have their rightful place in advocacy. But for progressive legislaton to be passed, we need Lower House Representatives who will be taken seriously by trapo politicians, because they are backed by a
constituency that is serious about reform. Sectoral reps with narrow agendas will always be condemmed to the "margins" of the current political system that we have. It is no surprise that the party list reps who have gained some prominence to date are Etta Rosales and Satur Ocampo, or even JV Bautista -- all of whom represent multi-sectoral formations.
The party-list system of representation that we have is a hybrid, a mix of sectoral and proportional representation. It should be directed towards strengthening the proportional aspect. We should not encourage interpretation that stress that the party list is a voice of
the "marginalized". Instead it should be seen as an opportunity for non- traditional formations to enter mainstream politics and build a broad reform constituency to counter conservative elements.
In the long run, progressive agendas are not served well by this insistence on being marginalized. It's self-defeating. Party lists are in the business of competing (and winning) in elections. Textbook definitions of political parties state that parties are there to aggregate and articulate interests. This is a number game.
I thanked him for his comments. Actually I want to see Akbayan, Sanlakas, Bayan Muna, other current party-list groups evolve into a "real" political party -- challenging the Lakas, LDP, NPC, other traditional parties in some congressional districts, fielding local candidates
in some municipalities, cities and provinces.
By doing so, these groups can go beyond the 3 seats maximum at the House if they get lucky, and field Senatorial candidates someday -- on the assumption that the Upper House will not be abolished someday.
But I maintain my position: the party-list system should be abolished (together with the Senate) in the next round of constitutional change. parties should aspire to be big; if they cant do it on their own, they should learn the art of coalition with other small parties.
I also think that in future constitutional change, initiatives should consider going back to the two-party system. It's simpler because most policy questions are answerable by Yes or No. For instance, on the questions of government size and individual liberty:
a) Should govt. cut taxes, cut its services (welfare + bureaucracy), and let the citizens decide where to allocate their hard-earned income?
b) Or should government get more and higher taxes from the citizens, expand services (welfare + bureaucracy), so that govt. will decide where to allocate taxpayers' money?
c) Should government liberalize trade, let the tens of millions of Filipino consumers decide where to buy their needs, the Filipino producers and exporters where to sell their products?
d) Or should govt. restrict trade, protect the producers, but deprive the consumers of more options and liberty where to buy their needs?
These and similar policy questions are generally answerable by Yes or No. Hence, only two major political and economic philosophies will represent the citizens' aspirations. A multiple party system often contributes to muddled understanding of issues.
---------
See also:
Party List 1: Opportunism, 2001 Elections, November 28, 2005
Party List 2: Opportunism, 2004 Elections, December 12, 2005
Monday, December 12, 2005
Party List 2: Opportunism, 2004 Elections
(I wrote this sometime in April 2004)
Below is a list of the 57 political and sectoral parties, organizations and coalitions, participating in the party-list (PL) election this coming May 2004 elections. Of the 57 groups, 27 are sectoral parties (indigenous people, workers, women, peasants, etc.), 8 are political parties, and 22 are orgs/coalitions. See, despite many people's "despise" of Congress, so many groups and individuals want to become "Honorable Congressman/woman" also.
In the present Congress (May 2001 elections), of the 226 members of the House of Representatives, 20 (9%) are PL representatives. The dominant PL groups (2 or 3 reps) are Bayan Muna, Assn. of Phil. Electric Cooperatives (APEC), Akbayan, BUHAY, BUTIL Farmers party, Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC), and Sanlakas/Partido Manggagawa.
Why I am in favor of the abolition of the party-list system – through Constitutional Change since the system is constitutionally-mandated, (also the abolition of the Senate):
(1) As earlier discussed, my bias is towards a small or Minimal Government, both in the Executive and Legislative Branches and hence, will require smaller taxes to maintain, smaller interventions in our private lives. Any new govt. agency or institution created or expanded would mean new or higher taxes, duties, fees, etc. exacted from us taxpayers. In the legislature, some benefits to us citizens are unclear, but the costs are very clear: P4.7 billion/year in annual appropriation, tens of billions of pesos of pork-barrel/year, etc.
(2) We either have district representation or PL representation, but not both. What sector or PL group will represent a young female vegetable farmer, physically disabled, Mangyan?
A youth rep. who may be based in M.Manila?
A women's rep. who may also be based in M. Manila or Cebu?
A farmer rep. who may be based in N. Ecija or Davao?
A handicap rep. who may be based in M.Manila or other provinces?
An indigenous people rep. who maybe based in Baguio or Cotabato?
But the lady is living in Oriental Mindoro.
Well, it's possible that all those PL sectoral reps. will take up her cudgels.
It's also possible that not one of them will take up her cudgels as they may not
have the resources to travel all over the country.
(3) Since some PL groups already have nationwide network -- like Bayan Muna, APEC, Akbayan, Sanlakas/PM -- me thinks they can challenge those traditional pol. parties and their politicians in selected provinces and Congressional districts. Hence, the spirit of PL, of voters electing mainly the pol. party and
secondarily the politician representative, is retained, even in District representation system.
-------------
POLITICAL PARTIES / SECTORAL PARTIES / ORGANIZATIONS / COALITION PARTICIPATING IN THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM
(from www.comelec.gov.ph)
I. SECTORAL PARTY ACRONYM
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES
1. Assalam Bangsamoro People's Party ASSALAM
2. Ang Laban ng Indiginong Filipino ALIF
3. Partido Katutubong Pilipino KATUTUBO
4. Suara Bangsamoro SUARA
ELDERLY
1. Aging Pilipino Organization, Inc. AGING PINOY
FISHERFOLKS
1. Bahandi sa Kaumahan ug Kadagatan BAHANDI
HANDICAPPED
1. Alyansa ng may Kapansanang Pinoy AKAPIN
LABOR
1. Partido ng Manggagawa PM
2. Trade Union Congress Party TUCP
OVERSEAS WORKERS
1. Organisasyon ng Manggagawang Mag-aangat sa Republika OMMAR
2. Gabay ng Manggagawang Filipino Party GABAY-OFW
3. Migrante Sectoral Party of Overseas Filipinos and Their Families MIGRANTE
4. Visayan Association of the Philippines BISA
PEASANTS
1. Butil Farmers Party BUTIL
2. National Federation of Small Coconut Farmers Organization, Inc. SCFO
3. Novelty Entrepreneurship & Livelihood for Food, Inc. NELFFI
4. COCOFED - Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. COCOFED
5. Visayas Farmers Party AGRIFIL
PROFESSIONAL
1. Alliance of Volunteer Educators AVE
URBAN POOR
1. Alagad ALAGAD
2. KALOOB - Kaisang Loob Para sa Marangal na Paninirahan KALOOB
3. People's Movement Against Poverty PMAP
VETERANS SECTOR
1. Veterans Freedom Party VFP
WOMEN
1. Abansei! Pinay
2. Gabriela Women's Party GABRIELA
YOUTH
1. Ang Nagkakaisang Kabataan para sa Sambayanan ANAK NG BAYAN
II. POLITICAL PARTY ACRONYM
1. Akbayan! Citizen's Action Party AKBAYAN!
2. Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy ANAD
3. Anakpawis AP
4. Bayan Muna BAYAN MUNA
5. Bigkis Pinoy Movement BIGKIS
6. Buhay Hayaan Yumabong BUHAY
7. Partido Isang Bansa, Isang Diwa * ISANG BANSA, ISANG DIWA
Subject to the final resolution of SPP No. 04-099,
entitled "Petition to forfeit, cancel and delist the registration
as a political party of Partido Isang Bansa, Isang Diwa",
pending before the First Division.
8. Lapiang Manggagawa LM
III. ORGANIZATION/ COALITION ACRONYM
1. Alyansang Bayanihan ng mga Magsasaka, Mangagawang Bukid at Mangingisda (ABA) and
Adhikain at Kilusan ng Ordinaryong Tao (AKO) Coalition ABA-AKO
2. Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School Teachers and Allied Workers AASJS
3. Farmers and Fisherfolks Aggrupation of the Philippines, Inc. FFAPI
4. Ahonbayan AHONBAYAN
5. Alab Katipunan AK
6. Alyansa ng Sambayanan Para sa Pagbabago ASAP
7. Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives APEC
8. An Waray AN WARAY
9. Anak Mindanao AMIN
10. Bagong Tao Movement BTM
11. Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency BANAT
12. Citizen's Battle Against Corruption CIBAC
13. Cooperative NATCCO Network Party COOP-NATCCO
14. Confederation of Grains Retailers Association of the Philippines GRECON
15. Mindanao Federation of Small Coconut Farmers Organization MSCFO
16. Philippine Association of Retired Persons PARP
17. Philippine Confederation of Drivers Organization and
Alliance of Concerned Transport Operators PCDO-ACTO
18. Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. PGBI
19. The True Marcos Loyalist (For God, Country and People)
20. Sagip-Kapwa Foundation, Inc. SAGIP-KAPWA
21. Samahan ng mga Mangangalakal Para sa Ikauunlad ng Lokal na Ekonomiya SMILE
22. Sanlakas SANLAKAS
Below is a list of the 57 political and sectoral parties, organizations and coalitions, participating in the party-list (PL) election this coming May 2004 elections. Of the 57 groups, 27 are sectoral parties (indigenous people, workers, women, peasants, etc.), 8 are political parties, and 22 are orgs/coalitions. See, despite many people's "despise" of Congress, so many groups and individuals want to become "Honorable Congressman/woman" also.
