It was a good speech

Looking at the more important comments made after President Macapagal-Arroyo’s speech last Monday, I think it can be safely said that there was agreement it was a good speech. Better than most, even probably the best among its kind were the more generous comments I heard. Those who criticized – like those who asked where would the government get the money to fulfill such grandiose promises or those who said she was politicking when she touched on the trial of Erap or those who accused her of being pro-business and anti-poor et cetera were more about the critics’ personal concerns than these were about the speech.

* * *

More important, the speech was credible because the audience was assured that the person delivering it understood what she was saying. It was so unlike a speech from her predecessor that may have had soaring rhetoric about promises that were given without any intention to fulfill them. You know, the walang-kaibigan, walang-kamag-anak type that so disappointed the nation. For the moment the sensible position for those who would like to see this nation move forward is to keep our peace and support the Arroyo government as it attempts to bring us out of the economic crisis. That support does not mean giving up the right to criticize as is expected of citizens in a democracy. Criticism must be responsible. That means criticism, if it has to be made, must keep the perspective of what is good for the whole nation, the community of all Filipinos whether rich or poor, rather than on one’s personal concerns.

* * *

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo last Monday made, in tennis parlance – a brilliant serve – with her state of the nation message. That is not the end of the game. Rather she set the pace at which the game is to be played. She asks for a year to enable her to put together the foundation of the country’s economic recovery program. At the same time she asks for the cooperation of everyone. I would agree with her that she would not be able to do it alone. She needs the help of every Filipino. In a sense, from that speech, the onus has passed on to us, as citizens of this country. The fulfillment of what her government intends to do rests as much on us – as responsible citizens – as it does on her and her officials. Pagnenegosyo, pagpapaunlad ng agrikultura, kalinga sa nagigipit na sektor at moralidad sa gobiyerno at lipunan – ito ang mga sandata natin sa digmaang bayan laban sa kahirapan.

* * *

Victory for New Politics, or at least what can develop into New Politics. Happily, with both the Speakership and Senate Presidency in the hands of PPC, we should expect swift legislation that would underpin the Arroyo government’s program for economic recovery. President Arroyo has avoided declaring a dominant Lakas-NUCD-UMDP party platform for the PPC but recent developments are leading to what whether this is expressed or not. Whatever the strategy was on who should be Speaker or Senate President, the fact is, a system of thought, an ideology, a tendency, if you like, bound the winning personalities, despite themselves, together. We are moving on to new politics or what can be developed into new politics – a commitment to a party platform behind a program of government.

* * *

In this sense, it was good to see Lakas-NUCD-UMDP chairman Jose de Venecia win the speakership in a stunning vindication of his political style. Although critics have focused on his negotiating skills as trapo politics, in fact, that was not the key to his victory. The key to his victory was his Plan 747. Alone among the contenders for the speakership, Jose de Venecia had a vision for the country. But what is the good of a vision if he could not translate this into results, which as far as the speakership is concerned, legislation for the Arroyo program of government. For this he needed the friendship and cooperation of a body of differing and different personalities whom he sought and won over. Moreover, he may be criticized for many things but he has the most important thing necessary to survive in these trying times – the gift of optimism. That can be infectious. I hope he will promote new politics by giving his tenure of the speakership the trademark of Christian-Muslim Democracy. It must be a recognizable brand of the party that he has, together with others, founded and nurtured according to the Christian democratic principles of solidarity, subsidiary and a preferential option for the poor.

* * *

When politicians are seen to fulfill promises according to a given program of government they were voted for, only then can the masses be persuaded to vote intelligently. Otherwise, why blame the masa for not seeing the difference between a Joseph Estrada over a Jose de Venecia in 1998. This is a unique challenge and opportunity for Joe de V, the much-maligned politician of our time, to push for New Politics in the coming days.

* * *

Backstage. I don’t know who was responsible for it but perhaps something must be said about the slip on the Arroyo government’s statement on foreign policy. It makes no mention of the European Union as an important economic partner of the Philippines. I had a brief chat with Belgian Ambassador Roland van Remorteele (Belgium is president of EU) who promised to give me pertinent details that should have been made available to President Arroyo for her speech. Here they are:

EU trade with the Philippines totalled 13.1 billion euros in 2000. It is the second largest export market of the Philippines. The exports from the Philippines to the EU totalled approximately 4.4 billion euros in 2000. It is the third largest supplier of goods to the Philippine market after Japan and the US. It has over the last 10 years been the largest source of foreign direct investment in the Philippines, overtaking Japan and the US. Direct investments from the EU to the Philippines accounted for nearly one-fourth of total FDI in one country from 1900-2000. It is the largest source of bank credit to the Philippines, surpassing the US with some 8 billion euros in 2000 and accounting for more than half of total outstanding bank credits to the Philippines.

As for aid, EU (EC and Member-States) collectively accounted for approximately 372 million euros in development aid loans and grants extended to the Philippines in 2000. This makes the EU the second source of bilateral aid (excluding ADB and UN systems) after Japan. For development aid grants alone, the EU is the country’s second largest source with a total of E38.49 million in 2000. The 2001 portfolio in grants for 10 major bilateral projects is E165 million.

* * *

My e-mail: c[email protected]