A Negrense Philippine Senator ?

A Negrense Philippine Senator?

 Undoubtedly, the recent united stand of most politicians from Negros Occidental in supporting Rep. Albee Benitez for the Senate in the coming 2016 elections is a welcome development for most Negrenses.  Notably joining the call were Governor Alfredo Maranon, Vice Governor Bong Lacson, Districts Congressmen, component cities and municipal mayors and Bacolod City Mayor Monico Puentevella. The eventual election of a Senator from the province will serve as a “shot in the arm” for the people of Negros Island as a whole.

Philippine history archives exhibited that there were several Negrense Senators in the Legislature of the Philippine Senate that represented the 8^th District comprising Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, Antique and Palawan. Among them were Esperidion Guanco (1916 -1925), Mariano Yulo (1925-1929), Francisco Zulueta (1929 – 34), Gil Montilla (1934-35). Guanco and Zulueta are natives of Iloilo while Yulo and Montilla were from Negros.

On the Senate term of the Philippine Commonwealth from 1942-46, Negrenses Ramon Torres and Jose Yulo were elected in 1941.

In the First Congress of the Republic of the Philippines, Enrique B. Magalona Sr. from Saravia was elected as Senator. He was re-elected in 1949 for a new term from 1950-1953. In the 3^rd Congress,  Silay’s Jose C. Locsin was elected as Senator for his only term from 1954 – 1957 thus reputed as the last Negrense to be elected to the Philippines Senate.    

Subsequently, Jose Yulo of Bago City run for President in the general election in 1957 but lost to Carlos P. Garcia who was from the small province of Bohol. Yulo’s Candidate for Vice President, Diosdado Macapagal won however.  In the same election, Jose C. Locsin, who ran for reelection as Senator, missed the last 8^th slot by a heartbeat, losing to the winning candidate Cipriano Primicias by a very slim margin.  

 In more recent elections, several Negrenses have attempted to become Senators but were not successful for many reasons. One question that may come up to one’s inquisitive mind is the questionable unity of the voting public of the province to provide all out support for its own candidates for national positions.

Bacolod native and lawyer Wilson P. Gamboa  Sr., a former Bacolod city councilor, Assemblyman and Secretary of Land Reform joined the 1987 Senatorial election under the GAD-Unido party. With 24 Senate seats for contention due to the change into a unicameral system, Gamboa placed no. 40 among 84 candidates. The Lakas ng Bayan LABAN bets won 22 out of the 24 seats and only 2 candidates from GAD won, Joseph Estrada and Juan Ponce Enrile.

Another promising Negrense who was a potential Senator was the late Frank Chavez who hailed from Sagay City. Equipped with impeccable academic achievements and national prominence, Chavez was the youngest Philippines Solicitor General, youngest Bar Examiner and TOYM awardee, among many accolades, failed to land a slot in the Senatorial races in 1999 and 2004. In the 2004 Senatorial elections, Chavez got 4,286,838 votes and ranked 23^rd among 48 candidates.  It is sad to note though that Negrense Chavez was not able to get the support of his province mates. The votes that he garnered (301,898) was far lesser than the votes gotten by non- Negrense candidates, Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Pia Cayetano, Bong Revilla, Richard Gordon, John Osmena, Aquilino Pimentel, and Mar Roxas.

While the province of Iloilo supported their own candidate Miriam Defensor-Santiago, making her  no. 1 in her home province Iloilo, Negrense Frank Chavez ranked only no. 8 in Negros Occidental.  Whoa ! Whoa!  How frustrating indeed!

Ironically, in the same elections, popular candidates with mediocre qualifications like Bong Revilla, Jinggoy Estrada and Lito Lapid won Senatorial seats in the 2004 election. It is quite true, “politics is funnier in the Philippines.”

Atty. Alexander L. Lacson is another Negrense who, despite outstanding qualifications, failed to hurdle the 2010 Senatorial elections. Schooled in the Philippine Military Academy, UP Diliman and Harvard Law School, Lacson is a native of Kabankalan, Negros Occidental. Winner of numerous awards such as the Galing Pilipino Award, Young Pilipino Achievers Award, and Good Pilipino Award, among others Lacson is also a law lecturer, author and philanthropist.

In the final tabulation, Alex Lacson garnered 5,242,594 votes and ranked 22^nd among the 61 senatorial candidates. Lacson’s showing in the election can be considered a good one for a candidate without campaign funds and a first attempt in national politics. Another Negrense candidate in the same election was former Congressman Apolinario Lozada, who ranked lower than Alex Lacson, at 29. Most notably, their defeats made many shake their heads taking into account that, again, popular entertainers/movie actors with less qualifications and with mediocre performances as incumbent Senators Bong Revilla (No. 1), Jinggoy Estrada and Lito Lapid were among the 12 winners.. Again, politics is funnier in the Philippines.

Are Pilipinos cursed by the gods to have these nincompoops as Senators over and over again? Or are Pilipinos too immature and indifferent as voters to consistently make bad choices in their political leaders? Mama Mia!  (At the time of this writing, Estrada and Revilla are now in jail for accusation of plunder)

While in the past the Philippines had taken pride in its dignified and intellectual Senators, the parliamentarian of today is a direct contrast. Gone are the Senate days of Claro M. Recto, Ferdinand Marcos, Amang Rodriguez, Sergio Osmena, Manuel Manahan, Cipriano Primicias, Ambrosio Padilla, Lorenzo Tanada, Arturo Tolentino, Gil Puyat, Francisco SOC Rodrigo, Lorenzo Sumulong,  Jose W. Diokno, Benigno Aquino, Tecla Andres-Ziga and Emmanuel Pelaez, among many other elite statesmen. Today, the Philippine electorate had voted sports idols, movie actors and TV personalities and sons, daughters, brother, sisters and relatives of political dynasties. From movie actor Joseph Estrada, wife Loi, sons Jinggoy and JV Ejercito, Ramon Reviila Sr. and Bong Revilla, Rene Cayetano, son Alan Peter and daughter Pia, the Dictator’s son, Bongbong Marcos, VP Jejomar Binay’s daughter Nancy Binay, Actor Lito Lapid, TV personalities Noli de Castro, Loren Legarda, Tito Sotto and Orlando Mercado, to name a few.

