WIKILEAKS: MAKING SENSE OF CURRENT EVENTS*

(Published in the Manila Times, 2 October 2011)

By Gonzalo M. Jurado, PhD**


I. QUESTIONS

WikiLeaks has been occupying the front pages of newspapers and the primetime programs of television channels lately, revealing confidential US diplomatic cables that allege various forms of wrongdoings or misdemeanors by our national leaders -- loss of iconic stature by Corazon Aquino because of alliance with Joseph Estrada, receipt of campaign money from Khaddafy by Fidel Ramos, indifference of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to her husband’s illegal activities, diffidence and unassertiveness by Benigno Aquino III, intellectual or moral deficiency of one sort or another by Jose de Venecia, Hermogenes Abdane, etcetera. We’ve heard of these things before but their filtering through US intelligence channels seems to give them novelty and credibility.

Under this deluge of information, politicians are confirmed in their beliefs that their political adversaries are indeed as lowly as they have made them out to be. Newspaper editors and columnists and TV newscasters and commentators are edified in their convictions that their biases against their perceived opponents are well founded. The Senate is going to investigate. The rest of the public is simply overwhelmed, wondering what is going on.

What indeed is going on? Who or what is WikiLeaks? How can WikiLeaks gain access to 251,000 top secret documents from the files of the most efficient of the US Government’s intelligence agencies? Do these documents undermine US national security? Is the US Government too weak to stop WikiLeaks? Who is responsible for the leakage? Finally, how are we, Filipinos, to react to this large-scale information overload that is making us objects of international derision?

To answer these questions, we have to go back to facts of current events.

II. CURRENT EVENTS

For a beginning, we must remind ourselves that when matters of “national security” are involved, “intelligence,” that is to say, espionage, is involved. This is saying that unless we place the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) at the center of the analysis we will never be able to unravel the drama unfolding before our eyes. As everybody knows, the CIA is the espionage agency of the United States Government, authorized by US Law to carry out any act outside the US mainland deemed necessary to the security of the United States. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is responsible for domestic security. Many Americans find the CIA repugnant but they are obliged to just ignore it since it is working in their strategic interest anyway.

Now, the purpose of intelligence is to gather information about the enemy, his strengths and weaknesses, to be able to design and implement appropriate measures for dealing with him. In the pursuit of this objective, no resource is spared and no course of action is taboo. The only constraint is that whatever the decisions and actions are they must have the cover of “plausible deniability.”

The United States is a Power on the wane. The decline is threatening to be precipitous. As experts are telling us, the US as an economy will be surpassed by China in 2015, four years from today. Right now, the US is in the midst of a recession. Some 9 percent of its work force is unemployed, the incomes of major segments of its population are down if not exhausted, factories are closing down, families are losing their homes, the Government is approaching financial bankruptcy. Only recently, the US was downgraded as an investment haven by a credit rating agency. Other indicators suggest that it is racing against itself to the bottom.

If it is not winning friends among its own people, the US Government is alienating many peoples in the rest of the world. Far from being a dedicated champion of democracy, it is seen as a duplicitous supporter of political dictatorships so long as those dictatorships are subservient to American wishes, a coddler of “sons of bitches” so long as those SOBs are its SOBs. Far from being an unselfish benefactor, the US Government is seen as an insatiable imperialist, never ceasing to machinate until it has taken possession of the enemy’s oil, minerals, and other resources.

Comes now the CIA. What better way to deflect attention away from the deteriorating American political economy than to focus it to the deficiencies or excesses of the rest of the world? Isn’t offense the best defense? Who is best suited to carry out this policy than the US Government’s own officials themselves?

Consider US President Barack Obama. President Obama stands accused of being a CIA creation. It is said that his Kenyan father was supported in his education by the CIA in order to co-opt him away from the African nationalist movement, his mother was a certified CIA operative who managed CIA funded activities in Indonesia under protection of the US Embassy in Jakarta, his maternal grandfather was the original dyed-in-the-wool intelligence agent stationed in Nairobi, Kenya. Despite tremendous pressure he has refused to reveal his transcript of records and is said to have ordered destroyed every scrap of material pertaining to him soon after assuming the Presidency. . What is known of his academic record is intriguing. After admission to Occidental College in Los Angeles, he transferred to Columbia in New York from where he graduated with a degree in Political Science, without honors, meaning that his Grade Point Average (GPA) was less than 3.3. Years later, at Harvard Law School, he became one of 85-90 students who were named editors of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude.

