"Is it truly, and really, for the well being of the people?"

"Is it truly, and really, for the well being of the people?"

(Or "Revisiting notes from Adolfo Borromeo
and the common man's desire to ensure a just, dignified life")

The book that brought the writer's attention

It seemed difficult to know whether the news is trustworthy or not, especially in regards to the present Duterte administration. For as his apologists, fanatical to the core or not, insists the "outmost to goodness" programs even most of these are rather described as controversial if not debatable.

However, there are news items, especially those which are newly-churned from their various sites, are likely concieved as "good enough" despite the fact that the basis is it's synonymity to the administration- be it free college education, medical services, irrigation for farms, and various forms of developments, even those of that controversial TRAIN LAW.

Sounds interesting though to most those acts of benevolence the administration did, or rather say to the self-proclaimed "socialist", but those acts isn't new at all- for these meant to be part of a program which mean to be realised many years ago if not for those who blocked its way or dilute its essence enough to keep their interests tight.

But what made this person finds it worth to ridicule was on how the admnistration still presents itself as an ensurer of the people's welfare in a time of expensive prices of commodities and unsound solutions. Ranging from problems surrounding rice to those of contractualisation, this person thinks that the present administration, just like its predecessors, "tries its best" to maintain order as well as their interest. The TRAIN Law appears to be "progressive" with all the promises of take home pay for lower-income workers and employees, but with existing taxes like the "Value Added Tax" included in the program, this person, like others concerned, finds the program like all other "welfare" programs as cheap gimmicks that requires oligarchs "having conscience enough" to contribute, when in fact the latter continues its profiteering first and ensuring the people's well-being second. 

And since this person talks about "welfare", few days ago, this person read a thesis made by Adolfo Borromeo (and supported by Diosdado Macapagal) regarding the "Welfare State" in the Philippine Perspective. Just like what Duterte was trying to enact, a "Filipino-style" welfare state appears to be paternalistic if not authoritarian but benevolent, trying to "ensure the common good" while at the same time continuing its "developmental program" such as infrastructure building (like today's "Build, Build, Build") and others. 

However, the difference between Duterte and Macapagal's vision lies in its intent: the former would be driven by a personal sentiment that appeased his supporters, while the latter wanted it to be imposed as a policy enshrined in the constitution- through incorporating in its declaration of principles and state policies:

"To the fullest extent that the national resources will allow, the republic shall be developed into a welfare state in which all the people shall enjoy a minimum standard of decent living relative to income, health, education, housing, employment and unemployment, security in any disability, child and old-age care, wholesome family state, liesure, and other phases of a full life worthy as human beings. It shall be the duty of Congress to enact the laws necessary to bring about the realization of this policy".

What more from a Manila Times article by Mike Wooton regarding the "welfare state" as:

"...in which the government provides pensions, medical care, education and unemployment benefits to the people. It was originally a strategy to form a middle way between communism and laissez-faire capitalism. Well, laissez-faire capitalism is certainly encouraged in these neo liberal economic days —free markets reign everywhere and at the cost of everybody, to transfer money from consumers straight to the pockets of the shareholders. Prices are set on what the market will pay rather than on any basis related to the actual cost of production."

And from it, it requires "well-designed taxation policies" which would ensure that the government had enough money to provide the social support services needed by its citizens in order to provide a life of appropriate quality and security.

Interesting isn't it? Knowing from that proposed article brought about by Macapagal shows that the programs were meant to be fundamentally part of the law and not of a campaign promise nor a politically-motivated agenda. And since political parties like PDP-LABAN, LAKAS CMD, PMP, and the Liberals afforded to babble "welfare" from the elections to the congress and at the cabinet seats, are they really trustworthy? Remember, they are also the parties whose economic policies has less if not none to do with genuine national development as it favours today's trends in international capitalism. 

Worse, given that the entire system as interest-driven, and the government sworn to upheld the status quo (with some minimal changes) it may end sneeringly dismissed altogether as any other "utopian idealism" that is worth dismissable in favor of an existing one that benefits them, after all, as what Borromeo said:

"The old-style, US-inherited, profit-motive, laissez-faire capitalism that has been mindlessly worshipped by so many Filipinos has never worked to provide them with a decent standard of living, and it has zero chances of success bow in these days of ferment and impatience..."

What more that even in this age of modern gadgetry, social media, and anything state of the art, age-old problems remain prevalent be it despotic landlordism, corruption, and betrayal of public trust. Lawmakers, mostly local elites, tried their best to "appear pro-people" with all their statements and actions, enough to lessen popular impatience if not to win their trust. In fact, Macapagal the "welfare statist" was also the same Macapagal who imposed the Decontrol Program on Trade which also contributed to the neoliberal policy based on free trade and multi/trans-national interference in the economy.

And sadly to say that with "over-bragged" programs brought about by those "reforms" like Free College education, free irrigation, and others, these are rather made in a time when landlords continue to prevail in the countryside, contractualisation and unfair labor practises, and the K12 program that is also in line with labour export. The TRAIN Law, which supposed to be "meant to support those programs", would have been "better" if not for certain provisions that harms the low-to-lower middle-income earners through increased prices in commodities and services, lack of a program that would ensure government having enough money to provide the social support services needed by its citizens in order to provide a life of appropriate quality and security, and the "Value Added Tax" in which its allocations be devoted to debt servicing. 

But again, these are but press releases trying to be brought to life by means of some semblance of "actions", yet in a time where trustworthiness is a major issue, what more that as mostly meant to silence down existing and potential dissent, is it really meant to uplift the haven't? Or just to create an impression as apologists churning their statements throughout and shared in its pages- only to found out that it rather intensifies protest once inconsistencies and betrayals of public trust unraveled within those so-called programs?

Anyway, the desire for social upliftment, what more of development, is more than just a sentiment nor a feeling, but of a duty especially to a community and to the people. If people truly demand a just economic order which includes replacing the prevailing US-inherited, profit-motive, laissez-faire capitalism supported by globalisation and neoliberalism, why not?