ASEAN Regional News

[cabalen]

Hanggang ngayon di natin alam ang ibig sabihin ng disiplina, unity, patriotism, at maraming iba. Dito nalang sa thread nato kung magpaligsahan kayo ng talino nakakalimutan niyo kung ano dapt nating matutunan sa mga katabi nating bansa. Pero ang lumalabas nagyayabangan sa mga katalinuhan imbes na magtulungan, mabigay ng halimbawa na ika gaganda ng PILIPINAS. Ano pa pagkakaiba natin sa mga politikong corrupt kung tayo mismo sa thread na to ay walang pagkakaunwaan ano ang pagkakaiba natin sa kanila. Ni walang nagbibigay, nagppataasan ng ihi Paano niyo masasabing may mga pinag-aralan tayo, eh dito mismo alang pagkkakaunawaan. . Sabagay kaya ang pinas hanggang ngayon kulelat parin baka sa susunod niyan malampasan pa tayo ng Bangladesh dahil sa sobrang talino natin. Matlino nga tayong naturingan ala naman tayong pakialam sa bawat isa ala rin.

[Manila-X]

Filipinos still have respect. If the Philippine national anthem is played, Filipinos stand up. Its a dishonourable not to! Not just that its rude!

[RayAdillO]

Originally Posted by cabalen

Hanggang ngayon di natin alam ang ibig sabihin ng disiplina, unity, patriotism, at maraming iba. Dito nalang sa thread nato kung magpaligsahan kayo ng talino nakakalimutan niyo kung ano dapt nating matutunan sa mga katabi nating bansa. Pero ang lumalabas nagyayabangan sa mga katalinuhan imbes na magtulungan, mabigay ng halimbawa na ika gaganda ng PILIPINAS.

Sadyang marami po ang makikita ninyong "paligsahan" at kakaibang kuro-kuro sa loob ng isang foro, tutal ay foro nga naman ito.

Meroong maiinis, meroong masusuya, meroong magsa-sangayon, at meroon din naman magbabatikos. Hindi na po importante ang "dating" kung hambog man o mapagkumbaba, ang kailangan lang maman ay kung may tunay na nilalaman ang isang palaisipan.

Iba-iba po ang tao, at dahil dito ay iba-iba po ang nagiging pananaw. Ngunit sa aking palagay ay dapat natutuloy ang "dialogue" dahil ganito lamang ang tanging paraan upang mabuo ang isang "concensus" at "iisang tinig". Ito po ay proseso....magulo at nakakapikon sa simula, ngunit kalinawan at pagtutuwid ang panghuling pakay.

Huwag po natin bigyan ng negatibo o masamang kahulugan ang pakikipag-talastasan sa loob ng foro dahil madalas ay dito lamang nailalabas ng marami sa atin ang talagang nasa-loob ng ating isipan, hindi naman po tayo mga kongresista o senador na may oras na nakakapagsalita sa harap ng media at mga gusaling batasan.

Ano pa pagkakaiba natin sa mga politikong corrupt kung tayo mismo sa thread na to ay walang pagkakaunwaan ano ang pagkakaiba natin sa kanila.

Isang malaking pagkakaiba ito sa karaniwang gawain ng mga pulitiko dahil madalas na ang nilalaman ng "away-pulitiko" ay kung sino sa mga "pami-pamilya" na naghaharian ang masusunod. Hindi po ideolohiya, isyu, pamamaraan o pamamalakad.

Sabagay kaya ang pinas hanggang ngayon kulelat parin baka sa susunod niyan malampasan pa tayo ng Bangladesh dahil sa sobrang talino natin. Matlino nga tayong naturingan ala naman tayong pakialam sa bawat isa ala rin.

Hindi po ito totoo, dahil nga nagiging "mainit" ang pakikipag-talastasan ay dahil meroong "malasakit" ang isa't-isa upang subukang baguhin o magbigay ng alternatibong pananaw na maaring bumuo ng mas malalim o mas malawakang pagunawa ang magkabilang panig.

Bangladesh malalampasan ang Pilipinas? Alamin natin na hindi nakukuha sa sapat na kahihiyan ang Pilipinas upang siya'y kumilos. Ang sukat ng galing ng isang bansa ay ang abilidad nito upang bumagon muli kahit ilang beses na siya'y kumukulelat at dumadapa sa lugmok at lagim.

Ang materyal ay nawawala o naluluma, ang trahedya ng materyal na pagkawala o pagkukulang ay karaniwang pangyayari. Ngunit ang kawalan ng esprituwal na lakas bilang isang nasyon upang makipag-sapalaran ay walang kalunasan dahil tanging itong uri ng espirituwalismo lamang ang nagbibigay ng sapat na lakas at motibo sa muling pagbangon ng isang bansa upang lumikha ng mas makabago at mas matatag na kaayusan.

____________________________________________________________


A NATION IS GREAT WHEN IT TRANSLATES INTO REALITY THE FORCE OF THE SPIRIT!

[Manila-X]

Bangladesh, Vietnam, Cambodia and the likes will surpass The Philippines in terms of economy and development if Filipinos do nothing to improve their fatherland.

[RayAdillO]

Originally Posted by TambayBlues

Do you think Israel would've accomplished all these things or better yet even exist as a nation if it weren't owned by Lord Amschel Rotschild himself, the guy who can simply print money without batting an eyelash. They also receive billions in grant in aid and military assistance from the US every year.