Maybe it is high time to have a Senator from Negros Occidental considering that Iloilo has already made a big headway in having its own Senators namely Fernando Lopez, Roding Ganzon, Teopisto Guingona Jr. Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Franklin Drilon. Even former Senator Manuel Villar has his roots from Iloilo.

Although winning in the Philippine election requires being in a major political party, national prominence and most importantly loads of money and

In order to ensure the success of Cong. Alfredo “Albee” Benitez in his bid for Senator in 2016, it becomes imperative for Negrenses to put their act together and abandon the much vaunted “crab mentality ” prevalent among us, especially the politicians.

Rogelio G. Balo

Central Valley, CA USA

Nov. 4, 2014 

 

 

MANFREDO P. ALIPALA .. Unheralded and Forgotten Bacolod Sports Hero

MANFREDO P. ALIPALA –UNHERALDED AND  FORGOTTEN BACOLOD SPORTS HERO

I am dedicating this article to an old friend and fellow Bacolod native, the late MANFREDO P. ALIPALA. Although his achievements in amateur boxing in the Philippines and Asia have brought pride and fame to Bacolod City, it pains me to think that there was not even a recognition and appropriate honor bestowed by the Bacolod local government to a forgotten hero. I am filled with regrets that, having been an appointed as a high ranking city government official for almost 8 years, I failed to initiate a move to acknowledge a friend and fellow Bacoleno’s outstanding contribution to the fields of both amateur and professional boxing. For appeasement, I tried to convince myself that my failure to do so was due to my hectic and heavy workloads as a former Secretary to the Mayor and later City Administrator with concurrent job positions as BCC President/College Administrator, Chairman of Local Finance Committee, and Regional Development Council Representative, among others.

For this reason, even as a private citizen now based in a foreign land, I will try my best to make this right by seeking the help of current Bacolod City officials to distinguish the first Bacolod native to win the (only) Gold Medal in amateur boxing in the 1962 Asian Games in Jakarta, Indonesia and the first Olympian from Bacolod to represent the Philippines in amateur boxing to the 1964 Olympic Games in Tokyo, Japan.   

As far as my memory could serve me, Manfredo P. Alipala became my friend sometime in June 1959.  Aside from residing in the same place called then “Barrio Obrero” and now Barangay “Villamonte” in Bacolod City, we also went to the same school, West Negros College WNC (now WNU).  

At 5’8’ and taller than most Filipinos in those days, “Noning” as we fondly called him, was a handsome and mild mannered guy with a physique that would easily earn envy from other young men and adoration from the young ladies on and off campus. Although “Noning” was a little older than me and taking a different course in WNC, we, together with other friends (Eli Hilado, Erning Abrico, Denny Yunque) would spend hours in the campus bench and ogle at the passing campus beauties during our vacant classes. I can still remember one incident when a ‘drunken’ student approached our group and started shouting invectives at us. Out of fear, we kept our silence until “Noning” came. After seeing him, the intoxicated bully’s face turned ashen and looking scared, hurriedly went away.     

Our friendship remained close until I finished my general 2-year course in Engineering in 1960. Since WNC then was only offering the first 2 years of the 5-year engineering course, I went to Manila to pursue the last 3 years major in Mechanical Engineering at FEATI Institute of Technology (now University.) While in Manila, I learned from a mutual friend, Eli Hilado, who was then enrolled in civil engineering at National University, that Noning became a member of the amateur boxing team of FEU. That time, the amateur team of FEU, was a formidable boxing squad that dominated both the UAAP competitions and national boxing team tryouts. Noning, with his top physical condition, boxing skills and “fearless” attitude easily became a mainstay of the team composed of young and talented boxers under the tutelage of reputable amateur boxing Coach Aling Enriquez. Among the mainstays of FEU were Dominador Calumarde, Rodolfo Arpon, Catalino Arpon, Eginio Grafia and Jose Ramirez, among others.

Manfredo Alipala’s biggest international success was in winning boxing’s gold medal in the welterweight category  in the 1962 4^th Asian Games in Jakarta, Indonesia, the first Filipino to do the feat.

As the best amateur welterweight boxer in the whole Asia in half a decade, Noning was selected to the Philippine national boxing team to the 1964 Tokyo Olympics.  To add prestige to his status as an outstanding amateur boxer of the country, Noning was chosen to be the flag bearer of the whole Philippine contingent to the said Olympics. The Philippines basketball team then was bannered by Robert Jaworski, Adriano Papa, Danny Florencio, Boy Arazas, Renato Reyes, Ed Ocampo, and Rogelio Melencio, among others.  Although he won his first bout in the 1964 Olympics by defeating Khalid Al-Karkhi of Iraq, unfortunately Noning lost to Kichijiro Hamada of Japan, whom he beat in the 1962 Asian Games for the gold medal.

 It is worthwhile remembering that in the same Olympic, another Filipino amateur boxer, 19 year-old Anthony Villanueva, won the Olympic silver medal in a controversial loss to eventual gold medalist, Russian Stanislav Stepashkin in their featherweight final bout.

