|
Just
when everybody thought that Finance Secretary Gary Teves
had found the pot of gold when the government exceeded
its VAT revenue goal of P11 billion by a billion in the
first semester of the year, as a result of higher sales
tax and the lifting of exemptions under the E-VAT Act of
2005, we are now being told that he will still proceed
with the questionable privatization of the remaining,
highly prized and, yes, very profitable government
assets.
That
announcement, coupled with BIR Officer in Charge Lilian
Hefti’s assertion that the agency will be able to meet,
maybe even exceed, its full-year revenue target, would
have been enough to make Teves rethink his position.
Right? Well, unfortunately, that may not be the case at
all. The finance chief is insisting on privatization at
all cost.
So, the
question is: why is the good secretary, who is known to
be a cautious and deliberate manager, going full speed
ahead with his privatization initiative at a time when
the global financial markets are in turmoil and the
Philippine investment climate is being clouded by a
number of concerns, including the zigzagging legal and
incentives framework?
Sources
at the Finance Department have offered two reasons for
Teves’s insistence, both of which would appear to be
incredulous, if not problematic, if not for the fact
that tell-tale signs point to their credibility.
The
first reason is that Teves has actually lowered BIR’s
revenue target, thus making asset privatization a
critical option to keep our fiscal position in sync with
our commitments.
This
seems to jive with Hefti’s issuance that the agency has
been able to meet its incremental VAT revenue target and
will, in fact, be able to meet its full-year target.
This is a situation which her boss, Secretary Teves,
earlier noted was next to impossible and, our sources
said, he used to allegedly engineer the ouster of his
college classmate Jojo Buñag from the tax agency.
Whether
that was really the reason for Bunag’s abrupt
resignation remains a mystery up to now. Suffice it is
to say that we do not have any reason to disbelieve
Hefti’s claim at this point.
So the
question is: how can Hefti, who is barely three months
on the job, be so sure that she will be able to meet her
target when her boss was debunking an earlier assertion
made by her own predecessor?
Well, it
now turns out that, indeed, the BIR’s revenue target was
lowered immediately after Bunag’s resignation, thus
making it easier for Hefti and her boss to make that
bold announcement about meeting it. The higher target
was meant to oust Bunag pala! Whew! What a way?!
That
lowered target, coupled with the resistance of the
affected sectors to the finance chief’s overtures to
increase taxes (common carrier’s tax) or proceed with
another tax amnesty, and the seeming inability of the
other revenue generating offices to collect on their
assignments, explain Teves’s insistence on privatizing
the remaining prized assets.
Thus, we
should brace ourselves for this “fire sale” because that
is really what this whole thing will turn out to be,
considering the global economic environment.
So, our
sources are now asking us to closely monitor Teves’s
initiatives, especially the conditions being floated for
each and every asset and the qualification process being
imposed for each and every bidder, among others.
Which is
why we are relieved that Sen. Mar Roxas, a cautious
investment banker himself, has asked Secretary Teves to
submit the details, including the timetable of this
privatization initiative, as soon as possible. That will
be in keeping not only with the demands for transparency
but, more specially, with President Arroyo’s own
injunction for the Finance Department to optimize the
benefits for the people from this initiative.
Half
full, half empty
So,
which is which?
Some
weeks back, some newspapers headlined that more
Filipinos are experiencing hunger now than during the
same period last year. The reports proceeded to suggest
that the number of Filipinos living on US$1 a day has
actually grown rather than diminished over the past few
years.
On the
other hand, the latest SWS survey noted that more
Filipinos are hopeful that their situation will improve
over the next 12 months, even as there are less who said
that their lives have improved compared with those
surveyed a year ago.
Then,
the same survey showed that those who were optimistic
about their situation 12 months down the road equal
those who said their lot will be worse.
Confused? Well, hold on and don’t be. Why? Because the
same survey noted that this impasse between optimists
and pessimists, if we may call it such, is actually an
indication of better expectations than the polls from
2000 to 2005, when “pessimists heavily outnumbered
optimists.”
If you
cannot make heads or tails about these surveys, don’t
get upset. That may well be explained by the usual
economic or, should we say, psychologist jargon about
having a glass as half full or half empty depending on
where one is coming from. Or, as some suggest, what your
orientation is, whatever that means.
That may
be an acceptable explanation but not if it gets to be
used for a screaming headline or a tag in a radio or TV
broadcast. The latter should be as factual as could be
and open to less misinterpretation as possible.
Which is
why we are as concerned as one of our readers, Paulino
Roces from Manila, who wrote in to bewail the practice
of some leading broadsheets and news broadcasts to come
out with earth-shaking, headline-grabbing stories which
are less than factual or even truthful.
Roces
cited the case of the number of soldiers who were
supposed to have been poured into Sulu and Basilan for
the latest military offensive. The headlines and
broadcast reports screamed 10,000 soldiers in Sulu and
6,000 in Basilan going after 150 bandits.
Well,
the truth is there are only 7,000 soldiers in Sulu and
3,000 in Basilan, and they are after more bandits than
reported. In Sulu, the combined renegade MNLF, Abu
Sayyaf and other bandit groups is 750, while the
combined bandit forces in Basilan is closer to 400.
That
translates into a 10-to-one ratio which, according to
our military assets, is just enough. In certain
countries, this type of warfare requires an even higher
ratio of troops versus bandits or insurgents, as the
case may be.
We are
bringing this up since we are constantly being bombarded
with exaggerated claims, here and abroad, and it
behooves all of us, especially in the media, to correct
things and bring a better perspective to the hot issues
and concerns of the day. Otherwise, we may become
conduits for misinformation and, yes, undue public
anxiety and panic without wanting to. Tsk, tsk, tsk. . .
|