|
OUR headline yesterday, “Diesel price to go
down,” highlights the recent issuance by President Arroyo to
reduce oil tariffs by one percent. That move is the state’s
contribution to help ease the impact of record-high world crude
prices on consumers.
Now comes the question: What is
the contribution of the giant oil firms in making the life of Juan
de la Cruz a bit easier during this time? Nothing—as far as we can
see.
The oil firms operating in the
Philippines will continue to make profits, even while the nation
suffers. The recent rise in the international price of crude won’t
change their profit margins. These firms may even make more profits
incrementally.
The recent announcement about oil
price increases has exposed the nature of Filipino politicians.
Instead of asking all sectors to join making the sacrifice, they
make demands on our already weak state. Hence, you would hear
senators talking about sacrificing the EVAT and the oil tariffs for
the sake of cushioning the impact of the increases.
But do they call on the oil firms
to make the corresponding sacrifice? The answer is no and the reason
is obvious. These politicians would rather call on the state to make
the sacrifice, rather than those making profit out of the oil
business. They would rather see deficit come to our government,
rather than incur the ire of the powerful oil firms.
It is our hope that the
contributions to the crisis by the oil firms would be discussed in
the forthcoming oil summit called by the President. They should
repay us for allowing them to make profits in the local market. They
should be thankful for our hospitality. After all, we have not taken
the option of nationalizing them as other Third World nations have
done. We have even sold them our hope of influencing prices—the
majority share in Petron.
As we enter this oil crisis
predicted by the experts some years back, let us be guided by the
need for burden-sharing. Everybody should help—the state, the
private sector and the people. The government has done its part,
although it can still do some more. It’s time for the other
sectors to contribute.
Wrong start for ID plan
There is something wrong about
the packaging of the proposal for the imposition of a national
identification system for Filipinos. The proposal came the other day
wrapped around the counterinsurgency campaign of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines. With our experience with martial law, the idea is
definitely unacceptable.
To human rights lawyers like Sen.
Joker Arroyo, the idea will violate individual rights. To Sen.
Miriam Defensor Santiago, the proposal has to be approved by
Congress. To Sen. Chiz Escudero, the ID is impractical since we
already have a multicard system, with the Philhealth card as the
main identification.
Looking back, former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos must have known the national psyche since he
never tried coming up with a national ID during martial law when he
had both executive and legislative powers. To Marcos, there was no
relation between the counterinsurgency and the need for a common ID.
Our people are obviously divided
on the wisdom of an ID. Let it be debated in media and Congress. But
we should remember this: If we should have an ID, we should go
beyond the counterinsurgency arguments.
Remembering Adrian
Over the past weeks, we
have read many pieces about the late Mr. Adrian Cristobal, a
columnist of the Manila Bulletin and former publisher of the Manila
Times. But to me and a few people during martial law, he was a peace
broker who tried to bring the National Democratic Front and the
government to a dialogue.
Sometime in 1974, the Marcos
government publicly called for a reduction in the lease of the US
military bases, from 100 years to 25 years. Thinking that Marcos was
“veering towards the Left” or “taking a nationalist line,” a
National Democratic Front official wrote Adrian, asking if there was
any meaning to Marcos’s move.
The NDF official (of course, he
was making the letter unofficially) proposed the possibility of
holding exploratory talks with the government based on an
anti-imperialist alliance. I learned later that Adrian discussed the
letter with Marcos personally—and for a while it looked like a
dialogue was possible.
In the subsequent review of the
bases treaty during that year, Marcos was able to shorten the lease
of the bases to 25 years. But the talks did not push through. The
face-to-face talks between the communists and the government
materialized only during the first year of the Cory government.
|
