It is not surprising that the debate over the proposed “Sovereign Wealth Fund” by the Marcos administration continues. With all the editing and omissions over the act, this note is ought to say that people still strongly disagree if not treating the bill critically be it because of an unlikely situation, the sources of funds, or the people involved in its creation- and that includes the name of the fund itself, which absolutely sounds Marcosian.
And now as Marcos Jr. broke his silence last Sunday night and publicly expressed support for the proposed sovereign wealth fund, what more admitted that he was the one who first broached the idea of establishing that investment fund in front of reporters.
As according to an Inquirer article made last December 13, the president justified the proposed fund by saying “It’s very clear that we need added investment. This is another way to get that…”
But despite the optimism that the fund will soon be realised and thus "help the administration achieve its Agenda for Prosperity," that the errors that embarrassed the idea will always be remembered by everyone. True, finance chief Diokno stated that the country should have had the Sovereign Wealth Fund a long time ago, but why is it being discussed now when previous administrations dismissed previous proposals for an SWF? Or was it simply because Bongbong Marcos and his ilk wanted a "legacy act" and make people believe they had recovered the economy from the pandemic-caused crisis?
Perhaps, what Emmanuel Esguerra, a former director-general of the National Economic and Development Authority, told Businessworld neatly captures the sentiments of those who signed the statement opposing the fund proposal, as according to an article by Filomeno S. Sta Ana III in that said paper. He stated: “People in Congress are debating if there are enough safeguards against mismanagement and corruption. Instead the proponents should be first made to make the case for a Sovereign Wealth Fund. There is none.”
In an Inquirer article last December 16, Camarines Sur 3rd District Rep. Gabriel Bordado Jr. did expressed that while the intention of an SWF is “very laudable,” it should be “done properly and [at] the right time,” pointing out that the country does not have surplus funds to invest in the fund.
He likewise asserted that the national debt stands at P13.64 trillion while the national budget is now at a deficit.
Meanwhile, former legislator Neri Colmenares stated that the fund is a “monster that cannot be controlled by any of our regulatory restrictions,” as according to the report on CNN last December 5 : “The fund is opaque and therefore stealable kasi (because) it has really no sufficient safeguards at all,” Colmenares said, noting that the bill itself states that funds invested by government financial institutions (GFI) “shall be exempt from any regulatory restrictions” if invested solely to the fund. Accordingly, he explained, the Maharlika Wealth Fund will not be subject to regulatory laws like the Procurement Act, GOCC Governance Act, Civil Service Rules, Office of the Government Corporate Council review, or laws governing the sale of government property. Colmenares continued, Even if the fund's drafters claim that the Commission on Audit will examine it, their claim will be pointless because the policies cited as the foundation for the agency's work are not applicable to the Maharlika fund. He added that the fund's primary contributors, the general public, will not have access to it for inspection.
There are more disapprovals to mention in this note for sure, but from these examples would say that yes, the idea may sound “good” at first (especially when a country really needed funds for developmental purposes) but with all the provisions written and the people involved does it mean it is for “the best” and therefore “acceptable by the people”? Nah! And now, with all the disapproval, is to hear from those drafters to “give the fund a chance”? No matter the act is declared “urgent” by the authorities and thus likely to be passed by administration-led legislators, expect debates and opposition for as people have had enough of a massive debt and corrupt bureaucrats suddenly talking about a wealth fund with few or no safeguards against mismanagement and corruption.
And, because the fund remains a public fund even without SSS and GSIS, perhaps these bureaucrats, both senate and in house, should look at Malaysia's and Nauru's mistakes and mismanagement, not just Singapore's and Vietnam's successful experiences in handling their Sovereign Wealth Funds; otherwise, it is obvious that this pretentious plan, which has no sources of funds, is mocking the sovereigns who intended to benefit from it while stealing from their coffers. True, there is a need for additional investment, but the question is: who the hell needs a "fund" when it is not allowed to use someone else's money, has no surplus cash from the state, a massive debt, a slew of problems to address, and instead panhandles for someone to "invest"?
Again, right is the idea of a sovereign wealth fund, but not this time nor with the people involved who cares about their interests than that of the folk.