In the present Congress (May 2001 elections), of the 226 members of the House of Representatives, 20 (9%) are PL representatives. The dominant PL groups (2 or 3 reps) are Bayan Muna, Assn. of Phil. Electric Cooperatives (APEC), Akbayan, BUHAY, BUTIL Farmers party, Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC), and Sanlakas/Partido Manggagawa.
Why I am in favor of the abolition of the party-list system – through Constitutional Change since the system is constitutionally-mandated, (also the abolition of the Senate):
(1) As earlier discussed, my bias is towards a small or Minimal Government, both in the Executive and Legislative Branches and hence, will require smaller taxes to maintain, smaller interventions in our private lives. Any new govt. agency or institution created or expanded would mean new or higher taxes, duties, fees, etc. exacted from us taxpayers. In the legislature, some benefits to us citizens are unclear, but the costs are very clear: P4.7 billion/year in annual appropriation, tens of billions of pesos of pork-barrel/year, etc.
(2) We either have district representation or PL representation, but not both. What sector or PL group will represent a young female vegetable farmer, physically disabled, Mangyan?
A youth rep. who may be based in M.Manila?
A women's rep. who may also be based in M. Manila or Cebu?
A farmer rep. who may be based in N. Ecija or Davao?
A handicap rep. who may be based in M.Manila or other provinces?
An indigenous people rep. who maybe based in Baguio or Cotabato?
But the lady is living in Oriental Mindoro.
Well, it's possible that all those PL sectoral reps. will take up her cudgels.
It's also possible that not one of them will take up her cudgels as they may not
have the resources to travel all over the country.
(3) Since some PL groups already have nationwide network -- like Bayan Muna, APEC, Akbayan, Sanlakas/PM -- me thinks they can challenge those traditional pol. parties and their politicians in selected provinces and Congressional districts. Hence, the spirit of PL, of voters electing mainly the pol. party and
secondarily the politician representative, is retained, even in District representation system.
-------------
POLITICAL PARTIES / SECTORAL PARTIES / ORGANIZATIONS / COALITION PARTICIPATING IN THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM
(from www.comelec.gov.ph)
I. SECTORAL PARTY ACRONYM
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES
1. Assalam Bangsamoro People's Party ASSALAM
2. Ang Laban ng Indiginong Filipino ALIF
3. Partido Katutubong Pilipino KATUTUBO
4. Suara Bangsamoro SUARA
ELDERLY
1. Aging Pilipino Organization, Inc. AGING PINOY
FISHERFOLKS
1. Bahandi sa Kaumahan ug Kadagatan BAHANDI
HANDICAPPED
1. Alyansa ng may Kapansanang Pinoy AKAPIN
LABOR
1. Partido ng Manggagawa PM
2. Trade Union Congress Party TUCP
OVERSEAS WORKERS
1. Organisasyon ng Manggagawang Mag-aangat sa Republika OMMAR
2. Gabay ng Manggagawang Filipino Party GABAY-OFW
3. Migrante Sectoral Party of Overseas Filipinos and Their Families MIGRANTE
4. Visayan Association of the Philippines BISA
PEASANTS
1. Butil Farmers Party BUTIL
2. National Federation of Small Coconut Farmers Organization, Inc. SCFO
3. Novelty Entrepreneurship & Livelihood for Food, Inc. NELFFI
4. COCOFED - Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. COCOFED
5. Visayas Farmers Party AGRIFIL
PROFESSIONAL
1. Alliance of Volunteer Educators AVE
URBAN POOR
1. Alagad ALAGAD
2. KALOOB - Kaisang Loob Para sa Marangal na Paninirahan KALOOB
3. People's Movement Against Poverty PMAP
VETERANS SECTOR
1. Veterans Freedom Party VFP
WOMEN
1. Abansei! Pinay
2. Gabriela Women's Party GABRIELA
YOUTH
1. Ang Nagkakaisang Kabataan para sa Sambayanan ANAK NG BAYAN
II. POLITICAL PARTY ACRONYM
1. Akbayan! Citizen's Action Party AKBAYAN!
2. Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy ANAD
3. Anakpawis AP
4. Bayan Muna BAYAN MUNA
5. Bigkis Pinoy Movement BIGKIS
6. Buhay Hayaan Yumabong BUHAY
7. Partido Isang Bansa, Isang Diwa * ISANG BANSA, ISANG DIWA
Subject to the final resolution of SPP No. 04-099,
entitled "Petition to forfeit, cancel and delist the registration
as a political party of Partido Isang Bansa, Isang Diwa",
pending before the First Division.
8. Lapiang Manggagawa LM
III. ORGANIZATION/ COALITION ACRONYM
1. Alyansang Bayanihan ng mga Magsasaka, Mangagawang Bukid at Mangingisda (ABA) and
Adhikain at Kilusan ng Ordinaryong Tao (AKO) Coalition ABA-AKO
2. Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School Teachers and Allied Workers AASJS
3. Farmers and Fisherfolks Aggrupation of the Philippines, Inc. FFAPI
4. Ahonbayan AHONBAYAN
5. Alab Katipunan AK
6. Alyansa ng Sambayanan Para sa Pagbabago ASAP
7. Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives APEC
8. An Waray AN WARAY
9. Anak Mindanao AMIN
10. Bagong Tao Movement BTM
11. Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency BANAT
12. Citizen's Battle Against Corruption CIBAC
13. Cooperative NATCCO Network Party COOP-NATCCO
14. Confederation of Grains Retailers Association of the Philippines GRECON
15. Mindanao Federation of Small Coconut Farmers Organization MSCFO
16. Philippine Association of Retired Persons PARP
17. Philippine Confederation of Drivers Organization and
Alliance of Concerned Transport Operators PCDO-ACTO
18. Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. PGBI
19. The True Marcos Loyalist (For God, Country and People)
20. Sagip-Kapwa Foundation, Inc. SAGIP-KAPWA
21. Samahan ng mga Mangangalakal Para sa Ikauunlad ng Lokal na Ekonomiya SMILE
22. Sanlakas SANLAKAS
Monday, December 05, 2005
Pol. Ideology 4: Comments to Minimal Government Manifesto
(I posted this in the MG yahoogroups in August 2004)
A friend who teaches Economics at Ateneo de Manila U, Cielo Magno, showed her class a copy of Minimal Government Manifesto and the Addendum to the Manifesto. Cielo is teaching Public Economics to undergrad Econ. majors. Cielo sent me a compilation of her students' comments. Man, 21 pages long, single space, from 23 students. (Cielo, thanks a million for this compilation; the comments are both amusing and educational)
Her students agreed that I post their comments, unedited. I am posting here 3 of those 23 comments. The first, from TJ Lumauig, is almost 100% supportive of MG philosophy. The 2nd, from Ferdinand Nokom, is almost 100% critical. the 3rd, from Stephanie Tiu, is somehow neutral.
After these 3 papers, a friend Chi-chi B. gave additional points.
----------------
(1) TJ Lumauig
I have always believed that the biggest and most severe problem of the Philippine economy, though virtually impossible to measure accurately, is corruption. This obviously points to the government. It is no secret that a lot of corruption takes place within the government. How often do we hear of one person embezzling millions from here, and someone else extorting millions from there? It is a disturbing thought to think that a big chunk of tax payers’ money meant for the good of the country is merely going to pockets of government officials. Not only from the elected officials does corruption take place, but even from their family members who should not even have any hold on administrative duties. So in much agreement with the Minimal Government Movement I ask the question, does the country really benefit from the government?
First and foremost, I believe that our government is way too big. A country like the Philippines does not need a government of our size. For example, if the roughly 19 million citizens of the state of New York can be represented by only 2 senators – like every other state in the US – why does the 8 million citizens of the Philippines – less than half the size of NY – need 24 senators? Common sense would tell us that a group of 100 would be easier to lead than a group of 1000. But then why is a small country like the Philippines in such turmoil? The government is just too big. Each added member of the government results into an added salary for citizens to pay for plus the hanging threat of another possible corrupt official. This implies that citizens pay even more taxes that probably will not even be used for the country. And for what? To have someone act like they’re doing something despite having many other officials with almost the same exact duty assigned to them? In this sense, our excessively large government with its overlapping duties does more harm than good for the Filipino people.
I strongly agree with the principles of the Minimal Government Movement. The Philippine government should be minimized to a certain number of specific duties. This way, people would not be held back too much, and would be able to work to their potentials. Also, corporations would be of better quality in the hands of the private sector since they would naturally compete to earn revenues. Another aspect of minimizing the government is that it could better focus on its more important duties rather than spreading itself too thinly, barely implementing its rules and policies. This way, the government would become more efficient instead of adding problems.
