Revolution in the Philippines?

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33033, 28 September 1972, Page 16

Revolution in the Philippines?

Nowhere in Asia is the contrast between the wealth of the few and the poverty of the masses more apparent than in the Philippines; and it is no coincidence that the history of the sprawling islands is studded with conflict. In the last 20 years the main conflict has been between an administration claiming to stand for orderly economic development with the help of overseas capital and various nationalist or Communist dissidents calling for radical overhaul of land ownership and expropriation of foreign assets. Corruption is rife and nepotism prevalent; as in most parts of Asia, family ties are stronger than any claims of the State on any citizen fortunate enough to have risen above the ruck. The latest controversy concerns a Supreme Court ruling that land purchases by Americans since the Philippines achieved independence in 1946 are illegal. One group within Congress wants expropriation; another, with which President Marcos is associated, thinks that if there are any take-overs of land or businesses there should also be fair compensation. Yet another faction comprises those who think that the Philippines should follow Hawaii in applying for American Statehood—a proposal which has had little encouragement from Washington. American investors have an understandable concern for the security of their business interests in the Philippines; but the Administration must recoil from the prospect of assuming responsibility for 40 million —mostly illiterate and impoverished—extra citizens.

The extent of the present insurgency can only be guessed at President Marcos has for some time been complaining of increasing terrorism in Manila itself, including kidnappings and attempts to kill political leaders, the robbing of banks by underground groups in need of money, and the bombing of foreign-owned buildings Whether the Communist threat is “ real and alarming ” —as a special Parliamentary committee recently found—or whether it suits President Marcos to create an " emergency ” to serve his own ends, is debatable. Reputed to be, after two terms of office, one of the wealthiest men in Asia, the President has been hinting at the “ need ” to assume emergency powers. Now he has proclaimed martial law, accompanied by censorship and, apparently, the arrest of Opposition politicians and journalists. His present term of office is constitutionally his last. But President Marcos has made no secret of his desire for a third term; and martial law might be merely the necessary prelude to a military coup which would give it to him. If there is any justification for his charges of a growing threat from “ subversives and anarchists ” they should soon be identified and dealt with.