Policy reversals and the NBN
egitimate issues about the project to install a government-owned Internet NBN—a national broadband network—are being drowned out by exciting but peripheral noises. This is unfortunate.Allegations of bribery and other forms of corruption, violations of the law, the incompetence of officials who lost their copies of the contract, questions about whether there is indeed a contract between the government and the ZTE corporation, etc. have been making the headlines.
They give a lot of titillation. But they keep the public from understanding the proposed government-owned NBN project and what sound reasons there are for not going ahead with it.
If there is indeed a deal, the government’s national broadband network is supposed to be installed by China’s ZTE corporation. The Internet NBN is supposed to serve as the backbone of a multi-media communications system among the Philippine government’s multitudinous branches, extensions and smallest local units and subunits in our archipelago of more than 7,100 islands.
Most experts agree that there is a need for such a backbone to insure fast Internet and multi-media interconnectivity among government offices.
An issue we would like to raise is the question of whether this government-dedicated NBN should be owned by the government.
There are at least two private sector Philippine corporations that can provide the NBN—PLDT and its Smart subsidiary. Globe, ABS-CBN/SkyCable and others can also form consortiums and do everything that ZTE (or its Chinese and American competitors) can do.
Have we abandoned the principle of allowing the private sector to do the work and allow business to profit from the country’s infrastructure projects? Are we about to launch a new period of state capitalism?
Does this mean that government should now also go into shipping? The leading companies in the passenger and cargo shipping industries are not expanding fast enough to meet the economic-productivity and basic-commodity price reduction and price stabilization goals of the Arroyo administration. Should the government therefore also fund and operate a mammoth national shipping network and compete with, or even swallow up, the existing shipping companies? We are sure China will only be too happy to provide the multibillion US-dollar loans for this supershipping project.
Is government going to dispense with the services of the many private contractors hired to build our roads and highways that year in and year out have to be repaired after every rainy season?
Another issue that has not been raised in the media is the claim of proponent government officials that a government owned NBN will save the government half of the P4 billion it now spends on “communications expenses.” This claim seems to ignore the meaning of savings. If you have a budget of P4 billion to achieve some work and you spend only P2 billion you have indeed made a saving of P2 billion.
But in this case, the government has to spend about P16 billion (exclusive of the 3-percent annual interest) to pay for ZTE’s setting up of the NBN. Government will also have to spend for the network’s operation. Where then are the savings? And IT is constantly advancing so that prices are always going down. Wouldn’t the P4-billion communications costs today be much less three years from now using private-sector facilities?
Apparently President Arroyo herself had questioned the need of a “government broadband.” This was, apparently, during a meeting of the Cabinet and the experts of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) in Malacañang in November 2006. The NEDA had told the President and the Cabinet that it was indeed necessary to link all the central government agencies with all government sub-units. But Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Romulo Neri batted for creating the connectivity through the private sector. The President herself then insisted that the NBN be handled as a build-offer-transfer project, not a government-owned project to be financed with a loan that the national treasury would have to shoulder for years. Why has this policy been reversed?
These policy reversals are very serious issues. They have far more enduring consequences for our nation’s future than the exciting side issues surrounding the ZTE deal.
The truth about the bribery, overpricing, incompetence and other sensational matters must, however, also be exposed.
No longer amusing
GAME shows and quiz programs are closely monitored in other countries because the fabulous cash prizes could promote cheating. In 2001 it was discovered that the winner of the 1-million pound prize in the British Who Wants To Be A Millionaire had been coached by a fellow contestant. In the 1950s, several contestants on the US quiz show Twenty One admitted they were coached by the producers.
Sen. Mar Roxas, chairman of the Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce, has filed a resolution seeking an inquiry, in aid of legislation, to strengthen protection of consumers or contestants who join TV game shows.
“Millions of Filipinos watch these game shows and send text messages or purchase products so they could become contestants, hoping that they win and uplift their lives with the prize money,” he said.
Allegations of cheating erupted over a recent edition of the popular ABS-CBN game show Wowowee. The host had reportedly switched the winning numbers to avoid giving away P2 million to a contestant. The studio blamed the incident to a “technical glitch.” But some viewers and a rival studio took potshots at the Wowowee host and producers.
With the proliferation of game shows and the millions given away, we must ensure fairness and transparency on TV and determine the government action needed to regulate them and ensure the protection of consumers and contestants. The Roxas resolution is timely.
