Maharlika: Good idea, wrong proponents  

The proposal to invest a large chunk of people's contributions in the SSS, GSIS, DBP, and Landbank might be a good idea, provided it is managed transparently and well. To be called the Maharlika Sovereign Wealth Fund, it will be augmented by capital allocations from the national budget. It will also come with risks, however, since it will be targeting high-yield investments.

Earning large from high-yield investments is necessary for the country at this time when money is scarce to keep the development momentum going after resources have been sapped by a crippling pandemic, now rendered palpable and apparent by a ballooning of the national debt. The country needs to think out of the box and not rely mainly on the budget and more borrowings.

The country needs to earn and earn big. And Maharlika is one measure that can certainly do it. But while the idea is good, there seems to be an issue with the proponents, and not because of anything, but because of the blood in their veins. The Maharlika proposal is being sponsored in the House of Representatives by Speaker Martin Romualdez and Rep. Sandro Marcos.

I know of certain people who can get zonked by the idea of entrusting people's money in a scheme cooked up by personalities with those two names. Indeed, like bees smoked out of their hives, these antagonized souls are now going to town attacking the proposal without bothering to check the details. In fairness, you cannot blame them, though. You talk of money and add certain names and red flags just seem automatic.

But you cannot also talk of fairness if you allow such automaticity. The serious business of shepherding nationhood cannot be entrusted simply to involuntary reflex. Besides, it is time to move on and out of a narrative that, at best, has been proven to be only partly true, and largely because a political agenda was behind its embellishment. There is now a new Marcos era riding on a different kind of capital, the vote of a free nation.

Romualdez and Marcos may be the main proponents of Maharlika. That does not mean they will have anything to do with any money that goes into the fund. Those who say they will, including sadly some journalists, are peddling lies or are simply being conveniently ignorant. And the money from state banks and pension funds that will go into Maharlika will not involve committed contributions but excess income.

State banks and pension funds are not keeping people's money for nothing. Ano kayo, sinuswerte? Like all other financial institutions, they manage people's money for profit. They earn from contributions and deposits by investing these and plowing them into the market. The only place where money ever sleeps is in a piggy bank or in some old-fashioned lola's bundled up handkerchief.

The antagonized souls attack the plan for all the wrong reasons instead of finding some reason to support the initiative, like trumpeting the idea that Maharlika is one way of managing our national debt from ballooning even more. If these antagonized souls are as vigilant as they claim, they might do well to channel such vigilance into ensuring the safety, security, and integrity of the fund instead of just dumbly blocking it.

If we truly have the interest of the nation at heart, we ought to have beating in our breast the Korean sentiment of 1998. During the Asian financial crisis beginning with that year, millions of South Koreans gave up more than 200 tons of gold jewelry to help pay off their country's huge IMF debt. The Koreans never doubted that someone might pocket a prized ring or a cherished necklace. They just gave up their selves.