In a small country like the Philippines, a large complex government is not needed. What the country needs in order to develop is the proper use of its capabilities that are often held back by the government. By giving markets more freedom, reducing unnecessary taxes on citizens and most importantly reducing the number of possibly corrupt officials, the Philippines can better develop as a country.
(2) Ferdinand C. Nokom Jr.
I think that the Manifesto of Minimal Government has good ideas in mind yet some of the proposals they have in mind are rather questionable. It is good that indeed, the government should cut down on its size, for a large chunk of the government budget is allotted for salaries of inefficient government employees. Bureaus and other government agencies should be merged or shut down, in line that their function often overlaps with other agencies and maintaining them is a waste of manpower and taxpayer’s money. Federalism is also a good idea for the LGU’s as it promotes independence and efficiency for there is no waste of time trying to beg for higher officieals to address the needs of the local governments. But on the other hand, this power for the LGU’s has the threat of corruption in it, for it gives more power to these officials and traces of nepotism can be seen in the long run with this system.
Streamlining the tasks of the government, along with the agencies of National Defense, the Senate and Congress, and decentralizing the power and more importantly the money (as seen with the pork barrel) of the Senate is good, as all the point brought up by the Manifesto in support to their statement of decreasing the size of government is good, for this rids the government of scrupulous elements in office, or those running for office to get a shot at stealing the taxpayer’s money, and promotes capable men into the position for there is less gain for them financially, with the reduction of size in the government and more focus on performance. But, The premise of eliminating income tax and corporate tax is quite questionable. As of now, income tax is the biggest contributor to government revenue. Although setting a flat rate of 10% income tax is promising, would that be enough to fund the nation? What would be good maybe, is to set the 10% flat rate to the low to moderate income families and set harder taxes on those on the higher income bracket of society. I think they should not remove corporate tax, and also the premise of imposing consumption tax is good so that there would be somewhat of “equality” in taxation. Another questionable premise is complete trade liberalization. How can we ensure that our goods can compete in equal footing with imported goods? Would we not run the risk of being flooded with imports and the killing of the local industries with that move? All in all, the premise of a minimal government intervention is quite promising, yet it still has its questionable premises that may not be of good to the country.
(3) Stephanie Rinna Lim Tiu
The concept of the Minimal Government as a whole seems like a very good way to improve the efficiency of the government and, at the same time, reduce the costs incurred by the government. I agree with the Manifesto that the government should only be limited to a few functions and leave the provision of goods and services to the market. I also agree with the government that there should be a streamlining of the tax structure and a curtailing of the intervening and regulating of the government.
However, there are also some points which I do not agree with like the emphasis on greater individual responsibility and making social services like education and health care a parental responsibility, not a state responsibility. I would like to point out that the income distribution in our nation is already very skewed in favor of the citizens who belong to the A and B class. These citizens do not send their children to public schools or public hospitals because of the quality of service that they receive there. These moneyed citizens can afford to pay more in order to get better medical or educational services for them and their families. But from the perspective of the masses (most of who live below minimum wage), what they are earning is barely enough to provide for the survival of their family, how can they even consider sending their children to private schools or go to private hospitals when they are sick? What the government should focus on is improving basic social services such as education and health and view it as an investment for the nation’s future.
The current situation in the Philippine educational and health system is such that there are not enough schools or hospitals to provide for the needs of the Filipinos, what more if we decide to leave the provision of healthcare and education to the individuals instead of the government? It would mean more uneducated citizens because only a minority can afford to pay for the education of their children. It would also mean more deaths and diseases because the masses cannot afford the vaccines and medication that are required when someone is sick. There is a reason why education and health care are considered “public goods”, privatizing these social services would encourage private corporations to find a way to profit from these basic services. Some might argue that the voucher system would be a good replacement for the public elementary and high schools but, realistically speaking, most private schools are also already filled to capacity and using the voucher system would mean compromising the quality of education because of the added demand and limited supply. Privatizing state universities and colleges (SUCs) would indeed raise revenue for the government to help them retire many of their maturing public debts but it will be at the expense of its people because they are the ones who have to suffer the repercussions and find ways to finance their education.
One very good point of the Minimal Government Manifesto is the simplification of the tax structure by adapting a minimum of 10% flat tax for individual income and shifting revenue collection from income tax to consumption tax. The continual increase and introduction of new taxes over the years has eaten up a lot of our disposable income and has had a very negative effect on the economy. The government seems to see raising and introducing taxes as a solution to helping service our national debt. However, they do not seem to see that it just increases the opportunity for corruption in tax collection. It is not the taxes that are the problem, it is the tax collection. While we do need taxes to help finance the projects and programs of the government, it should not be seen as a way to milk the people for revenue to help fund more projects and debt servicing.
What is called for here is a massive shift in the structure of the government and the mindset of the people about the government. The government has its flaws and weaknesses in trying to fulfill its duty: to ensure the welfare of its people. We, as a nation, have constantly had a very negative view of our government and this results in our apathy on anything concerning the government. If we are to be successful in implementing the Minimal Government, it requires the support and faith of the Filipino people in its government. The cooperation of the Filipino people will be a crucial part of the success of the Minimal Government. There is still a long way to go for the implementation of the Minimal Government: reviews and studies of the principles that are advocated, coming up with programs that will test the efficiency and improvement of the new system and improving on errors, and last, but not least, gaining the support of the Filipino people. But I believe in the potential of the Minimal Government because I can see how it can, in the long run, improve the situation of the Filipino people. It might not be smooth sailing, especially when it is first introduced, but I have faith that, given time, the Filipino people will see how it has improved their lives and they will find it easier to adapt to a new system of government.
------
Additional comments here from Chichi, she's got good arguments. My addendum after her comments. Posted in the MG yahoogroups in August 2004
Hi Noy,
Here are possibly additional ammunition you may consider to address the issues raised by the Ateneo Econ Class to the Minimal Government Manifesto.
1. Unregulated markets tend to become monopolies/oligopolies, thus, government has to step in to prevent that.
As a "diplomatic" strategy (don't know if you agree though), it may be correct to concede a bit since the theory does support the existence of natural mono/oligopolies in some but not all industries. Thus, government involvement may be required but only in terms of enhancing existing and future contestability of these few markets, instead of direct participation in that market (either through production or trading). For the rest of the "healthy" markets, no "cure" is necessary.
However, government sometimes chooses to create "super" markets by politicizing ("these markets must never, ever be allowed to fail") certain industries like oil and rice that can otherwise be considered healthy. I feel government is also justified in wanting peace of mind in this regard, but again, the appropriate response is just to ensure free entry and exit for private sector players who will work for market equilibrium. We are seeing this in oil.
Sadly, this is not happening in medicines because of imperfections in the distribution side. Thus, instead of actually setting up more public drugstores to correct this, government should probably just have a more vigilant enforcement of the generics law and help in educating sick people of generic options.
2. Profits are bad.
Only permanently, abnormally high profits are bad since they are the fruits of unhampered monopolies/ oligopolies. Government should try to weaken these profits only if the great majority of Filipino consumers (and not necessarily Filipino producers) feel the pinch, and again, not by offering direct competition but by allowing others to offer the competition. Smart and Globe have had a spectacular run with profits, enough to attract Sun Cellular to join the fray, but there's no need for government to lift a finger yet since the intense competition among the three have yielded better services for cellphone users.
3. Abandoning education and health care to parents will worsen inequality.
I agree that the existing wording seems "heartless." If I remember correctly, the public welfare argument that an initial equilibrium assumes equal endowments (or is my memory just too rusty?), and in the absence of that utopia, we can settle for equal opportunities provided by universal education. Why should we penalize future productive citizens for having lazy parents? Pardon if this bias runs contrary to minimal government, but perhaps shrinking the public education sector can just become a long-term goal, to be achieved only once income inquality is reduced to an "acceptable" rate.
Healthcare is a different matter though. There is somehow a moral hazard problem here since there are diseases that can be avoided, lung and liver problems from smoking and drinking, heart problems from having the wrong diet, etc. Perhaps, government can do its part in just stressing disease prevention and health management in schools, and coordinate/help the donor, socio-civic and corporate communities in their healthcare activities. National government could probably just get involved in times of epidemics or disasters. Personally though, this is a tough call for me. Lands have been sold and children sent to Japan for the sake of expensive healthcare for loved ones, despite the existence of public hospitals and Philhealth. I personally believe this sector needs a second look.
4. Further trade lib will gobble up many small and medium industries.
From the other side of the coin, only trade protectionism allowed these industries to thrive in the first place. Government decided to play God by choosing the winners who are assured of the mark-ups in the amount of the tariff protection. These winners are not necessarily small since they have the resources to convince government to pick them - cement, steel, sugar. Livestock and poultry producers have the numbers to make politicians listen, but the majority of these producers do not have the scale to benefit commercially from high tariffs.
In the meantime, what happens to the equally small, if not smaller, banana-que, barbecue and lechon manok vendors who would continue to feel the profit squeeze? What prospective use of these protected products would otherwise have sprouted if their prices had been more affordable? Maybe if these products had been more affordable, many of our fellow Filipinos would not resort to eating instant noodles or plain sauces as ulam and scrimp on nutrition.