Later in his boxing career, after turning into a professional boxer, Noning has fought against Filipino boxing champions such as Eduardo Canete, Fil Ravalo anad Phil Robinson, among others. His professional boxing campaign in the welterweight and middleweight class included Oriental and World title bouts for the OPBF Middleweight Championship against Korean champion Ki-Soo Kim in 1968 and Light welterweight champion Paul Fuji (Takeshi Fujii) of Hawaii in 1969.. Although he never won a championship boxing title, “Noning” was considered by World Champion Paul Haji as a tough contender for the welterweight world title. 

 After retiring from professional boxing, “Noning” reportedly joined the Philippine Sports Commission and worked as a consultant with that agency.

In a short biography by Wikipedia, Manfredo “Noning” P. Alipala was born on October 25, 1938 and died on October 8, 2006 at the age of 67. His listed residence was Barangay San Roque, Tarlac City, Tarlac.

Note. I hope that there are readers of this article who have known Noning Alipala, especiallyhis relatives and old residents of Barangay Villamonte, Bacolod City through Barangay Captain Friday Solinap, who can assist  in calling the attention of our City Mayor Monico Puentevella, an athlete himself, to bestow the much needed recognition to my late friend’s achievements in amateur boxing. Thank you in advance.

Oct. 20, 2014

Central Valley, California USA

 

 

 

 

The Many Faces of Manny Pacquiao

THE MANY FACES OF MANNY PACQUIAO

World’s Boxing Icon

Undoubtedly, the name of Emmanuel "Manny" Dapidran Pacquiao will remain in the world’s sports history as one of the most revered and exciting prizefighter in the field of boxing. 

Before the surge of Manny Pacquiao in the world of pugilists , boxing history books has recorded 2 other prominent Filipino prizefighters who stamped their niches in the international boxing scene.

The Golden Eras of Philippine Boxing

*The First Golden Era

Francisco Guilledo a native of Ilog, South Negros Occidental and more commonly known in boxing circle as Pancho Villa was the first Filipino who carved the Philippines name in the international boxing map.  After winning local boxing fights, Pancho Villa  was invited to fight in the United States and captured the 1922 American Flyweight championship by an 11^th round knockout over incumbent champion Johnny Buff. Villa would later win the World Flyweight Champion on June 1923, coming from a knockout of Jimmy Wilde in the 7^th round, after knocking down the Welshman in the 4^th and 5^th rounds, resulting to Wilde’s retirement from boxing. The Filipino World Flyweight Champion successfully defended his title several times and never relinquished it until his death just two years later in 1925 at a young age of 23. Villa was inducted into the International Hall of Fame and added to the Ring Magazine own Boxing Hall of Fame. Only 5 foot 1 inch tall and weighing no more than 114 lbs., Francisco Guilledo, acclaimed by many  quarters as "the greatest Asian fighter in boxing history "recorded a total of 92 wins, (23 by knockouts), 9 losses and 4 draws.

*The Second Golden Era

Gabriel “Flash” Elorde was another Filipino professional boxer who won the World Junior Lightweight Championship in 1960 by knocking out Harold Gomes in the 7^th round. In 1963, Elorde was declared as WBC and WBA champion and held the junior lightweight division record for 7 years, the longest title reign on record. He defended the crown 10 times until June 15, 1967 where he lost a majority decision to Yoshiaki Numata. He was much loved in the Philippines as a sports and cultural icon, being the first Filipino international boxing champion since Francisco Guilledo (Pancho Villa). Elorde retired with a record of 88 wins (33 KOs), 27 losses and 2 draws and was named "the greatest world junior lightweight boxing champion in WBC history" in 1974. A chain smoker, Elorde died of lung cancer at the age of 49. Elorde was inducted to the International Hall of Fame.

After the golden era of Gabriel “Flash” Elorde, there were many other Filipino boxers who prominently made their marks in international boxing as world champions albeit in short-lived fashion. Among them were Roberto Cruz, Pedro Adigue Jr., René Barrientos,  Bernabe Villacampo,  Erbito Salavarria,  Ben Villaflor, Rolando Navarrrete,  Frank Cedeno, Dodie Boy Penalosa, Rolando Bohol and  Luisito Espinosa.

 

*The Third Golden Era

The Philippines was not considered a formidable stable for world boxing champions until an obscure Filipino pugilist with a blonde-dyed hair and flame trimmed trunks named Manny Pacquiao came into the boxing world. As an entertaining star of a local boxing program “Blow-by-Blow”,  Pacquiao's name was an attraction both to the audience and tele-viewers not only because of his aggressive style, but more on his unique appearances and catchy surname. Then, nobody had thought that Pacquiao would pave the way for the third greatest era of Philippine boxing and a new wave of Filipino boxers.

Wikipedia recorded that “On December 4, 1998, Pacquiao upset Thai Champion Chatchai Sasakul in Thailand to win the WBC Flyweight Championship (his first world title). On his title defense, Pacquiao lost his title on the scale and was knocked out in the fight by Medgoen Singsurat of Thailand. Pacquiao was unable to the make flyweight limit and move to super bantamweight division. Pacquiao, for the second time in his career, was the heavy underdog against South African Lehlohonolo Ledwaba, the reigning IBF Super Bantamweight Champion. On June 23, 2001, Pacquiao won his second world title in 2 different weight divisions. In 2003, Pacquiao's career rose to its peak as he stopped the then reigning The Ring Featherweight champion Marco Antonio Barrera of Mexico via 11th round technical knockout. From then on, Pacquiao has acquired 3 lineal (The Ring) titles and four major (WBC & IBF) world titles along six different divisions- flyweight (112 lbs.), super bantamweight (122 lbs.), featherweight (126 lbs.), super featherweight (130 lbs.), lightweight (135 lbs.) and light welterweight (140 lbs.). On, November 14, 2009, Pacquiao surpassed Oscar De La Hoya's record of six-division titles by stopping WBO welterweight champion Miguel Angel Cotto to win his 11th title across seven divisions. A year later, he made history by being the first boxer ever to win 8 world titles in 8 weight divisions as he dominated Mexican slugger Antonio Margarito to win the vacant WBC Light Middleweight title. Since 2003, Pacquiao amassed a record of 16 wins, 1 loss and 1 draw in his last 18 fights (his only loss came against Mexican Erik Morales, whom he defeated 2-times all by knockouts in their trilogy). The Filipino fighter defeated some of the best oppositions available along the way to his superstardom including Mexicans Marco Antonio Barrera, Erik Morales, Juan Manuel Márquez and Antonio Margarito, British Ricky Hatton, Puerto Rican Miguel Cotto, and Americans Oscar De La Hoya and Shane Mosley.

