MERGED: FEDERAL DEMOCRACY: A solution to the sick country, the Philippines.

[masakiton]

---

Wa ko kalimot. U asked if malaysia is oil rich, implying that they are oil rich just because they have oil. Muhahaha. that i find funny.

also here's the post, which was edited like 20 seconds after i posted that but before you hit reply (sorry i didnt realize you're on this forum 24/7)

Quote:
diba oil rich nation man ang malaysia?
Oil rich nation doesn't mean rich. And define oil rich, it's nowhere near the reserves of Saudi Arabia if that's what you're implying, because if you think so then Philippines must be oil rich too since we have oil.

diba oil rich nation man ang malaysia?
diba oil rich nation man ang malaysia?
diba oil rich nation man ang malaysia?
diba oil rich nation man ang malaysia?
diba oil rich nation man ang malaysia?

its a yes or no question
unsa imo reply?

Pobre ang singapore adto kay pobre man sad ang malaysia, bag-o lang sila naka-kuha og independence.

diba oil rich nation man ang malaysia?

Indonesia is oil rich, not Malaysia. They are a lot like the Philippines, except of course, richer but not because of oil.

Malaysia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Malaysia is ranked 24th in terms of world oil reserves and 13th for gas.

[BIGMAN]

Pwede manglansad mo duha inig sunod election kay mo butar ko ninyo. unya pangusgi ninyo ang Federalism. Ka daghan kaha patong sa inyong ulo. wahahahahaha

Sa karon nga bulok nga sestema Bai, dili na lang ko. Sa karon nga sestema, ang tarong kontrahan man. Kung idealistic kaau ka, kaonon ra ka sa mga kurakot nga opisyal nga naa na sa gobyerno. Ipapatay pa ka ug magkalisod. lol

[masakiton]

refresh sa ato gi istoryahan
Muhahaha. that i find funny.

note:
before ang singapore is part sa malaysia which has federal system
pobre ang lugar... kadto under pa sila sa federal system
pero after na kick out sila sa country... diha sila na dato

Pobre ang singapore adto kay pobre man sad ang malaysia, bag-o lang sila naka-kuha og independence.

diba oil rich nation man ang malaysia?

Indonesia is oil rich, not Malaysia. They are a lot like the Philippines, except of course, richer but not because of oil.

Malaysia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Malaysia is ranked 24th in terms of world oil reserves and 13th for gas.

repost

Hahaha wurag broken record. But you still havent proven nga it's the people, not also the system that they adopt.

federal countries
iraq , ethiopia, sudan

non federal country
north korea

[Romeojin]

Sus.. unsa man ning mga pamutana uy.. common sense raman ang tubag ani. Ang kuwarta nga rematado unta sa manila mao ni gamiton nato para pag-fund sa state expenses. So far wala pa jud kay ebidensya nga mas mahal ang federal kaysa state. Ang Australia, federal pero ang ilahang VAT 10% ra. Atoa 12% na inya naa pa juy gaplano nga i-15% kay kulang ra daw. Peste aning pilipinas ui... mao nang tawag nimo nga efficient? basura system.. To hell with the tagalogs and their incompetence. I want my money to stay in my town, city and province!

Duplication? Haha that makes me laugh. You have a very weak understanding of federalism if you seriously believe this. Under the federal system there are still national institutions, they don't all become state institutions. There's an EPA in the United States that handles all environmental concerns, that's the equivalent of the DENR and it is a national institution. We have to build a state capitol in each province? wooooow, you mean the capitol building that we already have?? That makes no sense whatsoever. On proof that decentralization won't cost money, the proof is in the real world not some study. Again, why does Australia only have a 10% VAT and ours is 12%.. efficient my ass. Also, the one who makes the allegation is the one with the burden of proof to prove it. You allege that federalism is inefficient, so you should prove it.

Whatever state institutions are necessary in each state, should in fact be created. Are you suggesting that there isn't a PNP branch in every state, or a court of appeals in every state in the present system? Duh.. Even in a centralized system, there is obviously a need for local institutions which require buildings, manpower, etc. The only branch of government that will really be duplicated under the federal system is the judiciary, and that in my view is needed because cases right now take way too fkin long (pardon my language) and go to far off judges in Manila who have no idea about most cases because they don't reside in the place where the cases originated from, so they just resort to taking bribe money to decide cases, hence the unfunny flip-flops in court decisions that make our justice system the butt of jokes internationally.

Is Malaysia less efficient than the Philippines? I think you or someone else claimed that federalism requires a rich country.. Malaysia isn't that rich, but federalism is working pretty well there.

