The Economist - USA (2019-08-03)

30 Asia The EconomistAugust 3rd 2019

2 apparent reluctance to stub out smoking,

even though the World Health Organisa-

tion says smoking-related diseases claim

around 225,000 lives across the archipela-

go each year. Indonesia is one of fewer than

ten countries to refuse to sign the who’s

convention on regulating tobacco. Around

21% of 13-15-year-old boys smoke and there

are no penalties for selling tobacco to mi-

nors. Cigarettes are cheap (a pack of 20

costs around $2). Tobacco firms promote

their wares in slick television advertise-

ments showing manly pursuits. They

sponsor sports tournaments and other

events where scantily clad marketing girls

hand out free samples. Smokers are al-

lowed to light up in many public spaces.

Despite the widely accepted benefits of

switching to e-cigarettes, the government

sought to ban the first ones to arrive in the

country on health grounds. The trade min-

ister, Enggartiasto Lukita, memorably told

people using e-cigarettes to smoke con-

ventional cigarettes instead to preserve

jobs for tobacco-growers. In the end the

government backed away from a complete

ban, but it has imposed onerous restric-

tions. Distributors have to secure lots of

government approvals, a big hurdle for the

small firms that dominate the market.

Worse, last year the government slapped a

57% excise tax on e-cigarettes and liquids.

That leaves Juul and other e-cigarette-mak-

ers chasing a relatively small number of

rich smokers. The total market for e-ciga-

rettes remains trifling in comparison with

sales of the normal sort, at about $200m a

year, according to Euromonitor. In fact,

none of the big tobacco firms bothers to sell

e-cigarettes in Indonesia, even though

Sampoerna’s American parent offers “heat-

ed tobacco” products in other markets. 7

Banyan Cha-cha check

F

or allhis foul tongue, his habit of

comparing himself to Hitler and Idi

Amin and his loud encouragement of

death squads that so far have killed over

20,000 supposed drug dealers, Rodrigo

Duterte campaigned on a big idea when

he ran for the presidency of the Philip-

pines in 2016. He promised a new consti-

tution that would reshape the country,

turning it into a federation rather than,

as it is today, a unitary state ruled from

Manila by politicians and bureaucrats

who, many Filipinos believe, wield far

too much power.

As recently as last year Mr Duterte still

seemed to be gunning for “cha-cha”

(charter change). He had formed a com-

mittee to draft a new constitution. The

committee had sent its draft, which

envisaged a federation of 18 regions, to

Congress. In his state-of-the-nation

address a year ago, the president ex-

pressed confidence that Filipinos want-

ed a new constitution. He promised it

would strengthen democratic institu-

tions and spread prosperity more fairly.

Mr Duterte had a narrower objective,

too: to resolve once and for all Muslim

separatism on the island of Mindanao,

over whose biggest city he presided for

decades as mayor. Eleven years ago the

Supreme Court nixed a deal which gave

an expansive form of autonomy to some

Muslim parts of Mindanao on the ground

that the arrangements in effect created a

state within a state and thus contravened

the constitution.

Yet in this year’s address, on July

22nd, just a couple of months after elec-

tions secured Mr Duterte a strong major-

ity of loyalists in the Senate for the first

time, not a peep about a new constitu-

tion. Why?

One reason is lack of time. Mr Duterte

is already halfway through the single

term to which the constitution limits him.

He is ill and tired. Some doubt that he will

serve his full six years. And when the draft

went to Congress, the federation idea hit a

big practical obstacle: Congress could not

agree on the best procedure for reforming

the constitution.

In theory, with the Senate now firmly in

Mr Duterte’s camp, obtaining an agree-

ment should be easier. Yet there are other

snags. If Congress declares itself a constit-

uent assembly, it is not limited to consid-

ering the draft suggested by Mr Duterte’s

committee: it can do what it likes with the

constitution. The House of Representa-

tives, for instance, has eagerly voted to

strike out provisions in the existing con-

stitution which impose term limits on

elected officials and seek—largely unsuc-

cessfully—to curb the establishment of

political dynasties.

There is thus a reluctance among some

politicians and many voters to let Con-

gress even begin tinkering with the consti-

tution. Besides, it is far from clear what the

criteria should be when drawing the

boundaries of new states. In such a far-

flung archipelago, language often de-

fines regions more than any other factor.

But should language regions be pre-

served whole or divided? There is no

consensus. Meanwhile, despite “imperi-

al” Manila’s supposed dominance, many

parts of the Philippines are still, in effect,

independent fiefs run by big landowners,

powerful local clans, governors or may-

ors backed by private armies, garrison

commanders, police chiefs, criminal

gangs, communist rebels or jihadists.

Many who live in such places would

presumably welcome more of the central

government’s writ.

As for Mr Duterte’s most pressing

concern, autonomy for mainly Muslim

parts of Mindanao, circumstances have

changed. A more comprehensive peace

agreement with the main insurgent

group in 2014 is being implemented

without any objection from the Supreme

Court, which is ever less inclined to

challenge the president.

In the end, the main kibosh to feder-

alism has come from the technocrats

running the economy for Mr Duterte.

They are struggling to build the infra-

structure needed to prevent the economy

hitting the buffers. To fund it, the gov-

ernment must borrow. Yet neither the

central government nor the new federat-

ed states would be a good credit risk until

the division of revenues is settled.

Mr Duterte appears not to have

slammed the door entirely on constitu-

tional tinkering. The same economic

managers who are wary of federalism are

in favour of removing constitutional

limits on foreign ownership of local

companies, as are many investors. But

that is both a relatively modest reform

and hardly a crowd-pleasing one—not

the sort of idea, in other words, to which

Mr Duterte pays attention.

Rodrigo Duterte’s ambition to amend the constitution appears to be evaporating