Can the Small Fish Thrive Alongside the Big Fish?

In a country where raging issues are often shelved to accommodate new ones, the issue of Charter Change keeps coming back.  It has momentarily taken the back seat to give way to the uproar over an expensive gastronomic party and other tidbits shaking the political grapevine.  There are other issues that will probably whet our political enthusiasm for the moment but the issue of Charter Change will keep surfacing because of its far-ranging implications. 

I shall not dwell on the political reasons for Charter Change as these have been more than adequately dealt with in the media and other fora for sometime now.  I shall focus on the economic reasons which are argued by some as less contentious.  In fact, they are not.  Proponents for Charter Change say that the long-term objective of amending the Constitution is to make the country economically stable and competent in the age of Globalization regardless of who will be in government.  At a glance, the declaration seems plausible but there is wisdom to be on the side of prudence especially when the initiative is perceived to be emanating not from the ground but from somewhere else.  What are the amendments being considered?  And would these amendments benefit the country in the long run?

Constitutions are social documents to promote the general welfare of citizens of free and independent nations.  However, this doctrine is presently threatened in the Age of Globalization where neo-liberals have been selling the idea of a borderless world without economic restrictions.  The political leadership in many countries has succumbed to the pressure of amending their constitutions to accommodate investment rules associated with economic globalization.   The specter of Charter Change which has haunted Filipinos in recent years has to be studied in this light.

Historically, the Philippines has been an open field for foreign investments, but proponents of Charter Change want the surrender of our national patrimony and the granting of parity rights to foreigners enshrined in the Constitution.  However, what is constitutional will not necessarily be right.  Consider the following: 

1. Foreign entities will be granted the same rights as Filipino citizens to own residential, commercial and industrial land;
2. Foreign interests will be allowed to exploit our natural resources;
3. Foreign entities will be allowed to control and/or operate public utilities such as water, electricity and telecommunications;
4. Charter Change will allow foreign ownership of mass media, schools, and advertising firms;

We have to be actively engaged in the discourse on Charter Change or wake up one day to discover that we have been fenced off from our land.

Looking Beyond Civil Liberties

The tableau surrounding Cory Aquino’s death brought our memories back to the mystical moment of EDSA Uno when Filipinos rose united to put an end to Martial Law.  There were no tanks to stop this time only intermittent heavy downpour that failed to discourage the outpouring of collective mourning for one widely acclaimed as a symbol of democracy.  Interviews and testimonies of people who knew her at closer distance gave many of us a better glimpse of this woman of substance.  

The sight of the Marcoses expressing their sympathy and the Aquinos graciously accepting it is perhaps one of the more touching sidelights at Cory’s wake, never mind if it happened only for a fleeting instant.  One is humbled by this mutual display of grace notwithstanding deep scars and stands out as one of the moment’s best messages.  It may not have finally settled the issues but showed possibilities of how we Filipinos can reach out to one other in spite of our disagreements. 

In the last few days, we have witnessed euphoria that dispelled distress.  It was like EDSA Uno all over again.  But after the dust shall have settled, will it back to the old ways again?   Is there any hope at all that things will ever be better?

EDSA Uno indeed brought back our civil liberties which many believe constitute what democracy is.   Now we have free speech, free press, free assembly, to mention a few.  Yet democracy is not just about political freedoms.  We can have all these freedoms but if abundance is confined to a more or less exclusively entitled minority, there would objectively be social disharmony.  Democracy also means freedom from poverty, freedom from hunger, freedom from diseases.  It also means economic democracy.  A government is more or less democratic to the degree that it empowers its citizens not only politically but economically as well.

Monopoly power, expressed in cartels and in subtle interlocking directorates, is perceived to be alive and well in the Philippines today.  Economics and politics are inevitably intertwined and the exclusivity of economic opportunities will have an unhealthy impact on the political dynamics of a country which prides itself to be democratic.  A situation marked by economic disparity engenders a system of patronage that negates free political choice.  To empower public stakeholders, government has to regulate excesses at the top while supporting economic activity that will directly benefit the majority who need to be uplifted.  Otherwise, our vision of a progressive and democratic Philippines - even with all our civil liberties - will forever remain an elusive dream. 

Sad Plight of Filipino Inventors

Too often, we love the din of cockpits and the steamy heat of boxing arenas more than the silent quest for life’s more essential things.  We are entertained by gladiators in the ring but are indifferent to the drudgery of painstaking toil.  We are mesmerized by the grandiloquence of fire and brimstone politicians and are unexcited by the sober discoveries of scholarly men and women. 

Somewhere in the back burner, we have relegated the scientists and inventors of our race.  When they come up with something novel, it does not excite us as much as the crowning of Miss Philippines or the routine knockouts of Manny Pacquiao.  We tend to regard the work of our scientists and inventors as of no consequence or at worst a practical joke.  We have not given our inventors the support and the respect that they deserve.

Take the case of Daniel Dingel, a Filipino mechanical engineer who in the 1980s developed a car that could run on water.  Skeptics called it a fraud.  Dingel stood his ground insisting that he had conducted enough tests to validate his brainchild, but officials from the Department of Science and Technology only succeeded in projecting him as an oddball and in pigeonholing his invention. 

Last year Genepax, a Japanese company, launched its water car that practically runs on the same process of electrolysis as Dingel’s car.  The car which has an estimated factory cost of $5,000 is going to be mass produced soon. Similarly, Daewoo of Korea has entered into partnership with Swiss Ethos for the production of water cars which are expected to hit the international market in the coming months.  Isn’t it distressing to see 80 plus year-old Filipino Daniel Dingel forlornly driving his water car while Genepax and Ethos are flaunting their products all because we chose to look the other way? 

The Philippines should be in the lead now had the government given the proper support to Dingel especially considering that he came up with his first prototype as early as 1969.  We would be driving cheaper, environmental friendly cars by now and would have saved revenues by paying much less not only for imported fuel but for imported cars as well.  We could even be exporting to other countries had the government supported his invention.

Filipino inventors and scientists are a cagey lot. They gingerly guard their inventions because they feel they have no protection from patent pirates aside from the anxieties they suffer by being given the usual run-around.   There may be more than meets the eye in the obstacles they have to scale to have their inventions accepted and promoted.  Could there be contrary interests who are not so happy about us Filipinos producing our own?