There is profound skepticism. How can a student with average intelligence be admitted into a high standard prestigious institution like Harvard unless there has been pressure from higher authority? How can a student who had never written a word of legal opinion ever become an editor of the Harvard Law Review unless academic standards have been suspended as in an act of political accommodation?

Despite the seriousness of these doubts, no word has been heard from President Obama, nor from the US Federal Government for that matter.. In a recent effort to respond to queries about his childhood, the White House produced a birth certificate that only confounded matters, giving rise to questions as to his nationality, among others.

In the meanwhile, President Obama continues to beguile his American audiences with promises of “change (they) can believe in.” and the rest of the world with visions of free and democratic development.

Coming closer to home, think of former US Ambassador to the Philippines Kristie Kenney. By acknowledgment of the US Embassy itself, this lady was a former CIA agent. One of her first acts on arrival in the Philippines was to travel up and down the country and distribute goodies to folk here and there and give small talks on democratic governance to audiences that bothered to listen. Our media described her as a fairy godmother exuding grace and generosity to all and sundry. In fact, she was a hard-working little mole quietly carrying out acts of political interference and destabilization. Now WikiLeaks is presenting us with secret cables emanating from Ms Kenney where she mocks just about every Philippine public official she came in contact with. Even boxing icon Manny Pacquiao could not escape her eagle eyes. Rumors linking him to a movie actress have been dutifully reported to headquarters.

In another front, as it is now turning out, while gossip-mongering was occurring in Manila, taking place in Mindanao was brazen US political intervention, to dismember our country through the creation of a so-called ancestral domain (Bangsamoro Juridical Entity) or sub-state for separatist rebels, just to be able to gain a foothold in our country.

Consider now WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks first came to our attention in 2010 when it was identified as an international whistleblower responsible for leaking to the whole world the contents of US secret documents. WikiLeaks was established in 2006 by Julian Assange, an Australian national, publisher, journalist, computer programmer, residing in the United Kingdom.. Soon after establishing WikiLeaks, he was accused by two women in Sweden of sexual molestation as a result of which the Swedish Government .sought his extradition from UK. He is currently on trial in London’s High Court, but on temporary liberty on a bail of L241,000. At the same time, he is reported to be under threat of capture and arrest by agents of the US Government.

But now again additional information is surfacing. Independent political analysts are telling us that WikiLeaks is a CIA front organization, receiving financial support from the Israeli Mossad and George Soros. That explains why Mr Assange is unfazed by all accusations, and is at the moment unobstrusively enjoying his little pleasures and delights.

In the meanwhile, the US Government has identified the leaker. It is none other than Bradley Manning, age 23, a foot soldier, an intelligence analyst assigned to the 10^th Mountain Division of the US Armed Forces in Iraq. As analyst it is said that he had access to hundreds of thousands of classified documents.

III. ANSWERS

So who or what is WikiLeaks? Is the US Government too weak to stop it? Of course not. The US Government is not stopping WikiLeaks not because of an unswerving commitment to freedom of information, transparency, etc. but simply because WikiLeaks is its own baby, its officially authorized institutionally designated promotional outlet.

Is US national security under threat by all this leakage?. After a .careful review of newspaper accounts and TV broadcasts, we find that these documents contain nothing but cheap gossip, innuendoes, unsubstantiated reports, all portraying our leaders as intellectually mediocre, morally bankrupt, hypocrites ready to betray their peoples if the price is right. Far from being undermined by this leakage US national security is strengthened, with US leaders, ambassadors and their staffs, coming out of the leaked material as paragons of high intelligence and impeccable morality, patiently listening but never concurring to the perfidies, actual and imagined, offered by little locals.

What about Bradley Manning? Even the CIA understands that attributing the leakage of thousands of secret documents at the highest level to a foot soldier sitting at the bottom of the military pyramid has to make the world laugh. But does the CIA have a choice? Pinning the responsibility to the high and mighty—to Secretary Looney, General Pesky, or Admiral Toadie -- to make the whole sorry exercise more credible can be risky. The high and mighty have the capacity to fight back and they can tell the whole world what the drama is all about.