From a Filipino nationalist standpoint, it would be better for us to cultivate an Israeli-Philippine partnership. The Philippine position is crystal clear...we are a secular republic with an eternal islamic separatist problem which will not go away regardless of how wealthy or industrialized the Philippines may become.

Of all the countries in southeast asia, it seems only Singapore, Taiwan and the Philippines can truly be friendly with Israel. We might as well make it work to our advantage.

Assuming it exists, there is no defeating the Jewish hold on global finance, so why fight it? There is the added bonus of transfers in military expertise, advanced agricultural technologies and in the harnessing of alternative energy sources.

The jews are one group of people who don't waste too much time pitying themselves, plus they have proven as a race to do extremely well even when they didn't have a homeland to speak of, or no matter how much european society have sought to exclude or annihilate them through the centuries.

[Arvor]

Costa blanca spain

Empuria brava

Modern cruises

--------

With regards Thailand vs Phillipines i think that infrastructure also plays a role , just how many beautiful beaches , islands are there in the Phillipines with world class resort infrastructures on them ? , they need to get rid of small shacks and shanty type conditions in some of these places , the recent investments on airports and rail etc are a good start as tourism requires efficient means of travel .

But imagine other types of infrastructures such as marina's for yachting and sailing , sports and adventure , and modern cruiseships for island hopping cruises , this last category in particular i think is something the Phillipines should develop and become one of the island hopping cruise capital of the Asia Pacific region .

I think that as an example the Phillipines should take a second look at the way Carribean and Mediterranean countries have developed their tourism industry , the Phillipine plans to promote entertainment like that planned thing in Manila is also a good idea .

But yes i also understand that it would take alot of money that perhaps isn't as readily available in the Phillipines , but that's something foreign investment / resort chains and developers can help with if the government can entice them , until then the Phillipines will have lots of gorgeous and spectacular locations which could be attracting millions of tourists worldwide lying idle and unproductive .

There is some truth to the popularized "if you build it they will come" ... .

[evangelistik]

Originally Posted by jpdm

The Virtues of Deglobalization: Has the time finally come to reverse and end globalization?


Written by Walden Bello / Special to the BusinessMirror
Thursday, 10 September 2009 20:50

THE current global downturn, the worst since the Great Depression 70 years ago, pounded the last nail into the coffin of globalization. Already beleaguered by evidence that showed global poverty and inequality increasing even as most poor countries experienced little or no economic growth, globalization has been terminally discredited in the last two years as the much-heralded process of financial and trade interdependence went into reverse and became the transmission belt not of prosperity but of economic crisis and collapse.

End of an era

In their responses to the current economic crisis, governments paid lip service to global coordination but propelled separate stimulus programs meant to rev up national markets. In so doing, governments quietly shelved export-oriented growth, long the driver of many economies, though paid the usual nostrums to advancing trade liberalization as a means of countering the global downturn by completing the Doha Round of trade negotiations under the World Trade Organization. There is an increasing acknowledgment that there will be no returning to a world centrally dependent on free-spending American consumers, since the latter are bankrupt and nobody has taken their place.

Moreover, whether agreed on internationally or unilaterally set up by national governments, a whole raft of restrictions will almost certainly be imposed on finance capital, the untrammeled mobility of which has been the cutting edge of the current crisis.

Intellectual discourse, however, has not yet shown many signs of a break with orthodoxy. Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on free trade, the primacy of private enterprise and a minimalist role for the state, continues to be the default language among policymakers. The establishment critics of market fundamentalism, including luminaries such as Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, have become entangled in endless debates over how large the stimulus programs should be and whether the state should retain its interventionist presence in the auto industry and finance or, once stabilized, return the companies and banks to the private sector. Moreover, some, such as Stiglitz, continue to believe in what they perceive to be the economic benefits of globalization while bemoaning its social costs.

But trends are fast outpacing both the ideologues of neoliberal globalization and many of their critics, and developments thought impossible a few years ago are gaining steam. “The integration of the world economy is in retreat on almost every front,” writes the Economist. While the magazine says that corporations continue to believe in the efficiency of global supply chains, “like any chain, these are only as strong as their weakest link. A danger point will come if firms decide that this way of organizing production has had its day.”

“Deglobalization,” a term that the Economist attributes to me, is a development that the magazine, the world’s prime avatar of free-market ideology, views as negative. I believe, however, that deglobalization is an opportunity. Indeed, my colleagues and I at Focus on the Global South first forwarded deglobalization as a comprehensive paradigm to replace neoliberal globalization almost a decade ago, when the stresses, strains and contradictions brought about by the latter had become painfully evident. Elaborated as an alternative mainly for developing countries, the deglobalization paradigm is not without relevance to the central capitalist economies.

11 pillars of the alternative

There are 11 key prongs of the deglobalization paradigm.

1. Production for the domestic market must again become the center of gravity of the economy rather than production for export markets.

2. The principle of subsidiarity should be enshrined in economic life by encouraging production of goods at the level of the community and at the national level, if this can be done at reasonable cost, in order to preserve community.

3. Trade policy—that is, quotas and tariffs—should be used to protect the local economy from destruction by corporate-subsidized commodities with artificially low prices.

4. Industrial policy—including subsidies, tariffs and trade—should be used to revitalize and strengthen the manufacturing sector.

5. Long-postponed measures of equitable income redistribution and land redistribution (including urban land reform) can create a vibrant internal market that would serve as the anchor of the economy and produce local financial resources for investment.

6. Deemphasizing growth, emphasizing upgrading the quality of life, and maximizing equity will reduce environmental disequilibrium.

