What, congressmen want more pork?
What, congressmen want more pork?
Updated 01:23am (Mla time) Nov 26, 2004
By Neal Cruz
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the November 26, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
NOT content with restoring in full their pork barrel allocations (at P70 million per congressman and P200 million per senator), 20 members of the House of Representatives have signed a resolution asking the Speaker and the appropriations committee chair to increase their pork allocations. And they're not ashamed of it, they admitted.
Their greed knows no bounds. Like the greedy ogre who kept squeezing the goose that laid the golden eggs for more eggs, shouting "More! More! More!" until the poor goose died, the greedy congressmen are squeezing the taxpayers, shouting "More! More! More!" when the taxpayers have nothing more to give.
These 20 congressmen claim they need more pork because they represent the 20 "poorest provinces." They may indeed be "poor" but they hardly need additional pork. Most of them are island provinces with small areas and even smaller populations.
To give you one example, let's take the province of Batanes. The whole province has a population smaller than that of one “barangay” [neighborhood district] in Quezon City. Yet its congressman gets P70 million in pork year after year, the same as the congressman for Malabon City and Navotas town, which share one representative in the House. All the streets of Batanes are now concreted, including the one leading to the house of its congressman, so where will the additional pork go? He cannot build more waiting sheds because there is hardly any public transportation there and the main island of Batan is so small one can walk from one end to the other. So where will the additional pork go?
Besides, haven't they heard that the national government is bankrupt and can't balance its budget and pay its foreign debt? And that the government is squeezing its citizens-already hard pressed by the rising prices of everything -- of more taxes? And that Congress itself is in the process of passing more tax measures? How can our lawmakers have the temerity to impose more taxes when they themselves will spend much of that money? They have no moral right to do that. But they are not ashamed to do that. Really shameless!
So what can the people do if Congress goes through with this shameless betrayal, and if the President gets cold feet and does not veto the pork allocations? In such a case, I think the people are justified in waging a tax boycott. They can't afford to pay any more in the first place. They don't even have enough for their daily needs.
So Mrs. President, "honorable" congressmen, “maawa naman kayo. Mahiya naman kayo.”
* * *
Remember the Smokey Mountain reclamation scandal exposed by former solicitor general Frank Chavez and Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago? They said it was unconstitutional and made several government financial institutions lose billions of pesos. Well, it is turning out that the expos‚s were only the smoke from a fire smoldering in, of all places, the sea, if we are to believe Parañaque City Representative Ed Zialcita. He blames the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) for igniting the fire.
You see, the flash point is the competition between an established monopoly in port operations and a newcomer with better facilities and cheaper rates. On one side are the International Container Terminal Services Inc. (ICTSI), the Asian Terminals Inc. (ATI), and the North Harbor and South Harbor; on the other side is the new Harbour Centre, owned by R-II Builders. These four ports compete with one another in attracting ships and cargo to their respective service areas.
R-II Builders! Isn't that the firm that reclaimed and developed the Smokey Mountain housing project? Exactly. As payment for developing the project and reclaiming the land, R-II was allowed the use of 2.79 hectares out of the 79 hectares of reclaimed land. R-II developed the 2.79 hectares into Harbour Centre.
Harbour Centre got the PPA permit to handle all kinds of domestic cargo and foreign bulk and break-bulk cargo. The port now handles 80 percent of all bulk and break-bulk cargo coming into Manila ports because of greater efficiency and lower rates. The half-price service rate offered by Harbour Centre can be seen as the fruits of competition. Zialcita adds that this could be an indication "that the rates of existing port operators -- ICTSI and ATI -- are grossly overpriced."
In the competition, the PPA is the referee, vested with regulatory powers. Not only the referee, and a biased one at that, but also the judge, jury and executioner.
To date, the PPA has not given Harbour Centre a permit to handle foreign containerized cargo. Why? To protect the monopoly of ICTSI and ATI on the lucrative container traffic, says Zialcita. What's more, the monopoly was extended without public bidding and the contracts increased the scope of services that were not in the original contract.
Zialcita asked a number of questions in a privilege speech in the House:
1. Is the PPA regulating against competition to protect its own interest (it owns some ports) even at the expense of public interest?
2. Will the PPA, ICTSI and ATI lose from the competition from Harbour Centre?
3. Is it true that the same members of the so-called "consortium" that wanted to monopolize the entire port system in the country under the controversial Executive Order 59 (one operator nationwide, no bidding formula) are the same parties the PPA is protecting?
4. Has EO 308, rescinding EO 59 to promote competition and transparency in the privatization of North Harbor, been implemented?
5. Whatever happened to the Phividec container port in Cagayan de Oro City? What is happening in the ports of Cebu, Batangas, General Santos City, and Subic?
6. How much has the government lost and will continue to lose from the favor extended by the PPA to members of the "consortium"?
