A hundred years ago on the first of May, 100,000 men and women laborers, peasants and fisherfolks marched to Malacañang. Led by the Union Obrera Democratico de Filipinas, this significant event led to the appropriation of May 1 for thecommemoration and celebration of the struggle of the working class. In that historic march, they were articulating the aspiration of the masses for freedom. Freedom, as envisioned by the men and women who took part in the movement, was inspired by Andres Bonifacio’s articulation of this aspiration. Freedom was conceived in two realms—freedom from the clutches of colonial rule, and freedom of the masses from the clutches of economic strife and poverty brought about by the concentration of wealth in the coffers of the ruling class. The movement was founded on the vision of the working class for freedom and the recognition of their civil and political rights.
A hundred years later, as we march to Malacañang, our demands remain the same - freedom and the recognition of our rights. The labor movement claims victory in the assertion and institutionalization of minimum labor standards and civil liberties. However, a number of conditions that emasculate the rights and welfare of the working class still prevail. But more importantly, the victories that we have conscientiously struggled for are now being diluted and, worse, undermined by the posturing of the state and the economic elite. It is not an exaggeration to say that our freedom and rights are now being threatened.
Basic rights that guarantee our civil and political liberties are now being laid as sacrificial offerings at the altar of pseudo-economic development. The Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce is proposing a ten-year moratorium on labor strikes. To seduce the state, they promised to generate three million jobs in the next three years. This in effect reflects the seemingly unchanging and condescending attitude of the economic elite towards the working class that resulted in a century of constant struggle. Their proposal will erode and nullify the victory of the labor movement for the right of workers to organize and assemble. If the state gives in, it will usher in a decade of oppression and exploitation of the working class. This is most ironic because it is incumbent upon the state to safeguard and guarantee the rights and welfare of the majority, and incidentally the most vulnerable sector of society that we are a part of.
The state in its actions contradicts its propaganda of concern for the working class. The GMA administration’s unconditional support for the US war on Iraq is now being hailed as an employment-generating undertaking for Filipinos. The government has appealed to the US to employ Filipino workers in the reconstruction of the devastated country. Instead of creating opportunities for employment, it is exposing Filipino workers to greater possibility of racism—a perennial problem among our OFW’s—and harassment from camps that see the Philippines as a minor accomplice in the destruction of Iraq. Also because of this, the Arroyo government is condoning the inequality between Filipino workers and their Western counterparts. For sure, the Americans and the British will receive greater compensation than the Filipinos who are expected to receive meager wages in Iraq. But these problems are also being experienced by OFWs around the globe. The state, therefore, must be able to guarantee protection for our OFWs where ever they are.
GMA administration's invitation to the US troops to enter Sulu and Cotabato via Balikatan 03-1, instead of fostering an atmosphere of economic growth that is a prerequisite in the generation of employment opportunities, will lead to further conflict in the region and will victimize more innocent women and children. This will aggravate the already appalling economic situation in Mindanao, undermining years of women’s work to rehabilitate and heal the trauma of the Bangsa Moro people. With the invitation of GMA to the US in exchange of dollars and a possible presidential sponsorship, the country is regressing in the area of national independence and self-governance—betraying the revolution of the masses more than a hundred years ago.
Its economic policy of compliance to the WTO, WB and ADB leaves the working class neck-deep in poverty. Its obsession with liberalization has taken its toll on our daily lives. Due to the impact of the AoA, vegetable farmers and their families in Benguet and in other parts of the country are now dying of hunger because they cannot compete in a market flooded with imported agricultural products. Our already meager earnings are being expended for the high cost of public utilities. This is coupled with the lack of social services that we now need to purchase from private providers. The exorbitant cost of food, electricity, water, fuel and social services leaves us very vulnerable. This is made worse by job insecurity and non-valuing of work in homes. Thus, more are exploited in the informal sector, especially the women and even the children.
And now, with the onslaught of the “Terror Bills” the civil and political rights not only of the working class and the masses but the society in general, are being undermined by the state. Liberties that we have won through our collective struggle are being subjected to the whims of the manic state. Our legitimate struggle for social reform and equity could be under-cut by this bill which the state shamelessly rams through the legislature.
