The retail trade Nationalization Bill and embarrassmen.pdf

Media

Part of The American Chamber of Commerce Journal

extracted text: Editorials “ Jo promote the general welfare” The fact that, as reported, the entire foreign diplomatic corps in Manila has registered, with President Magsaysay, its opposition to the Retail The Retail Trade Nationalization Bill and Nationalization Bill has asked him to veto it, is and “Embarrassment” of a significance which it is to be hoped will not be lost upon the Philippine Government. It is generally believed that the President is opposed to the type of “legislation” which the Bill represents but that he was prevailed upon to certify this Bill (supposedly a “compromise” bill in which the more radical provisions of other similar bills were watered down) as “urgent” in order to get the Budget Bill through Congress. It should be clear that the President can not lawfully approve a measure which is so obviously in contravention of the Constitution and of various treaties with other nations, as well as of all ideas of democracy and even of ordinary humanity. The fact that, under the terms of the Bill, foreign retailers would be given a number of years to get out of business, does not alter its basic meaning,— that of a death sentence. These provisions merely sub stitute for a quick hanging, a slow garroting. The unlawfulness of the proposed “law” must have been obvious to many of the more experienced members of the Senate and House who voted for it, and the suspicion naturally arises that some of these men, at least, backed the Bill for no other purpose than to embarrass the President in his handling of both foreign and domestic affairs. This, as was pointed out in last month’s issue of this Journal, is an old game and it is to be regretted that the President made the error of aiding those who are hostile to him by agreeing to certify this “compromise bill” as urgent. Further embarrassment now seems unavoidable, and it is to be hoped that the President will realize that the embarrassment incident to a veto would be nothing com pared to the embarrassment he would suffer in approving it. The matter goes far beyond the mere embarrassment of any one. This type of legislation if persisted in would destroy any hope of progress and greatness for the Philip pines. The Philippine Government has for some years taken very seriously its own role in the promotion of economic President Eisenhower on the Conditions of Economic Progress progress and has resorted to various ways and means to accomplish this,—with what success is a matter open to debate. President Eisenhower’s statement with respect to the role of government in economic progress, incorporated in the famous Economic Report of the President, delivered to Congress early this year, contains some very valuable suggestions. As to the actual goal and the means of achieving it, he stated: “Our economic goal is an increasing national income, shared equit ably among those who contribute to its growth, and realized in dollars of stable buying power. To achieve this goal, the dynamic forces of our society must be fully released. Accordingly, Government programs must be designed to help maintain reasonable stability during periods of readjustment and to encourage long-term growth. The mandate of Congress as set forth in the Employment Act must always be kept before us: ‘To promote maximum employment, production, and pur chasing power. .. in a manner calculated to foster and promote compe titive enterprise and the general welfare.’ ” As to the “conditions of progress”, the President said that while there is no formula that will guarantee economic progress, “progress can be nurtured by wise public policy, just as it can be impeded by careless or shortsighted policy.” “Above all things,” he said,— “public policy should recognize that the atmosphere in which people pursue their productive activities is as important to progress as the physical resources they employ." Under “conditions of progress”, he spoke, first, of individual freedom, and then, in order, of adequate incen tives, effective competition, savings and capital formation, research and development, and maintenance of economic stability. His remarks on individual freedom in relation to economic progress hold special significance for us in the Philippines. “Our history”, he said,—that is, United States history,— “provides abundant proof that a basic condition of economic progress is an environment in which the individual can, within wide limits, pur sue his interests according tc his own lights. American culture is an 211
Date: 1954
Rights