Sometimes, we forget the main reason why we want to support certain sectors -- we want to encourage supply so consumers would always have access to these important things in life. But with trade protection, the world is giving us access but we just don't trust them enough to supply us regularly, in the end, making consumers make do with relatively inexpensive goods, a premium for "a more assured" supply. Such assurance is not actually credible since virtually all products can suffer from supply shocks, e.g., pest on our onions, FMD on our pork, etc.
5. On minimal government not being suitable to Philippine conditions.
We have to admit MG principles are ambitious, but our government's complexity warrants a long period of implementation. MG approach should be likened to weaning rather than cold turkey, and such weaning should start now. Otherwise, it will continue to grow and become more complex.
In the meantime, other Filipinos will continue to do their work to improve the economy, produce better prepared graduates, rear future citizens with precious values, etc., a never-ending process. However, MG has chosen this advocacy because of a perceived vacuum in the marketplace of ideas for reduced government intervention. MG principles will hopefully be adopted if the time is right for such principles. But it would never be considered if the issues are not raised, forced or flagged.
Chichi
Hi Chi,
On your points in #1, you're right on natural monopolies. I failed to take note of that phenomenon in my answer. Yes, there is government role there -- to make entry and exit of new players/producers easier and less cumbersome, often through many regulations by the Executive branch, and franchising laws by the Legislative branch.
On the distribution problem in medicines, I think a more effective way to solve this is to allow more drugstores to enter the market, including foreign-owned drugstores and pharmacies. I am not sure if drugstores are among the "no to foreigners" sectors in the Constitution. If so, constitutional change to remove these restrictions in medicines/drugstores and other sectors or industries will be the long-term solution.
On #2, yes, monopoly/oligopoly profits are bad since these are attained through "rent-seeking" activities, sponsored and maintained by the state. I wrote this in my answer to the students' comments: "Many market imperfections (monopolies, oligopolies, cartels, other variants) are actually state-sponsored, state-created and maintained: single or limited franchises through legislation, trade protectionism, cabotage law, bureaucratic red tapes to prevent competition, etc."
On #3, yes, it should be pointed out clearly that leaving basic education and health care to parental responsibility, not state responsibility, is a long-term goal and should not be adopted in the short- and medium-term (ie, not in the next 5-10 years, even longer). On health care, one solution I could think of is to further deregulate medical education. Some schools which offer BS Medicine on 6 years total (vs. the current 8 years, 4 pre-med, 4 proper medicine) should be allowed. Supply of medical students and graduates is rather low because of the expensive and long training period. More physicians, more private clinics and hospitals, more competition among health care professionals, more affordable health care.
Re. disasters and calamities, I observe that private sector initiative in giving aid on these situations is high and widespread. Civic clubs (rotary, jaycees, lions, kiwanis, Knights of Columbus, etc.), the church, village or homeowners associations, media, etc. are often seen in these projects. My sister's rotary club (she's president of one sosyal RC in makati) for instance, will construct 3 elem. school buildings in a remote barangay (no electricity) somewhere in Batangas province within her 1 year term. My brother-in-law's RC also in makati has various livelihood programs and scholarships for several college students for Aeta people in Zambales.
On #4, I don't think foreign traders and investors will be interested to produce banana-que, barbeque, litson manok, etc. These products are better sold in small production and marketing units like a street corner and small stalls.
Finally on #5, yes, MG's philosophies and goals are ambitious. When I consulted with Dr. Noel de Dios around 2 months ago about the MG Manifesto, he encouraged me to pursue it because it's an ideological and philosophical paper. We just have to engage our folks, other people, on the role and limits of government; and hence, government's limits in taxing our income, consumption, savings, investments, etc. No organization in this country has ever attempted to consistently take this challenge. Tayo pa lang. With the current fiscal and debt problems of the country where the government is scrambling where to further tax us, there is great need to challenge the politicians, media, other statist-oriented people, to shrinking government as an alternative to more taxes.
regards.
Nonoy
-----------
See also:
A friend who teaches Economics at Ateneo de Manila U, Cielo Magno, showed her class a copy of Minimal Government Manifesto and the Addendum to the Manifesto. Cielo is teaching Public Economics to undergrad Econ. majors. Cielo sent me a compilation of her students' comments. Man, 21 pages long, single space, from 23 students. (Cielo, thanks a million for this compilation; the comments are both amusing and educational)
Her students agreed that I post their comments, unedited. I am posting here 3 of those 23 comments. The first, from TJ Lumauig, is almost 100% supportive of MG philosophy. The 2nd, from Ferdinand Nokom, is almost 100% critical. the 3rd, from Stephanie Tiu, is somehow neutral.
After these 3 papers, a friend Chi-chi B. gave additional points.
----------------
(1) TJ Lumauig
I have always believed that the biggest and most severe problem of the Philippine economy, though virtually impossible to measure accurately, is corruption. This obviously points to the government. It is no secret that a lot of corruption takes place within the government. How often do we hear of one person embezzling millions from here, and someone else extorting millions from there? It is a disturbing thought to think that a big chunk of tax payers’ money meant for the good of the country is merely going to pockets of government officials. Not only from the elected officials does corruption take place, but even from their family members who should not even have any hold on administrative duties. So in much agreement with the Minimal Government Movement I ask the question, does the country really benefit from the government?
First and foremost, I believe that our government is way too big. A country like the Philippines does not need a government of our size. For example, if the roughly 19 million citizens of the state of New York can be represented by only 2 senators – like every other state in the US – why does the 8 million citizens of the Philippines – less than half the size of NY – need 24 senators? Common sense would tell us that a group of 100 would be easier to lead than a group of 1000. But then why is a small country like the Philippines in such turmoil? The government is just too big. Each added member of the government results into an added salary for citizens to pay for plus the hanging threat of another possible corrupt official. This implies that citizens pay even more taxes that probably will not even be used for the country. And for what? To have someone act like they’re doing something despite having many other officials with almost the same exact duty assigned to them? In this sense, our excessively large government with its overlapping duties does more harm than good for the Filipino people.
I strongly agree with the principles of the Minimal Government Movement. The Philippine government should be minimized to a certain number of specific duties. This way, people would not be held back too much, and would be able to work to their potentials. Also, corporations would be of better quality in the hands of the private sector since they would naturally compete to earn revenues. Another aspect of minimizing the government is that it could better focus on its more important duties rather than spreading itself too thinly, barely implementing its rules and policies. This way, the government would become more efficient instead of adding problems.
In a small country like the Philippines, a large complex government is not needed. What the country needs in order to develop is the proper use of its capabilities that are often held back by the government. By giving markets more freedom, reducing unnecessary taxes on citizens and most importantly reducing the number of possibly corrupt officials, the Philippines can better develop as a country.
(2) Ferdinand C. Nokom Jr.
I think that the Manifesto of Minimal Government has good ideas in mind yet some of the proposals they have in mind are rather questionable. It is good that indeed, the government should cut down on its size, for a large chunk of the government budget is allotted for salaries of inefficient government employees. Bureaus and other government agencies should be merged or shut down, in line that their function often overlaps with other agencies and maintaining them is a waste of manpower and taxpayer’s money. Federalism is also a good idea for the LGU’s as it promotes independence and efficiency for there is no waste of time trying to beg for higher officieals to address the needs of the local governments. But on the other hand, this power for the LGU’s has the threat of corruption in it, for it gives more power to these officials and traces of nepotism can be seen in the long run with this system.
Streamlining the tasks of the government, along with the agencies of National Defense, the Senate and Congress, and decentralizing the power and more importantly the money (as seen with the pork barrel) of the Senate is good, as all the point brought up by the Manifesto in support to their statement of decreasing the size of government is good, for this rids the government of scrupulous elements in office, or those running for office to get a shot at stealing the taxpayer’s money, and promotes capable men into the position for there is less gain for them financially, with the reduction of size in the government and more focus on performance. But, The premise of eliminating income tax and corporate tax is quite questionable. As of now, income tax is the biggest contributor to government revenue. Although setting a flat rate of 10% income tax is promising, would that be enough to fund the nation? What would be good maybe, is to set the 10% flat rate to the low to moderate income families and set harder taxes on those on the higher income bracket of society. I think they should not remove corporate tax, and also the premise of imposing consumption tax is good so that there would be somewhat of “equality” in taxation. Another questionable premise is complete trade liberalization. How can we ensure that our goods can compete in equal footing with imported goods? Would we not run the risk of being flooded with imports and the killing of the local industries with that move? All in all, the premise of a minimal government intervention is quite promising, yet it still has its questionable premises that may not be of good to the country.
(3) Stephanie Rinna Lim Tiu
The concept of the Minimal Government as a whole seems like a very good way to improve the efficiency of the government and, at the same time, reduce the costs incurred by the government. I agree with the Manifesto that the government should only be limited to a few functions and leave the provision of goods and services to the market. I also agree with the government that there should be a streamlining of the tax structure and a curtailing of the intervening and regulating of the government.