So who is Bradley Manning? He is a poor little patsy, playing the role with his consent surely for a consideration. (Uncle Sam is not rich for nothing.) Already there are “support groups” rallying to “save” him from unusual punishment. But watch it, Bradley. We understand that a guy in that same set-up who decided to testify before an investigating committee was killed before he could say anything, shot on the head, execution style, in a parking lot.

Coming now to the mother of all questions -- why is this leakage happening? Answer: What leakage? There is no leakage at all. This is a calculated, deliberate, and controlled release of information – for the purpose of diverting attention away from the travails of a Super Power on the decline. Much like the lashing out to all directions of a doomed creature hysterically trying to save itself from the cataclysm of fire or water.

IV. IMPLICATIONS

How are we to react to all of this? First of all let us put things in perspective. The United States is our friend – the source of many benefits to us at the material and non-material planes – official development assistance (ODA), rice and other commodities under PL 480, military hardware, scholarships to the most gifted amongst us.. The least we can do is to acknowledge these benefits with appreciation.

Further, the US, in doing what it is doing, is merely trying to promote and protect its interests at home and abroad. Just like any other nation on planet Earth it is entitled to do so. We should not begrudge the US in the pursuit of this entitlement.

However, and this is the main point, let us make it clear to one and all that we have our own national interest to promote and protect. In our efforts toward that end we brook no interference from any external source.

It is true that these so-called leaks are nothing but cheap gossip and ill-informed opinion which, as Senator Honasan is quoted as saying, we should not read too much from. Still, they are there and they are riling us.

Already, some politicians and media people are using them as jumping boards to vilify their opponents. Even the Senate, whose reputation for independent judgment remains intact despite attempts of partisan interests to undermine it, is going to investigate. Ladies and gentlemen, let us not provide confirmation of the worst things our so-called friends think of us.

The morality of some of our leaders is not as white as driven snow and we know it. Let us pursue our cases against them in our courts of law with sincerity and determination. In this we need no prodding. We act on our own initiative.

Responding now to this adverse US propaganda, let us first of all set up and strengthen an Intelligence Gathering Apparatus of our own and aim it specifically at the United States Government and its representatives. For our first effort, let us establish the identity of President Obama -- is he or is he not an intelligence agent? We need this information to better enable us to decipher US statements, decisions, and actions – for their truth or falsity, as the case may be. In the same spirit, let us put the US Embassy and its personnel under surveillance.. Let us monitor the incomings and outgoings of people in that embassy. Let us vet Ambassador Harry Thomas and his staff so that we will know how to put them in their proper places. With respect to US Ambassador Kristie Kenney, let us expose her hypocritical efforts at damage control. (She is now in Thailand, the ambassador of her country, but the Thais will be much too smart to be taken in by posturings of perpetual friendship and boundless benevolence.)

Let us at the same time re-orient our Foreign Affairs Department, away from naivete to skepticism, and more readiness to give any hidden enemy a dose of its own medicine.

Unsolicited advice to media: If you must print or broadcast future leaks please do so not on page one or on primetime but in the comics section or at entertainment hours.

It is a fact that some of us love the United States more than they do the Philippines and they will brand this idea as anti-American if not outright communist. So be it. Let these fellow citizens shed tears of joy when they hear Stars and Stripes Forever, but let us all know where our first loyalty lies.

Let us anticipate that many more “leakages” of this type will take place in the future and that these leakages will be more vicious if we respond in the manner as outlined above.

Let us not play the fool of American propaganda.

To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

____________

* Most of the facts used in this review come from the Wikipedia and related articles of the several topics discussed.

**Currently professor of economics and vice-president for finance and development, KalayaanCollege. Formerly professor of economics, University of the Philippines: lecturer, United Nations Statistical Institute for Asia and the Pacific in Tokyo; and consultant, Asian Development Bank in Manila.

Quezon City

12 September 2011

Reconnected At Last

Some time after I opened this blogspot in 2008, I forgot my username and password (a sign of the years creeping up?) ; hence I could not access it. It took the technological savvy of Missy to rediscover it the other day, after squeezing bits of information from me, and re-establish contact between me and my blogspot. Thanks a lot, Missy, you are Godsent. So here goes.

