Congratulations are in order to all the agencies and individuals on both the national and local level for the success of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations 2017 summit. You did a great job, ladies and gentlemen. Events like this, from a security and logistics standpoint, are not easy. Imagine planning and executing a thousand birthday parties at 50 fast-food restaurants held all over Metro Manila for several days.
Criticism of the inconvenience that we all endured is normal. Differing views about if our government officials served the Philippines well are reasonable. But to question whether or not the Philippines should have hosted the event as a founding member of the Asean makes little sense. We might describe that attitude as “nipa-hut mentality.” We are too poor.
In a sense, life was simpler when the Philippines was a nation of only nipa huts and carabaos. It might even be easier just to return to those times, and a good way to do, that is to say that the nation is not ready for hosting something like Asean summit 2017.
One group that was characterized as representing the “urban poor” questioned the P15.5-billion budget for the summit and the related meetings that the Philippine government hosted. The initial argument was that the Philippine government and the people could not afford that sort of expenditure. As usual, arguments like these are never told in context.
In terms anyone can understand, the Philippine economy is more than twice as large as 10 years ago. In 2016 the annual budget of the Philippine government was P1 trillion. For 2017 the budget is P3.5 trillion. The nation is wealthier now, and the government has more money to spend.
But isn’t P15 billion a lot of money? Of course, but that amount needs to be put in context. The amount spent on the summit is less than one half of 1 percent of the national budget. The government spends P15 billion in just a few hours.
However, consideration should be made that the P15 billion could have been spent on something else than the Asean summit. Specifically mentioned was that the money could have provided average low-cost housing to 34,444 beneficiaries, provided free secondary education over six years to 55,357 high-school students or funded free tertiary education for four years to 77,500 Filipino college students. If those numbers are accurate, what is the problem?
Certainly, these urban-poor groups could have easily found a group of Representatives and senators to sponsor a spending bill to increase the national budget by 0.50 percent to pay for one of those options.
Perhaps, the worst argument against spending for the 31st Asean Summit is the idea that the money was somehow wasted. It is worth noting that a significant portion of the budget paid for security like for the police that was needed to manage the protests by the urban poor and other groups. Had there not been any protests, money would have not been spent.
Another consideration is that the P15 billion was not given to the delegates who attended the summit like some protestors receive when they go to the streets. According to Budget Secretary Benjamin E. Diokno, a bulk of the budget was spent on car rentals for the visiting dignitaries. So, then, government money was spent on Filipino goods and services provided by Filipinos. That sounds like money well spent.