The Filipino public will focus their attention, in 2015, on certain national issues. There will be more political developments as candidates begin to prepare for the 2016 elections. The continuing crusade against corruption will lead people to focus on the trials of high profile political personalities like former President Arroyo and the three Senators in custody — Enrile, Estrada, Revilla. There will be continuing investigations of the other names in the PDAF scandals like Honasan, Marcos and Sotto.
The visit of Pope Francis will also be on the front pages. But it is debatable whether the visit of the Pope will have any major impact on the lifestyles and morality of the rich and the powerful. Pope Francis has issued calls for just wages, condemned the idolatry of money and trickle down economic philosophy, and has said income inequality is one of the greatest social evils. He has virtually called tax evaders and money launderers sinners.
These are messages that are publicly praised but not given serious attention even by the Catholic laity and the princes of the Church whose ambitions are to build cathedrals, preferably with air conditioning, rather than homes for the homeless.
There are times, however, that the attention paid to Metro Manila issues are on the same level as national issues like education reform, income inequality, judicial reform, foreign affairs and economic growth. Even some Senators, who are elected nationally and are therefore supposed to focus on national issues seem to have fallen into the trap of treating strictly Metro Manila issues as national issues.
Metro Manilans continue to insist that their issues are national issues and should concern the whole country. They will therefore insist that MRT and LRT fares should be subsidized by the whole country. I simply cannot understand the logic of subsidizing MRT and LRT fares with national funds. Why should a taxpayer in Bacolod or Davao or Leyte contribute, through taxes, to the subsidies to allow Metro Manilans to pay lower fares? Why can’t Metro Manilans bear the complete burden of paying taxes for subsidizing the MRT and LRT?
When these so-called militant groups insist that the funding for the maintenance and improvement of the MRT and LRT should be in the national budget, they are advocating that those living in rural areas and urban areas outside Metro Manila should contribute to a purely Metro Manila issue. This demand by these so-called militant groups should be condemned by everyone who lives outside Metro Manila.
The Senate is supposed to focus on national issues. But now we hear calls for investigation of the MRT fares — which is a totally parochial issue — that should be left to the local governments and the congressmen representing the districts whose citizens will be affected by the fare increase.
Then there are the daily media bombarding on the traffic in Metro Manila and the demand that billions of pesos should be budgeted for infrastructure to reduce traffic congestion in this metropolis. While Metro Manilans complain of traffic congestion, the opposite is true in many provinces where there is a lack of buses and jeepneys or even tricycles.
Metro Manila has established political and economic hegemony or predominant influence over the rest of the country. This is called imperialism. MRT and LRT fares are not national issues. Maynilad and Manila Water rates are not national issues. EDSA traffic congestion is not a national issue. It is time to end Metro Manla imperialism. The only solution is to introduce federalism as the governing structure for the Philippines.
* * *
ASEAN Integration
During the past year, there was a lot of concern and public agonizing about the consequences of ASEAN integration in 2015. Some people even thought that on January 1, 2015, the Philippines would wake up to a totally new economic environment. New Year’s Day has come and gone and any impact of ASEAN integration has certainly not been felt.
According to the Asian Development Bank and the Southeast Asian Institute of Studies, the ASEAN has no prospect of becoming or even coming close to being a single market by 2015, or even by 2020 or 2025. The Economist cites three reasons for this looming failure at integration.
First is the sheer diversity of the ASEAN members. It includes countries with Buddhist, Christian and Muslim majorities. There are communist dictatorships, democracies, an Islamic sultanate, and a military junta.
Second is that private businesses in many ASEAN countries compete fiercely with each other and often lobby against opening domestic markets.
Third, Indonesia is the biggest country in terms of population (256 million) and GDP ($990 Billion) is also the most prone to economic nationalism. The new Indonesian president Joko Widodo has publicly said that Indonesia will not allow itself to simply become just the market for other more advanced ASEAN countries.
There are, however, two possible sources for faster integration. First is the pressure from the private domestic business sector which sees other member countries not as competitors but as larger markets.
Second is external economic pressures. The ten ASEAN countries are sandwiched between three major economies of the world. To the north is China which also poses a geopolitical threat to most of ASEAN countries. To the northeast is Japan and to the northwest is India. These three countries compete with ASEAN countries for investments and markets.
Facing common economic and geopolitical giants as rivals, the ASEAN members may realize that they need to stand together because for small, vulnerable nations, there is safety in numbers.
* * *
E-mail: elfrencruz@gmail.com