Is it really to "Build" or to "Brag"?
(Thoughts after the government's debt-driven
infrastructure program "Build Build Build"
and the idea of “development through public works”)
I
As of this present, what the government tries to "show to everyone" is that the country is becoming a construction zone.
It is not surprising for knowing that the regime is really embarking in a construction spree of roads, bridges, to those of sea and air ports, expect this kind of boom be as if again ushering another "golden age" to curry both domestic and foreign investors, establishments to engage in business and of course to usher the Philippines to become a newest economic superpower in South East Asia.
However, this program, like those from the past, is heavily dependent on debt with its projected economic gains comes at a staggering price. It is not surprising, for knowing that the regime either doesn't know the repercussions or simply shrugging it off for the sake of what they think as part of a greater program for national development- that requires borrowing billions for various projects and borrow again for another-plagued by poor planning, red tape, right-of-way issues, engineering problems and cost overruns.
Perhaps, the country's journey towards a fully developed country will remain debt-trapped even it attained gaining ground. True that the neoliberal economist Bernardo Villegas stated that it would take "light-years ahead" compared to the past administrations in terms of implementation, but at what cost as people will take for generations forcing to pay the loans, debt from various moneylending agencies and countries involved in this kind of ambition.
And to think that there is truly a need for massive infrastructure to uplift especially farmers through farm-to-market roads, irrigation systems, and post-harvest facilities, but at what cost? And farmer being talked about? The lowly farmer depends on the mercy of the landlord and of the moneylenders? In fact this writer remembers how these farmers wanted more than just roads, bridges, and irrigation canals, but also tractors and equipment, farm technologists, and production, not just post-harvest, production facilities to support the needs of the growing megalopolis and its well-paved, bragged roads. Also suddenly remember how Larry Henares chided Villegas for urging businesspeople to "farm" to justify his variant of development as to preserve the pastoral nature of the country that benefits commercial interests.
But to think that orderists who suddenly talking about development is using infrastructure building enough to "brag" or to "veer" away people from the tragedies of "Tokhang" and "Double Barrel" perhaps the purpose of building such numerous infrastructures is not making jobs, accessibility, or simply "promote development"; but rather to upheld the pastoral-commercial nature of the national economy. Of course the order will also say that it will provide modernity such as infostructures, machineries, everything that mimics those of developed countries. But again, the intent is not to elevate from being pastoral-commercial simply because there is no strong industrial base other than producing consumer goods to those from the export processing zones making assembly-line products.
From this no wonder why IBON Foundation and other concerned economists disagreed with the view brought by Duterte, Dominguez, Villar, or even Bernie Villegas. Yes, those infrastructures are indeed beneficial, but at what expense? Will it sustain or save costs? The government would have to increase its spending or resort to more loans, both of which would increase the country’s external and government debt. An external debt, is the total debt a country owes to foreign creditors such as commercial banks, foreign governments or international financial institutions. Meanwhile a government debt is when government spending exceeds government receipts. And since Villegas said it would take light-years ahead this development, then it may also take light-years to pay the national debt to various creditors.
Yet apologists would insist all these projects under "Build Build Build" as a showcase of national development, no matter the fact that some of these are actually carryovers from past administrations only to be modified or altogether replaced by the present. Yes, find nothing wrong to admit that the program is a continuity of those from the past with blueprints being uncovered, "updated" and given relevance, what worries rather is the risks brought about by debt, corruption, and various forms of self-interest. the country's journey towards a fully developed country will remain debt-trapped even it attained gaining ground. True that the Neoliberal Bernardo Villegas stated that it would take "light-years ahead" compared to the past administrations in terms of implementation, but at what cost as people will take for generations forcing to pay the loans, debt from various moneylending agencies and countries involved in this kind of ambition.
II
 |
| Source: The Asean post |
Similar to the United States and the European Union with its agencies, as well as those from the Asian Development Bank and the IMF-WB, China and Japan offers cheap loans that for Duterte would say "better than the politically-laced offers" especially those brought by the European Union in the eve of extrajudicial killings. At those times, the president, in embarking in his infrastructure program is seeking for countries willing to fund projects including those that has repercussions.
The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) last 2017 announced it would be bank rolling US$1.36 billion worth of road and bridge projects, the majority of the funds going towards reconstructing nine roads and bridges that were damaged during a 2013 earthquake. JICA is also funding three-quarters of the Metro Manila Subway with a US$5.28 billion loan. This first intercity underground railway, through the first three stations of the Metro Manila Subway is expected to be running by 2022 and all 15 stations should be fully operational by 2025.
 |
| Source: Nikkei Asian Review |
On the other hand, China has provided US$398 million in grants and US$273 million worth of soft loans for the ‘Build Build Build’ program according to the Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines, Zhao Jianhua, in September – with another US$421 million worth of grants to be provided over the next three years.