However, there are also some points which I do not agree with like the emphasis on greater individual responsibility and making social services like education and health care a parental responsibility, not a state responsibility. I would like to point out that the income distribution in our nation is already very skewed in favor of the citizens who belong to the A and B class. These citizens do not send their children to public schools or public hospitals because of the quality of service that they receive there. These moneyed citizens can afford to pay more in order to get better medical or educational services for them and their families. But from the perspective of the masses (most of who live below minimum wage), what they are earning is barely enough to provide for the survival of their family, how can they even consider sending their children to private schools or go to private hospitals when they are sick? What the government should focus on is improving basic social services such as education and health and view it as an investment for the nation’s future.
The current situation in the Philippine educational and health system is such that there are not enough schools or hospitals to provide for the needs of the Filipinos, what more if we decide to leave the provision of healthcare and education to the individuals instead of the government? It would mean more uneducated citizens because only a minority can afford to pay for the education of their children. It would also mean more deaths and diseases because the masses cannot afford the vaccines and medication that are required when someone is sick. There is a reason why education and health care are considered “public goods”, privatizing these social services would encourage private corporations to find a way to profit from these basic services. Some might argue that the voucher system would be a good replacement for the public elementary and high schools but, realistically speaking, most private schools are also already filled to capacity and using the voucher system would mean compromising the quality of education because of the added demand and limited supply. Privatizing state universities and colleges (SUCs) would indeed raise revenue for the government to help them retire many of their maturing public debts but it will be at the expense of its people because they are the ones who have to suffer the repercussions and find ways to finance their education.
One very good point of the Minimal Government Manifesto is the simplification of the tax structure by adapting a minimum of 10% flat tax for individual income and shifting revenue collection from income tax to consumption tax. The continual increase and introduction of new taxes over the years has eaten up a lot of our disposable income and has had a very negative effect on the economy. The government seems to see raising and introducing taxes as a solution to helping service our national debt. However, they do not seem to see that it just increases the opportunity for corruption in tax collection. It is not the taxes that are the problem, it is the tax collection. While we do need taxes to help finance the projects and programs of the government, it should not be seen as a way to milk the people for revenue to help fund more projects and debt servicing.
What is called for here is a massive shift in the structure of the government and the mindset of the people about the government. The government has its flaws and weaknesses in trying to fulfill its duty: to ensure the welfare of its people. We, as a nation, have constantly had a very negative view of our government and this results in our apathy on anything concerning the government. If we are to be successful in implementing the Minimal Government, it requires the support and faith of the Filipino people in its government. The cooperation of the Filipino people will be a crucial part of the success of the Minimal Government. There is still a long way to go for the implementation of the Minimal Government: reviews and studies of the principles that are advocated, coming up with programs that will test the efficiency and improvement of the new system and improving on errors, and last, but not least, gaining the support of the Filipino people. But I believe in the potential of the Minimal Government because I can see how it can, in the long run, improve the situation of the Filipino people. It might not be smooth sailing, especially when it is first introduced, but I have faith that, given time, the Filipino people will see how it has improved their lives and they will find it easier to adapt to a new system of government.
------
Additional comments here from Chichi, she's got good arguments. My addendum after her comments. Posted in the MG yahoogroups in August 2004
Hi Noy,
Here are possibly additional ammunition you may consider to address the issues raised by the Ateneo Econ Class to the Minimal Government Manifesto.
1. Unregulated markets tend to become monopolies/oligopolies, thus, government has to step in to prevent that.
As a "diplomatic" strategy (don't know if you agree though), it may be correct to concede a bit since the theory does support the existence of natural mono/oligopolies in some but not all industries. Thus, government involvement may be required but only in terms of enhancing existing and future contestability of these few markets, instead of direct participation in that market (either through production or trading). For the rest of the "healthy" markets, no "cure" is necessary.
However, government sometimes chooses to create "super" markets by politicizing ("these markets must never, ever be allowed to fail") certain industries like oil and rice that can otherwise be considered healthy. I feel government is also justified in wanting peace of mind in this regard, but again, the appropriate response is just to ensure free entry and exit for private sector players who will work for market equilibrium. We are seeing this in oil.
Sadly, this is not happening in medicines because of imperfections in the distribution side. Thus, instead of actually setting up more public drugstores to correct this, government should probably just have a more vigilant enforcement of the generics law and help in educating sick people of generic options.
2. Profits are bad.
Only permanently, abnormally high profits are bad since they are the fruits of unhampered monopolies/ oligopolies. Government should try to weaken these profits only if the great majority of Filipino consumers (and not necessarily Filipino producers) feel the pinch, and again, not by offering direct competition but by allowing others to offer the competition. Smart and Globe have had a spectacular run with profits, enough to attract Sun Cellular to join the fray, but there's no need for government to lift a finger yet since the intense competition among the three have yielded better services for cellphone users.
3. Abandoning education and health care to parents will worsen inequality.
I agree that the existing wording seems "heartless." If I remember correctly, the public welfare argument that an initial equilibrium assumes equal endowments (or is my memory just too rusty?), and in the absence of that utopia, we can settle for equal opportunities provided by universal education. Why should we penalize future productive citizens for having lazy parents? Pardon if this bias runs contrary to minimal government, but perhaps shrinking the public education sector can just become a long-term goal, to be achieved only once income inquality is reduced to an "acceptable" rate.
Healthcare is a different matter though. There is somehow a moral hazard problem here since there are diseases that can be avoided, lung and liver problems from smoking and drinking, heart problems from having the wrong diet, etc. Perhaps, government can do its part in just stressing disease prevention and health management in schools, and coordinate/help the donor, socio-civic and corporate communities in their healthcare activities. National government could probably just get involved in times of epidemics or disasters. Personally though, this is a tough call for me. Lands have been sold and children sent to Japan for the sake of expensive healthcare for loved ones, despite the existence of public hospitals and Philhealth. I personally believe this sector needs a second look.
4. Further trade lib will gobble up many small and medium industries.
From the other side of the coin, only trade protectionism allowed these industries to thrive in the first place. Government decided to play God by choosing the winners who are assured of the mark-ups in the amount of the tariff protection. These winners are not necessarily small since they have the resources to convince government to pick them - cement, steel, sugar. Livestock and poultry producers have the numbers to make politicians listen, but the majority of these producers do not have the scale to benefit commercially from high tariffs.
In the meantime, what happens to the equally small, if not smaller, banana-que, barbecue and lechon manok vendors who would continue to feel the profit squeeze? What prospective use of these protected products would otherwise have sprouted if their prices had been more affordable? Maybe if these products had been more affordable, many of our fellow Filipinos would not resort to eating instant noodles or plain sauces as ulam and scrimp on nutrition.
Sometimes, we forget the main reason why we want to support certain sectors -- we want to encourage supply so consumers would always have access to these important things in life. But with trade protection, the world is giving us access but we just don't trust them enough to supply us regularly, in the end, making consumers make do with relatively inexpensive goods, a premium for "a more assured" supply. Such assurance is not actually credible since virtually all products can suffer from supply shocks, e.g., pest on our onions, FMD on our pork, etc.
5. On minimal government not being suitable to Philippine conditions.
We have to admit MG principles are ambitious, but our government's complexity warrants a long period of implementation. MG approach should be likened to weaning rather than cold turkey, and such weaning should start now. Otherwise, it will continue to grow and become more complex.
In the meantime, other Filipinos will continue to do their work to improve the economy, produce better prepared graduates, rear future citizens with precious values, etc., a never-ending process. However, MG has chosen this advocacy because of a perceived vacuum in the marketplace of ideas for reduced government intervention. MG principles will hopefully be adopted if the time is right for such principles. But it would never be considered if the issues are not raised, forced or flagged.
Chichi
Hi Chi,
On your points in #1, you're right on natural monopolies. I failed to take note of that phenomenon in my answer. Yes, there is government role there -- to make entry and exit of new players/producers easier and less cumbersome, often through many regulations by the Executive branch, and franchising laws by the Legislative branch.
On the distribution problem in medicines, I think a more effective way to solve this is to allow more drugstores to enter the market, including foreign-owned drugstores and pharmacies. I am not sure if drugstores are among the "no to foreigners" sectors in the Constitution. If so, constitutional change to remove these restrictions in medicines/drugstores and other sectors or industries will be the long-term solution.
On #2, yes, monopoly/oligopoly profits are bad since these are attained through "rent-seeking" activities, sponsored and maintained by the state. I wrote this in my answer to the students' comments: "Many market imperfections (monopolies, oligopolies, cartels, other variants) are actually state-sponsored, state-created and maintained: single or limited franchises through legislation, trade protectionism, cabotage law, bureaucratic red tapes to prevent competition, etc."
On #3, yes, it should be pointed out clearly that leaving basic education and health care to parental responsibility, not state responsibility, is a long-term goal and should not be adopted in the short- and medium-term (ie, not in the next 5-10 years, even longer). On health care, one solution I could think of is to further deregulate medical education. Some schools which offer BS Medicine on 6 years total (vs. the current 8 years, 4 pre-med, 4 proper medicine) should be allowed. Supply of medical students and graduates is rather low because of the expensive and long training period. More physicians, more private clinics and hospitals, more competition among health care professionals, more affordable health care.