7. The development and diffusion of environmentally congenial technology in both agriculture and industry should be encouraged.

8. Strategic economic decisions cannot be left to the market or to technocrats. Instead, the scope of democratic decision-making in the economy should be expanded so that all vital questions—such as which industries to develop or phase out, what proportion of the government budget to devote to agriculture, etc.—become subject to democratic discussion and choice.

9. Civil society must constantly monitor and supervise the private sector and the state, a process that should be institutionalized.

10. The property complex should be transformed into a “mixed economy” that includes community cooperatives, private enterprises and state enterprises, and excludes transnational corporations.

11. Centralized global institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank should be replaced with regional institutions built not on free trade and capital mobility but on principles of cooperation that, to use the words of Hugo Chavez in describing the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, “transcend the logic of capitalism.”

From the cult of efficiency to effective economics

The aim of the deglobalization paradigm is to move beyond the economics of narrow efficiency, in which the key criterion is the reduction of unit cost, never mind the social and ecological destabilization this process brings about. It is to move beyond a system of economic calculation that, in the words of John Maynard Keynes, made “the whole conduct of life…into a paradox of an accountant’s nightmare.” An effective economics, rather, strengthens social solidarity by subordinating the operations of the market to the values of equity, justice and community by enlarging the sphere of democratic decision-making. To use the language of the great Hungarian thinker Karl Polanyi in his book The Great Transformation, deglobalization is about “reembedding” the economy in society, instead of having society driven by the economy.

The deglobalization paradigm also asserts that a one-size-fits-all model like neoliberalism or centralized bureaucratic socialism is dysfunctional and destabilizing. Instead, diversity should be expected and encouraged, as it is in nature. Shared principles of alternative economics do exist, and they have already substantially emerged in the struggle against and critical reflection over the failure of both centralized socialism and capitalism. However, how these principles—the most important of which have been sketched out above—are concretely articulated will depend on the values, rhythms and strategic choices of each society.

Deglobalization’s pedigree

Though it may sound radical, deglobalization is not really new. Its pedigree includes the writings of the towering British economist Keynes, who, at the height of the Depression, bluntly stated: “We do not wish…to be at the mercy of world forces working out, or trying to work out, some uniform equilibrium, according to the principles of laissez faire capitalism.” Indeed, he continued, over “an increasingly wide range of industrial products, and perhaps agricultural products also, I become doubtful whether the economic cost of self-sufficiency is great enough to outweigh the other advantages of gradually bringing the producer and the consumer within the ambit of the same national, economic and financial organization. Experience accumulates to prove that most modern mass-production processes can be performed in most countries and climates with almost equal efficiency.”

And with words that have a very contemporary ring, Keynes concluded, “I sympathize…with those who would minimize rather than with those who would maximize economic entanglement between nations. Ideas, knowledge, art, hospitality, travel—these are the things which should, of their nature, be international. But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible; and, above all, let finance be primarily national.”

*Foreign Policy in Focus columnist Walden Bello represents the party-list Akbayan in the Philippines’ House of Representatives, heads the Freedom from Debt Coalition, and serves as senior analyst at the Bangkok-based research and advocacy institute Focus on the Global South. The author of Deglobalization: Ideas for a New World Economy and 14 other books, he can be contacted at waldenbello@yahoo.

You cannot stop globalization. Walden Bello is misquoting Keynes here. Countries should capitalize upon their competitive advantages. Trade has a multiplier effect on wealth.

There are a lot of great and idealistic ideas in Bello's writing, but the truth is that they are just that, idealistic. How would you put into effect programs that "de-emphasize growth, emphasize the quality of life, and maximize equity". Wasn't that the aim of the communist revolution that happened half a century ago?

Too many inaccuracies to point out, but I'll comment on one. By imposing quotas and tariffs to make "domestic markets" more competitive, it would only raise the prices of the consumer products. Whereas before you had the cheapest electronic products coming in from China and Vietnam, now you have to buy domestic products that have higher production costs whose efficiencies will not improve because of a lack of international competition. The only winners in this situation are the producers, the consumers lose out in the end.

Let's not forget the contribution that the BPO industry has had for the country. The best way for the Philippines to up its GDP growth would be to increase its ease of doing business, create more transparency to stymie corruption, address infrastructure inadequacies, etc.

[RayAdillO]

Originally Posted by evangelistik

You cannot stop globalization. Walden Bello is misquoting Keynes here. Countries should capitalize upon their competitive advantages. Trade has a multiplier effect on wealth.

There are a lot of great and idealistic ideas in Bello's writing, but the truth is that they are just that, idealistic. How would you put into effect programs that "de-emphasize growth, emphasize the quality of life, and maximize equity". Wasn't that the aim of the communist revolution that happened half a century ago?

Too many inaccuracies to point out, but I'll comment on one. By imposing quotas and tariffs to make "domestic markets" more competitive, it would only raise the prices of the consumer products. Whereas before you had the cheapest electronic products coming in from China and Vietnam, now you have to buy domestic products that have higher production costs whose efficiencies will not improve because of a lack of international competition. The only winners in this situation are the producers, the consumers lose out in the end.

Let's not forget the contribution that the BPO industry has had for the country. The best way for the Philippines to up its GDP growth would be to increase its ease of doing business, create more transparency to stymie corruption, address infrastructure inadequacies, etc.

The BPO is largely as service industry, yes by all means we should follow the path already set in that direction. But with regards to manufacturing industries, I don't think it is best to surrender that entirely to China and Vietnam. A balance should be maintained and a steady (even if slow) development of a Philippine industrial base would be in the best interests.

