Corruption: The Roots Go Deep

You know, the newspaper is one of the best places to look if one really wants to understand just how deep this country's problems really go. And I don't mean the lead stories on the front page. I mean the little single-column articles about petty crimes and minor issues. This is where we can see all the flaws in the system, which unfortunately, don't seem to attract much attention. It's also where we see just how willing everyone seems to be to simply accept corruption as "just the way it is".

In the 30 May 05 edition of the Philippine Star there was an article entitled "Manila cops cry foul over illegal salary deductions". According to the story, the Comptroller for a Police District in Metro Manila routinely withholds a small amount (P30-40) from each paycheck or other monetary benefit received by each policeman. The reporter goes on to say that the deputy chief of the Comptroller Section admitted that "the deductions were meant as grease money to City Hall personnel to expedite the release of their monetary benefits". The deputy chief added that "it would take time before the police benefits are released from the City Hall unless the personnel there are treated to some perks".

I'm not trying to single out this particular person, but those statements show just how deeply entangled corruption is in Philippine society. And just how willing we are to accept it as normal. First of all, there is absolutely no form of legitimate administrative delay that can be overcome by paying "grease money". The only two possible ways that money can expedite an administrative process is (1) to skip a required step, or (2) if the process is being intentionally delayed for the purpose of encouraging payment. In both cases, a violation is being committed, if not an outright crime. And for the Philippine National Police, of all agencies, to accept this without question, really shows how far we have to go.

Things will never change in this country until people start taking responsibility. Crimes must be reported, even if you think nothing will happen. In this case, the unreasonable delays should be reported to higher levels in the PNP chain of command, and then across to the city government. It may sound naiive, but it has to start somewhere. Corruption is destroying this country, and the greatest threat comes from the thousands of relatively minor acts like this one, occurring every day in offices all over the country.

Corruption: Taking Responsibility

Corporate Responsibility

In its World Development Report 2005, the World Bank reported that more than half the companies in the Philippines had to bribe regulators just to get things done. In this context, "getting things done" refers to routine administrative processes like getting utilities connected, passing inspections, or securing permits from local government offices.

In survey after survey, both local and foreign companies continue to describe corruption as a serious roadblock to doing business in the Philippines. They also report that bribes consume a significant percentage of their total sales. Everyone seems happy to respond to these surveys, apparently thinking that if we talk about it enough maybe something will change. But what do the individual companies actually do about the the problem?

While most companies reject corruption in principle, very few have posted regulations that specifically prohibit corrupt acts. Many publish mission statements or company policies which address the issue, but these are rarely anything more than broad statements of philosophy. While demands for large under-the-table payoffs probably always get attention from senior executives, I doubt whether most CEO's are aware of the myriad of smaller demands that are handled routinely by their staff. Sometimes this is because they don't see, and sometimes because they don't want to see.

In day-to-day operations, company clerks and accountants routinely pay "fees", "consideration", and "for the boys" money to various local government offices or officials, to facilitate company needs. These payments are almost never demanded, but they are always expected, and junior company clerks often find themselves caught in the middle. A government official implies that a "fee" is required, and the employee knows that management needs the service in question. The employee knows the fee is not official, but also knows that the company tolerates the practice as a necessary evil. In most cases, the employee doesn't even feel the need to ask for guidance. It's just SOP.

This system has evolved into something way beyond extortion. Threats are almost never issued, or even implied. In fact, the whole process is more or less automatic. A new employee, unaware of the need for payment, may even be reminded by his co-workers, lest he forget to appease the official and risk some unspoken retribution against the company. A new accountant may ask "how much?", but never "why?" It's just SOP.