Exactly what kind of federalism (decentralization) are you talking about? when we say decentralization, central government will not give a bigger role (and budget), all government services will be provided by the Federal State.. which mean every government branches should had a HQ in every state cause they cant coordinate well within sa state, alangan ang budget sa DOH sa usa ka state diretso lang ihatag sa whatever infrasture naa karon. So proper infrastructures should be provided and that itself would need investments, some state may not afford it. Now for the maintenance... we spend most/less 500billions in government wages, and that amount will be divided among states again that will be costly to some plus we will hire more people and elect more officials to run the state and again poor states may not afford it to run at optimum level. This is the price of government duplication.. and what kind of decentralization you talking about without duplication na every article of federalism talks about this duplication? dont give me crap na ang Philippine government pa mo handle sa mga branches ng government within the state, naa sila head sa each department sa national level but a large part bya ng budget padung sa state so another head na pud, inefficient kaayo. ang national government pa pud mo maintain sa military, coast guard, foreign affair, congress etc sunod 20% lang ang budget makuha sa entire nation. At least with our present centralized government we can always set priorities and adjust. eg. if naay dengue outbreak in one region the national government can always increase health budget in that area.

Do you know that the proposal is splitting to 11-12 states, what are you talking about na ang provincial capitol himuon ug state capitol? so if one state lang ang Ilocos (north and south) ang capital city is what? Laoag or Vigan or both lol ok lang tana kung mamili lang sa duha kung naa pay maapil sa ilang state... ofcourse mo build gyud ng state capitol and same goes to other government branches and elect more officials. its clear more congressmen needed to debate/ammend/deliberate laws at state levels. again all these is expensive/costly... this is what USA had. Naturally taxation will increase to cope up with these expenses. I raise this issue kay dili ka afford ang poor state ani or maybe below optimum level lang sila. State may have a greater share of tax earnings but yet they pay the price of decentralization. Inefficiency kaayo ang federalism, sa atong current system insufficient ang fund what more kung decentralized na ta. unsa ibayad? you think sakto lang budget para sa poor state kahit na dako ang tax nakuha nila?, di man pud ka utang kay national policy man ang foreign debt.

For the economic issue. there is no positive relation between economic growth and decentralization di ni nako opinion I based that from a study and this forum section opinions is not as valuable as the sources so paki show lang inyong mga proofs na malambo atong ekonomiya with federalism. i will quote a part of that study by Andrés Rodríguez-Pose and Adala Bwire titled The economic (in)efficiency of devolution, i google lang ang title and download the pdf.

CONCLUSION

In this paper we have assessed the link between devolution and economic efficiency, especially in light of the increasing tendency by devolutionists and ‘new regionalists’ to associate the transfer of authority and resources to subnational tiers of government with enhanced economic performance. In a world which has experienced a significant drive towards devolution over the last decades, devolutionists suggest that this should have sufficed to trigger efficiency through improvements in the capacity of devolved administrations to better tailor the provision of public policies and goods to local needs and preferences; greater opportunities for policy innovation; a supposed superior accountability and transparency of administrations that are ‘closer to the people’; and through gains from competition by a greater number of governments generating the best policies and providing the most cost-effective public goods.

Yet, as our results show, there is little trace of a connection between devolution and greater economic efficiency. In our six case studies, we found no evidence of a positive and robust correlation between the inception of regional autonomy or of increases in transfers of resources to regional and state governments and a better economic performance than under a more centralized regime. States and regions which have gained greater powers over the last decades do not seem to reap an economic growth premium from the increased capacity of regional governments to set up their own independent policies. In our six cases, changes in the level of devolution are at best irrelevant in determining the economic performance of regions. The absence of this ‘economic dividend’ of devolution is apparent in very different contexts. It is conspicuous in countries which have witnessed a recent transition to regional autonomy and in countries with a long tradition of devolution; in federal and in non federal countries; in countries with significant internal heterogeneity in the power and resources of regional governments and in countries where those differences are uncommon; in countries where the expenditure capacity of regions has increased significantly over the last few decades and in countries where subnational expenditure relative to GDP has remained stable; and in developed and less developed countries. In the worst cases – Mexico and the US – devolution seems to operate in an opposite direction than that predicted by the ‘efficiency through devolution’ hypothesis. Even when structural factors that may have an impact on economic growth have been controlled for, the Mexican and US states that have gained greater powers to implement autonomous policies over the last few years display a worse relative economic trajectory than they did under a more centralized system of economic governance.