Of course all governments still put their weight with regards to trade and competition. The objective of businesses after all is to defeat competitors, even when the principle of "competition" itself is left open.

If we give up our own industrialization, then we are not really offering competition, we are in fact encouraging the eventual lowering of imported quality maufactures. We want to be active participants in the global economy, not just zombies who will buy on the basis of "cheap".

There are also psychological factors to consider, even just one or two viable Filipino brands goes a long way in the uplifment of local morale which no one can really put a price tag on.

Maybe Globalization is inevitable, but a free market no more exists than a marxist utopia. Also, globalization is not something like an "all conquering" juggernaut destined to change the face of the earth. It's just another way of doing business that can be adopted in varying degrees. Globalization offers flexibility, it's not some kind of "revolution".

And like everything else, it can destroy as much as build, it demands a sacrifice...a price to pay. Nothing in this world is for free.

Globalization is essentially neutral, it's like a car. It can give you a great advantage and convenience if you know how to drive it, likewise it can be your coffin if you don't. How globalization can work best for us depends on our ability to be its MASTER, rather than our being a slave to it.

[evangelistik]

Originally Posted by RayAdillO

The BPO is largely as service industry, yes by all means we should follow the path already set in that direction. But with regards to manufacturing industries, I don't think it is best to surrender that entirely to China and Vietnam. A balance should be maintained and a steady (even if slow) development of a Philippine industrial base would be in the best interests.

Of course all governments still put their weight with regards to trade and competition. The objective of businesses after all is to defeat competitors, even when the principle of "competition" itself is left open.

Maybe Globalization is inevitable, but a free market no more exists than a marxist utopia. Also, globalization is not something like an "all conquering" juggernaut destined to change the face of the earth. It's just another way of doing business that can be adopted in varying degrees. Globalization offers flexibility, it's not some kind of "revolution".

And like everything else, it can destroy as much as build, it demands a sacrifice...a price to pay. Nothing in this world is for free.

Globalization is essentially neutral, it's like a car. It can give you a great advantage and convenience if you know how to drive it, likewise it can be your coffin if you don't. How globalization can work best for us depends on our ability to be its MASTER, rather than our being a slave to it.

Services, manufacturing... the article doesn't specify, its thesis is around the concept of de-globalizing all consumer goods (services, manufacturing, etc).

Economists never agree on any one thing, so I believe it's healthy to debate these kinds of issues. I guess I fall under the Ricardian school of thought that nations that capitalize upon their comparative and absolute advantages are the ones that achieve prosperity and wealth.

China would never have achieved a near double digit growth rate for two decades without utilizing its biggest asset: low cost labor. And this goes against rule #1 of Walden's 11 pillars of deglobalization. It would not have achieved one-fifth of that growth had it sought to pursue production for the domestic market. Only by exporting to nations that could purchase their products were they able to do so. China wins by exporting their goods to the United States. The United States wins because its population can now purchase cheaper products.

I'm a big proponent of free trade. Look what it's done for Latin American and Asian countries. Job losses to domestic markets may occur when free trade takes root in a country, but it's all a part of the cycle of creative destruction. Those resources will now have the opportunity to be shifted into something more productive. Detroit is a perfect example. The automotive industry should either be forced to innovate, compete through prices, or have some other value-added component in order to compete in the market. The government should not waste its resources on something that the market itself will correct.

[jpdm]

Agree!!


Tried and tested path to development


Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 04:29:00 09/17/2009

Filed Under: Economy and Business and Finance, Agriculture, Population

I have long known Dr. Bernardo Villegas as an advocate of economic development via agriculture modernization, but I find his arguments in the article “How did we get to where we are?” less than convincing. (Inquirer, 9/12/09)

Doctor Villegas downplays the negative impact of rapid population growth on economic development, saying that a sizable population provides an abundant supply of labor and consumer demand. But I don’t see how an ill-fed and ill-educated populace can be much of a workforce, never mind a market (except maybe for more instant noodles and telenovelas). He also emphasizes the economic benefits of a young population (i.e., demographic dividend), but this is a double-edged sword at best. According to a recent UP study, a very young population such as ours can wreak havoc on a country’s savings rate that it cancels out the demographic dividend.

His contention that our stunted economy stemmed from the industrialization initiatives since the 1950s strikes me as a bit strange and rather sweeping. I thought the two decades following the war were the halcyon days when we were “second only to Japan in Asia.”

He cites the case of Thailand, which has supposedly raced past ahead of us because of its focus on agriculture. It might interest Villegas to know that the Philippines actually has higher rice productivity per hectare than Thailand, but our bigger population, coupled with a smaller arable land per capita, makes us a rice importer while the Thais are an exporter. More important, his citation of the Thai experience is particularly narrow. How does he explain the spectacular success of the Asian tigers, not to mention Japan and the rest of the industrialized world?

I am ready to agree with Villegas that industrialization is not a miracle cure (perhaps, there isn’t one). Marcos’ failed industrialization drive, after all, resulted in a huge debt burden which we still carry to this day. But equally disastrous is the absence of effort—the energy crisis toward the end of Aquino’s term has left us a legacy of high energy costs.

On balance, I think world experience over the past 150 years or so has consistently pointed to industrialization as a tried and tested path toward economic development.

—ARIEL PANFILO, 35 Manga St.,
Barangay Katipunan, Quezon City

[jpdm]

$5B ’ideal’ level for F.D.I. in R.P.