Without internal guidelines specifically prohibiting these acts, the employees that actually make a company run will continue to support corrupt behavior, even when it contradicts the company's declared anti-corruption "philosophy". Companies serious about resisting corruption must make their policy crystal-clear to employees, by issuing a regulation strictly prohibiting these payments. Employees need this clarity to give them the confidence to resist the overtures of corrupt city officials, and there should be no mixed signals from the top. By "mixed signals" I mean the company must not continue to unofficially tolerate the practice while posting a regulation that prohibits it. In that case, the safest thing for the employee to do is to quietly keep playing the game. All we've accomplished then is a little more paperwork.

The wording of an anti-corruption regulation is really pretty simple, and should not be hard for any law-abiding company to adopt:

· "It is prohibited for any company employee to make any payment to any government official or office, except published fees as prescribed by law."

· "It is prohibited to make any payment to any government official or office in cash."

· "All checks issued to any government office must be made payable to the institution that provided service. No check for such services may be issued in the name of any individual."

· "No payment may be made to any government office unless an official receipt is issued."

Any company can implement this regulation, which is really just a reinforcement of its commitment to obey the law. Obviously though, a single company making a lone stand may find itself on the losing end against corrupt government officials. Services may be refused or delayed, inspections may be failed, or permits denied. Corrupt officials hold considerable power.

But there is also strength in numbers, and a unified front can succeed where a lone resister could not. Business associations such as the Makati Business Club and the various Chambers of Commerce are perfect vehicles for coordinating simultaneous implementation among their members. The boycott aspect is a "make or break" element, and if enough companies suddenly start refusing to go along with the demand for under-the-table payments, the system will be forced to change.

As an odd kind of example, consider what has happened with airline hijackings since 9/11. After the heroic passenger uprising aboard Flight 93, and a few other celebrated incidents, we seem to have discovered that, if passengers simply refuse to cooperate, hijackers lose their power to take control. In the 3 years since that tragedy, I don't believe there has been a major hijacking anywhere in the world. The power of group resistance.

Finally, at the same time as these companies jointly implement the anti-corruption regulation, it would be helpful to hear a clear and public statement of support from local mayors and city councils. In many cases, bribes and extortion are wrapped within seemingly harmless acts of appreciation, tips, and gift-giving, and are often seen by all concerned as "just the way we do things". A public statement from a government official, worded as clearly as the regulation I just described, will carry weight even if it comes from a corrupt bureaucrat who has no wish to see the current system change.

Corporate policies and public statements are certainly not the cure-all for the kind of corruption described by the World Bank report, but they will definitely be a huge step in the right direction. Any problem must be defined before it can be attacked, and then the act must be specifically prohibited before it can be realistically defeated.

Reporting Corruption

As I said at the beginning, everybody seems delighted to answer surveys about corruption, and to complain about how much it hurts business, but there is a question I haven't yet seen on any survey: How many of the companies who complained of extortion in a survey actually reported the experience to the authorities?

Over the years, I have talked with many local and foreign businessmen in the Philippines, and almost every one has related some experience with under-the-table payoffs. Most were low-level payments to facilitate permits and the like, and a few talked about extortion at much higher levels, but for all the coffee-shop complaining, I have yet to meet anyone who has filed a report or an official complaint about extortion. In fairness, I do occasionally see newspaper reports of these complaints, but they represent a drop in the bucket compared to the "half the companies in the Philippines" mentioned in the surveys. Yes it's true that government doesn't do a very good job of telling people where or how to report corruption, and it's certainly true that exposing a demand for extortion may jeopardize the project, but it's also true that each of these companies have a legal responsibility to report criminal acts. The situation is infinitely more complicated than that, but it is important to understand that blind surveys do not trigger investigations or lead to arrests. Government must make a greater effort to educate individuals and businesses about their options for reporting corruption, and must instill confidence by demonstrating that complaints will be acted upon quickly. But the environment will not change unless official complaints are filed with the authorities.

In my view, this is the real meaning of "Corporate Responsibility".

