Where are all the fat guys?

These days, there are alarm bells ringing about the obesity epidemic that is sweeping the world, with the US leading the trend. This has made me wonder, because when I walk around the city, ride the bus or train, visit friends, I don’t notice this so-called epidemic. Of course, there are people who look heavier than others, but there are also people who look lighter than the average. I guess that one reason for this is that obese people don’t go about as often as the general population. But this still seemed strange, given all the hype re obesity. So, I looked up the statistics.

Well, I found that the Netherlands has one of the lowest levels of obesity in the European Union – it seems that only France has a lower rate. But still, the Netherlands’ figure of 9,8% of people who are 20 plus years old as obese (i.e. with BMI – Body Mass Index of 30 or over) seems too high to be healthy. By the way, the BMI is the figure you get after you divide your body weight in kilograms, by the square of your height in meters. My BMI is 26+, which means that I am a bit overweight, since a BMI of 25 is healthy. And together with me, about 40% of the people here are also overweight (i.e. with a BMI over 25).

Why does the Netherlands have less obese people? Indeed. One possible factor could be the prevalence of bicycles in this country. There are more bikes than people here, and many people use their bikes every day.  It used to be that people would take their bikes to the train station before riding on the train.  Nowadays,  a growing number of people have folding bikes – they fold their bikes while in the train (this saves them from having to pay the fare for taking a bike in the train, a folded bike counts as baggage and is free to take in the train) and then unfold them again when they reach their destination.

Also, there is a new trend toward healthier eating. A recent study found that the Dutch are now less likely to eat at fastfood stores, and that people are taking less snacks. This comes together with moves to adjust the ingredients in the fastfood stores themselves e.g. changing to vegetable oils for french fries, etc.  Supermarkets are gaining market share in comparison to snack bars, because they are open longer (they used to close at 6 p.m.,  now they are open till 8 or 9 p.m.)  and offer small meal packages intended for the small household and those with hectic schedules.

As income levels rise, it seems that people here move out of eating obese-prone foods. One example is the decreasing amount of beer consumption; people are shifting towards drinking wine instead. And fastfood products are definitely “budget” foods, which means that lower-income people resort to these because they are cheaper; but that as people become wealthier they eat more “proper” foods.

Nevertheless, the Dutch obesity rate of 9.8% is still high; especially if we note that the rate in the year 2000 was around 6%. So, there is still a lot to do, even here, to keep people’s weight down,  and to make people eat more healthier foods and exercise more.

Proposed changes to constitution’s national patrimony provisions

Charter change proponents say that their proposed amendments (or “revision”?) to the Philippine constitution will help push national development. In addition to the supposed benefits of a unicameral parliament to national development, the proposals also included changes in the “national patrimony” provisions of the 1987 Philippine constitution. Which specific provisions are they proposing to change?

There are actually three sets of charter change proposals. They are the: House of Representatives proposal, the proposal coming from the Consultative Commission (ConCom), and the People’s Initiative proposal. The most comprehensive set of “national patrimony” changes are put forward in the ConCom proposal, while the Peoples Initiative proposal does not deal with the question directly. Let us start with the ConCom proposal.

The ConCom proposed to change the following national patrimony provisions in the 1987 Constitution:
1. “The state shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices” (Article 12, Section 1) has been deleted.
2. On the exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources(including marine wealth). The 1987 Constitution reserves the right to undertake these activities to Filipino citizens or corporations/associations/cooperatives which are 60% owned by Filipino citizens. The proposal is to allow foreigners to do these activities. It is also proposed to increase the period of lease of such lands from 25 to 50 years.
3. On reserving certain areas of investments to Filipino citizens or corporations/associations at least 60% Filipino-owned. The proposal is that the parliament shall merely “provide for limitations on foreign ownership” in these areas of investment.
4. The provision in Article 12, Section 10 that says “In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos. ” has been deleted.
5. On the operation of public utilities (Article 12, Section 11) . This is now limited to Filipino citizens or “associations or corporations organized under the laws of the Philippines” (actually, there is no real limitation on foreign ownership here!) This is to be deleted.
6. Article 12, Section 13 which states: “The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity.” is to be deleted.

The House proposal is generally the same as that of the ConCom for points #1-3 above, except in two details in #2. The House proposal retains the period of lease for public lands at 25 years. It also reserves the exploitation of marine resources to Filipinos.
The House proposes to retain the original 1987 Constitution provisions for #4, 5 and 6 above.

As for the Peoples Initiative, it formally does not touch on the national patrimony provisions at all. However, in its Article XIII or “Transitory Provisions” , Section 4, Number 4. it states “Within forty days from the ratification of this amendment, the interim Parliament shall convene to propose amendments to, or revisionof, this Constitution consistent with the principles of local autonomy, decentralization and a strong bureaucracy.” With this provision, the Peoples Initiative effectively paves the way for the Constituent Assembly mode of revising the constitution. It also shows that other proposed changes to the constitution, including those on national patrimony, are waiting on the sidelines of the Peoples Initiative.

Thus, in the end, what really matters would be either the House proposal or the ConCom proposal – at least with regards to the national patrimony provisions.

JDV offers seats to OFWs?

According to news reports, House Speaker Jose de Venecia is offering Overseas Filipinos seats in the parliamentary government that he is proposing for the Philippines. In this setup, Filipinos overseas could run as party-list representatives using the “German-European” model of the party-list system. In the House proposal for Charter Change, most of the parliamentary seats would be divided according to districts, but 30% would be given to “party-list” seats that are contested by the main political parties (thus, not the present party-list parties).

De Venecia’s proposal was contained in a letter that he sent to Loida Nicolas Lewis, chairperson of the NAFFAA (National Federation of Filipino American Associations) which is holding a convention in Honolulu. The NAFFAA had been pushing for more “charter rights” for Overseas Filipinos, especially in the light of proposals for charter change.

Although it looks like a concession to Overseas Filipinos, the De Venecia proposal offers nothing new for Overseas Filipinos. In the present setup, we could already vote for party-list parties, and in addition also for President, Vice President, and Senators. The present charter change proposals either eliminate all the posts that we could vote for, or leave the modified party-list parties as the only ones we could elect.
While De Venecia says that Overseas Filipinos could run for these modified party-list seats, this is not really promised. The only thing that is sort of sure is the prospect of Overseas Filipinos voting for the modified party-list seats, and not the ability to run for these seats themselves. We need more than de Venecia’s say-so that this would be possible – after all the fuss that Comelec has raised about dual citizens being able to vote, we can reasonably expect Comelec ruling that Overseas Filipinos could not run for office due to “lack of residence”.

The proposal does not really assure that Overseas Filipinos would be represented in the proposed parliament. It only says that OFs could run under the party-list seats of the main political parties. Most probably this would not even be possible, or even desirable, for the main parties to do. And even if an OF would become a Member of Parliament, she/he would not really be representing the OF community. It would be something akin to the appointed “sectoral representatives” under the old Marcos constitution.

In order to be fully represented, Overseas Filipinos should be able to exercise full election rights, just like the Philippine-based Filipinos. Thus, we should not only be able to vote for candidates, but also: choose among candidates vying to represent OFs, run for electoral positions ourselves (and form our own parties), participate in all referenda and plebiscites, and even choose among ourselves representatives to other governmental bodies.
We need to be allotted seats in the new parliament – seats reserved just for Overseas Filipinos, and Overseas Filipinos based outside the Philippines at that (not former OFs, nor OF advocates).

And even before all these, Overseas Filipinos should be allowed to fully participate in discussions on proposed amendments to the Constitution. Under the present rules, we could not even vote in a plebiscite on the proposed amendments.