Lessons in fine dining

The furor over President Arroyo’s two expensive dinners in the United States refuses to die down. To make the best of a bad situation, the President and her flunkeys should just learn several lessons from this episode.

First, the world has become a global village, and you can’t pretend to be in mourning at home while celebrating in another continent, especially if you’re Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the developing Republic of the Philippines.

Not since the shop-till-you-drop days of Imelda Marcos has the American media been fixated on the inglorious spending habits of a top Philippine official. The eyes of the world, especially in a recession year, are on public officials with Imeldific tendencies, and news of perceived profligacy can go global in a matter of minutes.

Second, if you want to celebrate your wedding anniversary, it is generally better done in private, and don’t let someone else foot the bill. In our culture, the husband is expected to pick up the tab.

Third, it is not inappropriate for presidents to eat in fast-food chains. Leaders of other countries do it, including US President Barack Obama and his unpopular predecessor, George W. Bush, both of whom have even waited in line, carrying their own trays, for meals in cafeterias during their incumbency.

Fourth, having been rudely reminded that the world is now a global village, if a president still decides to splurge anyway on fine dining, the official receipt must be kept, if not in the interest of transparency, then at least to make it easier for AbCerge Remonde to prove that all you ordered was the set menu (minimum of $58 per head before tax and service charge). To this day, no one is sure who actually paid for the $20,000 dinner at Le Cirque in Manhattan.

Fifth (and this lesson is for both Malacañang and Congress), this episode should lead to tighter rules on spending and financial accounting in these two branches of government.

* * *

Filipino taxpayers, including about eight million who are working overseas, can see how citizens of other countries demand the judicious use of tax money by their public officials.

With more Filipinos having a financial stake in governance, there will be an increasing clamor for transparency, accountability and effective government.

Even Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s initiative to stop the use of public funds for premature campaigning through so-called infomercials enjoys public support.

The Cabinet members and politicians involved have a way out: no one has filed certificates of candidacy, no one is an official candidate, and election rules do not cover this gray area, so everyone is still free to continue “advocacies.”

Santiago can dare these Cabinet members and potential candidates to delete their names and images from the infomercials, to prove that the focus is on advocacies and public information rather than personalities. But her campaign seems to be running out of steam, with many people suspecting that she is simply targeting Interior Secretary Ronaldo Puno, who wants to run for vice president.

Santiago, who suspects Puno had engineered her defeat in the 1992 presidential race, can still have her revenge: the buzz is that even the administration thinks Puno doesn’t have what it takes, and is shopping around for a “winnable” candidate for vice president.

Santiago can aim for a clear and accurate accounting of expenditures for the infomercials – something that was provided by several of those who showed up at the Senate probe last week.

Or she can extol the early resignation of Ralph Recto from the Cabinet, and urge his colleagues with similar plans to do the same.

Recto, who resigned effective yesterday, said he planned to concentrate on his renewed attempt to win a Senate seat. The administration dismissed his resignation as no big loss. But Recto is winning points for eschewing the use of public funds for several more months to promote himself.

* * *

Such acts are finding resonance in a citizenry that is hoping for change in 2010.

Many Filipinos are realistic enough to expect no cataclysmic changes after the general elections.

The biggest change is that there will be a new Malacañang occupant by noon of June 30, 2010, plus new leaders in the two chambers of Congress.

But the old ways of patronage politics and doing business will remain in place.

Politicians are not solely to blame. There is a large segment of the population that pays no taxes, or cheats on tax payments, or benefits in some way from the status quo, and feels no personal stake in good governance. Many of these people don’t mind if their political leaders lie, cheat and steal, as long as they get a share of the loot.

The oligarchy remains firmly entrenched. Not even Corazon Aquino could loosen the stranglehold of the elite on Philippine political power and wealth. And how could she, when she was part of that ruling class?

Still, it’s not impossible to introduce changes. Cory Aquino’s “anointed” successor, Fidel Ramos, who is not of the oligarchy, liberalized the economy, creating enemies of many in the moneyed clans.

Joseph Estrada was convicted of plunder – the first former president to suffer that fate. Though he was immediately pardoned by his successor, who is probably hoping for a similar act of mercy one day, he spent six years in detention, even if only in a hospital and then in his own rest house. The next one who suffers the same fate may not be as lucky.

Change comes in small increments in this country. But put together over a sustained period, those increments can achieve significant proportions.

Next year voters will be looking for candidates, particularly for national positions, who offer the best prospects for such changes.

For the presidency, people will be looking for the antithesis of the incumbent (and her spouse).

There must be a candidate out there who prefers to eat in the Jollibee outlet in New Jersey rather than a French restaurant in the Upper East Side.