Claims of greater efficiency through devolution and the transfer of powers and authority to regional tiers of government should therefore be taken with great caution. Although devolution may indeed be associated with an increased degree of policy innovation, with a better capacity of governments to adapt policies to local needs – provided a developed civil society exists – and with a greater transparency and accountability, it is difficult to directly associate these factors with increased economic performance. New policies may be a success, but may also fail miserably; responding to public opinion may push governments to adopt policies which are popular in the short-term but have a negative impact in the medium and long-term; and territorial competition across jurisdictions may be growth enhancing, but also zero-sum. Many of the negative factors highlighted by much of the fiscal federalism literature such as the inability to exploit economies of scale and scope at lower levels of government, the problems of assigning powers in a non-overlapping way in devolved contexts or the tendency to operate in conditions of ‘soft budget constraints’ are also likely to play a role in the absence of a link between devolution and higher economic growth. As a result, devolution is far from being the economic cure envisaged by many devolutionists. Although the transfer of authority and resources from the centre to the regions is likely to imply social, cultural, and even political benefits, caution is prescribed when trying to discern any economic effect of devolution, as devolution does not seem to be associated with greater growth.

and now in the case of Malaysia

Malaysia is often suggested as an example that demonstrates the case for a federal structure of government. The Malaysian Federation arose from the traditional control that the British government developed over centuries of balancing empire and local control. The British empire ruled many regions under its jurisdiction by dealing with the ruling datus who were the principal means for political control of the population. When the country became independent, Malaysians used the datu or regional kingdom as the symbolic ruler of the nation. The datus of various regions were given rotating terms to serve as as ceremonial king. But political power resided in the prime minister who headed a parliamentary government. This government controlled the national policies – from taxation and expenditure, monetary and exchange rates, national security to foreign affairs.

The Malaysian federation demonstrates the case of a political break-up within the union. This is an event often forgotten by those who propose the federal structure to keep the nation together. This was the case of the expulsion of Singapore from the federation. Luckily, this breakup did not foment a civil war or political quarrels of long duration. The uniqueness of the Singapore as a city with very distinctive commercial and predominantly ethnic Chinese traditions did not mix well with the Malaysian federation. It led to inconsistencies in the approach to government that made the idea of federal union mismatched. The Malaysian nation was essentially the hinterland to Singapore’s more advanced economy. Singapore was forced out of the federation because of these inconsistencies.

Malaysia’s good economic performance since its independence is due to sound national economic policies and possibly the accident of good leadership. During the twenty years of his strong political rule of Mohammad Mahathir conceived a vision of an economic future, oversaw its strategic details, and implemented the economic policies that sustained the growth process through the years. Malaysian economic policies contrasted with Philippine economic policies in that the former had no qualms about welcoming foreign capital in all sectors of the economy, so long as they provided new jobs, exports, and domestic benefits. In the Philippine case, the screening of foreign direct investment had been the foremost feature marking our behavior towards foreign investments. This attitude was due to the Constitutional provisions that defined economic policy with respect to the entry of foreign capital. Malaysia was not bothered or guided by Constitutional guidance, because their constitution mainly did not cover details of policy related to foreign capital.

This is what we lack.. a good economic policies, we are not attractive to foreign investments. ang atong systema ron benefits the oligarchs and our progress is slow. di ni mausab ng federalism kay ang economic policy is at the national level dili sa state level. If foreign direct investments were free to move into the country, many of the country’s major problems become more manageable. The fight against poverty will become more successful at home. With jobs being generated, the unemployment rate will become less bothersome. A further outcome will be rising wages and incomes for those who live in the country. Macroeconomic gains will strengthen the health of the economy. As argued elsewhere, among the major macroeconomic benefits are the reduction of the fiscal deficit, the lessening of the external debt, the improvement of external trade and payments, the stabilization of the peso and the increase of the national saving rate. what we need is economic reform with our current system without spending/running a costly federalism and we may not know the consequences, most likely mapareho ang Cebu sa Singapore, mubuwag ta sa Pinas. maypa mo call mo ug Special Region ang Cebu.

I think theres no other similar country like ours but Indonesia almost same problem and same geography. Indonesia's government structure was based on a federal union. In the 1950s, it was the so-called United States of Indonesia. Within a short while however, and for unique reasons to Indonesia, the government decided to revert back to a unitary framework of government. Fear of breakup of a nation of big island archipelago led to the consolidation of the nation into a unitary state. If we compare the various restrictions that have marked our policies compared to those of Indonesia today, Philippine policies are more restrictive in terms of foreign capital with respect to natural resources, to land, to public utilities in terms of participation of foreign direct capital. Indonesia was once very restrictive in the matter of trade and industrial policies. Indonesia has more open sectors sectors to foreign capital. There is wider economic participation of foreign direct capital in their economy than we do. Indonesia and Philippines are both centralized but see teh difference.

The best example today of growth being supported by economic policies within a unitary form of government is China. Most of the steps undertaken in China had been through the realization that economic reforms in the direction of encouraging markets to grow will make the country produce a high rate of economic performance. China has a highly centralized government, but it is trying to give a greater role to the provincial economies in the form of nationally initiated economic policies that has transformed many provinces of China.