Re. disasters and calamities, I observe that private sector initiative in giving aid on these situations is high and widespread. Civic clubs (rotary, jaycees, lions, kiwanis, Knights of Columbus, etc.), the church, village or homeowners associations, media, etc. are often seen in these projects. My sister's rotary club (she's president of one sosyal RC in makati) for instance, will construct 3 elem. school buildings in a remote barangay (no electricity) somewhere in Batangas province within her 1 year term. My brother-in-law's RC also in makati has various livelihood programs and scholarships for several college students for Aeta people in Zambales.
On #4, I don't think foreign traders and investors will be interested to produce banana-que, barbeque, litson manok, etc. These products are better sold in small production and marketing units like a street corner and small stalls.
Finally on #5, yes, MG's philosophies and goals are ambitious. When I consulted with Dr. Noel de Dios around 2 months ago about the MG Manifesto, he encouraged me to pursue it because it's an ideological and philosophical paper. We just have to engage our folks, other people, on the role and limits of government; and hence, government's limits in taxing our income, consumption, savings, investments, etc. No organization in this country has ever attempted to consistently take this challenge. Tayo pa lang. With the current fiscal and debt problems of the country where the government is scrambling where to further tax us, there is great need to challenge the politicians, media, other statist-oriented people, to shrinking government as an alternative to more taxes.
regards.
Nonoy
-----------
See also:
Pol. Ideology 1: Minimal Government Manifesto, October 18, 2005
Pol. Ideology 2: Evolution of Market and State, October 25, 2005
Pol. Ideology 3: Liberal vs. Libertarian, November 06, 2005
Thursday, December 01, 2005
FIGS 1: World's highly indebted countries
There are several indicators to see a country's indebtedness and fiscally irresponsible governments (FIGs). Foremost of them is total external debt stock, measured in billions of US$. Among the developing world, Brazil tops, with $235.4 billion in 2003. Another indicator, expressed in percentage, is the share of external debt stock to a country's exports of goods and services, including remittances by its workers abroad. Table below shows the world's 15 most indebted country using the second indicator.
First column is country name, second column is total external debt stock (in $ Billion), and third is total external debt stock as % of its exports of goods and services:
1. Burundi, $1.31B, 3,051% (!)
2. Sao Tome and Principe, $0.34 B, 1,773%
3, Liberia, 2.57, 1,522%
4. Sierra Leone, 1.61, 1,5152%
5. Cent. African Rep., 1.33, 1,061%
6. Rwanda, 1.54, 974%
7. Congo Dem. Rep. 11.17 , 923%
8. Guinea Bissau 1.54, 891%
9. Malawi 3.13, 660%
10. Ethiopia, 7.15, 621%
11. Lao PDR, 2.85, 611%
12. Sudan, 17.50, 561%
13. Eritrea, 0.64, 543%
14. Niger, 2.12, 542%
15. Zambia, 6.42, 529%
(source: WB, Global Development Finance (GDF) 2005)
In terms of absolute amount of foreign debt, the following are the most indebted developing countries (column 2 is debt in $ Billion, column 3 is debt as % of exports of goods and services), 2003:
1. Brazil, $235.4B, 299%
2. China, 193.7, 48%
3. Russia, 175.3, 128%
4. Argentina, 168.2, 473%
5. Turkey, 145.7, 232%
6. Mexico, 140.0, 74%
7. Indonesia, 134.4, 176%
8. India, 113.5, 120%
9. Poland, 95.2, 150%
10. Philippines, 62.7, 141%
11. Thailand, 51.8, 59%
12. Malaysia, 49.1, 44%
13. Hungary, 45.8, 102%
14. Chile, 43.2, 174%
15. Pakistan, 36.3, 232%
(source: WB, GDF 2005)
First column is country name, second column is total external debt stock (in $ Billion), and third is total external debt stock as % of its exports of goods and services:
1. Burundi, $1.31B, 3,051% (!)
2. Sao Tome and Principe, $0.34 B, 1,773%
3, Liberia, 2.57, 1,522%
4. Sierra Leone, 1.61, 1,5152%
5. Cent. African Rep., 1.33, 1,061%
6. Rwanda, 1.54, 974%
7. Congo Dem. Rep. 11.17 , 923%
8. Guinea Bissau 1.54, 891%
9. Malawi 3.13, 660%
10. Ethiopia, 7.15, 621%
11. Lao PDR, 2.85, 611%
12. Sudan, 17.50, 561%
13. Eritrea, 0.64, 543%
14. Niger, 2.12, 542%
15. Zambia, 6.42, 529%
(source: WB, Global Development Finance (GDF) 2005)
In terms of absolute amount of foreign debt, the following are the most indebted developing countries (column 2 is debt in $ Billion, column 3 is debt as % of exports of goods and services), 2003:
1. Brazil, $235.4B, 299%
2. China, 193.7, 48%
3. Russia, 175.3, 128%
4. Argentina, 168.2, 473%
5. Turkey, 145.7, 232%
6. Mexico, 140.0, 74%
7. Indonesia, 134.4, 176%
8. India, 113.5, 120%
9. Poland, 95.2, 150%
10. Philippines, 62.7, 141%
11. Thailand, 51.8, 59%
12. Malaysia, 49.1, 44%
13. Hungary, 45.8, 102%
14. Chile, 43.2, 174%
15. Pakistan, 36.3, 232%
(source: WB, GDF 2005)
Monday, November 28, 2005
Party List 1: Opportunism, 2001 Elections
I dug this info in pilipinas forum yahoogroups' message archive. Even professional and business groups, even big political parties, were registered as party-list of "marginalized sectors", what a crap of opportunism the party list system is. Anyway, here's the list of all accredited party-list groups in the May 2001 elections.
-----------
Accredited Political Parties/Sectoral Organizations/Coalitions for the Party-List System
(As of 28 March 2001)
Labor Sector Acronym
1) All Trade Union Congress of the Philippines ATUCP
2) All Workers Alliance Trade Unions AWATU
3) Democratic Workers Party DWP
4) One Way Printing Technical Foundation, Inc. ONEWAY PRINT
5) Partido ng Manggagawa PM
6) Pilipino Workers Party PWP
Peasant Sector
7) Alyansang Bayanihan ng mga Magsasaka Mangagawang-Bukid at Mangingisda ABA
8) Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. COCOFED
9) Federation of Land Reform Farmers of the Philippines, Inc. FLRF
10) Luzon Farmers Party BUTIL
11) National Confederation of Irrigators Association NCIA
12) National Federation of Small Coconut Farmers Organization, Inc. SCFO
Fisherfolk Sector
13) Alyansa ng mga Mamamayan at Magdaragat sa Lawa ng Laguna, Inc. ALYANSA
14) People Power Party People Power
Urban Poor Sector
15) Adhikain at Kilusan ng Ordinaryong-Tao para sa Lupa, Pabahay, Hanapbuhay At Kaunlaran
AKO
16) Alternative Approaches of Settlers Advocacy for the Holistic Advancement of the Nation Party AASAHAN
17) Kaloob-Kaisang Loob Para sa Marangal na Paninirahan KALOOB
18) National Urban Poor Assembly NUPA
19) Organisasyon Kaugnayan Nasyonal sa Pag-Unlad O.K.NAPU
21) Sandigan Maralita SM
22) Tapat Foundation, Inc. TAPAT
Indigenous Cultural Communities Sector
23) Development Foundation of the Philippines, Inc. DFP
24) Katribu-Mindanao, Inc. KAMI
25) Partido Katutubong Pilipino KATUTUBO
26) Tribal Communities Association of the Philippines, Inc. TRICAP
Elderly Sector
27) Alliance of Retired Postal Employees and Senior Citizens, Inc. ARPES
28) Senior Citizens/Elderly Sectoral Party of the Philippines ELDERLY
Handicapped Sector
29) Alyansa ng may Kapansanan sa Pilipinas AKAP
30) Pilipinong Maykapansanan Party PINOY MAY K
Women Sector
31) Abanse! Pinay ABANSE! PINAY
32) Womenpower, Inc. WPI
Youth Sector
33) Alliance for Youth Solidarity AYOS
34) Alyansa ng Nagkakaisang Kabataan ng Sambayanan para sa Kaunlaran ANAKBAYAN
35) Kabataan ng Masang Pilipino KAMPIL
36) Kilos Kabataang Pilipino KILOS
37) Philippine People's Parliament -Youth PPP-YOUTH
Veterans Sector
38) Federation of Sons & Daughters of Philippine Veterans, Inc. LAHING VETERANO
39) Veterans Care and Welfare Organization VETERANS CARE
40) Veterans Federation Party VFP
Overseas Workers Sector
41) Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party OFW
42) Ang Lakas ng Overseas Contract Workers OCW
43) Gabay ng Manggagawang Pilipino Party GABAY OFW