In the past century, the struggle of the working class has been an unwavering one. A hundred years ago, the battle cry was freedom. A hundred years later, freedom is still the clamor of the men and women laborers, peasants, fisherfolk, the urban poor, gays and lesbians and OFWs. So many administrations have come and gone, and yet, the working class remains marginalized. Our rights and welfare are at a constant threat by a system that perpetuates inequality among classes. Constantly, our hard-earned victories are being undermined.
In the light of the systemic problems and conditions plaguing the working class, WE, in the Task Force May 1 shall continue to defend and advance our rights and our freedom. As we commemorate a century of May 1 demonstrations, WE demand the following:
Fisherfolk: Enact a law for the delineation of municipal waters for the welfare of small fisherfolk (DAO 17)! Protect small fisherfolks from the excesses of local and foreign commercial fishers!
Gays and Lesbians: End discrimination against gays and lesbians in the workplace! Pass the Anti-Discrimination Bill!
Human Rights Groups: Respect the dignity and rights of every Filipi
Laborers: Provide solid guarantee for workers’ and trade union rights! Reject the ten-year moratorium on labor strikes!
OFWs: Stop the deregulation of the overseas labor industry! Reassert government’s primordial role in the protection and promotion of the rights and welfare of OFWs and their families!
Peasants: Guarantee security of land ownership, safe and sufficient supply of food and security of income and protection from both foreign and local capitalist control over the agricultural sector!
Public Sector: Stop the massive re-organization of workers in the public sector, junk the “Omnibus Rules on the Prohibition of Concerted Mass Actions!”
Urban Poor: Stop demolitions! Provide humane housing conditions for the urban poor!
Women: Protect workers in the informal sector! Hold the US and GMA accountable for the impacts of war in Mindanao!
TASK FORCE MAY 1
l AI-Pilipinas l AKBAY MARALITA l AKBAYAN l ALYANSA l AMEND l APL l BALIKATAN l BISIG l CARET l CATW l Center for Migrant Advocacy-Phil. l Confederation of Independent Unions in the Public Sector l CPE l IPD l IPG l LAGABLAB l LARIDE l MAKALAYA l MASP l NTU l NUBC l NUWHRAIN l PADAYON l PAKISAMA l PANDAYAN l PARRDS l PEACE l KASAPI Congress-Jeddah Saudi Arabia l KSK l SARILAYA l SCAP l TESEF l TFP l UNORKA
Showing posts with label manifesto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label manifesto. Show all posts
Apr 29, 2003
Jun 18, 2002
Draft of Bantay Tubig (Water Watch) Manifesto
BANTAY TUBIG
Citizens’ Network for Adequate, Potable and Affordable Water
When private means are used to deliver public services, several things happen. The private sector is given occasion to dip its fingers into public coffers. The profit motive is entrusted with the pursuit of the public good. And the pressure builds up for governments to setup mechanisms to enforce the promises of the private sector.
The promise is that through privatization, public service sectors are able to tap financial markets in innovative ways. Services that might otherwise fail to get financing from government get financing from bankers and investors. The private sector’s technical prowess is also harnessed and services are delivered efficiently and quickly. As for the rights of citizens to minimum services, privatization advocates would claim that private providers are bound to deliver, or else they lose their business, their reputation, not to mention their performance bonds.
From the experience of private involvement in the water and sanitation in Metro Manila, several things are clear:
First, at least one of the private concessionaires (Maynilad) has been unable to tap the financial markets as planned, and consequently, it has failed to deliver on its service obligations. The company’s own excuse is that it had the misfortune of inheriting 90% of the dollar-denominated debts of MWSS and when the peso fell in 1997, the money they needed to service those debts immediately doubled, leaving them with little resources for investments and operations. While this is partly true, the concession contract did provide for the recovery of these losses throughout the life of the contract. However, Maynilad demanded immediate recovery of these losses, resulting in a 135% increase in their water rates starting in October 2001. In contrast, the other concessionaire (Manila Water) raised money on the strength of the financial position of the Ayala group of corporations, shielding their consumers from an abrupt rise in water tarrifs. There is also ample evidence that would demonstrate gross technical inefficiency on the part of Maynilad in the high rate of Non Revenue Water (NRW) and high operating costs.
Maynilad is now asking government for three things: a) a postponement of its service obligations (less connections, less than 24-hours water availability, low water pressures, etc.) b) a rate increase that will raise the cost of water to P30 pesos per cubic meter by January 2003 (more than 500% of its original bid) and c) a government guarantee on its $350 million loan from the Asian Development Bank and commercial banks. If these things are granted, nothing of the original gains from privatization would have been preserved.