The Insurgency: A Realistic Strategy

The communist insurgency in the Philippines is one of the longest-running rebellions in the world, and volumes have been written to document it's thirty-five year existence. The rebellion took root in the desperation of an impoverished people, fueled by a government that failed and, more often, abused those people. The dictatorship that was newly emerging when the insurgency began is gone, but the corruption and mistreatment of the people by their own government continues. Make no mistake, government is an active contributor to the conditions that feed this rebellion. People live in poverty in many countries, including the United States, and still don't take up arms against their government. The outstanding difference, and the one that I believe leads to insurrection, is the fact that those other countries have working governments that make an honest effort to respond to the needs of their people, and do not try to take advantage of them at every opportunity.

The Philippine Government itself is not abusive, but more than a few individuals within government misuse their positions at the expense of the people. Government officials, especially in the outlying areas, operate as if they were feudal lords, controlling their lands with the power of life and death, taxes and fees, and unchecked authority. Renewing a license requires bribe money. Getting a permit to start a business or put up a building requires kickbacks to a host of open hands. Lodging a complaint about such things with the local police requires "filing fees" and "consideration" for the investigators. In some cases, the police themselves provide the muscle to back up corrupt officials. How does one survive in an environment like that? Who does one turn to, when the very government which is supposed to protect you is the one squeezing the life out of you? When the mechanisms that are supposed to prevent such abuses are themselves corrupted?

Rightly or wrongly, a segment of the population has chosen to take up arms against its own government in an effort to force change. That segment does not represent the majority, but it does voice the sentiments of a large part of the population. Traditionally, insurgencies arise because some citizens feel that their government is not responsive to the needs of the people. Typically born in the universities, violence appears as the next logical step, after dialogue and protest fail to trigger change. Students, passionate about their country and frustrated by their failure to bring about change through the participatory methods they have been taught, take to the countryside to force change through violence.

Insurgency is not a war fought over land or territory, or even political systems, but over needs. Needs for things like justice, human rights, and a man's ability to feed his family. In the Philippines, poverty and despair continue to feed the beast, driving new fighters to join the rebels every day. Some are no more than children, victims of inadequate education and the certain belief that life will never improve for them. They often join for the same reasons that city kids join gangs. The group offers a sense of strength, protection, and livelihood and asks only loyalty in return, at least in the beginning. And for the same reason that a poor mother can sometimes give her beloved child up for adoption, some parents would rather see their sons and daughters fighting with a group that will guarantee their welfare than to see them repeat the cycle of hopelessness they face in their own lives.

Even minor abuses, suffered repeatedly, are enough to convince many people that they must take their welfare into their own hands. Almost like a religion, the insurgency offers a solution. We are your army, they say. We are here to protect you and to improve your lives. Join us, support us, fight with us, and life will be better. For the desperately hopeless, it is an opiate that is very hard to resist. And almost by design, the government, through its failings and its abuses, drives people right into the welcoming arms of the insurgents. Most government social programs are so choked with bureaucracy, inadequate funding, and endless requirements as to be of only limited usefulness to the needy Filipino. The cost of government services is often greater than the value of the help they provide, and abuses by authorities cause irrepairable damage.

The poor don't particularly want a communist government. Nor do they want a shadow army roaming the countryside, forcibly collecting "revolutionary taxes" and dishing out justice with executions, bombings, and bus-burnings. What they do want is a government that responds to their needs. In India, an insurgency has been ongoing for many years. In a BBC News story some time ago, villagers were asked why they support the rebels, called Naxalites, rather than the government. The response from many people was simply "we see the Naxalites, we don't see the government". Similarly in the Philippines, the insurgents are often more reliable than the government, at least according to the popular view. I seldom hear people threatening to report a particular injustice to the police. Many people believe there is simply no use in doing that. And even if they did, they would likely have to pay for the service. But on several occasions I have heard people threaten to report a corrupt policeman or government official to the NPA. In one sentence, the fact that people feel a greater sense of support from the Communist New People's Army than from their own government is the very answer to the problem itself.

