In the aftermath of the nationwide
protests by employees of the Social Security System (SSS), various groups have
ganged up on them, portraying the mass actions as “mob rule” and recasting
Vitaliano Nañagas II as a “reformer” whose ouster was compelled more by
the action of grafters who
feared his “reforms” than the rank-and-file’s defensive effort to
prevent a sell-out of the pension fund to private managers.
Big Business spoke against “mob
rule” and warned of instability in government services if the SSS protests
are not dealt with accordingly, again implying that punitive actions be taken
against the employees. One senator fulminated against the protesters and
stopped short of suggesting that the picketline should have been forcibly
dispersed.
These are symptoms of a vilification
campaign now ongoing against the SSS employees, government employees in
general and the opponents of privatization. Not only are they false
accusations and hasty generalizations but smokescreens for the real issues
advocated by all parties involved in the protests.
Since May 24, SSS employees had
staged lunch-time protest actions and had twice approached President Macapagal-Arroyo
for redress of their grievances. For the record, the President failed to grant
them an audience. The SSS employees were made to face secretaries and
undersecretaries who had nothing concrete to offer and who had assiduously
sided with Nañagas. These were the same SSS employees who decided to stage
the nationwide protests in a most orderly manner, complete with a command
structure and an organization, a set of leaders and spokesperson and a clear
set of demands. How these protests qualify to be put side by side with the May
1 riots, perhaps the SSS
employees’ detractors should enlighten us.
We also clarify that never did the
employees claim that Nañagas’ “management style” was the sole rationale
for his ouster as SSS president. The Alert and Concerned Employees for a
Better SSS (Access) had repeatedly assailed Nañagas for his double-talk on
privatizing the pension fund -- which was the cornerstone of the “reforms”
he vigorously espoused.
This “reformer” is actually the
lead agent in efforts to privatize the SSS. From the start, the “reforms”
he pushed included increases in SSS premiums, the abolition of personnel
committees which oversees recruitment of employees, and the outsourcing and
joint ventures on some of the SSS
functions. The last two are initial steps towards the privatization of the SSS,
as we can glean from the experience of Chile under a World Bank-sanctioned
privatization scheme.
Did this “reformer” Nañagas
begin at once a drive to rid the SSS of crooks? No. What he did and what the
SSS employees protested, among others previously mentioned, were the proposed
increase in SSS contributions and premiums and attempts to put his own men in
management posts, which would have displaced those who had worked there for
many years. For the record,
Nañagas only filed graft charges against executives who helped Estrada on his
last day as SSS chief. It was a good act alright, but it was clearly belated
and done in bad faith vis-à-vis SSS employees so they could be portrayed as
coddlers of these executives.
The duty to go after crooks in the
SSS, especially those who helped ousted President Estrada misuse workers
funds, falls on the lap of the Ombudsman and the Macapagal-Arroyo government.
Unfortunately, former SSS President Carlos Arellano has been granted immunity
by the Ombudsman in exchange for standing as witness in the plunder case
versus his Estrada.
Having apparently succeeded in
portraying the SSS protests as “mob rule” against a “reformer”,
adherents of privatization have jumped the gun on the Left and critics of
imperialist globalization. In one fantastic sleight of hand, they labeled Nañagas’
efforts to privatize the SSS as “reform”, as if
the current economic crisis, high prices and increasing water and power rates
have nothing to do with the triad of neoliberal policies of deregulation,
liberalization and privatization since 1996.
The SSS employees would like to have
nothing to do with selling out the pension fund to private fund managers. We
join them in doing so not just to save their jobs but to save 23 million SSS
members from the rapacity of private fund managers who have previously turned
Chile’s social security fund into a system of steep premiums and measly
benefits for its members.
We are of the view that a privatized
SSS under the control of private managers would be the real “perwisyo”.
Towards scuttling such efforts, Nañagas’ ouster was rightly seen by the SSS
employees as imperative if only to setback the initial steps at privatization
like outsourcing and joint
ventures.
We understand that by “reforms”,
we mean a departure from past programs, policies and frameworks that have
proven to be inefficient and anti-people. The real reforms that are needed
include: 1) the protection of the pension fund from plunder by the
powers-that-be, just as what happened under
Estrada; 2) the selection of genuine workers’ and SSS members’
representatives to management and other policy-making bodies in the SSS; 3)
the swift prosecution and punishment of Estrada’s accomplices among the top
SSS executives; and 4) cutting down of scandalously hefty salaries of top SSS
executives.
The
policy of privatizing the SSS and various disguised schemes to achieve the
same cannot qualify as a “reform.”