Second, both concessionaires have succeeded in changing the contract. Through Amendment Number 1 effected last October 2001, both companies succeeded in changing the parameters of their original bids in terms of the allowable pace and amounts of rate increases and service and expansion targets. Manila Water has succeeded in doubling its allowable profit by an upward adjustment in its ADR. Maynilad has been allowed to collect its debt payments at an accelerated pace even if it has failed to reach its target number of connections. The improvement in the contract of Maynilad benefits Manila Water, and vice versa.
Third, the regulatory agency that is tasked with enforcing the concession contracts has been unable to stand its ground. Key regulators became advocates for the concessionaires. The government entity that is party to the contract—the MWSS—on the other hand, has been unable to police the concessionaires’ compliance with the original contract and thus failed to safeguard the gains from privatization in the form of efficiency, low prices and the aim of near-universal service coverage.
Fourth, there are no effective mechanisms for the exercise of consumer power in this crucial public utility. Although consumers have the greatest incentive for defending the gains of privatization, there is no mechanism for empowering and harnessing consumer voice under privatization. There is no consumer representation in the MWSS Board. There is no formal mechanism for making information accessible to the public and the media. Public hearings conducted by the MWSS Regulatory office do not give weight to consumer input and grievances.
A better arrangement is possible!
BANTAY TUBIG, a citizens’ network for adequate, potable and affordable water, calls for the following:
1. A review of Amendment Number 1 that will reinstate incentives and penalties in relation to water companies’ compliance to service obligations. In other words, we want Maynilad and Manila Water to stick to the contract: if they cannot deliver, they should not be allowed price hikes, much less, allowed to stay in the business of running a public utility.
2. A stop to the rate rebasing exercise that will raise water rates to 25-30 pesos per cubic meter. Previous rate hikes by Maynilad remain contested, a public hearing in Congress is in progress and the rate-rebasing process remains a mystery. We want a public accounting of the basis of these rate proposals.
3. The establishment of an independent regulatory body that will enforce service obligations and contractual commitments on both private and public providers of water service. The current Regulatory Office is a creation of the contract between government and the concessionaires, hence its imperviousness to public demands. We propose a quasi-judicial body in the mold of the Energy Regulatory Commission that will evaluate petitions for price increases and monitor service-obligation. This body must perform these functions not only for Metro Manila but for the entire country.
4. The creation of institutional mechanisms for consumer representation. One proposal is for consumers to own the two water companies, given that we pay for items apart from our actual consumption. At the minimum, there should be consumer representatives in the MWSS Board. Another approach would be for Metro Manila mayors to appoint representatives to the MWSS Board and to establish formal forums where instructions are taken directly from public consultations in Metro Manila towns and cities. In the short term, clear procedures for public hearings must be established, and clear and enforceable terms of reference between community representatives and the private providers must be put in place.
5. That the national government through its pertinent line agencies, local governments, together with private concessionaires, specify an agenda for water provision based on the principle that water is a basic human right, and that all citizens must have access to adequate, potable and affordable water.
BANTAY TUBIG is composed of the following organizations:
Akbayan Citizens’ Action Party * Alliance of Progressive Labor * Focus on the Global South* Freedom from Debt Coalition * Institute for Popular Democracy
Citizens’ Network for Adequate, Potable and Affordable Water
When private means are used to deliver public services, several things happen. The private sector is given occasion to dip its fingers into public coffers. The profit motive is entrusted with the pursuit of the public good. And the pressure builds up for governments to setup mechanisms to enforce the promises of the private sector.
The promise is that through privatization, public service sectors are able to tap financial markets in innovative ways. Services that might otherwise fail to get financing from government get financing from bankers and investors. The private sector’s technical prowess is also harnessed and services are delivered efficiently and quickly. As for the rights of citizens to minimum services, privatization advocates would claim that private providers are bound to deliver, or else they lose their business, their reputation, not to mention their performance bonds.
