Are socialist measures the best way to protect the environment?

(LR: Mando Manikis, Inigo Taojo, Cheneil La Madrid, Kristeen Saguinsin, Denise Ramos, Carla Santos)

20 May 2008. The debate today was on whether the Philippine government should adopt socialist measures as the best way to protect the environment.

Government (La Madrid, Taojo, Santos) argued that the means for protecting the environment are too expensive for private companies to invest in; private enterprises are run by a profit motive that discourages such investment. They singled out the following industries as those which should be the object of government control: public transport, emissions testing, logging, healthcare, and education. They described, for example, that government control of public transport would result in all buses having environmental technology; besides, government could also dictate salaries and organization which would lessen bus lines and traffic, lessening pollution.

Opposition (Ramos, Saguinsin, Manikis) argued that such measures are unrealistic in the Philippine context. Where, they ask, would the government get the money for these environmental technologies? Taxes? They argued that the Philippine economy is not one that would raise the kind of money needed, even from high taxes.

We gave this to the Government mainly through defects in the Opposition’s strategy. They failed to underline their most important and relevant argument, namely, that the Government’s position was impracticable or unfeasible.

As a policy debate, Government was obliged to demonstrate need, benefits, and practicability. We think that need and benefits were demonstrated; Opposition tried to show that the Government’s position was not practicable, and they had a point.

However, this argument of the Opposition came near the end, and even then was not clearly articulated. Before they got to that, they first argued intensely that socialist measures violate fundamental rights, lead to corruption, and tend towards communism. They cited examples of inefficiently run government agencies like MWSS and GSIS, and the large investments of the private sector in corporate social responsibility; they cited Jollibee. The audience felt, however, that the Opposition failed to show what these arguments had to do with environmental protection. As to MWSS, GSIS, Meralco, and Jollibee, these are not even in the industries listed by the Government as those they wished to take over.

Government was, therefore, not refuted.The audience further noted that the Government was more able to articulate its position clearly and consistently, thanks to the Government team’s expertise in verbal expression. We underscore here the importance of mastering verbal expression, especially English, as a means of convincing others of the merits of one's ideas.