If we had a choice, we would not have hosted this game, an expensive exercise for a poor country like ours. But we are part of the region and we are obligated to contribute our share to Southeast Asian solidarity. If Vietnam, with its long history of wars and rebellion, hosted the last SEA games with flying colors, bakit naman hindi tayo?
Under normal planning, the games would have cost - at the least - about a billion pesos to cover the cost of equipments and construction and other expenses. But since Congress was unable to allocate the money, President Arroyo had to make the allocations from special funding and contributions from the private sector.
And of course, the ingenuity of the Filipino in times of adversity came to work. Instead of concentrating the games in Manila, we divided the work among the provinces. That is why we have games in Cebu, Bacolod, Los Baños and Subic. A witty person commented that with the athletes returning to their countries would have varying impressions about the Philippines because they were exposed to various places and cultures.
At a forum last Saturday, somebody asked an opposition leader whether it was possible to declare a political truce during the games. The leader said he was amenable, but he would like to consult his colleagues. Perhaps, it might be a good idea to stop all bickering while we cherish our athletes during the games.
That might be a hard thing to do at this time when former Comelec Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano just came out from the woods. But who knows? Even the opposition has it share and patriotism and statesmanship.
Real target of charter change |
This trend was seen in the recent consultative meeting held in Makati City last week where the consensus was to allow foreign ownership of certain industries and certain types of land. The premise of this consensus was based on the view of economics professor Gerardo Sicat. Sicat, formerly of the UP, said that unbending economic principles enshrined in the '87 charter prevented the country from mobilizing foreign capital.
Sicat said that nationalistic economic provisions should not be contained in the constitution but only in specific laws passed by Congress. Constitutional restraints bind a country in dire need of capital. Apparently, the position taken by Sicat would be adopted by the Philippine Economic Society.
It is now becoming clear that the fears of former Vice President Teofisto Guingona Jr. are founded. It was he who expressed apprehension that the nationalist provisions of the charter were the real target of those who wish to change the constitution.
Perhaps, we should now open the debate on the economic provisions if these are the real target of charter change. We have so much experience with trade liberalization and the opening of foreign capital since 1986. It is time to take a look at the past policies.