From the experience of private involvement in the water and sanitation in Metro Manila, several things are clear:
First, at least one of the private concessionaires (Maynilad) has been unable to tap the financial markets as planned, and consequently, it has failed to deliver on its service obligations. The company’s own excuse is that it had the misfortune of inheriting 90% of the dollar-denominated debts of MWSS and when the peso fell in 1997, the money they needed to service those debts immediately doubled, leaving them with little resources for investments and operations. While this is partly true, the concession contract did provide for the recovery of these losses throughout the life of the contract. However, Maynilad demanded immediate recovery of these losses, resulting in a 135% increase in their water rates starting in October 2001. In contrast, the other concessionaire (Manila Water) raised money on the strength of the financial position of the Ayala group of corporations, shielding their consumers from an abrupt rise in water tarrifs. There is also ample evidence that would demonstrate gross technical inefficiency on the part of Maynilad in the high rate of Non Revenue Water (NRW) and high operating costs.
Maynilad is now asking government for three things: a) a postponement of its service obligations (less connections, less than 24-hours water availability, low water pressures, etc.) b) a rate increase that will raise the cost of water to P30 pesos per cubic meter by January 2003 (more than 500% of its original bid) and c) a government guarantee on its $350 million loan from the Asian Development Bank and commercial banks. If these things are granted, nothing of the original gains from privatization would have been preserved.
Second, both concessionaires have succeeded in changing the contract. Through Amendment Number 1 effected last October 2001, both companies succeeded in changing the parameters of their original bids in terms of the allowable pace and amounts of rate increases and service and expansion targets. Manila Water has succeeded in doubling its allowable profit by an upward adjustment in its ADR. Maynilad has been allowed to collect its debt payments at an accelerated pace even if it has failed to reach its target number of connections. The improvement in the contract of Maynilad benefits Manila Water, and vice versa.
Third, the regulatory agency that is tasked with enforcing the concession contracts has been unable to stand its ground. Key regulators became advocates for the concessionaires. The government entity that is party to the contract—the MWSS—on the other hand, has been unable to police the concessionaires’ compliance with the original contract and thus failed to safeguard the gains from privatization in the form of efficiency, low prices and the aim of near-universal service coverage.
Fourth, there are no effective mechanisms for the exercise of consumer power in this crucial public utility. Although consumers have the greatest incentive for defending the gains of privatization, there is no mechanism for empowering and harnessing consumer voice under privatization. There is no consumer representation in the MWSS Board. There is no formal mechanism for making information accessible to the public and the media. Public hearings conducted by the MWSS Regulatory office do not give weight to consumer input and grievances.
A better arrangement is possible!
BANTAY TUBIG, a citizens’ network for adequate, potable and affordable water, calls for the following:
1. A review of Amendment Number 1 that will reinstate incentives and penalties in relation to water companies’ compliance to service obligations. In other words, we want Maynilad and Manila Water to stick to the contract: if they cannot deliver, they should not be allowed price hikes, much less, allowed to stay in the business of running a public utility.
2. A stop to the rate rebasing exercise that will raise water rates to 25-30 pesos per cubic meter. Previous rate hikes by Maynilad remain contested, a public hearing in Congress is in progress and the rate-rebasing process remains a mystery. We want a public accounting of the basis of these rate proposals.
3. The establishment of an independent regulatory body that will enforce service obligations and contractual commitments on both private and public providers of water service. The current Regulatory Office is a creation of the contract between government and the concessionaires, hence its imperviousness to public demands. We propose a quasi-judicial body in the mold of the Energy Regulatory Commission that will evaluate petitions for price increases and monitor service-obligation. This body must perform these functions not only for Metro Manila but for the entire country.
4. The creation of institutional mechanisms for consumer representation. One proposal is for consumers to own the two water companies, given that we pay for items apart from our actual consumption. At the minimum, there should be consumer representatives in the MWSS Board. Another approach would be for Metro Manila mayors to appoint representatives to the MWSS Board and to establish formal forums where instructions are taken directly from public consultations in Metro Manila towns and cities. In the short term, clear procedures for public hearings must be established, and clear and enforceable terms of reference between community representatives and the private providers must be put in place.
5. That the national government through its pertinent line agencies, local governments, together with private concessionaires, specify an agenda for water provision based on the principle that water is a basic human right, and that all citizens must have access to adequate, potable and affordable water.
BANTAY TUBIG is composed of the following organizations:
Akbayan Citizens’ Action Party * Alliance of Progressive Labor * Focus on the Global South* Freedom from Debt Coalition * Institute for Popular Democracy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)