The Military Solution

While there is certainly a military aspect to the insurgency, the solution is most definitely not combat. If this was just a fight between two opposing armies, the outcome would have been decided long ago. But this war grew out of intolerable conditions created and then perpetuated by the government itself, through both its failings and the intentional abuses of its officials. Those conditions are the stated reason the insurgents are fighting in the first place, and they are undeniably the reason new recruits continue to enlist in the rebel army. Until the conditions change, the fighting will continue.

There is only one solution to a 35 year old war that is supported by citizens who feel that their own government is the enemy. And that solution is not to meet force with force. Insurgents in the Philippines often claim to control certain areas, but they are never talking about geographic territory. They are talking about hearts and minds. And the truth is, the government is doing most of the PR work for the rebels. Even the most uneducated farmer is smart enough to know that a mayor's job is not to enrich himself and his friends at the farmer's expense. People must see hope and opportunity. They must believe that if someone does wrong to them, they can find legitimate redress through their government, even if the violator is an official of that government. The people do not believe that now, and they do not have hope. This is why the fighting continues. Once these conditions are corrected, there will simply be no more support for rebellion. Once the people start to believe, and to actually see, that their government is there to support them, the insurgency will have lost its mass base, and it will simply wither away. The few factions or groups that continue armed activity after that will have lost their idealogical foundation and can be considered to be nothing more than criminals. Without the people's support to hide, feed, and fund them, they can be rounded up relatively quickly, assuming that law enforcement elements are up to the task.

Obviously, resources are limited and government cannot yet afford to provide every service to every citizen. That is not what the people are asking for. The people of this country simply want honest, fair treatment within the limits of the government's ability. And the people are not stupid. They can plainly see that a promise made or a law passed in Manila, that is blatantly ignored by a corrupt local government, is not working in their interest. The insurgency gains strength every time a local policeman demands a bribe, or a local official awards a contract to a company he himself secretly owns. Every time the military arrests a "sympathizer" from within the local population, it drives another wedge between the people and the government. Many more people than you would believe are "sympathetic". Not to the methods of the insurgents, but certainly to their ideals. Again, this is not a political war, despite the politics of those at the top. For Juan Dela Cruz, this is a fight for survival.

No, the answer to the insurgency is not military. The military has to be involved, because violence is involved. Laws must be enforced, and order must be maintained, and in many parts of the country the Armed Forces is the only entity up to the task, at least for now. It is critical though that all law enforcement functions be transferred to civilian authorities as quickly as possible, even in remote areas. The military is, and must remain, the fighting component but that must be the limit of their role in this war. Except during actual combat, all arrests must be made by civilian law enforcement authorities, supported by properly issued warrants. And even those captured in combat must be transferred to civilian control in a reasonably short time. The military will no doubt protest loudly, arguing that this will hinder their ability to conduct effective operations. But it is necessary to insert a layer of checks and balances to improve the military's image as protector of the people, and to prevent abuses, real or perceived. Keep in mind, these are not foreign prisoners of war. They are Filipino citizens who have broken the law. Military interrogators should continue to enjoy the same level of access to these prisoners as before, but the fact that they are under civilian control will greatly reinforce the public perception that they are being treated fairly, and in accordance with the law. In the big picture, the value of this measure will far outweigh any loss of operational effectiveness.

In a conflict of this nature, military action alone can never succeed in doing anything more than holding the line. Currently, the military situation between government and rebel forces is holding in a sort of tit-for-tat status. Rebel units initiate some sort of military action and government forces pursue, confident that they are protecting the people against unlawful violence. Government forces capture or kill insurgents, and the rebels retaliate, equally confident that they are protecting the people against an oppressive and abusive regime. Rebel numbers have dropped from their all-time high of more than 23,000 in the early 1980's, but they have also risen occasionally, in cycles that seem to correspond to the public's expectations and subsequent frustrations with government. This has been the status quo for years, and it only serves to reiterate the futility of a purely military response. If every last member of the New People's Army were wiped out today, the root causes of the insurgency would still exist, and a new rebel force would eventually arise. Read that sentence again, because it is at the heart of the matter:

If every last member of the New People's Army were wiped out today, the root causes of the insurgency would still exist, and a new rebel force would eventually arise.