Manny Pacquiao is the first and only 8-division world champion, in which he has won 11 world titles, as well as the first to win the lineal championship in 4 different weight classes. At one time, Manny was also listed the second highest paid athlete in the world.

Pacquiao was named "Fighter of the Decade" for the 2000’s by the Boxing Writers Association of America (BWAA), World Boxing Council (WBC) and World Boxing Organization (WBO). He is also a three-time “The Ring” and BWAA "Fighter of the Year," winning the award in multiple years ; in 2006, 2008 and 2009, and the Best Fighter ESPY Award in 2009 and 2011. Pacquiao was long rated as the best pound-for-pound boxer in the world by some sporting news and boxing websites, including ESPN, Sports Illustrated, Sporting Life, Yahoo! Sports, About.com, BoxRec and The Ring.

 * Wikipedia

 

The Pacquiao – Brandon Boxing Bout

True to most boxing aficionados forecasts, there was no doubt that Pacquiao will win against Rios. Every boxing fan would agree with me that Rios is notches down below the level of Pacquiao. Rios cannot be considered within the shades of Eric Morales, Marco Antonio Barrera, Juan Miguel Cotto, Antonio Margarito, Timothy Bradley, Ricky Hatton  and Juan Manuel Marquez, fighters whom Pacquiao made “mince meat” in his more than a decade of conquests of the world’s top ranked boxers.  

I have watched the Pacquiao - Rios fight on TV which I have recorded several times. Surely it was a dominating performance by Manny Pacquiao, winning almost every round of the whole bout. It was an overly unmatched fight with Rios desperately looking for a “lucky” punch in the later rounds. But Rios never made nor even a single threat to win over Pacquiao.

Out of curiosity, I reviewed the earlier recorded fights of Pacquiao against Cotto, Shane Mosley, Margarito and Marquez. Definitely the Pacquiao of the Rios fight is not the same Pacquiao in his earlier fights, not even a shade of his own “Pacman” self. Gone is the sting of the 1-2-3 combination punches that toppled down Barrera, Cotto, Victor Ortiz, and Margarito. Nowhere were the juggernaut cross-over left hooks that sent Ricky Hatton and Morales to the canvas, not aware of what happened. Once the deadliest “slayer” of top caliber prizefighters, reports confirmed that Pacquiao has not registered a “stoppage” victory for over 4 years.  More than that, Pacquiao endured back-to-back defeats last year against Tim Bradley and a shocking knockout by Juan Manuel Marquez in a span of a 19-year boxing career.  Is age catching up with Pacquiao?

According to the legendary boxing analyst Larry Merchant Pacquiao “ has eased up, his brute power of old slowly being diminished by the termite of age. For Merchant, nothing, not even a knockout win in the latter rounds, could have swept the age factor under the rug for Manny Pacquiao as the Filipino boxing hero announced his return with what pundits here, like the grizzled American, said was an unremarkable decision victory over Brandon Rios. “I would have loved to see him win by stoppage, but you can’t expect an old bull to kick harder than it used to,” said Merchant after the fight.  The grizzled American boxing guru had told the Inquirer on the eve of the fight that “it’s a fair assessment” to assume that Pacquiao, who will turn 35 next month, may have lost his aura of invincibility due to his advancing age. “Merchant thinks that Pacquiao, more than his phantom opponent Floyd Mayweather Jr.  is “a little bit past his prime” and that his disquieting knockout defeat to Juan Manuel Marquez almost a year ago unraveled a “certain decline.” “Usually, when (fighters) get beaten up or stopped when they’re older it’s a reflection of certain decline,” said the 81-year-old former reporter and television broadcaster,

Many believed, as I do, that  when great boxer like Pacquiao, at his peak and close to immortality,  is knocked out the savage way Pacquiao was, something essential  is lost and can never be regained.  Just the mere image of a fallen hero, face down hitting the canvas and seemed lifeless… exists forever, a constant reminder of the prizefighter's mortality.

After the Pacquiao-Rios fight, updated report showed Floyd Mayweather retaining his top best “pound for pound” boxer title, with 45-0 win loss record with 26 knockouts. Rounding the top 5 are Andre Ward, Guillermo Rigondeaux, Roman Gonzales and Sergio Martinez. Pacquiao is listed as no. 7  following his tormentor Juan Manuel Marquez at no. 6 and upcoming undefeated welterweight champion Danny Garcia at no. 8.  Even the recent win of Pacquiao over his former tormentor Timothy Bradley has not revived the reputation of Manny as a top “pound for pound” boxer and “most feared” opponent in the ring. With this in mind, how I wish the world could see Pacquiao fighting and winning against worthy opponents like Floyd Mayweather Jr, Marcus Maidana, and Danny Garcia, among others. Maybe a rematch bout against Miguel Cotto will be good for Pacquiao, in terms of regaining his sting as a top fighter in the boxing world. 