At lunch today, Pepe Abueva, president of Kalayaan College, who is my boss, and I discussed prospects of expanding the college' special programs for foreign students. We are right now preparing for five Chinese students to enter our newly developed Special Program in Geopolitics which will run over a 4-week period. We believe we can develop other new short courses and for greater numbers of foreign students. In fact that is exactly what our counterpart on this matter, Dr. Xiangang Guo, president of the World Academy of Development Sciences, is assuring us: more Chinese students enrolling at KC in the future. Pepe, other KC colleagues and I will be devoting more time to this prospect in the days ahead.

Brightening Our Weekends

These last several weeks our weekends at home have been brightened by the visits of my daughter Missy from Hongkong. Missy works for the Bank for International Settlements, Hongkong Regional Office. When she was at headquarters in Basel, Switzerland, she could hardly visit us once in a year, that was how "far" we were, from Europe. Travel is a lot easier and more convenient now, especially with the fares given by Cebu Pacific. In these 2-day visits, Missy is able to get together with her former colleagues Jerome and Janet from Equitable-BDO, Doreen from SM Prime, Cayen (now a PhD (Math), Geraldine, Tina, Aissa, Augie and Julie, from UP. Missy is of course herself an M.S. (Math), UP.

Two Activities

A Symposium

On Wednesday, 23 January, I attended two activities which brought me together with old friends, whom I have not seen for a long time. The first was a symposium at the University of Asia and the Pacific featuring a lecture on "Philippine Political Economy: 1946 -1965" by Dr. Jose Romero, Jr. Joe is a friend of long standing, from the early 1970s when he was a favorite moderator in our development economics seminars at the School of Economics, U.P. He gave an enlightening analysis of the various events of those two decades (including the treaty with the US of 1946, the Bell Trade Act, the Laurel-Langley Agreement of 1965) whose effects on the Philippine economy, he argued, are still being felt today. There were two commentators: Dr. Amado A. Castro, former dean of the UP School of Economics, and Dr. Benito Legarda, Jr, former director of research and later deputy governor of the Central Bank. Both gave amplifying, sometimes disagreeing comments on Joe's arguments. Cesar Virata, former Prime Minister of the Republic and currently Vice-Chairman of the Yuchengco Group, was there. Dr. Armando Armas came late. It was a great pleasure meeting old friends after long periods of separation.

AG Uranza for National Artist

The second activity on the same afternoon was a book launch at Far Eastern University, my good old alma mater. Launched were Masks and Mirrors, by Azucena Grajo Uranza, and To the Young Writer, by F. Sionil Jose. The first book is a collection of plays by AG (the name we and her other friends call her, after the initials of her maiden name), each depicting a portion of our world, written with a deep sense of history, a worthy addition to the many works of literary art she has brought to the national consciousness. For her contributions to the development of a historically rooted literary awareness amongst us, I would like to nominate Azucena Grajo Uranza National Artist for Literature in the next round of awards. Incidentally, AG was literary editor of the FEU Advocate when I was that paper's editor. The second book consists of short essays on various issues in current Philippine writing by the National Artist Frankie Jose. As usual, Frankie has given all of us serious food for thought in these essays.

OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS VERSUS SUBJECTIVE RUMOR-MONGERING

Published in The Manila Times, Wednesday, September 26, 2007, p. 5.


From as far back as students can remember, business schools have advised businessmen to carry out “market surveys” before introducing a product in the market, to determine the size of the market for the product or indeed if there is a market for the product at all. Opinion makers later picked up the practice, asking voters for their preference as among candidates, to have a sense of who among the candidates is likely to win the election. These are perception surveys, respondents answering to questions about which they alone are the authority. Typical questions asked are as follows:

Will a product A with characteristics xx be useful to your household? If yes, will you prefer that it has characteristics yy instead?

Between candidates R and S for the presidency, for whom would you vote?

Guided by the results, businessmen develop products that are responsive to customers expressed preference and political candidates formulate programs of government that can win or keep wider voter support. One can say that everybody benefits from these surveys, producers and customers, candidates and voters.

Questions of fact are never posed in perception surveys. For as every beginning college student knows “questions of fact are not debated; questions of policy are.” Questions of fact require reference to statistical yearbooks, encyclopedias, gazettes, visits to libraries, consultations with authorities, etc. If 12 inches make one foot, there can be no disputing that fact, whatever the perception of people is. Ninety-nine percent of respondents saying the earth is flat would not alter the fact that the earth is round. At the same time, giving wrong answers to factual questions can only mean two things: one, that the respondents are ignorant; and, two, that the surveyor is stupid, asking a question of fact as though it could be resolved through perception.