Written by Cai U. Ordinario / Reporter
Friday, 18 September 2009 04:12
Business Mirror

IT would take $5 billion a year to rid the country of the jobless, but for the Philippines to attract investment of such scale, it must first get rid of corruption, particularly in procurement and in customs, according to a government economist.

Director Dennis Arroyo, director of the National Economic and Development Authority (Neda) National Planning and Policy Staff, said that is his personal estimate of the needed foreign direct investment (FDI). “For me, $5 billion or more would be
better.”

He was at the launch of the World Investment Report 2009 of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (Unctad) in Pasig City on Thursday, where he also said that several factors need to be promptly addressed, among them “red tape” that slows down the doing of business.

International Finance Corp. (IFC) president Jesse Ang said this issue is also included in the findings of the 2010 Doing Business Report. He said that to be able to open a business in the Philippines, a company needs to undertake 48 steps within a period of a month.

The IFC is working with local government units to set up better business-registration procedures, starting with an automated business-registration process, which Arroyo noted would deal with another bar to progress—corruption—“particularly in the procurement process and in the customs procedures.”

Arroyo said automating processes will minimize face-to-face interactions between those in business and the agencies involved, such as in the procurement process when the so-called e-procurement system is installed.

There is also a need to deal with the infrastructure backlog so the country can catch up with its Asian neighbors. He said this is what government intends to resolve with the P100-billion infrastructure fund expected to be spent next year.

The infrastructure fund is a private-public partnership. Around P50 billion will be invested by the government and the other half by the private sector.

The World Investment Report 2009 said global FDI flows fell 14 percent in 2008 to $1.7 trillion and is expected to drop to below $1.2 trillion this year due to the worldwide financial crisis.

For 2010 and 2011, the report expected a recovery but a slower one. In 2010, the FDI level is seen to increase gradually to $1.4 trillion and inch up to $1.8 trillion in 2011.

The crisis has also caused a shift in global FDI outlook. The report said the United States remained the largest recipient country followed by France. Other large recipients are China, a developing country, and the Russian Federation, a transition economy. “The entry of the Russian Federation and the return of China to the list of top-5 recipients are symbolic of the changing FDI landscape of 2008.”

In the Philippines, the FDI flows declined to $1.52 billion in 2008 from $2.92 billion in 2007. FDI stocks, on the other hand, increased to $21.47 billion in 2008 from $19.95 billion in 2007.

FDI inflows to developed economies fell by 29 percent to $962 billion in 2008 and to developing economies rose 17 percent to $621 billion. South Asia, East Asia, South-East Asia, and Oceania accounted for roughly half of these flows with $298 billion, a 17-percent increase and a new high.

West Asia FDI flows was up 16 percent to $90 billion. Africa recorded the largest percentage increase at 27 percent, rising to a record $88 billion. Inflows to Latin America and the Caribbean continued to grow up to 13 percent hitting $144 billion.

The least developed countries attracted a record $33 billion worth of inward FDI in 2008. The transition economies of South-East Europe posted a new high of inflows reaching $114 billion, a 26 percent increase.

[TambayBlues]

If this pushes through this will be another setback for our auto industry. Its exactly what I anticipated happening a few years back due to developments in Thailand and their unfair trade tactics to compel Ford to move production in their home turf.

Production of the Ford Focus and Mazda 3 in the ASEAN region may shift from the Philippines to Thailand following a $500 million factory expansion by
Auto Alliance Thailand, according to well-placed sources.

The two compact cars would become the third pair of Ford/Mazda-related products to be made at the Thai plant. The other models made are the Ranger/BT-50 light trucks and the pending Fiesta/2 subcompacts, whose assembly start at the end of this year.

AAT, a 50/50 joint venture between Ford and Mazda, has more advanced facilities than the factory in the Philippines; one source said that it is only logical to move production of the cars to Thailand now that there is more assembly space. (Assembly space ? as if there were no more room to expand in Laguna, gimme a break)

Although the current 3 has already expired in most world markets and has been replaced with a second-generation model, sales of it here are likely to continue for another year.

As soon as Mazda ASEAN is ready to sell the new 3, its assembly could take place in Thailand, according to the source. A year later, in 2011, Ford would be gearing up to launch the third-generation Focus which, like the 3, will be sold in both sedan and hatchback forms.

In the past two years, passenger cars have suffered a smaller slump in sales than pickup trucks in Thailand, mainly because smaller vehicles have better fuel efficiency. Meanwhile, the country is experiencing a shift in motorization, in which many people are turning to cars instead of pickups or motorcycles.

The AAT factory’s production capacity will increase to 275,000 units per year from 175,000, primarily serving export markets. The total investment of AAT is now worth $1.5 billion.

Source:
Edmunds.com

[TambayBlues]

Old news that I read but will give you a glimpse as to the real reason why Ford is planning to move production overseas instead of exporting to Thailand and other ASEAN countries.

Ford considers RP hub expansion, cites concerns
10/21/07
Posted under Ford, Road Transport, Transport

By Ronnel Domingo
Inquirer

MANILA, Philippines–Ford Motor Co., whose officials have expressed continued optimism in the Philippines, could expand its production facility here by up to seven times if local economic growth continued and regional integration opened up more markets in Southeast Asia.

Liam Benham, Ford’s vice president for governmental affairs in Asia-Pacific and Africa, said the company was continually looking at expansion opportunities in the country although there were no short-term plans so far.

“Ideally, a facility should be producing 100,000 units to 200,000 units yearly,” Benham said.