[Romeojin]

Huna hunaa pud ug tarong Romeojin. Unsa gud tawon molambo automatically. Unsay tuo nimo, gamhanan, magic ni. Of course, it takes time but mas paspas ang kalamboan sa economiya under federal. Sabta kuno ug maau akong post beh, dili kay react lang ka diha.

exactly even 10 years di pa na ma achieve ng federalism, 20 years di pa na sure. whats the point changing to an expensive system kung doubtful man pud ang result

[Romeojin]

Dili lang kay kani ra ang maabot sa Cebu Romeojin if ma federal na ta. I guess you need to study more about Philippine politics aron ka makasabot ug maau. Subaya ang kwarta aron ka makasabot. Imo nang huna2 nga dili mo donate kay selfish tingali ka.

unsaon pag donate kung wa man pud sila kwarta ika donate. did you know what happened sa USA when hurricane Katrina hit, naka recover na ba ang new orleans? wa pa.. asa naman atong ilang population, nibalhin sa uban state. it will only takes one disaster, war etc guba na ang ekonomiya ng usa ka state... kaya na ng mga Mindanao regions na grabeh ang insurgencies didto.

[okah]

[QUOTE=Romeojin;8153441]exactly even 10 years di pa na ma achieve ng federalism, 20 years di pa na sure. whats the point changing to an expensive system kung doubtful man pud ang result [/QUOTE

unsay Doubtful, mau nalang ng 20 or 50 years kay sa kana nga years pa ang mo labay using the current system unsa kaha ang itsura sa Pinas. i have no Doubt for that. pobre pa sa ilaga ang Pinas ana nga time.

[Romeojin]

Sa karon nga bulok nga sestema Bai, dili na lang ko. Sa karon nga sestema, ang tarong kontrahan man. Kung idealistic kaau ka, kaonon ra ka sa mga kurakot nga opisyal nga naa na sa gobyerno. Ipapatay pa ka ug magkalisod. lol

Why would a breakup of the whole political structure be the solution? That might guarantee further breakup of the parts or the failure of the parts to produce the desired economic performance. Why should the solution be in the form of fragmenting a large failure into several self-governing parts? Is that not simply creating failures in all the fragmented new parts? The solution rests in examining the cause of the faults in terms of economic policy first.

kung bulok na ang gobyerno ron, bahin2x pa nimo bulok ra gihapon worst dako pud ang mga gasto sa federalism.

[Romeojin]

unsay Doubtful, mau nalang ng 20 or 50 years kay sa kana nga years pa ang mo labay using the current system unsa kaha ang itsura sa Pinas. i have no Doubt for that. pobre pa sa ilaga ang Pinas ana nga time.

wa ta ni asenso kay bati atong economic policies, kahit unsa pa na country icompare sa ato layo ra gyud ta sa ila.

asa man ang proof nimo na muasenso ta sa federalism? i just posted a case study proving economic growth and decentralization had no positive relation.

[Rajzh_niX]

Hahaha wurag broken record. But you still havent proven nga it's the people, not also the system that they adopt. I'll give you a very good example: China. At one time it was run by Deng Xiao Peng. One part of his rule, China was communist. The other half of his rule, China became capitalist. These are two systems, communism and capitalism. Under communism run by Deng Xiao Peng and the Communist Party, China stagnated. Under capitalism run by the very same people Deng Xiao Peng and the Communist Party, China's economy grew rapidly. This proves that it is both the people and the systems that they adopt. The competence of the leaders can be judged by the actions they take, including the systems they develop or adapt.

Regarding Iraq, again you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty. Same with malaysia and Indonesia. Ngano dili man puwede i compare ang malaysia og saudi arabia, arun rang maka ingon ka nga korek ka? Imong gi-ingon "oil rich and Malaysia" unsa may pasabot nimo, kung naay oil imbis dili kaayo daghan oil rich na? Wakekekekekekeke... And Iraq just emerged from a war and is still undergoing an insurgency. Their poverty is a result mostly of foreign fighters (muslim jihad) who are focused on destabilizing the country. Even if they had the smartest leaders in the world, it's nearly impossible to make conditions better given their circumstances. Don't tell me that if Iraq were a republic things would be better..

let me tell you nga lahi ilang culture compared sa ato....each of them are different and are uncomparable sa ato....gisakop sila ug mga Espanol ug nag-adopt sa ilang pamatasan ug gigamit ug pila ka tuig ug gihimog mga alipin nila.....it is not the system nga problema....coz bisan mag0ilis ta ug systema dayun mau gihapon ang "culture" sa tao, it will always be the same....i think you haven't read this...

What is Needed is a Culture Frame, Not Charter Change - Philippines Today