Everyone knows about fair-weather friends. Now President Noynoy Aquino is learning the hard way about fair-weather political allies (and even subordinates) in his single-minded defense of his beloved, beleaguered national police chief.
Let’s start with the most prominent missing person these days, who is, ironically, the official most often accused of political “epal,” that not-so-endearing trait that makes politicians jostle to always be in the middle of things, whether it’s the headline news or just a town fiesta. Yes, Interior Secretary Mar Roxas has seemingly taken a vow of silence just when he should be front and center because his job requires it.
By rights, Roxas should be leading the effort to look into allegations that his lineal subordinate, Director General Alan Purisima, enriched himself by securing huge discounts on land, houses and SUVs. But after saying in the beginning of the controversy that he would order a lifestyle check on the national police chief, nothing more has been heard from Roxas.
And Roxas has never shied away from free publicity before, whether that required tipping off the media that he would be cursing at a protest rally or issuing photo releases of himself awkwardly driving a pedicab, hoisting a sack or rice on his shoulder or even hammering a nail into a wooden school desk. But on the issue of Purisima, Roxas has gone both mute and invisible, forcing Malacañang Palace to keep regurgitating the line that Aquino continues to trust the police chief and will not even investigate him.
Roxas can argue that since Aquino has taken over Purisima’s case, he can no longer insinuate himself into it like some unwanted photobomber. But that is a disingenuous defense because Roxas, if he really wanted to stop Aquino from looking like a fool protecting Purisima, should actually take the lead in exonerating the police chief as DILG secretary.
As it is, Roxas has joined the legions of supposed staunch political allies of Aquino in keeping a studied silence about the embattled police chief, leaving the defense of Purisima to the President and his mealy-mouthed spokesmen. And it’s clear that no one among the President’s allies in the Executive or in Congress wants to join Aquino in defending his longtime security aide, apparently because they are afraid to be tarred by the same corrupt brush that was used to paint Purisima.
But the silence of Roxas, who is both the general’s immediate boss and Aquino’s supposed most trusted ally and defender in the Cabinet, is the most traitorous of all. And Aquino, if he has not totally lost his mind in his defense of Purisima, must have noticed that he is going it alone in defending the corruption-tainted general who used to protect him.
No Cabinet member, senator, congressman or even Liberal Party leader wants to have anything to do with Purisima —something that speaks volumes not only about the guilt of the general but also of the fickle loyalty of Aquino’s supposed allies. And Roxas, the man who seeks nothing but Aquino’s anointing and support “to continue the reforms” after 2016, will not even touch the general with the proverbial 10-foot pole, for fear of smearing himself with the nasty stuff that’s been covering both Purisima and Aquino.
* * *
One of the latest strategies being considered by government revenue planners and anti-tobacco advocates is the setting of minimum retail prices for cigarettes. The theory behind setting minimum prices looks good on paper, because it will supposedly raise government revenue and reduce cigarette consumption.
In practice, it gets a bit more complicated than that. The setting of minimum prices for tobacco products has only been proven, in countries where it has been tried, to encourage smuggling while not affecting the volume of cigarette consumption.
Minimum selling prices will only aid tax evaders, who will merely continue selling smuggled cigarettes at very low prices, leaving tax-compliant manufacturers to abide with mandated minimum prices. Overall consumption will also not diminish but government revenues will suffer as consumption shifts to illicit products.
In 2010, the European Union banned the setting of minimum prices for cigarettes in Austria, Ireland, and France because the scheme undermined the freedom of manufacturers and importers to determine the selling prices of their products and, correspondingly, free competition. The EU stated that for the protection of public health, higher price levels may be adequately attained by increased taxation, with the increases reflected in an increase in the retail selling price.
Malaysia also set minimum prices for cigarettes in 2010, but witnessed a surge in the entry and sale of smuggled cigarettes selling below the legal prices. Surveys indicated that illegal cigarettes have cornered almost 40 percent of the entire market, denying the government billions in lost tax revenue.
The real issue here is stopping tax evasion and not requiring all cigarette manufacturers to pay the proper taxes, not setting artificial minimum prices that only encourage smuggle and lose revenue for government. The challenge is fighting smuggling and collecting the right taxes, which cannot be remedied by employing some fake magic bullet.
No comments:
Post a Comment