“This is a possible future for [our Philippine operations] as the ASEAN market is still largely untapped, but we have to make a competitive situation to make that a feasible reality,” he added.

Ford’s facility in Sta. Rosa, Laguna, has the capacity to turn out some 31,000 units of vehicles yearly, but it is only producing barely half of that.

Benham was part of a business mission sent by the US-ASEAN Business Council. It was here on a three-day visit that wrapped up Friday.

The Bangkok-based official said the business mission met with various executive officials, including President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and business-related bodies such as the National Competitiveness Council.

“It is heartening to hear that there are deeply-rooted efforts to make the country more competitive,” Benham said. “It is more so when one considers that Ford enjoys (some conveniences here) that are unparalleled in ASEAN.”

However, he said that amid continued optimism, the need to address hurdles to growth and expansion remained urgent.

He said two of the greatest concerns among investors in the Philippines were the problems of smuggling and high cost of power.

Further, Benham said the strict implementation of the ban on the importation of used vehicles was needed as this was the biggest barrier to the expansion of the domestic vehicle market.

Benham said Ford was also anticipating the opening up of markets in the region with the realization of the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Economic Community.

“Non-tariff barriers in Malaysia and the tax system in Thailand are currently discouraging Ford from exporting more vehicles to these countries,” he said.

Benham echoed US-ABC president Matthew P. Daley, who expressed hope that “economic integration, in tangible and practicable ways, could be accelerated.”

“We are fully committed to the Philippines, which is a very key hub for Ford in the Asian region,” Benham said.

“We export not only to ASEAN but to farther regions as well. We have started shipping out flex-fuel engines to as far as South Africa, which is 12 hours by plane,” he added.

[le Reine]

Originally Posted by jpdm

Tried and tested path to development
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 04:29:00 09/17/2009

His contention that our stunted economy stemmed from the industrialization initiatives since the 1950s strikes me as a bit strange and rather sweeping. I thought the two decades following the war were the halcyon days when we were “second only to Japan in Asia.”

This fellow misunderstood Dr. Villegas. Actually, what Dr. Villegas was pointing out was that the Philippines focused solely in import-substitution industrialization (ISI) unlike other countries in Asia, which focused on export-led growth. At the start this was effective. Of course, it will be effective because it will serve the domestic market first, but once it reaches the saturation point, production would become stagnant. We also started out very well because we started from a low base. Remember, we were rebuilding from scratch brought by WWII. The government used the funds from reparations and rehabilitation of Japan and the US to build these industries. Also, at that time, politicians focused mainly on industrialization in expense of agriculture. It should have been a simultaneous approach because even if we have the workers to work in the factories, there would be less food for them. And true indeed, we faced a double-whammy. We grew moderately because of industrialization but it became stagnant. Worse, the agriculture sector, which was supposed to be a driver for growth also became stagnant because government then ignored it. Initially, Marcos focused on it by building irrigation, schools, roads, and infrastructure for industrialization via ecozones. All of these were funded by foreign debts. And when payback time came, we defaulted. And after that, we only paid for debts for decades without funds to build infrastructures.

Well what happened? Because government focused too much on ISI unlike its Asian neighbors, growth became stagnant. Also, the biggest contributor to the demise was Crony Capitalism. Dr. Villegas failed to discuss this one. Basically, all of our incurred debts are caused by unprofitable local enterprises that were supposed to be drivers of industrialization. Everything, most esp telecommunications, mining, agriculture, airlines, manufacturing, textiles, etc. that were handled by Marcos cronies have incurred big (as in big running in the millions of $$$) losses because of inefficiency and incompetence. And remember, since these enterprises were funded by foreign debt while they incurred losses, obviously they failed to pay the government, which gave them the guarantees and protection. In the end, we all paid for that until now. ISI basically gave them protection from government from competition by way of tariffs, and they are also funded by government from foreign loans, with government guarantees. It was a disaster. The funds were pocketed by Marcos' cronies and the enterprises they managed failed miserably.

Other countries in Asia at that time also started with ISO. Japan protected its local enterprise by building its zaibatsus and keiretsus and Korea used its chaebols. This was supposed to be followed by Marcos by having his own cronies. But they're too greedy and well entrenched in goernment! Also, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong have opened up their economies after they have been successful establishing their local industries or what we call export-oriented growth, thus providing competition to their local industries that made them efficient and world class. In the Philippines, we remained closed and protected. We only produced for local consumption. The government decided to open up only in the late 70's and in the 80's but only via ecozones. The rest of the country was still closed. But It's too late. Since then, we lost to other Asian countries which also opened up like Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and China. And since we were incurring deficits because of the failure of Marcos' cronies and continued importation for these enterprises, we defaulted from paying debts. The result? Financial crisis when the rest of Asia was growing. Then, Aquino was assassinated. That's the perfect recipe for a revolution. And the rest was history.

Oo nga pala, we were the second largest economy in the far east in the 50's, but we are not the second richest in terms of GDP per capita. Also, that statement is misleading because we were one of the first countries in Asia to become independent (1946). At that time, the rest of SEA was still under its colonizers. So basically, wala talaga tayong kakumpitensiya kasi hindi pa naman malaya yung ibang bansa sa Asya. China and Taiwan had a civil war; Indochina was under the French; Malaysia Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore under the British; and Indonesia was under the Dutch. We were supposed to have the advantage of being the first to be politically free, but apparently we didn't use it.