Sadly, this is the state of affairs in the Philippines today. The Social Weather Stations carries out perception surveys about factual questions day after day and relentlessly bombards the community with the results of these surveys. It does not matter to it that the respondents are innocent of the factual answers to questions and that, in most cases,
-----------------------------------------
even the National Statistics Office or National Statistical Coordination Board will be hard put to give a credible reply. The SWS reports the results to the public as though these are facts cast in stone. Knowledgeable members of the public understandably dismiss the information as no more than idle gossip, and that is the good thing; the bad thing is that some folks take it as gospel truth. Worse, under a deluge of this kind of information some members of the public become perception-driven, mistaking perception for fact and, worse, losing interest in any effort to verify the factual basis of perceptions.

Consider some of the questions the SWS recently asked of its respondents.

Do you believe that, under President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s administration:

The quality of education improved?
The number of families who are hungry decreased in your locality?
The number of those unemployed declined in your locality?
The human rights of Filipinos have become more protected?
The number of crimes decreased in your locality?
The morality of government officials improved?
Corruption decreased?

These questions not only raise factual issues but they require specialists for respondents – educators, nutritionists, labor people, police officers, the ombudsman, auditors, and, above all, statisticians. They also suffer from the problems not just of recall but of double recall.

Yet, what does SWS do? SWS asks the questions as if the answers are arrived at through perception. So what if the majority of respondents “believe” that the quality of education has deteriorated, that hunger has intensified, that the rate of unemployment has soared, or that corruption has reached every nook and cranny of government since 2001 when Mrs Arroyo assumed office, when in fact these tendencies have since then moved in the opposite direction? Moreover, can ordinary citizens really recall much less compare aspects of the socio-economic situation “in their locality” before and after 2001?

If respondents express “beliefs” that are contrary to fact, what does that make of them? If it asks questions of fact as though their answers are arrived at through perception, what does that make of SWS?

SWS admits that its “findings” are not necessarily a fair representation of objective reality and are no more than opinion. If that is the case, persistence in projecting such information to the public suggests that SWS is playing the role of rumor-monger, conditioning the public mind to mistake subjective perception for objective fact, to rely on hearsay, and, in most instances, to form perception judgments that are contrary to fact, in other words, promoting mental recklessness on a large-scale.

Its disclaimer that the questions it asks in commissioned surveys are simply those the commissioners want asked and that it has no say on the matter merely confirms the accusation that it is also functioning as a mercenary.

All this is a pity. But it is not too late to do something about it. Under its high caliber intellectual leadership, SWS has the potential of living up to a higher promise – that of producing and circulating useful information such as obtained in election, market, and related surveys -- where perception really matters -- in order to help accelerate the growth and development of our democratic-free market society.

Xxxxxxxxx

Perception surveys:Impact on political culture

Published in The Manila Times in two parts, Sunday, January 20, 2008 and

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

In an earlier article,* I pointed out that perception surveys of the type regularly carried out by the Social Weather Stations should deal only with matters resolvable through perception, not with questions of fact answerable only by appropriate and authoritative persons and agencies.. If people are asked questions the answers to which they alone are the authority, i.e., questions about what they think, feel, observe, or prefer, their responses must be taken seriously for who can know better what people think, feel, observe, or prefer than those people themselves? But when they respond to questions of fact requiring knowledge about a subject outside of their personal knowledge or experience, their replies must be checked against academic or scientific authority. If found correct, not only must the responses be given the importance that objective truth deserves but the respondents must be accorded the respect that is due people with high levels of awareness. If found wrong, the answers must be considered as suggesting that the respondents are in need of appropriate enlightenment.

(When questions of fact beyond the respondent’s personal knowledge or experience are raised in perception surveys, the surveyor can be suspected of ignorance, asking questions of fact as though these can be resolved through perception.)

Recent Surveys

In recent days the national community has been inundated by a deluge of perception survey results on various aspects of our social, economic, and political life. The way events are unfolding, we can expect to be overwhelmed by many more such surveys in the next few months and still more ad infinitum in the months after.
--------------------------------
*Objective Analysis vs Subjective Rumor-Mongering, Manila Times, September 26, 2007.


