Much to my surprise, I have gained considerable public attention because of the recent carnapping of my car. I confirm that my Camry was stolen/abducted in Fort Bonifacio on Merritt Road. I will not dwell on the details of this sorry incident since these have been well reported in the media. But I will address the larger issue of the carnapping menace in our society, which abides and festers regardless of who is in Malacañang or Camp Crame.
I believe it’s time that the government should focus on the carnapping problem and really root it out. According to reports, some 500 vehicles have already been stolen during the first half of this year. Law enforcement authorities must know where the incidents usually occur, and where the vehicles are taken and fenced. They don’t disappear into a black hole. Since carnapping has been happening for so long in our country, we have a right to demand that the PNP should have by now greater capability and knowhow to cope with the problem.
For example, in my case, the thieves could easily access C5 to get to my car. There have been multiple carnapping incidents in C5, including the vehicle of the brother-in-law of Luli Arroyo-Bernas. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to realize that extra security measures in the area could prevent more incidents from happening.
I very much appreciate the attention and urgency given my case by Chief Superintendent Leonardo Espina, head of the PNP Highway Patrol Group but I cannot say the same of the Anti-Carnapping unit in Camp Crame. My driver informed me that there were four enlisted men who were on duty when he reported the incident, but they were too busy chatting away at their cellphones. When he asked to borrow a pen to fill up the complaint sheet, he was told to buy his own. This is hardly the sort of treatment that gives a victim a feeling of support. Fortunately, their superior, a certain police superintendent by the name of Colonel Lee, was more helpful and supportive. So my driver got to report the plight of my car to the authorities.
Where this case goes from here, I will leave to the mercies of our law enforcement system. I hope that with President Aquino now in place, there will be more zeal shown by the police in recovering stolen vehicles and apprehending carnappers.
The Aquino administration signals its trade policy directions
The Aquino administration’s – at least I presume Secretary Greg Domingo is speaking on its behalf – interest in “joining as many trade agreements as possible” is a good sign for the future of Philippine trade policy. Secretary Domingo’s expression of desire in becoming part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) pact is the first indication of the willingness of the administration to aggressively pursue trade liberalization negotiations – whether multilaterally, regionally or bilaterally – in contrast with the apparent timidity we have approached trade liberalization pacts in the past. As a believer in the virtues of open economic development, this mindset should be welcomed.
But I do have some concerns though before I can wholeheartedly embrace this new mindset. The first is whether the Secretary’s choice of an example in the TPP is the right one to hang our trade liberalization credentials on. The second is while we may have developed the gumption to engage the world more aggressively, do we have the means to establish that a particular trade agreement would be good for “Philippine business and consumers” and do we have the means to conduct negotiations effectively to ensure that the intended results are achieved?
Let us talk about the TPP first. The TPP started in 2005 as the Pacific Four (P4) of Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore – four small countries who decades before have adopted policies to open up their economies to global competition and where therefore the pursuit of free and open trade would be consistent with their development objectives and strategy. They agreed to eliminate tariff duties on substantially all goods by 2015 and invited any like-minded countries to join. In 2008, Australia and Peru and then Vietnam and the United States announced their intention to expand the P4 into what is now called the TPP and forthwith commenced negotiations for accession. They are now into the second round of negotiations at the stage of establishing the process and the parameters. It is not yet clear what the final outcome will be or how long it will take to get there.
I have written in a previous column that there is skepticism surrounding US interest in the TPP which some see as a smokescreen for its shortcomings on the global trade liberalization front. Whatever its reason for joining, the US participation has certainly stirred the pot and has added credibility to the TPP as a vehicle for wider regional free trade.
Joining the TPP however may prove to be difficult for developing economies because of the US insistence in making the TPP what it calls a “21st century” agreement that ups standards for such agreements to “platinum” status. The agreement envisioned would update and augment provisions in existing trade pacts and add new obligations on intellectual property rights, environmental protection and conservation, transparency, and workers’ rights and protection – all of which have proven to be deal breakers in the WTO, particularly from developing economies’ standpoint. If developing economies could walk away from the bigger gains that the WTO would provide if the price is compliance with social standards like worker rights and environmental protection, why would they accept these standards for lesser gains in TPP?
Also if we were to engage in the TPP process, it would be as an individual economy. We have seen from experience negotiating as ASEAN does have more clout. If we wanted to engage the US then I think we can get a better deal as ASEAN rather than as part of TPP as it is constituted now. We cannot discount a merging or docking of ASEAN with TPP of course in the future but I think it is too premature for the Philippines to contemplate joining the TPP at this stage – even ahead of our other ASEAN colleagues.
My main concern however about the pronouncement of Secretary Domingo is his assertion that we should negotiate as many trade agreements because everybody else is doing it. I am sure he has a far deeper reason that he was not able to elaborate in his speech before the PCCI. I have written also before about the need to mainstream trade policy into our national economic development strategy so that pursuing free trade agreements becomes a means of implementing that strategy, rather than an afterthought. If we had done this – as the P4 countries had decades ago - we would not be as ambivalent as to what we want that we need “to be very vigilant in joining various trade agreements” because “our interest is really to protect the interest of Philippine business and Philippine consumers” as the Secretary puts it.
Back in June of 2007, I wrote a column batting for the creation of an office dedicated to strengthening our negotiating capacity for trade and investment agreements. I could not think of a better way to say it so I do again ad nauseam. “It is ...... important that we have the internal capacity to develop negotiating positions that would yield maximum gains for the widest cross-section of our people through the broadest possible consultations with all Filipino stakeholders. The present informal arrangement, where various government agencies get together to draw up basically ad hoc interagency positions, will no longer be effective for the economic diplomacy that will be required if the Philippines is to truly deepen its external engagement through bilateral and regional FTA arrangements.”
In a more recent column, I reiterated the proposal to create an independent agency – with Cabinet rank – to be the primus inter pares that is responsible for coordinating inter-agency trade policy making and conducting negotiations. I said that “a holistic view of trade policy making – one that integrates it with the national economic development policy – is now required in order to have effective negotiating objectives. Too often in the past we have entered into negotiations – whether in the WTO or in ASEAN or ASEAN+3 – without a clear idea of what we want and in the give-and-take nature of negotiations, of what we can offer in return. This is only possible if we have the proper appreciation of the consequences of these positions through proper research and through consultations and dialogue with industry.”
May I also strongly recommend that our President create this independent agency by Executive Order. Moreover, I respectfully submit that Johnny Santos is the ideal candidate for this post.
The DFA has said that it should be given this mandate. While it may have the personnel that can be developed to become good negotiators, the need for an independent agency not beholden to a particular constituency precludes the DFA from assuming this role.
Secretary Domingo is certainly on the right track and deserves praise for his boldness. Given a few more months in office, I believe he will be able to give this new found assertiveness more thought to make it credible and practical.