Conclusion
The Duterte government’s flagship project “Build, Build, Build” could increase current Philippine national government debt of approximately $123 billion to $290 billion, excluding interest.
About $167 billion is expected be spent on this ambitious project. With high rates of interest from China, the new debt could swell to over a trillion US dollars in 10 years. It is not farfetched that at 10-percent interest the new debt could go as high as $452 billion. My belief is that this could significantly raise the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio to 197 percent, a very alarming figure. Since current national government debt would also accumulate interest over that time, such scenario would further put a heavy debt burden shackling the Philippines into virtual debt bondage.
If surveys are to be believed, majority of the Filipinos are still very much satisfied with the present dispensation despite its glaring missteps. When done properly, according to Bob Herrera-Lim, managing director for Southeast Asia of Teneo Holdings, surveys become relatively reliable snapshots of public opinion. Therein lies the catch, he cautioned, because scientific and reliable surveys must first have a truly random sample.
Explained Herrera-Lim: “It is random sampling which allows companies to check that their products are safe even though they make millions of them without having to check each and every one. So, a survey of voters randomly calling mobile numbers is not random, because not all voters have cell phones, with the result that the opinions of people without mobile devices will not be included.”
He said that the second important consideration to the use of a truly random sample is the question being asked. “In some situations, people will be less candid; thus the need to have a well-phrased question and properly trained interviewer. Without both, the credibility of a survey can decline quickly, which is why Internet polls are normally unreliable, even misleading. It is often beyond the abilities of the laymen, even the well-educated ones, to reasonably assess whether a survey has been done scientifically.”
In other countries, Herrera-Lim pointed out, “Well-trained journalists and statisticians often take a look at a pollster’s methodology and his or her history in getting things right to get a sense as to whether they are reliable. Also, journalists have to do a better job of explaining the margin of sampling error, or the nonresponse bias. The ultimate test of any survey is voting day.”
So, are you better off today than you were two years ago? If the country’s economy were to be our gauge, the resounding answer is “No!” But why would economic growth matter? Weak economic growth signifies that the economy is doing poorly, which often means falling incomes, lower consumption and job cuts. The impact on the lives of businessmen, middle managers and minimum-wage workers alike are severe: large falls in wages, restricted access to credit, and a growing number of unemployed people.
So, are you truly better off now? Are you among the survey respondents who said they were very much satisfied with their lives now? Or could you be one of those who have never been part of any survey sample, and think otherwise? Perhaps, you too would have answered positively had you been surveyed, not because you are actually enjoying the economic gains that the present administration has been claiming to have achieved in the past two years, but because you count yourself as perennially optimistic.
I dread to think that we have become a nation of self-defeatists or masochists.
For comments and suggestions, e-mail me at mvala.v@gmail.com