Pacific Plans' Problems

The current issue hounding Pacific Plans is turning into another sad story poorly covered by the media. This situation (poor media coverage) is detrimental not only to the company, but even to the planholders. The company (and their owners) will surely suffer from poor media coverage. Their reputation is at stake here.

Meanwhile, I am sure everyone knows that the planholders will not benefit from PPI's death. Media should not highlight only the anger (and wrath) of the planholders who thought that they were misled. Media should be at the center things as a third party looking at the situation from an unaffected point of view.

Meanwhile, I visited PPI's new website which addresses the issues. I know they will not be able to appease everyone at this point and no matter what information they give will be deemed inadequate by many. However, their website focusses much on their defense rather than in appeasing their customers. Their tactic seem to be that want everyone to realize that they have the contract on their side no matter how heartbroken the planholders are. The centerpiece of the PPI website shows this defense:

Section XV: FORTUITIOUS EVENTS/ IMPOSSIBILITY

PLANHOLDER agrees that PACIFIC shall not be liable for any inconvenience,

loss, damage or delay that may be sustained by the PLANHOLDER and/or

SCHOLAR resulting from fire, earthquake, war or civil disturbances, extraordinary economic upheaval, strikes or any labor disputes, acts of God, government legislation or regulation, or such other matter or conditions that are beyond the control of PACIFIC in connection with the implementation of its obligation under this Agreement. PACIFIC however, agrees to pay to PLANHOLDER upon written request the plan termination value stated in SECTION XIII.

Now, is this how PPI should treat their customers?

I think it would do well for Pacific to answer more question from their planholders, questions such as the following:

1.  If you think that the the tuition fee deregulation
in 1992 is a fortuitous event as described in your
Section XV of the plan, why did Pacific not declare it
as such early on?

2.  If there were secondary markets still selling the
plans even after 1992, while you have nothing to do
with them, what actions did you make to discourage
them?

PPI should give their customers better treatment, lest the companies affiliated with them could be affected.

The PCIJ on PVB

There is another well-researched report published by the PCIJ, this time on the alleged plunder taking place at the Philippine Veterans' Bank. Unfortunately, the same has not generated mainstream media attention.

While the report has painstaking details included, it seems our tri-media doesn't notice. There should have been a furor already versus the management of the bank especially against the bank director Mr. Romeo G. Roxas. It is like Pavarotti finishing a grand concert and nobody takes note. Oh well, perhaps everyone is too busy covering the upcoming episodes of Darna and Krystala!

I hope the PCIJ can find a way to publicize the report, and I hope people find a way to force TV/Radio networks and newspapers to follow on the PCIJ's lead even only on this specific story. Bloggers can only do so much to publicize, but everyone could share an idea how to.

Why we need UP11

Last Good Friday, and again, the so called UP11 (eleven economists from the University of the Philippines) released a paper called "The economy on a cusp: The proposed VAT amendments and their larger significance.", wherein they reitirated their support for VAT increase from 10 to 12% to avert a financial crisis.

Short of saying that our lawmakers are stupid, UP11 lamented the fact that congress has been dragging on its feet, if not totally going to another direction (mangling it), on these important issue. Their message to congress is to keep it simple, increase the VAT and do not make any more stupid counter-productive proposals, while we still have the time (that means, now!), or something like that.

Their challenge is: Can Congress Deliver?

"The question therefore is thrown once more to the country’s political elite: Can they deliver?"

I think we all (and maybe even the UP11) know the answer to that. If congress "can deliver", we would not have been in the financial mess we are right now. If congress "can deliver" they would have had made some effective legislation long ago to root out corruption or at least lessen it, and we would not have been debating now whether we need this VAT increase or not. If UP11 is right on the fearful scenario of an economic downfall, then we have to brace ourselves for trouble, because there is no hope when our hope clings on what our dearest politicians will do!

Exerpt from UP11 paper:
"Without such a law, on the other hand, if a credit-downgrade or massive loss of confidence in Philippine sovereign debt should occur, borrowing costs could rise by 300 basis points (i.e., three percentage points) and cost the nation an additional P5 billion in just one episode.2 That burden would multiply as the country continued to borrow and its ratings continued to decline. More profound than this, however, are the social, economic and financial costs to the nation if one considers – as one should – the macroeconomic instability and uncertainty that are bound to follow upon a debt-payments crisis. (Among other things, recent favourable trends in the exchange-rate and the stock market could very quickly reverse.)"

Funny though how the UP11 can get away saying that congress is "media posturing", "horse-trading", even un-"care"ing, "obdurate" (whatever that means), "vulnerable to lobbying... by vested interests", engage in "folly and tokenism", "pandering", "log-rolling", and that congress' proposals on the VAT are "incomprehensible", "outrageous", "brazen", "frivoulous", "ill-conceived", "deplorable", etc. Yes funny how our dear senators and congressmen does not have any immediate reaction to these. Perhaps they are still trying to look for the meaning of those adjectives from their dictionaries, or perhaps they are yet to understand the impact of what they are doing (or not doing).

But are the UP11 indeed right in their assertions? We will realize that therein lies one of our real problem, the fact that we all don't know! As usual, our media is not quite capable to handle or start such a debate. Philippine Media is not qualified to tackle the issue. They, especially TV and radio, does not have the capacity to understand what is in the middle of the discussions. And that is the reason why the so called UP11 existed from somewhere, in the first place. Media has (always) been absent, and we are all left in the dark.