He cites the case of Thailand, which has supposedly raced past ahead of us because of its focus on agriculture. It might interest Villegas to know that the Philippines actually has higher rice productivity per hectare than Thailand, but our bigger population, coupled with a smaller arable land per capita, makes us a rice importer while the Thais are an exporter. More important, his citation of the Thai experience is particularly narrow. How does he explain the spectacular success of the Asian tigers, not to mention Japan and the rest of the industrialized world

This is actually right. Thailand has an advantage because it has a very big land area and it also have the Mekong River which could irrigate the land all year round, unlike here where there are mountains everywhere and we rely only on rainwater.

I am ready to agree with Villegas that industrialization is not a miracle cure (perhaps, there isn’t one). Marcos’ failed industrialization drive, after all, resulted in a huge debt burden which we still carry to this day. But equally disastrous is the absence of effort—the energy crisis toward the end of Aquino’s term has left us a legacy of high energy costs.

I have the same thoughts as ARIEL PANFILO. I just stated it above. But the difference is, he failed to differentiate import-substitution industrialization (ISO) and export-led growth (ELG). HE said industrialization is good, but failed to discuss the type of industrialization that was good for the country.

[Arvor]

Complicated issue but better governance and institution building would be more important than reforming the number of political parties , improving tax collection too .

[Yre]

Originally Posted by le Reine

....

Very well said le Reine, crony capitalism did us in which even up to now is trying to make a resurgence.

Sorry i have to remove all quotes, it's a bit long, they can just read it back at the top.

[le Reine]

Originally Posted by Yre

Very well said le Reine, crony capitalism did us in which even up to now is trying to make a resurgence.

Sorry i have to remove all quotes, it's a bit long, they can just read it back at the top.

Ahaha... thanks.

They are making a resurgence alright. When I see Marcos cronies still making big bucks, all I could say: kapal ng mukha!

Also, we are seeing bad government interventions in business affairs. See what happened to Yuchengco when he was supposedly arm twisted to sell his shares to MVP. My oh my... Earp's BW shares scandal and now GMA having stocks in the PSE?

Originally Posted by Arvor

Complicated issue but better governance and institution building would be more important than reforming the number of political parties , improving tax collection too .

It is indeed complicated. Although I agree with what you said, there is certain premise that I have to refute. It's the premise that if we have those, our country would succeed, or if we don't have those, then we will fail. But as what Dr. Villegas has said in his article, other countries in Asia also have bad governance issues, corruption, instability. In fact, they are notorious for corruption. But why were they still better off? It's because despite those deficiencies, they could still unite in issues that are good for their country. And when they enact policies, they're consistent. Meaning, when new government takes over, rules don't change. That's not true in our country.

[RonnieR]

Philippines is host of the ASEAN Center for Biodiversity
Posted on September 20th, 2009 under The Good Balita
http://goodnewspilipinas.com/?p=8428

By Gloria Jane Baylon
ASEAN Center for Biodiversity

The Philippines is officially the host of the ASEAN Center for Biodiversity headquarters.

The ACB, with funding support from the European Union (EU) and officially launched at the 9th Informal ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in 2005, is an intergovernmental regional center tasked to facilitate cooperation and coordination among ASEAN Member States and with relevant national governments, regional and international organizations on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, or biodiversity.

ACB works with ASEAN Member States in ensuring the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of biodiversity.

The Senate concurrence follows the entry into force of the ACB Establishment Agreement by six ASEAN Member States (Brunei Darussalam, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, and Viet Nam), completing the process to enable ACB to become a full-fledged international organization.

ACB Executive Director Rodrigo U. Fuentes said the Senate’s concurrence of the Host Country Agreement and the ratification by the ASEAN Member States of the Establishment Agreement would now further strengthen ASEAN’s resolve to save and conserve the region’s rich but highly threatened biodiversity.

Delivering and facilitating conduct of capacity-building services and technology transfer through engaging relevant and appropriate expertise; enhancing common understanding of biodiversity conservation issues; strengthening ASEAN regional positions in negotiations and in compliance with relevant multilateral environmental agreements; promoting regional public awareness to develop champions and enhance support at different stakeholder levels on biodiversity concerns; and undertaking innovative resource generation and mobilization measures to pursue impact activities that will enhance biodiversity conservation in the region,” Fuentes explained.

The Senate resolution was sponsored by Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, with Senators Juan Miguel Zubiri and Loren Legarda as co-sponsors.

In her sponsorship speech, Santiago said the Senate concurrence with the ratification of the Host Country Agreement contributes to the sustainability of ACB’s operations as an international organization.

“Sustainability for ACB means more benefits for the Philippines and other ASEAN Member States through the Center’s policy coordination and capacity building services, biodiversity knowledge products, and best practices needed to implement the country’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan,” Santiago said.

She added that the Senate action is an important contribution of the Philippines in promoting unity and collaboration among ASEAN Member States and in helping realize the ASEAN Community 2020 target.

“This is also a timely contribution of the Philippines to the global observance of the International Year of Biodiversity 2010. More importantly, the ratification of the Host Country Agreement once again establishes the primacy and leading role of the Philippines and our people, in spearheading through our own experience, practice and knowledge, the most important challenge faced by our generation today, the survival of our planet and its environment,” Santiago emphasized.

In his co-sponsorship speech, Zubiri said majority of the Filipinos and other ASEAN peoples depend upon the region’s rich biodiversity for their daily needs such as food, medicine, shelter, clean water, and a host of ecosystem services.

“The Philippines and all other ASEAN Member States stand to lose a great deal if the battle against unprecedented biodiversity loss is not won,” Zubiri stressed.