Three and a half decades should certainly be long enough for anyone to see that meeting force with force is not the solution to this problem.

Negotiations

Despite government convictions to the contrary, negotiations with the insurgent leadership is also not the answer, although dialogue is certainly necessary. Think about this. The New People's Army has been fighting for 35 years, against five different administrations, and has seen very little improvement, if any, in the conditions that drove them to war in the first place. It is not logical to believe that they would simply give up the fight, on the basis of government promises to change. There is great value though, for the rebels, in long-term negotiations. Negotiations lend legitimacy to the insurgent leadership, at least in the eyes of the Filipino people. As long as government treats them as respected equals by meeting over the conference table, the leadership will continue to be seen as romantic and heroic figures to a great many Filipinos. In addition, as long as the two sides are talking, government forces will be restrained. Meanwhile, the people's dissatisfaction with government continues to fester. Time is the insurgent's ally, an idea expressed by their own strategy of "protracted war".

For those in the most senior positions, there is also the very real truth that they have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by reaching a negotiated settlement. Jose Maria Sison is a powerful man, living a fine life on the donations of benefactors and the financial collections of the organization under him. If he were to negotiate and reach a settlement with the government, he would become at best an "also-ran", someone who "used to be somebody". At worst, he would spend years in prison as the sacrificial lamb so often demanded in situations like this. In truth, once government has won back the confidence and support of the public, and the insurgency has withered away, people like Sison will simply become irrelevant.

The NPA is not an army that is being dragged to war by its leaders. Nor can its actions necessarily be stopped by its leaders. We know this to be true by the various factions that have broken away over the years. This army is self-motivated, with individual fighters being driven by anger, frustration and desperation, along with a heavy dose of simple criminal greed. The leadership and the ideology give the movement structure and direction, but they do not drive the individual rebel soldier. Government's unresponsiveness and abuse provide that fuel quite nicely. Any settlement reached between the government and the insurgent leadership will certainly benefit the leaders, but will not resolve the underlying issues that drive a farmer's son to join the movement.

The only dialogue necessary, at least in the beginning, should be a constant public awareness campaign to convince the individual rebel soldiers, and of lesser importance, the leadership, that government is actually addressing the problems of the people. Those efforts, of course, will be wasted without widespread visible improvement throughout the country. All the other problems of this country, from poor leadership to corruption to poverty, are the fuel that feeds the movement. Once work begins in earnest to correct those problems, the insurgency will not need to be solved. It will just evaporate, having served its purpose. This should be the only subject of discussion with the rebels. And communication should be directed at the fighters themselves much more than with their leaders. A note of caution here -- Asking the rebel soldiers to "come down from the hills and then we will start fixing things" is simply the wrong message. The work must start first, with visible results, and then you can say "look what we have done so far. Come down and we will finish it together". This stategy will not only bring the fighters down from the hills, it will also win over the hearts and minds of the Filipino people, and dry up their support for the insurgency.

To succeed in this new approach, it is important to carefully rethink current strategy. Around the world, the standard tack in a counter-insurgency campaign is direct military confrontation. Now I am not a pacifist by any means. I am honorably retired after 20 years of service with the US Air Force, and I know that there are times when war is the only option. But I can plainly see, as can anyone who looks carefully, that all the money spent on ammunition, and all the lives lost, and all the property destroyed, has brought this country no closer to peace than when the rebellion began 35 years ago. Every bullet bought has cost a life, with very little ground gained.