For us Filipinos, Pacquiao is our national hero. He is a world’s boxing icon who comes once in a lifetime that provides a glimmer of hope for the Philippines. The victory of Pacquiao over Rios and Timothy Bradley is a wisp of fresh air for the Filipinos, amidst the devastation of the super typhoon Yolanda and the DAP corruption scandals rocking the country for so long a time.   

Rogelio G. Balo

Central Valley, California USA

Sept. 20, 2014

 Part 2 – Pacquiao as a Entertainer, TV Show Anchor and Politician

Rogelio G. Balo

Central Valley, California USA

Sept. 17, 2014 (Originally written on Nov. 2013)

 

 

IS PRIVATIZATION A DESIRABLE PUBLIC POLICY?

 The above-titled article will highlight the evolution of “Privatization”, a public policy that pursued the movement to deregulate the private industry and transfer many government services, assets and functions to the private sector in the local, regional and national levels in the governments all over the hemisphere.  

A continuum of the this write-up  will focus on the privatization initiatives under taken by both local and national governments in the Philippines.

The term Privatization may have several meanings and interpretations.

 Wikipedia defines Privatization primarily “as the process of transferring ownership of a business, enterprise, agency, public service, or public property from the public sector (a government) to the private sector, either to a business that operates for a profit or to a non-profit organization. It may also mean government outsourcing of services or functions to private firms, e.g. revenue collection, law enforcement, and prison management.”

“Privatization has also been used to describe two unrelated transactions. The first is the buying of all outstanding shares of a publicly traded company by a single entity, making the company privately owned. This is often described as private equity. The second is a demutualization of a mutual organization or cooperative to form a joint-stock company.”

History of Privatization *

The history of privatization dates from Ancient Greece, when governments contracted out almost everything to the private sector. In the Roman Republic private individuals and companies performed the majority of services including tax collection (tax farming), army supplies (military contractors), religious sacrifices and construction. However, the Roman Empire also created state-owned enterprises—for example, much of the grain was eventually produced on estates owned by the Emperor. Some scholars suggest that the cost of bureaucracy was one of the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire.

Perhaps one of the first ideological movements towards privatization came during China's golden age of the Han Dynasty. Taoism came into prominence for the first time at a state level, and it advocated the laissez-faire principle of “wu wei”, literally meaning "do nothing". The rulers were counseled by the Taoist clergy that a strong ruler was virtually invisible.

During the Renaissance, most of Europe was still by and large following the feudal economic model. By contrast, the Ming dynasty in China began once more to practice privatization, especially with regards to their manufacturing industries. This was a reversal of the earlier Song dynasty policies, which had themselves overturned earlier policies in favor of more rigorous state control.

In Britain, the privatization of common lands is referred to as enclosure (in Scotland as the Lowland Clearances and the Highland Clearances). Significant privatizations of this nature occurred from 1760 to 1820, coincident with the industrial revolution in that country.

In more recent times, Winston Churchill's government privatized the British steel industry in the 1950s, and West Germany's government embarked on large-scale privatization, including selling its majority stake in Volkswagen to small investors in a public share offering in 1961. However, it was in the 1980s under the leaderships of Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the USA, that privatization gained worldwide momentum. Notable privatizations in the UK under Thatcher included British Airways (1987), British Petroleum (gradually privatized between 1979 and 1987), British Aerospace (1985 to 1987), British Gas (1986), Rover Group (formerly British Leyland; 1988), British Steel (1988), British Telecom (1984), Sealink ferries (1984), Rolls-Royce (1987) and the regional water authorities (mostly in 1989). After 1979, council house tenants in the UK were given the right to buy their homes; one million had done so by 1986.

In the United Kingdom,  this culminated in the 1993 privatization of British Rail under Thatcher's successor, John Major; British Rail having been formed by prior nationalization of private rail companies.

Privatization in Latin America flourished in the 1980s and 90's as a result of Western liberal economic policy. Public resources, including water management, transport systems and national telecommunication companies, were sold off to the private sector more rapidly than in almost any part of the world. In the 1990s, privatization revenue from 18 Latin American countries totaled 6% of gross domestic product or GDP.  Private investment in infrastructure, between 1990 and 2001, reached $360.5 billion, $150 billion more than the next emerging economy.[10] While the evaluation of privatization in Latin America by economists is generally favorable, opinion polls and public protests across the country suggest the vast majority of citizens are dissatisfied with or have negative views of privatization in the region.

Significant privatization of state owned enterprises in Eastern and Central Europe and the former Soviet Union was undertaken in the 1990s with assistance from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the German Treuhand, and other governmental and non-governmental organizations.

A major ongoing privatization is that of Japan Post, involves the Japanese post service and the largest bank in the world. This privatization, spearheaded by Junichiro Koizumi, started in 2007 following generations of debate. The privatization process is expected to last until 2017. Japan Post was the nation's largest employer and one third of all Japanese government employees worked for Japan Post. Japan Post was often said to be the largest holder of personal savings in the world. Japan Post was thought to be inefficient and a source for corruption. In September 2003, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's cabinet proposed splitting Japan Post into four separate companies: A bank, an insurance company, a postal service company, and a fourth company to handle the post offices as retail storefronts of the other three.

After the Upper House rejected privatization, Koizumi scheduled nationwide elections for September 11, 2005. He declared the election to be a referendum on postal privatization. Koizumi subsequently won this election, gaining the necessary supermajority and a mandate for reform, and in October 2005, the bill was passed to privatize Japan Post in 2007. Nippon Telegraph and Telephone's privatization in 1987 involved the largest share-offering in financial history at the time. 15 of the world's 20 largest public share offerings have been privatizations of telecoms.

