The Economist - USA (2019-08-03)

(Antfer) #1

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
Free download pdf