44) Party for Overseas Workers' Empowerment and Reintegration POWER
45) Union of the Filipino Overseas Workers (Unifil), Inc. OCW-UNIFIL
Professionals Sector
46) Alay sa Bayan Para sa Kalayaan at Demokrasya ABAKADA
47) Alliance for Greater Achievements in Peace and Prosperity AGAP
48) Alliance to Alleviate the Socio-Economic and Social Order, Inc. AASENSO KA
49) Ang Ipaglaban Mo Foundation AIM
50) Asosasyon pasa sa Kaunlaran ng Industriya ng Aklat, Inc. AKLAT
51) Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Association, Inc. CREBA
52) Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators, Inc. PADPAO
53) Philippine Dental Association PDA
54) Philippine Medical Association PMA
55) Philippine Society of Agricultural Engineers (Partido Unlad Agrikultura) PSAE
56) Philippine Technological Council PTC
57) Professional Criminologist Association of the Philippines PCAP
58) United Architects of the Philippines, Inc. UAP
Organizations/Coalitions
59) A Peaceful Organization Leadership, Friendship, Service Movement APO SERVICE
60) Aabante Ka Pilipinas Party (Sagip-Bayan Movement) APIL
61) Aalagahan ang ating Kalikasan Nationwide ALAS
62) Aarangkada ang mga Handa Oras-oras para sa Bayan AHOY
63) Abante Kilusang Kooperatiba sa Gitnang Luzon AKK
64) Abay Pamilya Foundation, Inc. ABAYPAMILYA
65) Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association, Inc. ARBA
66) Ahonbayan, Inc. (Formerly Alliance Foundation for Rural Dev, Inc.) AHONBAYAN
67) Alliance for Meritocracy AFM
68) Alliance for Alleviation of National Governance and Trust Party AKA
69) Aluhai Neighborhood Association, Inc. ALUHAI
70) Alyansa ng Kooperatibang Pangkabuhayan Party ANGKOP
71) Anak-Mindanao AMIN
72) Ang Lakas ng Bagong Kooperatiba, Inc. ALAB
73) ANGAT ANGAT
74) Aniban ng mga Magsasaka, Mangingisda at Manggagawa sa Agrikultura-Katipunan, Inc. AMMMA
75) Asa at Samahan ng Karaniwang Pilipino ASAKAPIL
76) Asosasyon ng mga taga Insurance sa Pilipinas, Inc. ATIP
77) Association of Builders, Consultants and Designers, Inc. ABCD
78) Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives APEC
79) ATIN (Abante Bisaya) ATIN
80) Bagong Bayani Organization BAGONG BAYANI
81) Balikatan sa Kabuhayan Buhay Coalition BSK
82) Bantay Bayan Foundation Party, Inc. BANTAY-BAYAN
83) Bantay Dagat, Inc. BDI
84) Bayan na Nagtataguyod ng Demokratikong Ideologiya at Layunin, Inc. BANDILA
85) Bigkis Pinoy Foundation BIGKIS
86) Bonding Idealism for National Human Initiative BINHI
87) Businessmen and Entrepreneurs Association, Inc. BEA
88) Citizens Anti-Crime Assistant Group, Inc. CAAG
89) Citizen's Battle Against Corruption CIBAC
90) Citizens Drug Watch Foundation, Inc. DRUG WATCH
91) Citizens Foundation for the Prevention of Crimes and Injustices, Inc. CITIZEN
92) Citizens' Movement for Justice, Economy, Environment and Peace JEEP
93) Coalition for Consumer Protection and Welfare COALITION 349
94) Confederation of Homeowners' Association for Reforms in Governance, and Environment, Inc. HOMEOWNERS
95) Confederation of Non-Stock Savings and Loans Associations, Inc. CONSLA
96) Consumers Union of the Philippines CONSUMERS
97) Cooperative Natcco Network Party COOP-NATCO
98) Cooperative Union of the Philippines, Inc. CUP
99) Council of Agriculture Producers, Inc. CAP
100) Demokratikong Ugnayang Tapat sa Sambayanan DUGTUNGAN
101) Federation of Jeepney Operators and Drivers Assn of the Phils, Inc. FEJODAP
102) Go! Go! Philippines Movement Go Go Philippines
103) Green Philippines GREEN
104) Green Philippines Foundation, Inc. GREENPHIL
105) Kabalikat (ng Bayan Party) KABALIKAT
106) Katarungan sa Bayan Tagapagtanggol ng Sambayanan KABATAS
107) Katipunan ng mga Bantay-Bayan ng Pilipinas, Inc. KABAYAN
108) Kilusan Tungo sa Pambansang Tangkilikan, Inc. KATAPAT
109) Luzviminda Economic Development Foundation, Inc. LEDFI
110) Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga MAD
111) Maritime Party MARITIME
112) Mindanao Federation of Small Coconut Farmers Organization, Inc. MSCFO
113) National Confederation of Tricycle Operators and Drivers' Association of the Philippines
NACTODAP
114) National Council of Community Organizers, Inc. NCCO
115) National Federation of Sugar Cane Planters NFSP
116) Nationwide Association of Consumers, Inc. NACI
117) Pambansang Samahang Lingkod ng Bayan, Inc. PASALBA
118) Pambansang Sangguniang Katipunan ng mga Bgy Kagawad ng Pil, Inc. KATIPUNAN
119) Partido ng Maralitang Pilipino- Pinatubo Party PMP-PINATUBO
120) Partido ng Maralitang Pilipino- Pinatubo Party PMP-PINATUBO
121) Philippine Association of Retired Persons PARP
122) Philippine Jury Movement JURY
123) Philippine Local Autonomy Movement, Inc. PLAM
124) Philippine Mine Safety and Environment Association PMSEA
125) Philippine Reformist Society PRS
126) Port Users Confederation, Inc. PUC
127) Prime Movers for Peace and Progress PRIMO
128) Progressive Alliance of Citizens for Democracy PACD
129) Rebolusyonaryong Alyansang Makabansa RAM
130) Sama-sama kaya natin 'to Foundation, Inc. KASAMA
131) Sanlakas SANLAKAS
132) Security United League on Nationwide Guards, Inc. SULONG
133) Sports and Health Advancement Foundation, Inc. SHAF
134) True Marcos Loyalist (for God, Country and People) Association of the Philippines, Inc.
MARCOS LOYALIST
135) Tindog Para Han Kabubuwason Para Han Waraynon TINDOG! WARAY
136) Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, Inc. VACC
Political Party
137) ABAG PROMDI PROMDI
138) Akbayan! Citizens' Action Party AKBAYAN
139) Aksyon Demokratiko AKSYON
140) Alternative Action AA
141) Bayan Muna BAYAN
142) Bicol Saro Party BSP
143) Buhay Hayaan Yumabong BUHAY
144) Democratic Alliance DA
145) Gabaybayan GAD
146) Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino LDP
147) Laban para sa Kapayapaan, Katarungan, at Kaunlaran KKK
148) Lakas NUCD-UMDP Lakas NUCD-UMDP
149) Liberal Party LP
150) Nacionalista Party NP
151) National Alliance for Democracy Party NAD
152) Nationalist Peoples' Coalition NPC
153) Organized Support for the Movement to Enhance the National Agenda OSMENA
154) Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan PDP-LABAN
155) Partido Demokratiko Sosyalista ng Pilipinas PDSP
156) Partido ng Masang Pilipino PMP
157) Partido para sa Demokratikong Reporma PDR
158) People's Progressive Alliance for Peace and Good Govt Towards Alleviation of Poverty and Social Advancement PAG-ASA
159) People's Reform Party PRP
160) Pusyon (Bisaya) Pilipino PUSYON
161) Rizalist Party RP
162) Social Justice Society SJS
-----------
Accredited Political Parties/Sectoral Organizations/Coalitions for the Party-List System
(As of 28 March 2001)
Labor Sector Acronym
1) All Trade Union Congress of the Philippines ATUCP
2) All Workers Alliance Trade Unions AWATU
3) Democratic Workers Party DWP
4) One Way Printing Technical Foundation, Inc. ONEWAY PRINT
5) Partido ng Manggagawa PM
6) Pilipino Workers Party PWP
Peasant Sector
7) Alyansang Bayanihan ng mga Magsasaka Mangagawang-Bukid at Mangingisda ABA
8) Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. COCOFED
9) Federation of Land Reform Farmers of the Philippines, Inc. FLRF
10) Luzon Farmers Party BUTIL
11) National Confederation of Irrigators Association NCIA
12) National Federation of Small Coconut Farmers Organization, Inc. SCFO
Fisherfolk Sector
13) Alyansa ng mga Mamamayan at Magdaragat sa Lawa ng Laguna, Inc. ALYANSA
14) People Power Party People Power
Urban Poor Sector
15) Adhikain at Kilusan ng Ordinaryong-Tao para sa Lupa, Pabahay, Hanapbuhay At Kaunlaran
AKO
16) Alternative Approaches of Settlers Advocacy for the Holistic Advancement of the Nation Party AASAHAN
17) Kaloob-Kaisang Loob Para sa Marangal na Paninirahan KALOOB
18) National Urban Poor Assembly NUPA
19) Organisasyon Kaugnayan Nasyonal sa Pag-Unlad O.K.NAPU
