PBest

0 Shares

What reforms are urgently needed?
(BusinessMirror)
Published: Sept. 1 2014

It’s good to know that civil-society groups, the academe and the private sector are taking an active interest in current governance and pushing political and economic reforms.

Citizenwatch is a newly established network of professionals who advocate good governance for a working democracy, sound economics for sustained and inclusive growth, and the efficient delivery of services through infrastructure development. Part of its avowed mission is “to stand up against powerful interests whenever they curtail the citizens’ right to fully participate in democratic society.”

The group has, so far, organized two roundtable discussions, the first on political reforms and the second on economic reforms. All of these were also held with the participation of Philippine Business for Environmental Stewardship (PBEST), pro-business environmental advocacy group.

In the first roundtable discussion, Prof. Randy David argued that “governance is meeting the basic needs of the people, solving the most basic problem of poverty and social inequality. Certainly, it’s more than just investments and ensuring economic growth…. You cannot pursue good governance unless you have political power. All political-reform advocacies are doomed to fail unless you participate in politics. Political participation means that you either create a political force, try to reengineer existing political parties or educate the voting public. We should enable the people to meaningfully participate in the political system.”

Vince Lazatin, executive director of the Transparency and Accountability Network, stressed the need to establish real political parties, and pointed out that political dealings mainly involve individual legislators and not political parties.

For his part, Popoy de Vera, president of the Association of Political Consultants in Asia, suggested that Cabinet members should take responsibility for issues involving the Priority Development Assistance Program and Disbursement Acceleration Program, while legislators should strive to remedy the weaknesses of a political system prone to corruption.

Ramon Casiple, executive director of the Institute for Political and Electoral Reform, expressed pessimism over the possibility of political reforms in the next two years, saying that, although President Aquino is in the best position to push reforms, he does not even recognize or acknowledge the real problems at present.

Prof. Kiko Magno, executive director of De La Salle University’s Jesse M. Robredo Institute of Governance, said: “The country is rich in law, but poor in governance. I would want to see how the budget can be a tool for democracy. During elections, budget discussions are not really deep. The heart of democracy is really about deliberation on how a society should move forward.”

Lawyer Ysan Castillo, secretary general of the Philippine Business for Environmental Stewardship, asserts that countries are starting to realize the importance of environmental stewardship in managing natural resources, but pointed out the lack of implementation of laws because of corruption.

“If they really intend to protect the environment, then it is about time they allocate enough funds for the implementation of environmental laws, including programs that build institutional capacity and prevent corruption,” Castillo said.

In the second roundtable discussion, Calixto Chikiamco, president of the Foundation for Economic Freedom, said: “The biggest challenge facing the economy and the country is, really, to convert [current] consumption-driven growth to investment-driven growth, and also to have inclusive growth, because that’s the only way really that economic growth will benefit the people.”

“So far, the administration has failed to do that miserably. The unemployment rates are still very high. I think a quarter of the labor force are still unemployed—about 25 million people. So the policies have not contributed to inclusive growth.”

Dr. Epictetus Patalinghug, a professor at the University of the Philippines, stressed: “Competitiveness in this country should not be done with traditional issues of exchange rate [and] labor costs. We should go toward innovation. We should go toward more competition within domestic industries. Right now they are cartelized. We should encourage innovation.”

George Chua, president of the Federation for Philippine Industries, said that, aside from issues with policies, rules and regulations [are] the mindset of the government. “We really have a problem, for example, in the local governments being able to legislate their own rules and regulations, which, I think, is the real cause of the port congestion in Manila.” He noted that the bureaucracy is too burdensome, which is why a lot of businesses, both local and foreign, have not been very enthusiastic about the Philippines as an investment destination.

Nelia Halcon, executive vice president of the Chamber of Mines, lamented that there is no long-term development plan that would serve to guide efforts for the nation to move forward. She emphasized the urgent need to develop education to keep up with the human-resource demands of industries, and that this should be the core of development efforts.

Alfredo M. Yao, president of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said that “there is a need for the government and private sector to adopt an industrial road map for Philippine industries to be able to compete with the forthcoming Asean [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] integration. This should mainstream the enhancement of a competitive business environment, where SMEs [small and medium enterprises] are able to participate effectively and benefit from the global-production network being built by the Asean with its trade partners and important export markets.”

These are all valid observations and proposals, from where I sit. The question is: Is this government willing to listen and act on the suggested reforms?

0 Shares