The most recent of these surveys was that on the extent of satisfaction of the public with the performance of government as a whole. Earlier, we were informed of the results of yet other surveys: one, on the extent of approval by the public of the performance of high government officials; another on the degree of happiness with which the Filipino people anticipated Christmas; yet another, on aspects of the socio-political situation in the locality of respondents, i.e, on whether employment has improved, the quality of education has deteriorated, graft and corruption in the government has worsened, etc.

In the most recent of these surveys, as reported in media, respondents were asked whether they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the performance of the government in 10 areas of public concern. These concerns and the ratings given by the respondents were: (1) in the conduct of foreign relations +20; (2) in fighting inflation -29; (3) in eradicating graft and corruption -29; (4) in reconciling with Muslim rebels +13; (5) in fighting terrorism +12; (6) in helping the poor +4; (7) in promoting human rights +2; (8) in fighting crime -5; (9) in ensuring that no family goes hungry -22; and (10) in telling the truth to the people -11.

How Should We React to these Surveys?

How should we, the people, react to these survey findings? Should we take them seriously? Be indifferent to them? Dismiss them outright?

Answer: It depends on the nature of the questions posed.

To reiterate, if the questions pertain to perception, that is, the thoughts, feelings, and preferences, of the respondent, we should take the responses seriously—for the answers can be assumed to be valid and reliable correspondent to the respondents’ thoughts, feelings, observations, or preferences unless the respondents choose to deceive themselves. Since respondents are not likely to cheat themselves, we must give due respect to their replies.

If the questions ask about facts, such as the extent of unemployment, the quality of education, the state of health of the community, the quality of governance, we should regard the responses as mere guesses or surmises and give them no more importance than conjecture deserves. If the replies clearly are at variance with the facts, they should be dismissed outright and the respondents informed and enlightened so that they are liberated from their ignorance and lack of information.

Pseudo Perception Questions

There are questions that on the surface appear to be perception-based but by their nature require objective facts to be their basis. If the responses to these questions are not based on knowledge or reliable information, and are therefore bereft of factual foundation, they should be dismissed outright.

Consider the question on inflation in this recent survey. The respondents gave the government a rating of -29 in the fight against inflation, the lowest rating (along with eradicating graft and corruption) of those given. The problem is that this is the concern where the government has been most successful and that is why the inflation rate for 2007 was only two percent. A factually based rating would have been in the neighborhood of, say, +40 (that is, something like 70 percent satisfied less 30 percent dissatisfied).

Clearly the respondents have been influenced by the news that the price of petroleum has jumped from some $65/barrel to some $95/barrel. It will take only a small technical explanation to show that this 46 percent jump in the price of oil will not have any impact on the economy approaching that order of magnitude. When you factor in the government’s efforts to closely monitor the actions of oil distributors and make adjustments on the levy on petroleum-intensive products, not to mention the strengthening of the peso which is itself the result partly, not wholly, of government policy, the total effect on the inflation rate will be modest – as it has been..

There are several other questions in the recent survey where we can reasonably demand to know the factual bases of the answers. If these answers have no factual basis, they should also be dismissed.

Enlightened Public Opinion: the Foundation of Democracy

All this seems to suggest an anti-public opinion bias. This is not so. Survey results, whether enlightened or ignorant, constitute a part of public opinion and public opinion should be given due weight in the formulation of public policy, especially in a democracy. What is being pointed out is that public opinion is of two types, one, opinion that is “informed” and, two, opinion that is “uninformed.” Opinion that is informed provides guidance to public policy. Opinion that is uninformed calls for the enlightenment of the respondents.

As clear as the ideas described above are, they are not easy to observe in the context of the real world in the Philippines. In our country, the results of perception surveys when presented to the public appear as if they are rock-solid. No one tells us that these are perception conclusions that may have no relation to objective reality.

Public officials are particularly vulnerable to survey spins. When conveyed to the public, survey results seem to imply that whatever the authorities are doing on the matter is false or that, if true, the people do not believe it anyway. Those responsible for the facts are browbeaten by the bludgeon of ignorant judgment and begin to wonder whether they indeed have been guilty of manipulating the facts. The saving grace is that responsible officials reject the implication of manipulation and insist on the integrity of disseminated information. The bad thing is that national or community leaders, including principled ones, are driven to adopt populist positions as a response to the pressures of ignorant replies.