These moneylending agencies would say that it offered Duterte a juicy deal that to him "better" than the "politically-laced" economic offers from west. But on the other hand, this also brought serious concern especially when China's promised investment bonanza has also come in quiet exchange for Duterte’s strategic acquiescence in the West Philippine Sea, where the two countries’ have competing claims with China militarizing its controlled features like in Scarborough Shoal. But for Duterte and the entire order doesn't matter the consequence of that venture especially those of China's increased interference in domestic affairs to those of seeing generations of Filipinos paying debt to China and other moneylenders.
Besides, the government once promised about funding its infrastructure projects through its "reformed" tax program, so where are the funds coming from nation's taxes leading to? Is it towards these grandiose projects? Paying debts to both China and other moneylenders? Or the same old bloodied venture through the president's Intelligence fund and bigger budgets for both Military and the Police?
III
Perhaps this program and others, regardless of numerous infrastructures built and services made, will remain same as its predecessors: trying to "promote development" that is, without any industrial, economic, or even bureaucratic capacity to embark on a really sound initiative. It doesn't matter if that initiative is short term especially those of employment; what more that the government itself knew from the beginning that their envisioned "comfortable life" needs an easy, fast, and huge funding knowing that its own funds isn't enough what more those from the private sector.
Of course, people can expect to see positive outputs in the next few years, but how about the debt? Will it again take generations after generations of Filipinos to pay for it? Also to think that since there is a need for massive infrastructure to uplift especially those of farmers and other rural folks through farm-to-market roads, irrigation systems, and post-harvest facilities, then at what cost? Will it truly benefit the farmer or the kickback yearning bureaucrat? Again, there are bureaucrats who wanted to exploit this kind of development for their entrenched interests-and this may cost the program badly at its worst. And it is the same bureaucrat, along with the technocrat who has the same entrenched interests who prefers seeing a country rather remain agricultural, pastoral, and commercial with roads and bridges enough to say "development". In fact, what Duterte did was as same as Salazar of Portugal, trying to retain its pastoral/commercial nature of the economy and at the same time trying to make it attractive to foreign investment.
And since Duterte also did promised to stamp out corruption and promote efficiency of his promised programs and projects, the very same entrenched interests, be it bureaucrat or even the technocrat continue to do wrecking enough to slow down the progress of their works; and despite this assurance to the folk, then how come these same interest seekers such as those behind recent scandal over the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation and other agencies in the government continues to persist? Wouldn't be surprised if that same corruption also affects other socioeconomic programs under Duterte himself aside from "Build Build Build".
***
To cut this thought short, the desire to become a developed country isn't just having world class infrastructure, education system, nor good governance; but also the capability to go beyond dependency by harnessing brain and brawn for socioeconomic independence; hence, the need for rural empowerment, industrialisation, and a sound policy on the accessibility of social services as necessary.
 |
| "Is it really for them?" |
Why the need for rural empowerment? Why industrialisation? One cannot return to the province without an empowered countryside. The order may brag much about new roads, bridges, and facilities enough to say "empowered" but for the peasant, they demand land to till and support for their agricultural and social needs and their families, education for their children, electrification and better communications network for their communities, to those removing the wage boards that caused unfair wages in factories and to address concerns of the workers especially those of wages and working conditions; these other than the roads, bridges, and facilities that the order tend to brag than a means to support these downtrodden folks; and since the order spoke about "urging" citydwellers to return to countryside, at first, why not empower the countryside first before talking about returning especially those of removing the wage boards that brought unfair wages? Why not heed first the basic needs of these rural folks and those from the city in making a countryside that's empowered and developed other than roads and bridges to the markets? Why not as well industrialise the countryside to support efforts in self-reliance and maximise its productive capabilities?
Or does these bureaucrats, being "landed" by nature and are feigning concern have that kind of disdain for developing the countryside for it "disrupts" order especially those coming from entrenched entities? Yes, there may be well-paved roads, bridges, or granaries, yet so long as the countryside remains at the hands of these entrenched entities cannot make a rural community, the countryside truly developed. And with this would say it is not surprising that the "development" bragged about by the order is more of preserving the same pastoral/agricultural setting that benefits the city than those of truly expanding what perceived as progress, if not using these roads and bridges to expand further age-old exploitation such as those of resource extraction and cheap labor for a pittance.