In 1988, the Perestroika policy of Mikhail Gorbachev started allowing private enterprise in the previous centrally-planned and government-owned economy of the Soviet Union. This began a massive privatization of the Soviet economy over the next few years as the country dissolved. Other Eastern Bloc countries followed suit after the Revolutions of 1989 brought them non-Communist governments. Meanwhile, the largest public-share offering in France was France Télécom.

Egypt undertook widespread privatization under President Hosni Mubarak. After his overthrow in the 2011 revolution, the association of the newly private businesses with the crony capitalism of the old regime along with the new look at long-festering labor and police-state issues have led to calls for re-nationalization.”

 *(Source Wikipedia)

Outcomes of Privatization

“Literature reviews find that in competitive industries with well-informed consumers, privatization consistently improves efficiency. The more competitive the industry is, the greater the improvement in output, profitability, and efficiency.  Such efficiency gains mean a one-off increase in GDP, but through improved incentives to innovate and reduce costs also tend to raise the rate of economic growth. Although typically there are many costs associated with these efficiency gains, many economists argue that these can be dealt with by appropriate government support through redistribution and perhaps retraining. Yet, the empirical literature suggests that privatization could also have very modest effects on efficiency and quite regressive distributive impact. In a wide-ranging first attempt at a social welfare analysis of the British privatization program under the Conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, Massimo Florio points to the absence of any productivity shock resulting strictly from ownership change. Instead, the impact of the UK privatization program had surprisingly small effects on firms and most employees.”

“Privatizations in Russia and Latin America were accompanied by large-scale corruption during the sale of the state-owned companies. Those with political connections unfairly gained large wealth, which has discredited privatization in these regions. While media have reported widely the grand corruption that accompanied the sales, studies have argued that in addition to increased operating efficiency, daily petty corruption is, or would be, larger without privatization, and that corruption is more prevalent in non-privatized sectors. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that extralegal and unofficial activities are more prevalent in countries that privatized less.”

In Latin American, there is a discrepancy between the economic efficiency of privatization and the political/social ramifications that occur. On the one hand, economic indicators, including firm profitability, productivity and growth, project positive microeconomic results. On the other hand, however, these results have largely been met with a negative criticism and citizen coalitions. This neoliberal criticism highlights the on-going conflict between varying visions of economic development. Karl Polanyi emphasizes the societal concerns of self-regulating markets through a concept known as a "double movement". In essence, whenever societies move towards increasingly unrestrained, free-market rule, a natural and inevitable societal correction emerges to undermine the contradictions of capitalism. This was the case in the 2000 Cochabamba protests.

Privatization in Latin America has invariably experienced increasing push-back from the public. Some suggest that implementing a less efficient but more politically mindful approach could be more sustainable.

Pros and Cons of Privatization

“Studies show that private market factors can more efficiently deliver many goods or service than governments due to free market competition. Over time this tends to lead to lower prices, improved quality, more choices, less corruption, less red tape, and/or quicker delivery. Many proponents do not argue that everything should be privatized. According to them, market failures and natural monopolies could be problematic. However, anarcho-capitalists prefer that every function of the state be privatized, including defense and dispute resolution.”

Most proponents of privatization, mostly corrupt government officials, make the following arguments:

In terms of performance, government-run industries tend to be bureaucratic which considerably slow down the operations, made worse by the mismanagement of less qualified political appointees. A political government may only be motivated to improve its governance when its poor performance becomes politically sensitive that will affect the retention of their political power.

 Generally, private companies and firms have a greater incentive to produce more goods and services for the sake of reaching a customer base and hence increasing profits. Some of these incentives include profit sharing scheme, bonuses and other employees perks. While in public organizations, the insufficiency of funds is prevalent since fund allocations by the entire government's budget must also consider other public services of the economy.

A private business has the ability to focus all relevant human and financial resources onto specific functions resulting in specialization and improvements. while a state-owned firm does not have the necessary resources to specialize its goods and services as a result of the general products provided to the greatest number of people in the population. Most importantly, the government tends to  put to procrastinate on developments due to political sensitivity and personal interests.

A government monopoly of operations is highly susceptible to graft and corruption. The  decisions of government executives are made primarily for the personal gain of the decision-makers and political considerations, rather than economic reasons.. Corruption in  state-run corporations affect the ongoing asset stream and company performance, whereas any corruption that may occur during the privatization process is a one-time event and does not affect ongoing cash flow or performance of the company.  

In the issue of accountability, executives of privately owned companies are accountable to their owners/shareholders and to the public “consumer” and can only exist and thrive where objectives are achieved. Conversely, managers of publicly owned companies are required to be more accountable to the broader community and to political "stakeholders". This can reduce their ability to directly and specifically serve the needs of their customers, and can bias investment decisions away from otherwise profitable areas.

 A company controlled by the state may have access to information or assets which may be used against dissidents or any individuals who disagree with their policies. A political government tends to run an industry or company for political goals rather than economic targets.  Government- run industries are likewise prone to interference from politicians for political or populist reasons..

The proponents and protagonists of privatization extend their conflicting opinions in terms of security, capital, monopolies, job gains and state of the economy.

Rogelio G Balo

Sept. 10, 2014

Central Valley, California USA

 

PUBLIC SERVICES AS SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENTERPRISES (CONCLUSION)

PUBLIC SERVICES AS SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENTERPRISES (Conclusion)

Why Establish Socio-Economic Enterprises?

The establishment of socio-economic enterprises is governed by a policy outlined under sections 15 and 22 of the Local Government Code (LGC) “the need to exercise the authority and power of Local Government Unit (LGU) as a corporation to achieve its goals.”