The Promotion of Populism

This might just be the most pernicious effect of perception surveys in our country—the promotion of populism among our leaders – next only to the creation of a mind set that has no interest in discovering facts underlying perception.

Notice how just about every politician has become an anti-poverty advocate. By knee-jerk reaction they criticize GDP growth figures by saying these do not touch the lives of poor people. That they exhibit ignorance by confusing distribution with production does not bother them. Some have no embarrassment in invading the sanctum sanctorum of barangays to profess affinity with the poor after having been convicted of plunder of wealth that could have been directed to poverty alleviation. Capable, honest, and hardworking leaders whose commitment to the poor cannot be questioned are obliged to join the caravan of populism. For instance, in regard to the rating of -29 on the fight against inflation, they are placed under pressure to suspend or scrap socially painful but patently correct programs just to conform to the biases of perception surveys.

No to the “Idiotization” of our Political Culture

In our country, the Social Weather Stations specializes in what a prominent banker describes as the “idiotization” of our political culture. This is very sad but SWS can still do something about it. It can, for instance, concentrate on the measurement of “happiness” and other truly perception matters. Beyond that, it can suggest ways to incorporate measures of happiness into our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), just as President Sarkozy is proposing for France, so that we can join the King of Bhutan in celebrating the joys of living instead of complaining like a clod – to paraphrase George Bernard Shaw -- that our leaders are not devoting themselves to making us happy.


xxxxxxx



. . .

Economic Growth and the Social Structure

If the economy as represented by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is growing, why are the poor people in our society remaining poor? Why do low income groups continue to languish in deprivation? How come they do not feel the new prosperity?

These are questions being raised by some observers following the report of the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) citing figures of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) that the country's GDP grew, for the first time in 30 years, by 7 percent in 2007.

The thing to do to discuss the matter intelligently, removed from the realm of partisan politics, is to distinguish between production and distribution. The growth of GDP refers to the increased production of goods (such as rice, meat, poultry, vegetables, clothes, shoes, building materials) and services (such as medical, legal, engineering, hair dressing, tailoring, housekeeping, gardening) in our economy. The observation, true or not, that this growth does not "trickle" down to the poor people refers to the distribution of these goods and services to the population.

Production involves the mobilization of labor, capital, and resources. Those who contribute more of their labor, or capital, or resources, to production receive more wages and salaries and profits than those who contribute less. In the nature of things, individuals and families earning more have a greater spending capacity and thus have a wider access to the products and services in our economy than individuals and families earning less. Distribution, in other words, is skewed in favor of higher income groups as against lower income groups.

If this is how distribution works, one would think that the basis of differential access to the products of the economy is participation in production. That is a partial truth. The more complete truth is that participation in production is determined by the extent of ownership of productive resources. Those who own only their labor power have less opportunities to join in productive work than those who own, in addition to their labor power, capital and other material resources as well.

Right now we have in the Philippines a lop-sided social structure, characterized by a few rich owning vast resources, a small middle class owning about their "fair" share of the population's physical wealth, and a large low income class owning only their labor power. Sadly, the distribution of GDP to our people is effectively governed by the configuration of the social structure.

To ensure that everybody receives more or less equal amounts of goods and services from our economy we must revamp our social structure. The communists want to do this through a bloody revolution, getting rid of the "exploiters" and establishing a government of the "exploited".

In free-market societies, governments pursue social change through peaceful non-disruptive ways: for instance:

· Through the budget, by collecting higher taxes from the rich (higher income taxes, levies on cars, inheritance taxes, etc.) and spending public revenue heavily in favor of the poor (free education, to the poor to raise the quality of their labor power and thus enable them to increase their income-earning capacity, free medical services, to enhance their health so that they can actively participate in productive activities, subsidized cost of transport, so that they can access their place of work without too much expense, etc.).

· Through direct financial assistance to small and medium-scale industries most of which are owned and managed by lower-income members of our society.

· Through laws prohibiting the exploitation of labor; etc.

In general, accelerating the growth of the economy, as difficult and daunting as it is, is "easier" than reshaping the social structure. The government is doing well in the first task; it can do better in the second.