21) Sandigan Maralita SM
22) Tapat Foundation, Inc. TAPAT
Indigenous Cultural Communities Sector
23) Development Foundation of the Philippines, Inc. DFP
24) Katribu-Mindanao, Inc. KAMI
25) Partido Katutubong Pilipino KATUTUBO
26) Tribal Communities Association of the Philippines, Inc. TRICAP
Elderly Sector
27) Alliance of Retired Postal Employees and Senior Citizens, Inc. ARPES
28) Senior Citizens/Elderly Sectoral Party of the Philippines ELDERLY
Handicapped Sector
29) Alyansa ng may Kapansanan sa Pilipinas AKAP
30) Pilipinong Maykapansanan Party PINOY MAY K
Women Sector
31) Abanse! Pinay ABANSE! PINAY
32) Womenpower, Inc. WPI
Youth Sector
33) Alliance for Youth Solidarity AYOS
34) Alyansa ng Nagkakaisang Kabataan ng Sambayanan para sa Kaunlaran ANAKBAYAN
35) Kabataan ng Masang Pilipino KAMPIL
36) Kilos Kabataang Pilipino KILOS
37) Philippine People's Parliament -Youth PPP-YOUTH
Veterans Sector
38) Federation of Sons & Daughters of Philippine Veterans, Inc. LAHING VETERANO
39) Veterans Care and Welfare Organization VETERANS CARE
40) Veterans Federation Party VFP
Overseas Workers Sector
41) Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party OFW
42) Ang Lakas ng Overseas Contract Workers OCW
43) Gabay ng Manggagawang Pilipino Party GABAY OFW
44) Party for Overseas Workers' Empowerment and Reintegration POWER
45) Union of the Filipino Overseas Workers (Unifil), Inc. OCW-UNIFIL
Professionals Sector
46) Alay sa Bayan Para sa Kalayaan at Demokrasya ABAKADA
47) Alliance for Greater Achievements in Peace and Prosperity AGAP
48) Alliance to Alleviate the Socio-Economic and Social Order, Inc. AASENSO KA
49) Ang Ipaglaban Mo Foundation AIM
50) Asosasyon pasa sa Kaunlaran ng Industriya ng Aklat, Inc. AKLAT
51) Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Association, Inc. CREBA
52) Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators, Inc. PADPAO
53) Philippine Dental Association PDA
54) Philippine Medical Association PMA
55) Philippine Society of Agricultural Engineers (Partido Unlad Agrikultura) PSAE
56) Philippine Technological Council PTC
57) Professional Criminologist Association of the Philippines PCAP
58) United Architects of the Philippines, Inc. UAP
Organizations/Coalitions
59) A Peaceful Organization Leadership, Friendship, Service Movement APO SERVICE
60) Aabante Ka Pilipinas Party (Sagip-Bayan Movement) APIL
61) Aalagahan ang ating Kalikasan Nationwide ALAS
62) Aarangkada ang mga Handa Oras-oras para sa Bayan AHOY
63) Abante Kilusang Kooperatiba sa Gitnang Luzon AKK
64) Abay Pamilya Foundation, Inc. ABAYPAMILYA
65) Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association, Inc. ARBA
66) Ahonbayan, Inc. (Formerly Alliance Foundation for Rural Dev, Inc.) AHONBAYAN
67) Alliance for Meritocracy AFM
68) Alliance for Alleviation of National Governance and Trust Party AKA
69) Aluhai Neighborhood Association, Inc. ALUHAI
70) Alyansa ng Kooperatibang Pangkabuhayan Party ANGKOP
71) Anak-Mindanao AMIN
72) Ang Lakas ng Bagong Kooperatiba, Inc. ALAB
73) ANGAT ANGAT
74) Aniban ng mga Magsasaka, Mangingisda at Manggagawa sa Agrikultura-Katipunan, Inc. AMMMA
75) Asa at Samahan ng Karaniwang Pilipino ASAKAPIL
76) Asosasyon ng mga taga Insurance sa Pilipinas, Inc. ATIP
77) Association of Builders, Consultants and Designers, Inc. ABCD
78) Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives APEC
79) ATIN (Abante Bisaya) ATIN
80) Bagong Bayani Organization BAGONG BAYANI
81) Balikatan sa Kabuhayan Buhay Coalition BSK
82) Bantay Bayan Foundation Party, Inc. BANTAY-BAYAN
83) Bantay Dagat, Inc. BDI
84) Bayan na Nagtataguyod ng Demokratikong Ideologiya at Layunin, Inc. BANDILA
85) Bigkis Pinoy Foundation BIGKIS
86) Bonding Idealism for National Human Initiative BINHI
87) Businessmen and Entrepreneurs Association, Inc. BEA
88) Citizens Anti-Crime Assistant Group, Inc. CAAG
89) Citizen's Battle Against Corruption CIBAC
90) Citizens Drug Watch Foundation, Inc. DRUG WATCH
91) Citizens Foundation for the Prevention of Crimes and Injustices, Inc. CITIZEN
92) Citizens' Movement for Justice, Economy, Environment and Peace JEEP
93) Coalition for Consumer Protection and Welfare COALITION 349
94) Confederation of Homeowners' Association for Reforms in Governance, and Environment, Inc. HOMEOWNERS
95) Confederation of Non-Stock Savings and Loans Associations, Inc. CONSLA
96) Consumers Union of the Philippines CONSUMERS
97) Cooperative Natcco Network Party COOP-NATCO
98) Cooperative Union of the Philippines, Inc. CUP
99) Council of Agriculture Producers, Inc. CAP
100) Demokratikong Ugnayang Tapat sa Sambayanan DUGTUNGAN
101) Federation of Jeepney Operators and Drivers Assn of the Phils, Inc. FEJODAP
102) Go! Go! Philippines Movement Go Go Philippines
103) Green Philippines GREEN
104) Green Philippines Foundation, Inc. GREENPHIL
105) Kabalikat (ng Bayan Party) KABALIKAT
106) Katarungan sa Bayan Tagapagtanggol ng Sambayanan KABATAS
107) Katipunan ng mga Bantay-Bayan ng Pilipinas, Inc. KABAYAN
108) Kilusan Tungo sa Pambansang Tangkilikan, Inc. KATAPAT
109) Luzviminda Economic Development Foundation, Inc. LEDFI
110) Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga MAD
111) Maritime Party MARITIME
112) Mindanao Federation of Small Coconut Farmers Organization, Inc. MSCFO
113) National Confederation of Tricycle Operators and Drivers' Association of the Philippines
NACTODAP
114) National Council of Community Organizers, Inc. NCCO
115) National Federation of Sugar Cane Planters NFSP
116) Nationwide Association of Consumers, Inc. NACI
117) Pambansang Samahang Lingkod ng Bayan, Inc. PASALBA
118) Pambansang Sangguniang Katipunan ng mga Bgy Kagawad ng Pil, Inc. KATIPUNAN
119) Partido ng Maralitang Pilipino- Pinatubo Party PMP-PINATUBO
120) Partido ng Maralitang Pilipino- Pinatubo Party PMP-PINATUBO
121) Philippine Association of Retired Persons PARP
122) Philippine Jury Movement JURY
123) Philippine Local Autonomy Movement, Inc. PLAM
124) Philippine Mine Safety and Environment Association PMSEA
125) Philippine Reformist Society PRS
126) Port Users Confederation, Inc. PUC
127) Prime Movers for Peace and Progress PRIMO
128) Progressive Alliance of Citizens for Democracy PACD
129) Rebolusyonaryong Alyansang Makabansa RAM
130) Sama-sama kaya natin 'to Foundation, Inc. KASAMA
131) Sanlakas SANLAKAS
132) Security United League on Nationwide Guards, Inc. SULONG
133) Sports and Health Advancement Foundation, Inc. SHAF
134) True Marcos Loyalist (for God, Country and People) Association of the Philippines, Inc.
MARCOS LOYALIST
135) Tindog Para Han Kabubuwason Para Han Waraynon TINDOG! WARAY
136) Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, Inc. VACC
Political Party
137) ABAG PROMDI PROMDI
138) Akbayan! Citizens' Action Party AKBAYAN
139) Aksyon Demokratiko AKSYON
140) Alternative Action AA
141) Bayan Muna BAYAN
142) Bicol Saro Party BSP
143) Buhay Hayaan Yumabong BUHAY
144) Democratic Alliance DA
145) Gabaybayan GAD
146) Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino LDP
147) Laban para sa Kapayapaan, Katarungan, at Kaunlaran KKK
148) Lakas NUCD-UMDP Lakas NUCD-UMDP
149) Liberal Party LP
150) Nacionalista Party NP
151) National Alliance for Democracy Party NAD
152) Nationalist Peoples' Coalition NPC
153) Organized Support for the Movement to Enhance the National Agenda OSMENA
154) Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan PDP-LABAN
155) Partido Demokratiko Sosyalista ng Pilipinas PDSP
156) Partido ng Masang Pilipino PMP
157) Partido para sa Demokratikong Reporma PDR
158) People's Progressive Alliance for Peace and Good Govt Towards Alleviation of Poverty and Social Advancement PAG-ASA
159) People's Reform Party PRP
160) Pusyon (Bisaya) Pilipino PUSYON
161) Rizalist Party RP
162) Social Justice Society SJS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)