However, before any government division/department can be converted into a socio-economic enterprise unit, a well-researched feasibility study shall be conducted. The well-documented study shall be submitted to the City Council and adequate and thorough study shall be done before passing and ratifying an Ordinance of the conversion. Naturally, several public hearings shall be convened with the attendance of all stakeholders to deliberate on the study. The proposed enterprise unit must have a clear vision, mission, goals and objectives formulated in short and long-term strategic management plans.

The establishment of a public socio-economic enterprise shall not be done in haste and “shortcutting” process where the establishment of such economic enterprise units is done only to camouflage its ominous purpose, that is, to circumvent the 35% allowable exemption limit of personnel services for budget preparation as mandated by the Department of Budget and Management DBM. This will be the worst mistake that can be made by an LGU that will surely guarantee the failure of the socio-economic enterprise. 

After ascertaining the viability of the department as an economic enterprise, short-term and long-term operating plans should be formulated to include the following objectives;

-              An implementing form to support the long term LGU sustainable development plans supported by national and local policies.

-              Management structure and practices according to well researched business plan using a performance based approach

-              Ensure less subsidy from the LGU and generate profit from its operations to contribute to LGU revenue generation 

-              Guarantee equitable delivery of products and services will increase the access of marginalized groups to local services such as utilities, markets

-              Play a major role in the LGU economic development and promotion of Local Small and Medium Enterprises

-              The present structure and practices of socio-economic enterprises need to be re-engineered by shifting strategic operations from the supply-driven to demand-driven approach.

In order to be efficient, it becomes necessary to unfasten the SEEU’s from the LGU’s mainstream bureaucracy. Simply put, SEEUs should have its own accounting, auditing and administrative system since to remain in the LGU bureaucracy restricts and impedes the capacity and capability of the SEEU’s as “drivers” of economic growth and development. Correspondingly, the City/Municipal Council should ensure that the revenues generated shall accrue to the SEEUs without passing through the general fund.

It is worthwhile mentioning that aside from the bona fide SEEUs there exist “pseudo-economic enterprises” in most LGU’s – those that are partly subsidized by the LGU budget where most generate revenues on a break-even basis.

Conclusion

The idea behind the establishment of local socio-economic enterprises is not specifically about "running the government like a private business." Rather, it is about applying business-like management perspectives, principles, and practices in the government sector. It is a generally accepted fact that operations management in private enterprises spur effectiveness in the attainment of its corporate goals, that is maximizing profits.  For this reason, it becomes imperative for the government bureaucracy to embrace the synergy in a hybrid management system, albeit for a different motive which is to improve efficiency in public services.

The basic consideration in formulating major operating policies is the conduct of SEEU’s as financial investments rather than regular public services and as such should be operated as  engines and drivers of economic development rather than just political obligation and administrative responsibility.

A public economic enterprise should be managed exactly like a private enterprise, however while a private commercial enterprise aims at profit maximization, a public economic  enterprise aims at boosting efficiency of public services with full cost recovery and satisfactory profit. Unlike in private enterprises where profits are distributed to stockholders, public economic enterprises utilize profits to respond adequately to the demand of the community. After this, excess profits then are reverted to the LGU’s general revenue to help in funding other basic public services.

Public economic enterprises shall be managed by competent and responsible individuals with strong leadership and proven managerial skills and experience. This requirement has become a problem in most LGU’s in the Philippines because of the prevalent government organizational culture based on the “Padrino“ system. Most observers believed that many, if not most, of the LGU’s staff are less qualified and less capable as a result of the practice of “political accommodation” in the employment of permanent government employees, most notably in the LGU’s.

Establishment of socio-economic enterprises in LGU’s may not be considered as a panacea to the ails of local governance, but if properly managed, they can adequately improve the overall efficiency of the delivery of basic public services, a mandate of public governance.                

ROGELIO G. BALO Ph.D.

Central Valley, California USA

Sept. 8, 2014

Public Services as Socio-Economic Enterprises .... BANE or BOON ?

Public Enterprises as Socio-Economic Enterprises... BANE or BOON?     

Background

 One of the fundamental state policies enshrined in the Philippine Constitution is the autonomy of local government units. (Const., Art. II, Sec. 25). Pursuant to the mandate given by the Constitution, the Philippine Congress enacted Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991 which replaced Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, which is the old local government code.

 Under the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC), more public services and responsibilities were devolved to the Local Government Units some of which are complex and costly to undertake, such as primary health care (hospitals and clinics), public education, peace and order and environmental management, among others.

In the Philippines, pure public services are either provided by the LGUs free or partly operated with minimal user charges, which means fully or partly subsidized by budgetary appropriation. This free public service has been traditionally practiced by the LGUs, ever since up to the present.

Republic Act 2425 on the other hand, directs the LGUs to see to it that the minimum basic needs (MBN) of the citizens are provided for. The Social Reform Agenda (SRA) defines MBN as “the needs of Filipino family pertaining to survival (food and nutrition, health, water and sanitation, clothing), security (shelter, peace and order, public safety, income and livelihood) and its enabling needs (basic education).

It will be noted that the implementation of the MBN, especially the highlighted ones, can be effectively carried out effectively through socio- economic enterprises. This is of course easier said than done because of one major constraint,  limited and/or lack of financial resources, the proverbial and traditional scapegoat of LGUs for failing to adequately, if not effectively, carry out the delivery of local public utilities as mandated by the LGC and the MBN/SRA.

Lately, R.A. Act 9003 ordered the mandatory requirement for LGU’s to establish solid waste sanitary landfill as an additional public service. Aside from being complex and budget dependent, these capital intensive functions have no direct sources of revenues to finance their administrative and technical operations. The LGU’s can collect fees and charges to a certain extent though, but barely enough even to pay the salaries of personnel and related administrative costs, let alone procurement of supplies and materials, capital improvements, etc.