This insurgency is nothing more than a symptom of much deeper problems. The solution therefore, is simple, and cost effective -- Treat the problem. The massive sum of money that government has poured into the military effort, and the total amount of "revolutionary taxes" collected by the insurgents over the last 35 years, could have easily paved all the farm-to-market roads in the country. It could have built schools, bought books, and provided health care for millions of citizens.

With that in mind, I suggest a simple but radical change in strategy. Over the years, many people have pointed out the need to focus attention on the nation's ills as the way to defeat the insurgency. Efforts have been made in that direction, but the money has never been there. It's being eaten up by a combat effort that the government incorrectly believes is the first step to solving the problem. The government's strategy of "clear, hold, consolidate, and develop" follows the traditional philosophy of first defeating the insurgency militarily, and then attacking the root causes. And by "development" I get the feeling that we are talking more about physical infrastructure than about cleaning up corrupt local governments. This is not a simple matter of paving roads and building schools. Money is only one piece of the solution. The insurgency will collapse only when honest effort is made, and real improvement is seen, in eliminating the fundamental problems of this country. That sounds like an impossibly tall order, but it really boils down to "providing honest government services through honest government officials". Part of the funding for this massive effort, especially for the physical development side, can be taken from a military "peace dividend". If the military were to shift to a purely defensive posture, and reduce its expenditures accordingly, a massive amount of money would become available for use in a full-force assault on the corruption and services problems. Such an attack will weaken the insurgency a thousand times more than any military campaign. Under the current strategy, both the expense and the effort are wasted in fighting rebel soldiers, who are actually only a symptom of the real problem.

This is not the macho solution, and it certainly requires more than a little pride to be swallowed, especially by the military. But it is the right solution for the problem, and it is the solution that will work. Changing strategy certainly does not mean that the military has failed. It only means that the problem was never a military problem to begin with. Recognizing this and moving ahead will be a great achievement, and should be seen as a source of pride for the nation. Other countries, faced with similar problems, will certainly see it that way once we have shown that it can be done.

This is not just an essay on the shortcomings of the Philippine Government. It is a plan, with each step clearly spelled out. Government must take a hard line with its own officials to force change, but it is absolutely do-able and very, very easy. This is a war that will never end by treaty or concession. It is a war that will begin to end on the day the people start to believe that their own government is there to protect them and to serve their needs.

Setting The Example

From my favorite streetside coffeeshop I get the opportunity to watch people at different times of the day and night, and one group I like to watch more than any other is the police. As a former policeman myself, I have a keen interest in both their behavior and their effectiveness, but as a long-time resident of the Philippines, with a natural desire to live in a safe and peaceful environment, I have to ask a question: Why does this country's lead law enforcement agency do such a poor job of setting the example for the rest of us?

I'm talking about the simple things, like following traffic rules. The law applies to everyone, but even more so to the police. No matter how strictly the enforcement, the public will never obey laws that the police themselves ignore. This concept is one of the cornerstones of law enforcement, and must not be underestimated in the drive to achieve a self-disciplined society. A policeman, who runs a red light without proper justification, or indeed without using the appropriate emergency equipment, is just as much a lawbreaker as any ordinary citizen. And the fact that the PNP has to spend money to maintain hundreds of cars doesn't make it any more legal to drive one without headlights than the average citizen who owns only one.

Many policemen mistakenly believe that their duties allow them to disobey laws whenever it's convenient to do so. Police patrol cars are frequently seen going the wrong way down a one-way street, cruising casually through a red light, or driving at night without any lights. Policeman on motorcycles behave almost like kids on bicycles, and rarely obey any traffic laws at all. In fact, most days I probably see more police motorcycles driving on the sidewalk than on the regular street. Private security agencies, while not officially law enforcement bodies, are even worse about this, with almost all of their vehicles moving around on the public streets and sidewalks, against the flow of traffic and with all their lights turned off.