Updated 01:23am (Mla time) Nov 26, 2004
By Neal Cruz
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the November 26, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
NOT content with restoring in full their pork barrel allocations (at P70 million per congressman and P200 million per senator), 20 members of the House of Representatives have signed a resolution asking the Speaker and the appropriations committee chair to increase their pork allocations. And they're not ashamed of it, they admitted.
Their greed knows no bounds. Like the greedy ogre who kept squeezing the goose that laid the golden eggs for more eggs, shouting "More! More! More!" until the poor goose died, the greedy congressmen are squeezing the taxpayers, shouting "More! More! More!" when the taxpayers have nothing more to give.
These 20 congressmen claim they need more pork because they represent the 20 "poorest provinces." They may indeed be "poor" but they hardly need additional pork. Most of them are island provinces with small areas and even smaller populations.
To give you one example, let's take the province of Batanes. The whole province has a population smaller than that of one “barangay” [neighborhood district] in Quezon City. Yet its congressman gets P70 million in pork year after year, the same as the congressman for Malabon City and Navotas town, which share one representative in the House. All the streets of Batanes are now concreted, including the one leading to the house of its congressman, so where will the additional pork go? He cannot build more waiting sheds because there is hardly any public transportation there and the main island of Batan is so small one can walk from one end to the other. So where will the additional pork go?
Besides, haven't they heard that the national government is bankrupt and can't balance its budget and pay its foreign debt? And that the government is squeezing its citizens-already hard pressed by the rising prices of everything -- of more taxes? And that Congress itself is in the process of passing more tax measures? How can our lawmakers have the temerity to impose more taxes when they themselves will spend much of that money? They have no moral right to do that. But they are not ashamed to do that. Really shameless!
So what can the people do if Congress goes through with this shameless betrayal, and if the President gets cold feet and does not veto the pork allocations? In such a case, I think the people are justified in waging a tax boycott. They can't afford to pay any more in the first place. They don't even have enough for their daily needs.
So Mrs. President, "honorable" congressmen, “maawa naman kayo. Mahiya naman kayo.”
* * *
Remember the Smokey Mountain reclamation scandal exposed by former solicitor general Frank Chavez and Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago? They said it was unconstitutional and made several government financial institutions lose billions of pesos. Well, it is turning out that the expos‚s were only the smoke from a fire smoldering in, of all places, the sea, if we are to believe Parañaque City Representative Ed Zialcita. He blames the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) for igniting the fire.
You see, the flash point is the competition between an established monopoly in port operations and a newcomer with better facilities and cheaper rates. On one side are the International Container Terminal Services Inc. (ICTSI), the Asian Terminals Inc. (ATI), and the North Harbor and South Harbor; on the other side is the new Harbour Centre, owned by R-II Builders. These four ports compete with one another in attracting ships and cargo to their respective service areas.
R-II Builders! Isn't that the firm that reclaimed and developed the Smokey Mountain housing project? Exactly. As payment for developing the project and reclaiming the land, R-II was allowed the use of 2.79 hectares out of the 79 hectares of reclaimed land. R-II developed the 2.79 hectares into Harbour Centre.
Harbour Centre got the PPA permit to handle all kinds of domestic cargo and foreign bulk and break-bulk cargo. The port now handles 80 percent of all bulk and break-bulk cargo coming into Manila ports because of greater efficiency and lower rates. The half-price service rate offered by Harbour Centre can be seen as the fruits of competition. Zialcita adds that this could be an indication "that the rates of existing port operators -- ICTSI and ATI -- are grossly overpriced."
In the competition, the PPA is the referee, vested with regulatory powers. Not only the referee, and a biased one at that, but also the judge, jury and executioner.
To date, the PPA has not given Harbour Centre a permit to handle foreign containerized cargo. Why? To protect the monopoly of ICTSI and ATI on the lucrative container traffic, says Zialcita. What's more, the monopoly was extended without public bidding and the contracts increased the scope of services that were not in the original contract.
Zialcita asked a number of questions in a privilege speech in the House:
1. Is the PPA regulating against competition to protect its own interest (it owns some ports) even at the expense of public interest?
2. Will the PPA, ICTSI and ATI lose from the competition from Harbour Centre?
3. Is it true that the same members of the so-called "consortium" that wanted to monopolize the entire port system in the country under the controversial Executive Order 59 (one operator nationwide, no bidding formula) are the same parties the PPA is protecting?
4. Has EO 308, rescinding EO 59 to promote competition and transparency in the privatization of North Harbor, been implemented?
5. Whatever happened to the Phividec container port in Cagayan de Oro City? What is happening in the ports of Cebu, Batangas, General Santos City, and Subic?
6. How much has the government lost and will continue to lose from the favor extended by the PPA to members of the "consortium"?
posted by Dante at 1:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home