Historical records show that 70-80 percent of annual expenditures of the LGUs are for administrative and recurrent maintenance activities. The remaining 20% is competitively shared by capital expenditure, economic investments, human resource development, and the surplus, if any, to pay for additional personnel benefits at the end of the year. In most LGU’s in the country, research and development is a far thing from their plans.

It is sad to note that the inter-local government cooperation and effort sharing as authorized in the LGC have not been exercised nor even initiated yet by the LGUs. There is no effort on the part of the LGUs, it appears, to draft memorandum of agreements or operating procedures and mechanics to activate “dormant potential” tool for economic development and delivery of services, especially the local socio-economic enterprises.

Many LGU chief executives and elected officials have still the wrong hypothesis that effective governance is equal to have year-end surplus or savings  in the local treasury, that is, the bigger the savings, the higher their performances are. On the contrary, many basic public services have been neglected. To me, that is a myopic view of good governance. Some local chief executives are afraid to invest public funds for public services, to which the people’s money is intended to, in the first place. 

THE INTERNAL REVENUE ALLOTMENT

The internal revenue allotment (IRA) has made the LGUs dependent on the national government especially the poor municipalities and provinces. But worse than this, the LGUs become subservient and hostage to the central government, since the release and use of such allotment are subject to national government decisions and control. The national government can withhold or reduce or regulate the releases. Consequently, the delivery of public services suffers the most at the same time that economic development is stunted. As an example, the impending reduction of the LGU’s IRA share for 2012 to the tune of 78M is a typical kind of this dilemma that LGU’s have to confront.

The existing IRA formula will continue to make the LGUs dependent on national grants and budgetary assistance. The rich and highly developed LGUs will enjoy the bountiful benefits from the inequities of a defective IRA formula. The poor and undeveloped LGUs, 4th to 5th class will become poorer and less and less capable to deliver the basic public services. The undesirable outcome of this imbalance and inequitable economic growth of LGUs would of course lead to urban pull-rural push syndrome, because of better services, greater job opportunities, good living environment, availability of social amenities and security in urban areas.

While we dwell on the thought that this situation might be good for the urbanizing LGUs, such as San Fernando, Naga, Laoag, Bacolod, Iloilo and Cagayan de Oro cities, in the sense that this will increase their IRA, we must also think that in the final analysis this will lead to increasing demand for public services, quality wise, and more alarmingly quantity wise. The demand may become so competitive and even cutthroat, that adequate solutions might need central government intervention. We are now confronting these problems, flooding, environmental degradation, housing, peace and order, traffic, solid waste disposal, power supply, unemployment, urban blight and the like. These economic ills and social decadence are actually being experienced now by highly urbanized and metropolitan LGUs in the whole country.

ESTABLISHMENT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENTERPRISE UNITS

For aforementioned reason, many LGU’s have decided to operate some public services as socio-economic enterprise units.  A public socio- economic enterprise is a government department/unit that is operated like a private business entity and is projected to contribute to the sustainable quality of service delivery goals of the local government unit (LGU).

Since their inception and implementation, local socio-economic enterprises have been treated basically as political obligations and administrative functions of the LGUs, rather than as a tool or means of economic growth and development. Thus, local socio-economic enterprises were always included as part of regular annual budget rather than as multi-year economic development or financial investments plans, distorting the true objective of their existence. 

Public markets are the most common government service units that are operated under the socio-economic enterprise model. These local socio-economic enterprises (SEEU) are authorized to collect fees and other charges as sources of revenues. Under this concept, it is supposed to be understood that these SEEUs should be self-sustaining, that is, they should be able to generate revenues to cover costs of administration and operations. Sad to note however that most if not all of SEEU’s in the country operate at a loss and are subsidized by the local government, except for a few that are properly managed.

PERFORMANCE OF SEEU’s IN THE PHILIPPINES

Research project studies have concluded that most, if not all, of the existing socio-economic enterprises all over the country operate at a loss resulting from very low revenue collection efficiencies. These SEEU’s are oftentimes subsidized by the local government budgets. Rental deficiencies of public market stalls and spaces have accumulated to many millions of pesos and is continuously increasing each year. Fees in many slaughterhouses in the country have not been adjusted to correspond to the increase of its operating expenses. Consequently, these public markets and slaughterhouses are unsanitary, unhygienic, congested, fire hazards, deteriorated and poorly maintained, conditions that fall short of the MBN requirements on health and public safety.

Although, big cities and highly urbanized municipalities are able to cope with the required standards of maintenance most of them are having difficulties to sustain the standards. It is distressing to note that while cost of maintenance and prices of commodities are increasing the user charges and fees remain constant due to legal constraints and procedural compliance. And although some are not charging below the allowable ceiling, it takes time before the rates can be increased as it will go through the legislative mill and public consultation process, sometime even through court proceedings.

One of the most successful LGU in terms of establishing public economic enterprises is Tagum City, capital city of Davao del Norte. It has been reported that the current City Mayor Rey T. Uy, has the appropriate corporate background proven to be an advantage in local governance especially in the administration of the Public Economic Enterprises. “With his business acumen he has been able to impose reforms on traditional practices and policies to improve over-all performance making the economic enterprises more profitable yet effective in responding to the needs of the people and efficient in the delivery of public services.”

 “With our fast-gaining economic enterprises under Mayor Uy's avant-garde leadership, LGUs from different cities and municipalities have sought partnership with Tagum City to learn good and replicable practices that can improve the operation and administration of their own economic enterprises.”

ROGELIO G. BALO Ph. D.

Sept. 3, 2014

Central Valley, California, USA