The Philippine National Police likes to talk the talk, and claims to be making great strides toward professionalizing the force. To be fair, they have made a lot of improvement in recent years, but real change will only come when the individual policeman can be seen routinely obeying the laws of the land. All the laws. At first it will take strict supervision, and quite a few reprimands. But in a truly just society, the laws must apply to everyone. And as I said before, how can government enforce laws that its own people don't obey?

This may seem like a minor nuts-and-bolts issue, but the truth is, the nuts-and-bolts are where the country needs the most work.

Law Enforcement: The Importance Of Documentation

Modern law enforcement is a science, with technology and methods that put the old ways to shame. We still rely heavily on citizen complaints, but instead of simply waiting for crimes to be reported, as the old village policeman used to do, we now analyze data to predict when and where they will occur. Instead of just roaming the streets randomly, we use crime statistics to plan patrol routes. This doesn't require high-tech equipment, but it is scientific. With the power of information, law enforcers can identify areas where crimes are likely to occur, and then increase police coverage in those areas, drastically improving their chances of preventing more crimes, and possibly even catching a few bad guys red-handed.

The information the police need to make this analysis effective, and indeed, the information they need to fight crime in general, comes primarily from one source: the citizen complaint. Ordinary Filipinos filing reports of crimes they either witnessed or experienced.

Whether they receive these reports through an anonymous telephone call or by a personal visit to the local police station, the police record every complaint in the station "blotter", and sometimes follow up with a more detailed incident report. Blotters and incident reports serve two main purposes. First, they document the facts of an incident, and serve as a basis for further investigation. Secondly, and possibly more importantly, they provide valuable data that can be analyzed to help predict when and where other crimes may occur, and to evaluate police effectiveness. The key to making this work properly is to record every incident, and to use a standardized format to make the analysis meaningful.

Over the years, I have had the opportunity to file a few police reports at my local precinct. The "blotter" in which those reports were recorded was typically a hardbound notebook, the kind available at any bookstore. Each time, the complaint was written in a single paragraph, without any subject, headings, or keywords. Only the time was written to the left of each entry. I once went to a local police station to get information about an incident that had happened a few months before, but I didn't know the exact date. To find the correct blotter entry, the officer had to scan the text of 10 or 20 pages. It was obvious that the blotter was not organized to locate information easily. In fact, it was not organized at all. Without labels to distinguish one entry from another, it would be nearly impossible to collect the information into any kind of report to higher headquarters. And yet the police routinely announce that, according to crime statistics, "there were 97 cell phone thefts reported this month". From the blotters I've seen, it would require a full-time employee at each station to gather those statistics regularly. We have to assume then, that the statistics reported by the PNP are not even close to the real crime situation in the country.

The way the system really works is this: When someone files a complaint at a police station, the information goes in the blotter. If he chooses to do so, the complainant can file a formal report, but it will take more time, and of course there is a "filing fee" involved. The average citizen doesn't see the need for the extra effort, and usually leaves the process at this point. The problem is, only the formal reports are counted when compiling crime statistics. The more numerous blotter entries, which actually give a more accurate picture of current conditions, are simply hand-written into a book which eventually gets filed away.

If crime data can't be accurately reported, how can it possibly be analyzed? There are simple procedures, used by police departments around the world, that the PNP can adopt to immediately improve this situation, without the need for expensive, high-tech equipment. By enforcing simple guidelines, blotter entries can be formatted with standardized headings, designed to make statistical analysis more effective. Higher headquarters, at several levels, can collect and analyze this information daily.

Crime trends and statistics are not simply for reporting purposes. Professional law enforcement agencies use such information to plan their counter-attack against criminal elements. But the data has to be accurate, and it has to be accessible, or the entire process is useless.

The Way It's Supposed To Work

Wise governments pass and enforce laws for the common good. Traffic rules for example, limit how fast a car can go, where a driver can and cannot park, and set standards for licensing qualified drivers. Without traffic laws, cars would race down the road at dangerous speeds, parked vehicles would block roadways, and people who don't know the rules of the road would drive passenger vehicles. But, despite the fact that the Philippines already has a complete set of laws and regulations governing traffic, that seems to be the exact situation on the nations roadways today.