As co-sponsor, Legarda said ACB’s recognition as an international organization will enable it to continue its role as a major partner of the Philippines and other ASEAN Member States in conserving biodiversity and in complying with the country’s commitments to various multilateral environment agreements.

Legarda explained that climate change can cause a two to three-degree Celsius rise in global temperature, which may lead to a three-percent decline in the global gross domestic product and a 30-percent risk of extinction of Philippine biodiversity in 50 years to 100 years.

“Biodiversity protection would reduce this risk,” she said. She added that protecting biodiversity would leave a legacy to future generations. She also called for the ACB to financially and technically assist the Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) to preserve the region’s wide variety of coral species and fish.

The Coral Triangle supports the largest tuna fisheries in the world, which generates billions of dollars in global income every year. Its healthy reef systems buffer coastal communities from cyclones and tsunamis.

ACB started as the ASEAN Regional Center for Biodiversity Conservation (ARCBC) Project, a joint undertaking of the Philippines, ASEAN, and the European Union from 1999 to 2004. ARCBC was co-managed by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and was acknowledged as the first regional initiative that critically addressed the Philippines’ and ASEAN’s rich but highly threatened biodiversity.

Recognizing the need to sustain the momentum made by the project and responding to the call for a permanent regional institution that would reinforce national conservation efforts, the ASEAN Member States agreed to establish the ASEAN Center for Biodiversity in 2005. The Philippines won the bid to host the new ASEAN regional center of excellence and was the first country to ratify ACB’s Establishment Agreement.

The decision of ASEAN to institutionalize the ACB was lauded by many international and multilateral bodies, led by the European Union, prompting them to commit resources that will pave the way for the complete establishment of ACB as a regional intergovernmental institution.

(Story courtesy of PNA Feature)

[jpdm]

Lessons from recession

By SENATOR MANNY VILLAR
September 22, 2009, 6:06pm
Manila Bulletin


The global recession is subsiding, and recovery is on the horizon.

Even if this observation by economic observers is true, it should not be an invitation to complacency. That the collapse of the world economy has been averted through a number of interventions by the leaders of the stronger economics does not mean that things are back to normal.

The worldwide financial turbulence has definitely altered the global economic landscape. As old familiar models failed, new approaches should be explored.

We certainly hope that the economic crisis that adversely affected so many countries will not happen again.

Prudence suggests that we should learn from the experiences of those who have suffered most and draw valuable lessons from others who have fared well. There is need to design our own roadmap.

What should be the premises of a new strategy of our economic development?

An export-driven economic policy needs a comprehensive review.

We cannot be too dependent on the dynamics of world trade. A sudden weakening in the economies of traditional trading partners directly imperils our export sector. A drastic drop in demand for our exports translates to high inventories, production slowdowns and retrenchment.

A most logical response is to give greater focus on stimulating domestic demand. Our present population level of 90 million should be a good consumer base.

To increase the level of consumption spending, there is a need to improve the disposable income of a large majority of Filipinos. This means sustained job creation and the expansion of income-generating opportunities.

Here is where the active promotion of the development of small business enterprises becomes an urgent priority concern not only of government at every level but also of all stakeholders.

We must develop more entrepreneurs until a point of critical mass is reached when entrepreneurism becomes part of our national culture.

Entrepreneurism is more than running an enterprise. It is more than putting together the nuts and bolts of any business regardless of nature and size. It is essentially a creative spirit in action. It is a sense of self-reliance. It is seeing an opportunity to make something positive out of any challenge.

If we really look inward, we shall find the strength and the resolve to move forward.

There is a vast reservoir of human energy waiting to be tapped.

[Sleepwalker]

From time to time, it is very heartwarming to read some news about little good things that some Pinoy do.

Awareness and proper education is really one of the key in improving our status. After all, our government is a government by the people.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by regjeex

Bullet-ridden eagle found in Agusan Sur

DAVAO CITY, Philippines—A bullet-ridden Philippine Eagle was found in Trento town, Agusan Del Sur early this week, a conservation group said on Thursday.

Richard Bautista, communication officer of Philippine Eagle Foundation (PEF), said the badly injured endangered Philippine Eagle (Pithecophaga jefferyii) was discovered by farmer Nenito Tabana in Pangan village on September 21.

Tabana, he said, immediately endorsed the eagle to Trento Mayor Irenea Hitgano, who turned it over to the staff of PEF who arrived the following day.

Bautista said the initial assessment was that the eagle has a “slim chance of survival” but the team of veterinary experts at the PEF conservation and rehabilitation center in Malagos district here are not about to give up.

The gender of the eagle has yet to be known; it is also believed to be around 9 years old.

An x-ray examination revealed that the eagle now named as Pangyan (derived from the village) has two gun pellets embedded inside its body, an inch deep from the shoulders.

Bautista said its two legs were also badly fractured and it is still unable to open its right eye.

When it was endorsed to the foundation, Bautista said the eagle’s legs were wrapped with electrical tape plastered on some leaves.

He said it meant that there was attempt to cure it.

“When we retrieved the eagle, it was passive, which means that it had been in contact with humans for some time already. Normally these wild birds are aggressive,” Bautista said.

He said the team of scientists working on the treatment also believes that the bird has a mate.

As to who may have shot the bird and caused its injury, the PEF and DENR authorities are still investigating, Bautista said.

Under Republic Act (RA) 9147 or the Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act, persons harming Philippine Eagles could be imprisoned for 12 years.

The Philippine Eagle is an endangered species.