Talk:Bagong Alyansang Makabayan

Nice to see the improvements since the first draft :))) - Wikipedia is cool.

Clarification request: Someone put has been the leading party-list member in the House of Representative of the Philippines.

Can someone explain what this means? Does BAYAN Muna have more members than any other party in the House of Reps? From this link it doesn't seem to be correct: http://www.geographyiq.com/countries/rp/Philippines_government.htm

See [1]. Aside from the Congressmen representing various geographical districts in the Philippines, there are slots reserved for sectoral representation. This is meant to give voice to significant minority groups that wouldn't otherwise be represented in government through geographical representation. This system is called the Party-list system for the House of Representatives. So, among the party-list members, BAYAN Muna has consistently gotten the top positions (most number of votes) among the party list in the two elections when the party-list system was included (1998 and 2001).

An article about Party-list System (Philippines) probably needs to be created. --seav 11:31, Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)

re Bayan Muna

The Bayan Muna (People First) party topped the partylist polls in 2001 and 2004.

This means that the party garnered the highest number of votes among all parties that joined the partylist polls.

It trounced government-sponsored parties, surrogates of mainstream parties, religious parties and anti-communist groups. This, inspite the deadly attacks on its members before, during and after the campaign period.

A party that garners two percent of all partylist votes is entitled to one partylist seat in Congress.

Bayan Muna's garnered over 10 percent of all partylist votes in 2001 and 2004, and thereby enabled it to occupy three seats in both elections.

This showing has a signal meaning to Philippine political scientific circles since it debunks the myth of left irrelevance in local politics and proved that the Left remains a potent political force to be reckoned with.

In 2004, two other parties also garnened over six but less than 10 percent.

Added criticism topic

Good day,

I just added a new topic as a place for criticisms of the group. I'm open to discussion and criticism. I have tried to be as unbiased as possible but I can't be sure. I hope it shows. ResponsiblebumOct 19, 2006

Hello,

Peoplestruth, might I ask you if you beleive everything that i said was a lie hence you erased my criticisms? May I also ask if you know if BAYAN has actually generated any jobs that were self sustaining (i.e. unsubsidized)? Responsiblebum 02:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

no, i'm asking for some sources to verify your claims, first. if you can substantiate what you're saying, by all means, post it up. peoplestruth

Fair enough, I've added some references. Will add rest of criticisms when I find the sources. But I would really like to know if the group has actually generated sustainable jobs for its members compatible with the group's socialist or communist ideologies. Responsiblebum 05:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Whew, just re-did criticisms. Critiques anyone? Contributions? Responsiblebum 08:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

i'd check myself right there on ideology.... BAYAN is not socialist or communist... they are not advocating state ownership of industry, merely the end of foreign investment... two different things. user:peoplestruth

Alright, their website was vague enough that I can't really say that. Also, nowhere it seems is the issue of sustainability discussed. Some terms could use some defining.

In addition, they may not advocate the state ownership of properties or industries but they seem to be pretty hostile to companies and property owners making profits; based on my experience and what I get from the news. They seem to act as if any profit a firm makes is already a form of exploitation. They also like to determine that value of a person's labor for themselves rather than market demand for that labor or product for that labor. This smacks of socialism and communism. Anyway, I'll be reading more of their articles before posting again

There disussion on the evils of foreign investments appears to me like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I too disagree with the "washington concensus" and there should have been capital controls. Indeed American economists like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman recommended them. The latter I was sure told Mahatir to do so. But that doesn't mean foreign investments and free trade can't work. Safety nets are necessary to smoothen out painful economic adjustments (which can be fatal to some). But the safety nets must not provide perverse incentives that stifle initiative, innovation, or make parasites out of it's beneficiaries. Responsiblebum 04:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)