In mature societies, law enforcement is relatively easy. The average citizen obeys the law on his own, and needs only an occasional reminder when he strays off the path. As a result of this self-policing culture, authorities are left free to focus their attention and resources on the few who break the law by choice. The result is a condition of general peace and order. Citizens expect things to work in a certain way, because they know that the law requires it. And more importantly, they find that things do work as expected, because laws are enforced.

Obviously though, the Philippines has not reached the point where laws alone inspire discipline, a word which really means "doing the right thing, even when no one is looking". I’m using traffic to illustrate a point, but the idea is the same whether the subject is traffic, tax collection, or issuing a building permit. Laws not enforced are nothing more than words on paper. Some government officials, again describing Metro Manila traffic, complain about what an impossible challenge it is because "drivers won't cooperate". Here's a piece of advice for those leaders: Filipinos drive the way they do because there is no one stopping them. All the written laws, all the posted signs, and all the penalties, are useless unless a policeman stands in the middle of the street, points directly at a driver, blows his whistle sharply, and says "you cannot do that". If the driver still chooses to break the rule, there must be a consequence -- every time. And if the enforcer won't do the job, he must be replaced -- every time.

So the place we have to start is with the enforcers. And I don't just mean the police.

The Mother of All Problems

In the Philippines, a general failure to enforce laws, regulations, rules, and procedures has created an almost totally “do as you please” environment, which in turn is the root cause of almost every problem this country faces today.

Government will argue that there is a working enforcement system, and that statistics show that the system is successful, but the reality is, the laws that are supposed to keep the country running smoothly, from traffic control to tax collection to simple procedures for handling paperwork, are ignored by citizens and enforcers alike. Whether in the most upscale Metro Manila neighborhood or on the remote island of Jolo, the chaos that passes for peace and order is not a result of uncontrollable elements – but rather a result of UNCONTROLLED elements. The situation is no more complicated than that.

Citizens often choose to obey or ignore a particular law based solely on whether it is convenient or in their interest to do so. The presence of a police officer does not motivate people to obey the law, and in fact, there is a general sense that the authorities are among the worst law-breakers. For the most part, I’m referring to minor crimes and violations, but these infractions, ignored by those who are charged with enforcing order, contribute to a general disrespect for the Rule of Law. Taxis openly refuse to carry passengers, in plain sight of a nearby policeman. Pimps and prostitutes not only solicit customers in plain sight, they often flirt with the cop on the beat while they wait. And of course, police mobile patrols violate every traffic law in the book, with absolutely no regard for the example they are setting. And on the administrative side, all it takes is a friend (or a little money) to get your documents placed on top of the stack at many government offices.

All these things contribute to the “why should I follow the rules” attitude among the general public. Despite government’s strong belief to the contrary, that attitude is not the cause of the country’s problems – it's just a symptom. And as with any illness, the only way to effectively and permanently cure the disease is to treat the cause.

The current administration talks about building a “Strong Republic”. I agree wholeheartedly, but I suggest that we focus our attention first on establishing a “Strong Foundation”. Foundation-level fundamentals, rather than macroeconomics, are where the country is weak. Fundamentals like enforcing the core rules and procedures that make any system work properly. Even a government with no money can dramatically improve the quality of its service, and provide that improved service to more people, by the simple act of enforcing its own laws.

And by “laws” I mean the whole range of rules, procedures, policies, regulations, directives, and all the other words that really just mean “you must do this”. These guidelines exist to ensure order and fair treatment for all. But in the Philippines, as in many underdeveloped countries, we use them as bargaining chips to gain favor or profit.

This one point is the single cause of almost all other problems this country faces. We will dig deeper into this idea as time goes on.