Anachronistic
By Antonio C. Abaya

The topic assigned to me was “Defeating the Communist insurgency.”

But I told my audience last Friday, Nov. 21, that talking about “defeating the Communist insurgency” was anachronistic because Communism itself has become anachronistic.

My audience was composed of military officers, local government officials, and representatives of various government agencies, taking a five-day seminar on national security at Camp Aguinaldo under the direction of the National Defense College of the Philippines.

Our neighbors in East and Southeast Asia had defeated their Communist insurgencies decades ago, by taking draconian measures against their insurgents: Malaysia and Singapore, by using their Internal Security Act (ISA), inherited from the British colonial government, which gave both governments the right to throw in jail, indefinitely and without trial, anyone suspected of being a Communist or a Communist sympathizer; South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand – confrontational states vis-à-vis North Korea and Maoist China - by crushing the Communist movements in their territories during their periods of military rule in the 70s and 80s; Indonesia by a bloodbath against the Parti Komunis Indonesia which had tried to grab power by machine-gunning to death almost the entire military high command in Halim Air Base outside Jakarta in September 1965. Estimates vary from 300,000 to two million on the number of suspected Communists and Communist sympathizers summarily executed by the military in their counter-coup.

But to use such draconian measures now against our Communist insurgents would no longer be fashionable and would just make this country an international pariah, and would dry up investments and official development aid..

Even before the first decade of the 21st century, Communism has faded as a global threat, having imploded from the accumulated weight of its own failures.

In 1989, millions of East Europeans – Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, etc – literally walked out on their Communist regimes in a spontaneous, leaderless and largely bloodless (except in Romania) civil revolt, People Power in its purest form, that forced their Communist governments to resign.

In 1991, a similar civil revolt broke out in Moscow, primed by the glasnost and perestroika reforms of Mikhail Gorbachev and inspired by the defiance of the Eastern Europeans. The 15-state Union of Soviet Socialist Republics collapsed and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was even outlawed, ironically in the very country where the first Communist revolution had triumphed, only to be restored months later.

Since 1979, Maoism as the definitive national ideology was slowly and systematically dismantled in China by the pragmatic Deng Xiaoping, who restored capitalism and the profit motive, a counter-revolutionary transformation which propelled China to the status of an economic super-power in less than 30 years.

Communism is dead. The only Communists left in Europe are two Filipinos: Jose Ma. Sison and Luis Jalandoni. And even Joma has admitted that the victory of Communism, once considered by its gibbering true believers as inevitable and imminent, would now take “hundreds of years.” (See my article ‘Hundreds of Years’ of Nov. 14, 2006, archived in www.tapatt.org.)

But why is there still a Communist insurgency in the Philippines?

Largely because of the failure of successive Philippine presidents, from Marcos to Arroyo, to build an export-oriented economy. And also due to the failure of these same presidents to conceptualize and articulate a Better Idea. Communism is an Idea. To defeat it, one must have a Better Idea.

In my article Why Are We Poor? of Dec. 14, 2004 and subsequent articles, all archived in www.tapatt.org, I listed down the economic missteps that successive Philippine governments committed in the past fifty years.

One. The passage of the Minimum Wage Law in the late 1950s, which discouraged American companies from locating their factories in the Philippines. They located them instead in Taiwan and Hong Kong because wages there were lower (believe it or not) than here and there was no statutory minimum wage.

Two. In the 1970s, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong (then a British colony) geared their economies towards the export of manufactured goods. The Philippines did not, content as we were with import substitution.

Three. In the 1980s, Malaysia, Thailand and Suharto’s Indonesia followed the original Four Asian Tigers above in gearing their economies towards the export of manufactured goods. The Philippines did not. What few export industries Marcos managed to set up were deliberately wrecked by the Communist KMU unions which staged strike after strike against them, until their owners got fed up and moved their factories to other countries.

When I started writing a column in 1987, I kept on hammering on the theme of export—oriented industries, but President Aquino and her group of allegedly 50 advisers ignored my counsel. It was President Ramos in 1992 onwards who seriously went into export industries., but by then it was too late: China was emerging as the dominant producer and exporter of manufactured goods. (FVR himself told me that he kept a file of my articles, which was confirmed by an American academic who was researching on the Philippine military.)

Four. President Ramos worked at cross purposes with his own export initiative by accepting the advice of Opus Dei economists Jess Estanislao and Bernie Vilegas, who pushed for an accelerated embrace of free trade and globalization, even ahead of fully developed South Korea and Taiwan. The resultant flood of imports drowned local producers, causing them to stop or reduce operations, forcing millions of Filipino workers to look for work overseas.

Five. In the 1990s, the Philippines failed to ride the tourism boom, just as we had failed to ride the export boom earlier. In 1991, Indonesia and the Philippines had exactly the same number of tourist arrivals :one million. In 2007, Indonesia had six million; we managed only three million. (Malaysia had 16 million, Thailand 13 million).

Six. The Philippines failed to manage its population growth. In the 1970s, Thailand and the Philippines had the same population size, 45 million. Because it had an active and successful population management program, Thailand’s population grew to only 65 million in 2007, while the Philippines’, which did not have one, grew to 89 million.

By any yardstick, it is easier to feed, clothe, house, educate and provide jobs for 65 million people than for 89 million.

Prosperity is about jobs. Let us not even talk about South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore because they are so far ahead of us, having embarked on the export of manufactured goods as far back as the 1970s. In 2006, South Korea’s exports totaled $326 billion, Taiwan’s $216 billion, Singapore’s $283.7 billion.

Let’s talk of Malaysia, whose exports in 2006 totaled $158.7 billion, compared to the Philippines’ $47.2 billion, or a difference of $111.5 billion. If we follow the rule of thumb that one billion dollars worth of exports create 100,000 manufacturing jobs, we can conclude that our failure in exports cost us about 11 million foregone jobs.

And consider also that in 2007, Malaysia attracted 16 million tourists, compared to our three million, or a difference of 13 million. If we follow the rule of thumb that one million tourists create 100,000 tourism-related jobs, we can conclude that our failure in tourism cost us another 1.3 million foregone jobs.

So our combined failures in exports and tourism cost us 12.3 million foregone jobs, one and a half times the number of Filipinos forced to work overseas because they could not find jobs here. It is the difference between prosperity and poverty and explains why a Communist insurgency continues to fester here, long after Communism became anachronistic. (To be concluded) *****

Reactions to tonyabaya@gmail.com. Other articles in www.tapatt.com and in acabaya.blogspot.com.